Volpe 1

Sophie Volpe

Dr. Holt

AP Lit

6 May 2022

The Implications of Hierarchical and Interconnected Ontological Models

While beliefs about ontology may initially seem to be solely descriptive in nature, they

often have implications on how humans act, making them prescriptive in nature. When humans

create or subscribe to an ontological model that informs their beliefs on how the world operates,

they often act in accordance with that model. Replacing a hierarchical ontological model with an

interconnected framework dismantles beliefs that justify systems of oppression that empower

some and disempower others.

The field of deep ecology challenges hierarchical systems and their effect on the

environment, specifically, the Christian Great Chain of Being. The Great Chain of being is an

ontological metaphor representing a hierarchical ontological theory, placing God and other holy

beings at the top, humans below, and subsequently, animals, plants, rocks and minerals, and other

non-living entities. While the chain implies that each link is an integral part of the chain, its

vertical nature assigns worth, value, and power to the pieces (Holy-Luczaj & Loy). Some

philosophers argue that links lower on the chain are less entitled to existence. For example,

“Wilhelm Leibniz suggested that those beings which are “higher” or more perfect are more

entitled to exist than lower beings,” (Holy-Luczaj 47). Although the Great Chain of Being is not

often referred to in modern-day philosophy or Christianity, the ontological theory it represents is

still dominant in the Western world. Few modern Western cultures value the existence of
 Volpe 2

non-human entities much less non-living beings. It is impossible to cut down trees, eat meat,

pollute the natural world, and generate the amount of fossil fuels that the Western world does

without believing that the entities the Western population abuses are inherently less valuable than

humans.

Deep ecology also critiques the self/other dualism present in Western thought which

separates the self from the natural world (Loy). People place themselves as the center of

sentience, awareness, and importance which implies that the other lacks sentience, awareness,

and value. By placing the object outside of oneself, people are unable to recognize or value the

sentience of anything outside of themselves. This logic justifies humans’ exploitation of the

earth, nature, and all non-humans for personal gain as the world is viewed as outside of oneself

and therefore less valuable. Arne Næss, a deep ecological philosopher argued that one should

enmesh themselves in the world such that “the Self is expanded into the World,” (Loy 269).

Deep ecology asks individuals to rethink their definition of self, “for the self to realise it is not

separate from the world” by “forget[ting] itself and disappear[ing],” or integrating the self into

the world (Loy 269). Deep ecology critiques the Western idea of the self from other perspectives

as well.

In critiquing the Great Chain of Being, deep ecology critiques the Western notion of the

self and the goal of individuals. Many Western theories define the self “as an isolated ego

striving for sense-gratification or for its own individual salvation,” (Loy 267). This logic justifies

humans’ exploitation of the earth, nature, and all non-humans for personal gain. Only by viewing

one’s sole goal as self-satisfaction is one able to exploit, abuse, and oppress the non-human

world to the extent that the Western world does. The satisfaction of the human race and of the
 Volpe 3

individual is placed above that of the non-human population because non-human beings are

viewed as less sentient and having less of a right to exist. Deep ecology argues that all entities

have independent value, that is value “independent of any awareness, interest, or appreciation of

it by a conscious being,” (Loy 269). This assertion critiques the belief that is frequently present

in Western thought that non-human beings are only valuable when serving a purpose or

providing value to humans. This belief in inherent value is a part of deep ecology’s ontological

model.

Deep ecology proposes an interconnected ontological theory to counter the hierarchical

model. The field often uses the words “net” and “web” as metaphors to represent their model of

ontology. Specifically, deep ecology believes that there are no discrete or singular entities. When

defining one being, it is impossible to not define it in terms of other entities. Deep ecology

advocates for an understanding of all human and non-human beings as equal citizens of the

world. This equality is often referred to as biocentric or ecocentric ecology, defined as, “all

entities in the environment [having] an equal right to thrive,” (Holy-Luczaj 46). This ideal

requires one to value the needs, desires, existence, and well-being of entities viewed as outside of

oneself. Biocentric equality requires humans to redefine themselves not “as an isolated ego

striving for sense-gratification or for its own individual salvation,” but rather as a part of the

ecosphere that can identify with human and non-human entities (Loy 267). Deep ecology

proposes an interconnected and web-like ontological theory to replace the hierarchical model in

order to protect non-human beings from harm. Believing in ecocentric equality and

interconnectedness and reimagining the self and its motivations prevents humans from pillaging

and destroying the ecosphere. By removing the logic, that is the belief that non-human beings are
 Volpe 4

less valuable, that justifies the atrocities committed against the ecosphere, it becomes difficult for

humans to abuse the earth at all.

Deep ecology’s ontological theory closely aligns with Buddhist ontological theories.

While deep ecology functions more as a critique of hierarchical ontologies, Buddhist theories act

largely as unrelated interconnected models. The Buddhist theory of Śūnyatā, loosely translated to

the theory of emptiness, says that “all things and beings are empty of self-existence in that they

dependently co-arise,” (Olds 408). More precisely, the definition of “śū ‘means 'to swell' in two

senses: hollow or empty, and also full,” (Thayer-Bacon 94). Each entity is void of independent

identity as it must always be defined by other entities but it is also full of the universe. This

implies that all entities are inextricably linked and connected because nothing can be seen or

defined independently (Olds). Another interpretation of Śūnyatā is that all entities exist as part of

one entity or that there is only one entity. Referring to this entity as the cosmos, Loy writes, “the

cosmos is, in short, a self-creating, self-maintaining, and self-defining organism,” (260).

Śūnyatā’s abstract nature can make it difficult to understand which led to the creation of

Indra’s Web, a metaphor that describes and concretizes the concept. Indra’s Web is a net that

infinitely repeats in all directions. At each “eye” or point of connection, there is a reflective gem

that unites each piece of the web. When looking into one gem, every other jewel can be seen in

its reflection. Because the web infinitely repeats, every jewel can be seen in the reflection of

every other gem. No matter which gem’s reflection is looked at, the contents of the entire web

will be reflected. It is impossible to describe or define one gem in isolation as it is a product of

the entire web. While each gem is a product of the entire web, it is also the cause of the entire

web. Each jewel is defined by other gems, making it the effect of the net, but each jewel is also
 Volpe 5

used to define others, making it the cause of each other gem. If one gem were to be removed

from the web, each jewel attached to it would fall causing every other gem to fall as well. Every

gem is integral to the web’s existence. In this metaphor, the net is the universe and each gem is

an entity within the universe. (Loy, Olds, & Thayer-Bacon)

Śūnyatā also differs from Western theories in how it views the beginning and end of

entities. If each entity lacks a discrete identity and must be defined by other entities, it is

impossible to identify the beginning of one singular entity because you must then identify the

beginning of every other entity in the universe. Buddhism lacks a creator and belief in the

beginning of time or the universe because there can be no beginning or end of the cosmos, “the

universe is taken as a given,” (Loy 260). Conversely, in most Western religions, there is a story

about the beginning of the universe, humanity, or time, usually involving an all-powerful creator

that has power over the entire universe. This belief in an all-powerful creator automatically

creates a hierarchical ontological theory with the creator, usually referred to as God, at the top.

This hierarchy often extends to humans, plants, animals, and other non-human entities on earth.

In Buddhism, “‘there is no centre, or, perhaps if there is one, it is everywhere,” as each being is

connected, the center of the universe is in everything (Loy 260).

Buddhism’s fundamental belief in equality, interconnectedness, and oneness of all things

in existence lays the foundation for the religion's other peaceful practices and promotes a

compassionate and peaceful mindset. Buddhism’s “emphasis is on compassion for all the

interrelated aspects of existence, each deserving full valuation rather than judged according to a

hierarchy (Olds 408). If each being is equally deserving of existence and respect, it is difficult for

one being to harm another. Similarly, if one being is inextricably connected to another, one
 Volpe 6

cannot harm another without harming themselves and the universe by harming the other. How

can a person otherize nature to justify the extraction of resources for personal gain if they believe

that nature has an equal right to exist? How can a person otherize another human being to

oppress them if they believe they have an equal right to exist? A belief in śūnyatā requires that

one values and treats all entities equally which prevents most from harming others.

Buddhism and deep ecology draw on the same fundamental principle that all entities are

inherently equal, interdependent, and interconnected. These fundamental beliefs dismantle

hierarchical logic that justifies the existence of systems of power that oppress certain groups. For

example, dismantling the belief in the self as a competing ego removes the justification for

environmental destruction. Using both ontological metaphors can add religious and practical

value to ontological models. Believing in an interconnected model is valuable because they

foster compassion, responsibility, and peace while hierarchical models justify domination,

oppression, and inequality through. But, adding spirituality and religion from Buddhism can help

answer other questions a person may have about life. And adding an ecological perspective to

interconnected theories can help stop the degradation of the earth and environment. Drawing

upon both Buddhist and deep ecological models allows one to extract the most meaning and

value, on a personal and communal scale, from the theories. Believing in the interconnectedness

and value of every being would greatly benefit individuals, society, and the ecosphere as a

whole, particularly when drawing upon Buddhist and deep ecological beliefs.
 Volpe 7

Bibliography

Hausman, Carl R. "Language and Metaphysics: The Ontology of Metaphor." Philosophy &

Rhetoric, vol. 24, no. 1, 1991, pp. 25-42. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40237654.

Carl Hausman discusses how metaphors impact meaning and understanding,

making the argument that metaphors create new meaning for what they describe.

Hausman is a

Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Penn State University with a Ph.D.

and M.A. in philosophy. His research focuses primarily on metaphor theory and

aesthetics.

This article will help explain the relevance of ontological metaphors to

how people act and understand the world. It will also describe how people interact

with metaphors as figures of speech which will provide context for the ontological

metaphors analyzed in the rest of the project. Understanding how metaphors

function and how they affect reality is key to understanding the importance of

ontological metaphors.
 Volpe 8

Hawkins, Ronnie Zoe. "Ecofeminism and Nonhumans: Continuity, Difference, Dualism, and

Domination." Hypatia, vol. 13, no. 1, winter 1998, pp. 158-97. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/3810611.

Ronnie Hawkins works for the University of Central Florida and has a Ph.D. in

philosophy. She specializes in ecofeminism and anthropomorphism in her work.

She published Ecofeminism and Nonhumans: Continuity, Difference, Dualism,

and Domination in Hypatia, a feminist theory journal published by Cambridge

University Press.

Ecofeminism and Nonhumans: Continuity, Difference, Dualism, and

Domination is another work detailing the dominant ontological metaphor used in

ecofeminist work, the dualism. This work describes the dualist system,

particularly in relation to the human/non-human dualism. This article will be

helpful in understanding the dualist metaphor and how it affects non-humans.

This article focuses more on the effects of the dualist system and will be more

useful to understand the real world implications of such social structures.

Holy-luczaj, Magdalena. "Heidegger's Support for Deep Ecology Reexamined Once Again:

Ontological Egalitarianism, or Farewell to the Great Chain of Being." Ethics and the

Environment, vol. 20, no. 1, 2015, pp. 45-66. JSTOR,

https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.20.1.45.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.

Google Books,
 Volpe 9

www.google.com/books/edition/More_than_Cool_Reason/AR_heEqnmXkC?hl=en&gbp

v=1&printsec=frontcover.

Loy, David R. "Loving the World as Our Own Body: The Nondualist Ethics of Taoism,

Buddhism and Deep Ecology." Worldviews, vol. 1, no. 3, 1997, pp. 249-73. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/43809652?seq=1.

Olds, Linda E. "INTEGRATING ONTOLOGICAL METAPHORS: Hierarchy and

Interrelatedness." Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 75, summer-fall 1992,

pp. 403-20. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41178583.

Olds holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in psychology and has done extensive research on

religion and psychology. She has also worked as a professor Emeritus at Linfield

University focusing on work in the field of systems psychology. She published

Integrating Ontological Metaphors: Hierarchy and Interrelatedness in Soundings,

an interdisciplinary journal published through Penn State.

In her article Integrating Ontological Metaphors: Hierarchy and

Interrelatedness Linda E. Olds promotes a metaphor of interconnectedness while

evaluating how metaphors are used to describe ontology. Analyzing religious

texts that utilize both hierarchical and interconnected ontological metaphors while

drawing on critical feminist theory helps build an argument for the use of

interconnected metaphors. This article will be beneficial in understanding the role

of metaphors in religion and how they operate in any text as well as understanding

the interconnected "web" metaphor that is frequently used. This is also one of the

most explicit descriptions and mentions of ontological metaphors in an article

 Volpe 10

which will be helpful in better understanding how they function, why they are

used, and what effects they can have.

Plumwood, Val. "Nature, Self, and Gender: Feminism, Environmental Philosophy, and the

Critique of Rationalism." Hypatia, vol. 6, no. 1, spring 1991, pp. 3-27. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/3810030.

Val Plumwood is an ecofeminist philosopher with a Ph.D. in philosophy and

M.A. in logic. Plumwood has served as a professor at various universities across

the US and Australia. She has done extensive work on anthropocentrism and

ecofeminism. She published Nature, Self, and Gender: Feminism, Environmental

Philosophy, and the Critique of Rationalism in Hypatia, a feminist theory journal

published by Cambridge University Press.

In her article Nature, Self, and Gender: Feminism, Environmental

Philosophy, and the Critique of Rationalism Plumwood discusses the oppression

of women, non-humans, and the earth as a symptom of hierarchical order. She

uses interconnected and hierarchical metaphors to describe problems and

solutions to the way people view themselves in relation to others and the

environment. This article and other pieces of Plumwood's work will provide

examples of how ontological metaphors are used in philosophical works and how

they are used to build and support arguments.

Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J. "Sky: Indra's Net." Counterpoints, vol. 505, 2017, pp. 89-104. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/45177697?seq=1.
 Volpe 11

Warren, Calvin L. THE QUESTION of BLACK BEING. Duke UP, 2018. Ontological Terror.

JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11316xh.5.

In Ontological Terror Warren discusses blackness in a metaphysical and

ontological context. He makes the argument that blackness is an ontological state

in which black people are not viewed/treated as beings. Warren is an associate

professor at Emory University with a Ph.D. and M.A in African Studies.

Ontological Terror will be useful in understanding ontology through a race

lens. It will also provide insight into another discipline's perspective on ontology.

Specifically, Warren's discussion will be helpful in understanding black peoples'

place in ontological metaphors. His argument seems to view blackness as separate

from a structure of power, that is ontological metaphor, that applies to non-black

people.