OUTLINE
CODE: FINAL TEXT | COMMENTS, PLANS, DETAILS | TENTATIVE | NON-TEXT ITEMS TO BE DELETED | HYPERLINKS | DETERMINE SIGNIFICANCE | FOR INCLUSION IN ANOTHER FORM
OUTLINE
Versions. The September 2004 edition of ‘Journey in Being’ is abbreviated as ‘v2004,’ or the ‘2004 version’
Integrating the discussions. A number of topics are discussed in two or more places so, regardless of whether preface and introduction are combined, I should consider consolidating the separate discussions of each topic. The purposes of the separate discussions were (1) to have a less technical account in the introduction, (2) as far as reasonable, to keep the sections independent, (3) various natural reasons as logical requirements and flow of ideas. These purposes still stand but the discussions, especially that of being, have, again, become fragmented
Abbreviate and place: abbreviate the discussion and place material as appropriate
Charismatic appeal
‘What do you love and of what are you afraid?’ he was asked. Fear and love arise naturally in this world and appear to be necessary. Fear or love of the infinite should be a choice; and this conditions their necessity in this world
Preview and overview
The preview (preview and overview) may be placed here and the overview either here or at the beginning of the foundation
Introductory Comment. When no longer necessary, eliminate the following boxed outline and the bookmark ‘introduction’
The introduction has three parts. The first, an introduction to the journey, ends with the discussion of ‘Knowledge and Certainty.’ The second is an ‘Introduction to the Essay.’ The final part is a ‘Summary and Prospect…’
Issue: Should the statement of the ambition and achievement be this up front? Add an indication of the roots in science, reason, travel, nature, passion and myth? Elaborate the roots and point to them?
Needs. Make sure that the introductory parts cover the essentials of the journey for all readers. It may be necessary to refer to or, preferably, import material from the preface
Placement. Much of the discussion, especially that on being, may go to the chapter, ‘Foundation.’ Additionally, since I am importing the preface to the Introduction, various tasks arise. (1) The bulk of some of the sections is to be rearranged. (2) Some section titles are repeated (a major reason for the import) and these should be combined, better versions of discussions retained and inferior or less complete versions discarded. (3) Introductory comments here, and from the preface should be reviewed, edited, placed
In this essay, I have narrated a journey in perception and transformation. My ambition has been to know, with understanding, and realize all possibilities of being (the meaning of this undertaking is explained in the essay.) The kinds of possibility include the immediate and the ultimate – and their relations. The immediate and the ultimate require and illuminate one another. However, this is not meant to imply that there is but one way of life; rather, I think that there should be a complementary plurality. The immediate has value in itself and in community: every life contributes to life – or detracts from it
The immediate could be thought of as finite and the ultimate as infinite. This use is metaphorical for the immediate may be infinite. However, the ultimate contains infinities. This is clear from considerations that follow. Since the ultimate contains all infinities, the phrase, ‘absolute infinite’ could be used to describe it
When an individual –or a civilization– undertakes realization of all being, a journey is required. There appear to be two journeys that weave together – that of the individual and that of all being. Since the individual is a part of the whole the two may be seen as a single journey
To understand and realize all possibilities may seem to be unrealistic and not even desirable. It is shown in this essay that an individual may achieve any possibility of (all) being. This ultimate or universal achievement appears to but does not overturn what may be called the normal or common view of reality (it is not implied that there is a single uniform view.) Instead, the considerations of the essay illuminate the significance and range of validity of those views of what is real. (Although a more inclusive view may show aspects of the normal view to be inaccurate, the fact of our being and perceiving implies that there is a core of the normal view that can be illuminated but cannot and need not be overturned.) Still, many possibilities are or appear to be worthless and others undesirable; and it is unlikely that an individual would hope to realize all worthwhile possibilities. These issues may be addressed by saying that an interest in all being naturally includes concerns with desirability and individual achievement
The objectives of the essay include showing the truth and significance of what I have just said. I have given proofs but showing truth, here, requires more than proof. It is also desirable to explain the meaning and implications of the assertion that “an individual can achieve any possibility.” It is necessary to show how the assertion and its implications fit together with the common or normal and traditional views of the world and living in the world – and in this process, naturally, there will be an adjustment of the normal views. That the normal view is not overturned is a preliminary element of showing the fit, without which preceding assertion in quotes would be obviously absurd. A goal of the essay is to bring that assertion and its associated conceptual system, developed later, to life so that the reader may criticize them or, perhaps, integrate them into his or her own system. A reader may also wonder what is useful or significant in the essay. The significance lies in the elaborations in the essay, which also help to bring the ideas to life, of the concepts and their application to a variety of areas of life and systems of thought
Practically, achievement may be seen as a process, a sequence of steps that is not laid out in advance. So, an understanding of ‘all possibilities’ and their realization is laid out as a journey whose character in concrete terms emerges in the journey. I have, I believe, achieved the essential elements of a conceptual understanding of ‘all possibilities.’ One goal of the book is to show the validity of this claim and to elaborate it by showing that the realm of all possibilities is larger than might be imagined from science or even religion or poetry. To the extent that the claims are valid, the understanding is universal. The experimental achievements regarding realization or transformation are more modest but promise a greater adventure. In the chapter, ‘Journey in Being,’ I have what transformation has been achieved a plans for the future (the design for the plans is based in the understanding.) In the conceptual and experimental developments it has been useful to have some grasp of the traditions of human knowledge and action – which development is itself a journey (partially recorded in the sources)
To understand and know all possibilities is to know the entire Universe of being. So, to achieve all possibilities includes achieving identity with all being but does not deny the significance of an individual life or an interest in day-to-day life. The immediate and the ultimate are not remote but are bound together and give significance to each other. The realization of possibility is an individual journey and the journey of all becoming. The being in ‘Journey in Being’ is an individual in interaction with all being
…
Immediately, numerous questions and concerns arise. What are the actual or concrete possibilities of being? What is the concept or meaning of possibility? To what extent is it possible to know and catalog the possibilities? In order for the claims made to have significance should not the catalog have some kind of in-principle completeness and, practically, should it not exceed what is normally thought to be the case? What is the nature of the individual and the identity of the individual? What is the meaning and significance of the terms: ambition, being (including the word ‘is,’) desirable, identity, immediate, individual (whole individual,) journey, knowledge, normal (normal reality,) perception, possible, realization, significant, ultimate, understanding, and universe. These issues are addressed in what follows
…
I said that an individual may achieve any possibility of (all) being, that this universal view illuminates but does not overturn the normal view, and that to know all possibilities is to know the entire universe of possibilities is to know the entire Universe of being. Although I have made these assertions at the beginning of the essay they are the result of rather than the beginning of inquiry. The universal or ultimate view is pivotal to the journey but not its end. I arrived at that view, not halfway distant from the origin but closer to the present. However, once achieved, that view enabled a flood of developments: insights, proofs and implications for the immediate world and the nature of the universe of being. I have placed a bare (and incomplete) statement of the universal view at the beginning of this essay partially as an advertisement but also because it might be misleading and unfair to reveal a system of unusual ideas rather late in an essay whose reading might be difficult
…
I have found it convenient, in this chapter, to combine the functions of introduction and preface. The purpose of a preface would be to quickly provide an idea of what readers may expect. If the book had a separate preface, the following sections would be part of it: the form of the book; an outline of the book; the intended audience – to whom the book may appeal; my reasons for writing the book and suggestions on how it may be read
The intent of the introduction is to provide, for all readers, a brief and accessible preview of (1) the central ideas, goals and results, and (2) origins and motivations, implications and significance – of the essay, of the Journey in Being. In order to make the essay accessible to readers who are not familiar with the background [sources,] the discussion in the introduction is less technical than it is in the later chapters. Elucidation of the nature of the concepts and the arguments behind the results are provided in the later chapters
So as to keep the chapters relatively complete, some discussion is duplicated. However, the discussions in the Introduction are less formal and less complete
Alternate title: ‘Form of the Narrative…” the reason I consider this alternative is so as to avoid confusion with the later section, ‘Introduction to the Essay’
Content of the section. Briefly, (a) the form of the narrative is the form of the journey, (b) there is utility to this form of presentation – as expressing value and in displaying a model, and (c) the inadequacies of what has become the supposed impersonal and objective mode (in the end, it is the individual combined with the universal that is ‘objective…’) Refer to the ambition above and that it is of necessity a journey; further there are two views of being of which one sees it as a journey of becoming. The contents of this section are: (1) That the book is a narration of the journey and its in-process outcomes. (2) That the journey has two main elements or phases: understanding and transformation. (3) The understanding is laid out in the first main chapter, ‘Foundation,’ and is an interactive one of the universe of being and of those aspects of this world that I think intrinsically significant and pertinent to the journey, i.e., to the understanding as a whole and to transformation. The development of the understanding is a part of the journey but also a partial foundation for transformation. Although I think that essential the core of the understanding is complete I remain open to new learning regarding the core and the details in light of new thought and transformation. Emphasize that the understanding necessarily covers much of the traditions of thought but is not intended to be complete or a review. Instead it focuses on what is important to the objectives; this necessarily covers some central themes from the history of ideas; the themes and concepts are always subject to evaluation; as necessary they are combined with new concepts and arguments into a connected account which is often an advance upon the traditions as they stand until the present time; such advances may be pointed out at their locations. (4) The second main chapter, ‘Journey in Being, reviews the understanding and its significance and lays out the in-process phase of transformation. The developments of ‘Foundation’ make it possible to describe a “complete and minimal system of experiments” in transformation. The relation between this chapter and the tradition of disciplines of transformation is similar to the relation between ‘Foundation’ and the traditions of thought. In the discussion of transformation, I have described my progress in transformation – and designs, plans and hopes for the future. Placement. Abbreviate and place / eliminate excess. Since ‘FORM’ has been imported from the preface, at least some of its contents should be placed in the sections, ‘THE CENTRAL GOAL…’ and ‘WHAT IS THE JOURNEY IN BEING?’
The table of contents points to explanations of the significance of the title, ‘Journey in Being.’ A very short explanation will be useful here
The origin of this essay was in an early interest in my immediate world. I asked, “What is the nature of that world and what is possible within its realm? What can I understand? What can I do? What can I become?” I found, inspired in part by the traditions of ideas, that the immediate and the ultimate (which includes the immediate) are interwoven. The main ambition that has motivated the Journey in Being is understanding and realizing all possibilities, ultimate and immediate, of being
An objective of this book, noted in the previous paragraph, is to show relations between (understanding of) the immediate world and the Universe (outside of which there is nothing.) In the essay that follows, I have developed an understanding of the universe that, in its foundation, is shown to be deeper than that of science and the traditions of ideas. Although I have supported this assertion with precise arguments, readers must, of course, evaluate this and all other claims for themselves. The core of the understanding is more precise than science and the precision is obtained by maintaining the description at a level that (1) permits the application of reason (logic) and (2) avoids conflict with science in its domain of application. In the introduction, I have emphasized what is universal and foundational and what may be revolutionary
Since the outcome of my efforts is an understanding of (all) being and of transformation (realization) in process, the essay combines two forms: (1) Presentation of ideas, concepts, arguments and conclusions regarding being, and (2) Narrative of the journey in transformation and understanding – and the underlying ideas and motives
Presentation of the narrative as a journey is important to understanding the essay and to its usefulness to others who would undertake or continue a journey…
I said that the essay is about all possibilities. A number problems with use of the word, ‘all’ should be mentioned. I will mention some problems here and provide a more complete discussion later
One problem is that in attempting to list all things there is a potential for paradox. Another concern is that, even if paradox is avoided, how is it possible to know that every thing has been included or listed in a descriptive (conceptual) scheme? The nature of the paradoxes, the meaning of ‘all,’ and (attempted) resolutions of the problems are taken up, later, in the essay
It might seem that my interest in all possibilities excludes an interest in the immediate present. To assume so would be in error and extent of the error would exceed the logical point that all possibilities include immediate actualities. My interest began in the immediate world – the world of people, of blue skies and of the day-to-day. In order to maintain an interest in the immediate, I do not have to try – it is sufficient that I am alive. Even in the theoretical developments of the essay, there is concern with immediate and ultimate affairs and in their interaction. The interest in the ultimate illuminates the immediate – in terms of understanding and significance.
Another concern with the ambition to understand and realize all possibilities is that some may not be good and others may require an enormous commitment of resources. This concern is the occasion to consider the related concepts of feasibility and desirability that are taken up later
My central ambition in ‘Journey in Being’ is to understand and realize all possibilities of being. ‘All possibilities’ include the immediate and the ultimate and their relations and interactions. In this essay I will show that the Universe (which is made up of all things) is infinitely greater than the ‘universe’ of various conceptions such as modern science and traditional religions and mythologies
How can this be shown? How is it even possible to conceive of ‘the Universe which is infinitely greater than the universes of modern science and traditional religions and mythologies?’ ‘All possibilities’ may seem to be not only impossible but not even desirable. The phrase may be changed to ‘all meaningful and significant possibilities’ but the question, “What is the meaning of the phrase, ‘meaningful and significant’?” immediately arises. Providing a satisfactory answer to these questions is one of the purposes of this essay
‘Being’ is, perhaps, the main concept in this essay
Distribution of discussions of Being. Discussion of being and topics under being is below and in a number of sections in ‘Foundation:’ three main sections in ‘The Theory of Being,’ and a section in ‘Metaphysics.’ Here, I introduce the concept of ‘Being,’ the significant connotations (existence, power, being-in-itself) and how the valid connotations flow from existence, the significance of being despite apparent triviality. There, I provide more careful explanations (definitions, as far as is useful,) more careful justifications of claims, and further elaborations of what is here. Some repetition is good. There, under Metaphysics/Being, I outline the ‘analysis of being’ which is important
Plan. Note that there is repetition in what follows. It is necessary to eliminate the repetition and tighten the argument with respect to identifying and sequencing its phases, and getting the conceptual phases right
In this section I will address the questions, ‘What is Being?’ and ‘What is the meaning of Being?’
These two questions will be shown to be equivalent. Such an equivalence is not true for all concepts or ideas but is dependent on the nature of being. The identity of the questions is a logical identity for the first question invites a discussion of significance and examples (perhaps listed systematically) while the second invites elaborations of meaning
Being and its meaning and significance are discussed in greater detail and precision later in the essay, especially in the ‘Foundation’
Although the meaning of being is given very clearly, the generality and abstraction of the concept and the breadth of its extension (extension and intension and their use is discussed below: link) provides room for interpretation, variety, subsumption of everything in the universe outside of which there is nothing
Comment on meaning. There are a variety of meanings of ‘meaning.’ In this essay, two meanings are used and are roughly specified by the use in this section, ‘the meaning of a word,’ which is the default when no specification is made, and the alternate as in ‘the meaning (significance) of life.’
Although every meaning may change as a conceptual system (there are formal systems such as theories and explicit metaphysical systems and informal ones such as the system of concepts implicit in a natural language) grows to encompass a wider range, the meaning of ‘Being’ is, perhaps, too fundamental to change. This is true even as understanding and knowledge grow so that the class of entities that is recognized as having being grows. ‘What is Being?’ is answered, in principle but not in detail, by analyzing the meaning of ‘Being.’ What remains to be given or discovered is the elaboration of being – its analysis, significance and kinds or possibilities. Note that ‘meaning’ has more than one meaning of which two significant families are those centered around the uses ‘the meaning or sense and reference of a word or term’ and ‘the meaning or significance of life.’ Which of these two families is being used should be clear from the context
From the supplement
It is a direct consequence of the absolute level of generality or extension of the concept of being, that the questions ‘What is being?’ and ‘What is the meaning of being?’ are identical. I.e., the ostensive and conceptual definitions of ‘being’ are coextensive
In contrast, it is a problem in the understanding of more specific kinds of being that their ostensive and conceptual definitions are not a priori coextensive. Consider, for example, the idea of a tree or plant. For simple practical purposes, it is not necessary to define the concept of ‘plant.’ However, in order to decide marginal cases, a concept is necessary; the problem, then, is that for a given concept of ‘plant’ that clearly identifies the status of some marginal cases, there may be others whose status is unclear. This is precisely a part of the problem of clearly formulating a concept of such kinds of being as ‘tree,’ ‘plant,’ ‘life,’ and ‘matter’
The foregoing problem does not arise in the case of being or the concept of being which, therefore, have an a priori clarity. This clarity will be used in what follows to determine what things have being. It is usually considered obvious that such things as atoms, trees and teacups exist. However, it is not considered to be similarly clear whether numbers exist. One source of lack of clarity in this question is that the mark of existence is, sometimes implicitly or unconsciously, taken to be that of material existence. Once this confusion has been eliminated, it becomes clear that numbers do not exist-as-simple-material-objects but may and, as it will turn out, do have existence
In determining the existence of some ‘thing’ there is always the issue of whether the thing actually exists or whether the appearance of a thing is due to the projection of a mind upon a relatively formless background [or a selection from a multi-form background of a specific form]
The THEORY OF BEING developed here is instrumental in resolving the problems raised in the immediately foregoing paragraphs
…
There is a FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL or meaning of being – that which exists or has existence
It is possible to doubt whether anything exists. However, this doubt is really a question of the meaning of ‘existence.’ Without existence there is nothing, not even doubt
The world in which we live, in which the question of existence arises, is a world whose existence is given. Even if the reality of the question –the understanding– is an illusion, the illusion is in a world – ‘all is illusion’ is incoherent, i.e. illusion is not possible without a world. Investigation may provide insight into what is illusion and what is not. Even if, for example, this world is the dream of some cosmic dreamer, its existence as dream is given. While the ‘dream theory of our being’ is possible there must, ultimately, be something, perhaps some original dreamer whose being is given. Further, even if the ‘dream theory’ is conceptually possible, its complication must be exponential in comparison to the simple ‘theory that the world exists.’ For the latter theory requires no explanation but the dream theory requires an explanation of how it is that a dreamer may ‘compute’ the complexities of the world
That there is experience is in the meaning of existence of being – even if the experience is illusory or about no thing, even if there is no one that has the experience. There is no need for further analysis of the root meaning of existence. The analytically inclined may be used to the expectation of further meaning behind every meaning. This expectation is especially acute in the case of being on account of its fundamental nature. However, there is no necessity to the infinite regress of meaning. While analysis of deep concepts is expected, the deepest of concepts should be incapable of regress. (It will be seen later that a logical foundation of being and its meaning without further regress is possible. Link: void; also above in previewing the basic ideas.) Still, that there may be nothing further upon which existence or being may be founded may leave a feeling of discomfort. This is, again, a function of the attitude of ever seeking explanations which itself has no final necessity. We seek explanations of things beyond those things but, regarding being, there is no beyond, before or outside
Significance of the concept of Being
Repetition. This point is also discussed in the Heading 4 section of the same name below
It may be asked, then, whether the concept of being is trivial – even profoundly trivial. If the analysis of being were to remain arrested at the stage of being-as-such it might be interesting (link: void) but without significance (any thought of significance would be the intuitive apprehension of the following.) The power of the concept of being is revealed in application to particular cases – and in application to the spectrum of cases. Examples and developments, anticipated earlier and developed in this essay have the following significance. The examples provide illustration of the concept of being and simultaneously show that stopping consideration at what is known, especially at what is normally considered to be known, is infinitely premature. Simultaneously, the concept of being together with the system of kinds of being provides interpretation of the nature of the kinds of being and prevents assumption that special kinds or modes of being, e.g. matter and mind, are representative of all being
This simultaneous concern with the general and the specific, with being and kind of being, illuminates all further understanding. All further understanding? It is not implied that every thing and every concept will receive illumination. However, the Theory of Being developed in FOUNDATION (link) is, in a sense that is made clear, an ultimate foundation for the understanding of all being. It brings together all categories of being and understanding so that, while there are always questions of detail, there is no further question or possibility of any further question of fundamentals. The theory and its developments clarifies a distinction between significant and contingent issues
The question of existence, i.e., whether there is being, then, is trivial. What, in addition to the foregoing general considerations, is the significance of being? The first issue that arises is ‘What exists?’ The foregoing discussion shows that the question of whether there is existence is trivial but does not shed light on what exists. ‘What exists?’ will be analyzed in terms of experience (something exists,) power (the relation of what exists to other things that exist,) and the theory of being that provides a framework for all being. Further issues include the following
What exists: Intension; Appearance and Reality
Repetition. This point should be combined with the later discussion – there or here
Note. Use alternate words for intension and extension?
I see a tree; it seems obvious that it exists. However, I may doubt its existence. Firstly, I may be hallucinating; there may be a mirage; I may have an optical illusion; or, perhaps, a swarm of locusts or micro-robots, some green and some brown, have come together to give the appearance of a tree. These doubts are not the primary concern regarding existence, i.e., the primary concern is not whether there is some mistake in perception. Mistakes in perception are always possible: the capacity for (non-gratuitous) error in perception and the capacity to have new perceptions go together. However, in the following discussion regarding existence, I assume that mistakes are not being made. Mistakes may be corrected; the discussion is at a deeper level than that of a mere mistake
Note. The next two FONT.RED paragraphs are temporarily so set to indicate their use for the later sections, FORM and SYMBOL AND OBJECT
A question that I can ask regarding the existence of the tree is why I identify the tree as an object when what I have in my experience is not a tree but an impression of a tree. I am not sure, without further analysis of experience, whether the language of the previous sentence is correct but it is sufficient to raise a valid doubt concerning the existence of a tree that I think I observe. The doubt may appear to be neurotic. There is of course a practical sense in which it is neurotic but the analysis and resolution of the doubt has profound implications for understanding of knowledge and of being. The present question regarding existence may be formulated as a question regarding the relation between appearance and reality. Even if I analyze my experience of the tree, the grounds for my analysis are also based in experience. It therefore appears that I cannot escape experience. Is it possible to go beyond experience and be objective? Can I know the thing-in-itself or noumenon? It may appear that the ‘difficulty’ of knowing the thing-in-itself is not practical but conceptual: thing-in-itself and thing-as-known appear to be categorially distinct. These questions are addressed in FOUNDATION (link: Symbol and Object; link: Theory of Being for objective existence)
Consider next the question of whether a unicorn exists. I know (assume) that there are no actual unicorns. What does it mean to talk of something that does not exist? I.e., when I say the word ‘unicorn,’ to what am I referring? This question has been regarded as a paradox regarding the concept of existence. However, the resolution of the ‘paradox’ is straightforward. I have an idea, a picture or a concept of a unicorn. When I say that unicorns do not exist, I am saying that there is nothing in the universe that corresponds to my concept of a unicorn. Similarly, in saying that a tree exists, I am saying (at least) that there is something that corresponds to my idea, concept or picture of a tree
Do numbers exist? This question can also be written as one about appearance and reality. We have the idea of number, developed for human beings by human beings at an early stage in the history of mathematics. Is there any real or actual thing that corresponds to this idea? The question has philosophical or metaphysical interest. One answer to this question from the history of philosophy is that there is, in addition to the world of real or material things, an ideal world, perhaps a world of forms and that numbers exist in that ideal world. In this essay, I will give a different answer to this question in FORM (link). That discussion is motivated, firstly, by the concept of the UNIVERSE, in this essay, as ALL BEING, i.e., outside of which there is nothing; and secondly, by the concept of POWER (link?). Starting with the observation that experience is the initial mark of being, anything that affects experience, i.e. has power, also has being and this is used as the basis of the later argument to show that forms do not lie in a separate universe but are things in this universe. The word ‘things’ in the previous sentence is intended to be taken literally: it will be shown, in an ARCHETYPAL ARGUMENT (link: form), how the generic categories, e.g. mind, and the apparently abstract categories such as number, universal and form may all be seen to be possessed of the same degree of ‘concreteness’ as the particular entities
Immediately a doubt regarding the existence of numbers and forms in this universe comes from materialism which has been the dominant paradigm of thought a number of times in the history of ideas including the present time since the early twentieth century. Materialism is the idea that everything in the universe is made of matter. If all things are material in nature then, given a material object such as a rock, its existence requires no demonstration. On the other hand, given an idea such as a form or a number, its existence in material terms –the criterion of existence under materialism– requires demonstration
Materialism is a form of monism: the idea that only one kind of thing has being. The difficulty with showing the existence of non-material things on a material basis is one source of dualism, i.e., a metaphysics (ontology) in which two or more kinds of thing are admitted to exist. A system in which both matter and ideas are posited to exist is a form of dualism. It is also possible to have a pluralism, e.g., a metaphysics in which there are numerous categories of existence or being such as matter, mind or idea, form, number, relationship, process… An appeal of monism is its simplicity and apparently fundamental character: all being is founded on a unitary basis. An apparent weakness of monism is the embarrassment regarding non-material ‘things.’ A primary appeal of the dualistic systems is that it is not required to explain the being of different kinds of thing: they all exist in a separate but equal status. In a dualism the categories have a dual function in that they found being and its variety
It is possible to take a pragmatic view in which a number of categories is admitted but no assertion is made that they are fundamental in nature. In such a view it may be said, e.g., that ‘a rock exists as matter,’ ‘concepts, numbers, forms exist as ideas,’ ‘forces exist as relationships,’ ‘time exists as a measure of process’ and so on; and all of these exist in that they have power which is taken to be the common ground of being
What exists: the Theory of Being (link) and the Void (link)
The foundation of the Theory of Being (linked) developed in this essay is in terms of the concept of the void (nothingness) or, equivalently, in terms of logic (this is parallel to a number of developments in the history of ideas where a fundamental concept is first introduced as an artifice, e.g., the entropy in the theory of energy)
In the Theory of Being, there are no fundamental substances. In the history of thought, it has been sought to found being in doubt; this foundation, such as it is, is relative to thought: there is thought or experience hence there is being. Here, one foundation of being is sought in the absence of being, i.e. in the void; this is found to be an absolute foundation for it is not required to posit or assume the existence of the void: the existence of the void may be demonstrated without assumption. Further, the properties of the void may be derived and have profound consequences that include the necessity of becoming and therefore of being; the universality of power – that any being can interact with any other being, i.e. that though, in local or practical frameworks, there may be ‘ghost universes,’ there is ultimately one universe in the sense that all things have mutual power (i.e., that there is one universe is more than a mere definition of the universe as all being;) that, since there is one universe, there is no ultimate measure of possibility other than actuality somewhere and when; that, since there is one universe, laws, patterns and forms cannot be imposed from without but must be immanent in ‘things’ and, therefore, the void is not merely an absence of things but also an absence of law, of form, of pattern, of ideas, of relationship and process, of God, soul and spirit, of space, of time, and of causation – even the quasi-causation of modern quantum theory; that what does not involve logical contradiction is possible; that what is possible is necessary somewhere and when; that local actualities have infinite recurrence (over space and time) and therefore that ‘Jesus Christ is rising from the dead in countless cosmologies; that there is being whose identity spans all individual identities and therefore gives meaning (significance) to recurrence and, therefore, to the idea of karma; that, while in this life, the doors to BEING may appear to lie in shadow regions of awareness, death is an explicit doorway to identity with all being and therefore to all good and all evil, to all pleasure and all pain, to all unities and all distinctions... The possibilities, listing, demonstration and significance are discussed in detail in (links). These consequences may assault common sense and reason, and may be thought to violate the laws of physics and, perhaps, the principles of biology. One reaction may be ‘I cannot imagine how something may come from nothing.’ However, since the becoming from nothingness has been demonstrated, imagination is not required for acceptance of the claim (imagination is possible provided the common intuition is open to re-education.) A more serious objection is the apparent negation of common sense reality, of the given nature of this world with its practical limits and necessities. However, the common sense or ‘normal’ reality is not negated; in the Theory of Being it is shown that our local cosmology must be a relatively stable cosmology (an explanation of the population of the universe by stable systems may be given and the theory shows that it is necessary for this normal explanation or mechanism to obtain with infinite though not universal recurrence) and that violation of its limits and necessities, including its laws, are normally extremely improbable on local scales even though they are not absolute
Being that spans all being may be identified with ‘God.’ Although it has not been my intention to identify ‘being that spans all being’ with ‘God,’ the identification is possible. However, care is required in the identification for ‘God’ has numerous connotations – abstract connotations such as ‘the most perfect being’ and anthropomorphic connotations such as justness and mercifulness. Such connotations, especially when they are thought to exclude their contraries, are not implicit in the idea of ‘being that spans all being.’ Confusion is encouraged by the use of the same sign, e.g. ‘God,’ to denote different meanings or symbols. ‘Being that spans all being’ is an open symbol in the sense that there is allowance for indefiniteness in acquaintance with the object. The idea that ‘Jesus Christ rose from the dead’ is absurd is also a confusion in the equation of likelihood or practical necessity with logical necessity
Thus the theory of being is not monistic, dualistic or fundamentally pragmatic: its ontology is not a substance ontology; however, it does provide a foundation for being (in the void) that is logical in nature and does not require the axiomatic introduction of any category. Substance ontology posits categories whose logical basis is taken as axiomatic, i.e., an unexplained terminus or end to explanation. In the Theory of Being, the void is demonstrated to provide an end to explanation; further, the void has an implicit character that may also demonstrated on logical grounds. Therefore, in the Theory of Being, there is no foundation or need for foundation in an unfounded category, no explanation in terms of an unexplained terminus, no infinite regress of explanation. Given the concept of some category of being then, provided that there is no contradiction implicit in the concept, the Theory of Being provides a foundation for the being of that category. Further, the theory provides a foundation for the concept of power: every being may interact with every other being (absence of observed or known interaction is explained by saying the probability of interaction is extremely small)
What is the status of matter, mind and so on in the Theory of Being? The various modes or categories may be called pragmatic because, even though they are not ultimate in character, they provide ways to describe the variety within the world; the categories have common pragmatic, scientific and metaphysical uses. However, the categories are not fundamental. So, instead of talking of mind and of matter, it would be more accurate and make clear the possibility of further development if we were to talk of mind-as-humans-and-animals-have-it or matter-as-we-experience-and-have-theories-of-it. It may then be possible, on the basis of the Theory of Being, to extend the concepts of mind and matter to some primal level where, perhaps, they have some root identity. This development will be taken up in FOUNDATION (link) where the extension of mind-as-we-have-it will be shown to be necessary and based, among other things in POWER that, in turn, has foundation in the void. When the concept of matter is similarly extended, mind and matter will be found to be different aspects of being
It has been seen that, even on a pragmatic view, power provides a common ground for being, i.e., the concept of power may be used to show how all the categories have an equal status with regard to being. I may have chosen knowability since it is a kind of power and, to a sentient being, it is more immediate. However, at the earlier level of discussion, power was more basic or fundamental. Just as being is fundamental with regard to existence, power is fundamental with regard to relationship or interaction. However, when the concept of mind is extended to the primal level, there is no distinction between power and knowability
Why do I turn to the Theory of Being and not to science? In the first place, it is clear that being is more fundamental than the concepts of science: there is no category more fundamental than being. Additionally, it will be shown that the world described in science (as usually understood) is an infinitesimal part, with regard to kind and range, of the universe of all being
Comment. The following is one of a number of discussions of science in this essay. As a human institution, science is multi-dimensional in its nature and varied in its subject matter. Therefore, it is not possible to characterize science in any brief discussion. Together, the various discussions provide a better though still incomplete characterization of science
Since the rise of science, its fundamental theoretical concepts have often been regarded, especially implicitly, to be fundamental substances. Use of fundamental concepts from science as categories or substances is especially problematic in the assumption that the precise concepts of science have universal application. The precision and definiteness of the concepts of science is a primary source of the problem: they are achieved by a limitation of perspective which is the source of their local power and universal weakness. Science has been thought to characterize the entire universe; however, the theories of science, as is seen in this essay, characterize at most, this (and similar) cosmological systems. It is further seen that the universe has no laws; i.e., in describing the universe there is but one law: that any description that has no actual or hidden contradiction must obtain. There is no question that the beautiful and elegant laws of physics are contingent to an extremely limited cosmological system; that those laws are not without wonder in their application and that, beyond their domain of application, laws are rich sources of analogy
What exists: discussion of Intension and Extension
In discussing ‘what exists,’ some clarification of the meaning (intension) of existence or being has been made. A second issue concerns identifying or cataloging things that exist, i.e., determining the extension of the concept of existence or being. Together, the intension, discussed above, and extension, discussed next, provide an answer to the question ‘What exists?’ or ‘What has being?’ If the discussions of intension and extension were complete, the question would be answered completely
What exists: Extension
In this essay, I have discussed a wide range of being. The Theory of Being (link?) makes it possible to assert the being of things that are not known directly to human beings (they must, of course, be knowable to us and known to some beings.) Direct and conceptual (theoretical) knowledge, together, make it possible to determine, in principle, the entire range of being even if it is not practically possible (or desirable) to do so. Although it is my intention to discuss a wide range of being as illustration of the Theory of Being and for the intrinsic interest (what is the nature of the universe, what things that human beings have thought to exist actually do exist) it is not my intention to attempt an ‘enumeration’ of being
In discussing the meaning of ‘existence,’ a number of things or kinds of thing that exist have been identified, some only by implication: experience (and implicitly the individual,) trees and other living things, material things, ideas, forms, and numbers. Except for experience, the identification is tentative and pending later discussion as noted for objects, ideas, forms and number. The existence of the individual is clarified in the discussion of identity (link). I will subsequently take up the being or existence of mind, soul, spirit, God, energy, and other entities or categories from myth, religion, and science and will find a listing of any ‘chain of being’ to be severely limited unless it is founded on the Theory of Being of this essay or its logical equivalent. I will further show, on grounds of logic, that the Theory of Being is an ultimate theory in senses to be identified and it therefore appears that all being may be anticipated, in principle, from the Theory of Being
Before leaving this discussion of the extension of the concept of being or existence, I will mention the idea of nothingness or the void whose nature and existence has been discussed in detail (link.) The void contains no things, no forms, no patterns, no laws. That it does not contain any existing thing does not mean that it does not exist. One might say that the void contains all logically contradictory states of affairs and other non-existing ‘things’ but that would still be equivalent to saying that it contains no things etc. It might seem to have no consequence whether nothingness exists. However, it will be seen in developing the Theory of Being, that nothingness is equivalent to the entire universe, i.e., to all being. Therefore, nothingness has power
What is the nature of existing things?
A second concern is ‘What is the nature of the things that exist?’ These two broad concerns are related. The nature of an entity in its being-concept can be nothing other than its ‘elements.’ The idea of element is conceived in a general way as ‘kind of being’ and is not limited to ‘part’ but may also include relation, process and other kinds that may arise in the understanding of being. The point of view that this can be done precisely, definitively and, perhaps, uniquely has naturally been called LOGICAL ATOMISM. The history of LOGICAL ATOMISM is one of limited success and one of the limits is that at any point in human thought, the given system of concepts cannot be reasonably expected to be complete with respect to the apparently endless possibilities of fact. A conclusion arrived at in this essay is that there is or appears to be no given atomic structure to being-thought but that there is a terminus to ALL BEING-concept in the void. A second conclusion is as follows. Implicit in the discussion of the present paragraph, and earlier in the INTRODUCTION, is the issue of the nature and relation of object and subject. It will be shown that object and subject are not different modes of being but are equi-present in ALL BEING; that object and subject may be regarded as distinct modes of description but subscription to an absolute rather than pragmatic distinction is in error; that object and subject are fused at all levels of being from the elemental and the void to the ultimate
Further significance of the concept of Being
Repetition. This point should be combined with the later discussion – there or here
The interest in being, in the nature of existence, is not in the question of whether there is existence… The interest includes [1] to place ALL BEING on a common ground – this will provide an answer to the question of the nature of being and, simultaneously, reveal the nature of the question; specifically, in placing ALL BEING on a common ground, it will be possible to elucidate the existential character, i.e. the nature of the being, of the objects to which the variety of the categories of the concepts correspond, [2] to center ourselves in being… to understand the nature of our being, and [3] as foundation for all further understanding
In FURTHER UNDERSTANDING being, we may look, initially, to examples of being – to life, to human being
There is a sense in which human being is most fundamental to us and it is not a parochial or anthropomorphic sense but, rather, the sense in which, no matter to what degree ‘we’ transcend our perspectives, to what degree we import other perspectives e.g. by understanding other cultures, other species and categories, and even in symbolic freedom, ‘we’ still remain within the human perspective. This is of course conditionally true upon the human form being immutable and upon ‘us’ remaining within unchanged form. The limitation on human –any– being is normal; therefore HUMAN BEING IS MOST FUNDAMENTAL, though true, ultimately says nothing more than BEING IS BEING
The sense in which human being is most fundamental is a personal sense, it is a beginning, for human being, in a process of outward discovery of all being. As living in this world, a phase of all being, human being is neither at the beginning nor the end of this discovery. Although it may be natural to take human being as most fundamental (for human beings) at the outset of discovery, to continue in this attitude has no foundation for human being, as for all proximate being, is in transition: human being is neither elemental nor final
In looking at the variety of being and, then back at the basic level of being, we can see what ELEMENTS OF BEING are FUNDAMENTAL – have SIGNATURES IN THE FUNDAMENTAL levels and what elements are contingent
It is not being said that THE CONTINGENT is irrelevant; it is the source of much meaning – what is CLOSEST TO THE HEART
In this way it is possible to flesh out a metaphysics
A case of one word, two symbols which is distinct from the issue of ‘On Meaning,’ above. The use here is the existential use, ‘Water is H20’ or, simply, ‘Water is’ and not the use as a copula or linking word, ‘Water is wet.’ ‘Water is H20’ may, with qualification, be written, ‘Water = H2O’ but ‘Water is wet’ may not be correctly written ‘Water = wet,’ or, even, ‘Water = wetness’
Combine and condense: the following comments from v2004 with the above; delete ‘comments’ bookmark when done
The potential for confusion is avoided in some languages where ‘The fence is white’ may be written, ‘The fence has whiteness’
The senses are related but not identical. In saying ‘I am’ or ‘The fence exists,’ there may appear to be a predication. However, the significance goes beyond mere predication. In saying ‘The fence is white,’ there is usually no explicit intention to assert the existence of the fence in question or of whiteness: existence is assumed. In saying, ‘The fence exists,’ existence is asserted. Insofar as there is an external object ‘fence,’ the predication of its existence is empty in that existence is predicative of all actual external objects. Therefore, existence will be more informative when predicated of a concept e.g. the concept of ‘fence.’ The further development of the concept of existence will depend crucially upon the nature of the ‘concept,’ of the ‘object,’ and of the ‘external object.’ The question arises, ‘Is the external object ever apprehended?’ If not, what is the nature of the –ideal– object and its existence? Discussion of these issues is taken up in what follows
Further, regarding predication in the famous quotation of the first paragraph of this comment on being, the question arises, ‘What is being predicated of what?’ That is, to what does ‘I’ refer, what is the nature of its being, and, furthermore, regarding the connection between the ‘I’ and the ‘thinking’ or experience, what is the nature of the connection and how is it sustained?
‘Being’ is used in reference to existence, the nature and quality of existence and to specific beings, individuals and entities. Both uses occur in this essay and where confusion might arise in the use of ‘being’ as an entity, I have used ‘entity’ or ‘individual’
The COPULA ‘IS’
Plan. Combine ‘The Idea of Being (1)’ with ‘… (2).’ Rename the combined section and combine it with earlier sections as necessary. Place the material that describes the origin and consequences of the idea in other sections, e.g., ‘Achievements’
Why / What they are / Which is significant?
Abbreviate and place: abbreviate the discussion and place material as appropriate
A being is an entity that exists and the quality of being is the quality of existence, i.e., something has being if it exists. To have being is to be – to exist; the basic meaning of being is no more and no less than this. Being is understood (used) in a general sense that includes becoming or process (important in the history of ideas) or coming into existence: the concept of being forms the framework for the Journey. The concept of being may appear to be trivial: since all things have being, to say that something has being is to state what is obvious. Although the concept of being may appear to be trivial, it is, perhaps, the most fundamental of concepts and is pivotal in understanding the nature of all things and their possibilities
From the supplement
In the beginning, the idea of being may appear to be so general as to be empty. However in developing an understanding of the entire SPAN AND VARIETY OF BEING, the generality is necessary
Although a materialist may argue that matter is coextensive with being, such positions cannot be conceptually necessary and would be, at most, factually contingent. I.e., materialism is an empirical position. Therefore, in more specific approaches such as materialism, understanding is necessarily prejudiced at the outset
It may be seen that the idea of being without restriction and in isolation is empty. However against being without restriction as background, the requirement that being be determinate or have FORM results in an extremely powerful and general yet concrete understanding of the SPAN OF BEING. Given the characteristics of any kind of being or world, the concept of being may be used to develop a powerful and necessary understanding of the origin and nature of that world. In particular, the THEORY OF BEING necessarily provides the most powerful foundation available for the understanding of human and animal being and of this world
The apparently trivial character of the concept is a result of the fact that it is so basic: all things have being. However, it is this very basic character that is responsible for the significance of the concept: use of the concept being is a means to avoid the assumption that some special aspect of being –mind, matter, process, relationship and so on– captures the essence of all things. A focus on being helps to avoid (tacit) assumptions about the nature of all things; and, if there is a nature or essence to all things, the focus is instrumental in preventing a premature commitment to that nature. Thus the study of what is real through an understanding of being is not, for example, a commitment to or against materialism. An understanding of ‘matter’ and whether it exists and is all that exists should be a conclusion rather than a premise of the study. Since the nature of matter, mind and other substances is an outcome of study, the investigation will not be burdened with the need to reconcile concepts such as mind and matter that are introduced into thought without clarification of their nature. This is not equivalent to saying that there is no mind-matter problem. Rather, the existence of the problem and, should it exist, its proper statement and resolution will be the result of investigation
Further, it does not follow that to every idea there corresponds something that exists or has being. A consequence, developed in the essay, is that the use of the concept of being enables depths of understanding that might otherwise be unrealized. How is this possible? The concept of being makes what may be labeled ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ contributions
A positive contribution of the use of ‘being’ is that all actual things are admitted into consideration. That is, the idea of ‘all being’ is inherent in the idea of ‘being.’ Additionally, reflection on the concept of being in combination with other concepts or disciplines may result in significant conclusions – and clarifications of the concepts. These other concepts or disciplines, though more specific than being itself, range from ones that are specialized to ones that are quite general, e.g., mind and its nature. The negative contribution, i.e. one that helps prevent error, includes that limited concepts such as matter, mind, process, and relation as definitive of being are neither admitted nor denied at the outset. Therefore any inherent inadequacies in these limited concepts are not tacitly admitted. As a result, supposed problems such as the well known mind-matter problem will be found to be a problem only they are truly problems. (Later in the essay, there is a resolution of this problem.) Another result is that the meaning and significance of the more specialized concepts –their nature and whether they can be a basis from which to understand the entire Universe– falls out of the analysis. A related outcome is that limited conceptions of the Universe itself are not admitted in advance of the analysis
Another contribution follows from an analysis of the idea of being itself. I said, two paragraphs earlier, that ‘all things have being.’ It is valid to ask whether only ‘things’ have being. This amounts to asking whether the concept of being can be extended or, equivalently, what counts as a thing. If this direction of thought is useful at all, what might make it most useful? What idea is least associated with ‘thing-hood?’ This question leads to the possibly perverse thought that nothing or nothingness, which I will also call ‘the void,’ might have being. I have been fascinated by this thought. My thought went through a period when I labored to show that the Universe was equivalent (in some sense) to nothingness even though I was aware that the idea might be perverse. My motive was, in part, a search for simplicity and unification; these motives are common themes in the history of ideas and lie behind, e.g., the idea of substance. My initial, unfruitful, approach was to focus on properties of ‘the universe.’ I used quotes in the last sentence because my concept of the Universe was limited, at the time, to this (our) cosmological system, i.e., to what is often regarded as the known physical universe.. After putting a fair amount of time and energy into the initial approach, I had a simple idea – instead of the Universe, focus on nothingness itself. This thought resulted in a breakthrough and, looking back, I sometimes wonder why the idea had not occurred before. What are the properties of nothingness? A simple, obvious and apparently defining property is that it contains no things. It seems to be a sort of opposite to the Universe which contains all things. Since nothingness contains no things, adding it to something –e.g., itself, an atom, the Universe– makes no change or difference to that thing. I.e., it makes no difference to the Universe whether nothingness is considered to have being (it will be seen shortly that there are significant properties of nothingness that are present regardless of whether it is considered to have being.) I enquired further into the nature of nothingness. Physicists have studied what is called the ‘quantum vacuum’ which is what is left over when all objects are removed from ‘the universe.’ The quotes in the previous indicates, again, a limited concept of the Universe, that of the universe defined by the (known) concepts and laws of physics. The quantum vacuum is not nothingness because it has ‘zero point energy’ among other things. These are required by the nature of the ‘quantum universe.’ However, in nothingness there should not even be the zero point energy; this is required by the concept of nothingness. This appears to contradict physical law; however, the contradiction is only apparent because nothingness should not contain any laws, especially physical laws. At this point in the reflection, I considered the possibility that ‘there is a state of being that does not come from nothingness.’ Naturally, if the idea of that state of being involved a contradiction, i.e., if it were logically impossible its realization would also be impossible and therefore it was necessary to eliminate such states from consideration. I therefore focused on states whose idea or concept involved no contradiction, i.e., on logically possible states. ‘There is a logically possible state that does not come from nothingness’ is equivalent to saying, ‘nothingness contains laws.’ That logically impossible states do not come from nothingness may be interpreted as ‘the universal laws of logic, if any, hold in nothingness’ however it is clear that such ‘laws’ would not be real laws – a real law is one that restricts possibility. At this point it has been concluded that there is no state that does not come from nothingness, i.e., nothingness is equivalent to all actual and possible states (thus actuality and possibility are identical) and, specifically, to the Universe of all being
The conclusions of the reasoning in the previous paragraph include the following. Nothingness may be regarded as having being and is equivalent to the Universe (of all being.) Thus, it may be said that nothingness is a ‘thing.’ There are many concepts in the history of ideas, both academic and ‘common,’ regarding whose existence (i.e. whether they define something that exists) there is a long tradition of doubt, discussion and debate. These ideas include form, universals, God, articles of faith such as ‘Jesus Christ is risen from the dead,’ karma, the recurrence of being. It is remarkable that the Theory of Being that is developed in the essay resolves these questions of existence directly and conclusively – and usually positively by demonstrating existence. That Universe contains but its extent is not limited by the extent of this cosmological system or the universe defined by the laws of physics or any laws whatsoever. It is clear then, that The Universe is infinitely greater than the ‘known universe’ in extent, duration and possibility. The Universe is infinite; it contains time and space and some of the instances of time and space are necessarily infinite in extent, dimension, and complexity but it is not clear that it exists in time and space (this point and the nature of space and time or space-time receive clarification later in the essay.) In the one Universe that contains all things something that is (logically) possible must ‘be’ actual and something that is actual is (obviously) possible; therefore possibility and actuality (and necessity too provided that it is appropriately interpreted) are identical (the concepts differ when considering limited universes to be the Universe.) In the previous sentence the quotes indicate that although to be usually implies being in time that there is no particular time associated with the use there. Although nothingness has no thing (or law) it ‘results in’ or is equivalent to all things. Thus, the concept of nothingness is ‘rich’ even though nothingness itself is marked by ‘poverty.’ I said earlier that joint analysis of being and other concepts may lead to significant conclusions; the analysis of all being (the Universe) and nothingness is an example of the power of the approach
The conclusions that we have arrived at have logical necessity but (may) appear to contradict common sense and science. However, the resolution of the conflict is already contained in the argument and is elaborated in detail later in the essay
Detailed and more complete reasons for the use of ‘being’ and further clarification of its use or meaning in this essay and the consequences that follow from the use are given later. Because of its traditional uses, being may appear to be a specialized and esoteric concept. However, it is not specialized – it is, perhaps, the most general of concepts (all things are suffused with being, the theory of being is at the foundation of all disciplines of knowledge) and it is the generality that may make it appear to be remote. Specialized conclusions –conclusions that apply to a restricted phase or class of being– follow from combining the general (theory of being) with specific concerns, e.g., an activity or an academic discipline. As a result of the power of the concept of being, such specialized conclusions may be deeper and more reliable than results that stem from the limited concern alone… Being is sometimes used with religious connotations, e.g., as a substitute for ‘God’ or ‘soul.’ Here, being is not used in such senses. The primary importance of the use of being is that it encourages reflection on and analysis of what it is –and what it means– to exist and, so, to deep conclusions about the nature of the Universe as a whole. Naturally, analysis of being may have implications for the possible nature of God and soul but a primary interest here is that there are implications for the nature of mind, of matter and of the Universe
The ubiquity of being and the generality of the concept require an effort to grasp the idea and its magnitude but, if what I have been saying is true, there is a great reward to the effort. I might have used an alternate word to ‘being.’ I chose to use ‘being’ rather than some other word, not only because I like its sound, but also because there are deep, though sometimes misleading and confusing, traditions to its use in the history of ideas. Choice of ‘being’ has encouraged use of and connection with those traditions
I have learnt much from the traditions –modern and ancient, western and eastern, secular and religious– in the study and realization of being. ‘Being’ is the most basic and general of concepts and, although it has religious and other special connotations, e.g., as in existential thought, my interest is in the very basic character of being
The reader will now recognize that the study of being as undertaken here does not presume or deny the special connotations. Instead, however