JOURNEY IN BEING
“Whereof one cannot speak…”
ANIL MITRA, PHD COPYRIGHT © June 2005
HOME | CONTACT | SUPPLEMENTS | TEN QUESTIONS ON BEING
June 8, 2005. I am currently placing material from this document in the main
supplement. As subject matter is incorporated to the supplement
or directly into the new
version (outline), it will be crossed out. Added material is coded in the color teal. Plans and comments are red
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE JOURNEY IN BEING
1.1 What
is the ‘Journey in Being?’
1.2 ORIGINS of the ‘Journey
in Being’
1.2.1 Significance
of the personal story
1.3 PURPOSE and Goals of
the Journey
1.4.1 What
is –the meaning of– ‘BEING?’
1.4.2 Comments
on the word ‘BEING’
1.5.2 The
possibility of Positive Judgment
1.6 Realization:
The Journey Continues…
1.6.1 Ideas:
Being and Aspects of Being
3.1.1 Being,
Power, and the Elimination of Substance
3.1.2 Being
and the Void. Necessity of Becoming. Foundation for Cosmology
3.1.4 KNOWLEDGE, OBJECT AND SYMBOL
Plan for elimination compound sections
3.1.9 Summary of the Foundation in the concepts of Void and the Universe
Logic, Possibility and Necessity
Mind is Being in its Relations
A Complete System of the Problems of Metaphysics
Summary of the Foundation in the concepts of Void and the Universe
Alternative Foundation in LOGIC
First: correct, identify and send topical material to appropriate locations
Second: correct, summarize and place the remaining material in the section, LOGIC
Logic; its nature; conditions for application
Individual topics: Foundation I
Summary of ideas in the developments; combine or share material with the previous topic
Individual topics: Foundation II
Conditions for negation, implication, transitivity of implication…
Conditions for the specialized logics
Sense in which physics is a logic
Necessity of reference for logic to apply, i.e., be paradox free
3.1.10 Alternative Foundation in LOGIC
The void and the Universe are equivalent
3.2 TWO DIVIDES in the EVOLUTION OF BEING: COSMOS and SYMBOL
3.2.1 Origins
of a COSMOLOGICAL
SYSTEM or COHERENT
PHASE-EPOCH of the UNIVERSE
3.2.2 Origin
of the FREE SYMBOLIC
Capability
3.3.1 Origins of a Cosmological System. Essential Indeterminism Must Result in Structure
3.3.2 Local origins of Quasi-Causation and Quantum Theory
3.4 Human Being: Mind, Symbol and Value
3.4.2 Aspects of Mind. Consciousness, Feeling and Awareness
3.4.3 Aspects of Mind. The Categories of Intuition
3.4.5 Knowledge, Logic, Culture
3.5 Being II: The Nature of Being
4 JOURNEY IN BEING: A MAP OF THE JOURNEY
4.1 What is the ‘Journey in Being’
4.2.2 Metaphysics: unity in understanding
4.2.3 Metaphysics, philosophy and the Journey in Being
4.2.4 Characterizing metaphysics and philosophy
The topics from the two following sections have been placed in the outline and it remains to place the contents
The first foundation is in the concepts of the VOID and the UNIVERSE
As philosophy, radical doubt is self-negating and therefore empty; as attitude it is valuable but valuable: doubt by itself does not generate knowledge or foundation, its function is to eliminate unclear thinking and untrue assumptions. Instead, replacing doubt by emptiness and thought by being results in the concept of the VOID. The VOID, which is empty of ALL BEING, even of pattern and contingent law is subject only to necessary LAW, the LAW OF CONTRADICTION: only what is contradictory is impossible – the single law of ALL BEING. The VOID is the original UNITY of actual DIVERSITY. Bound by no contingent law, the VOID is generative of ALL BEING, and the concept of the VOID, foundational of the understanding of BEING AS BEING
Primary implications
ORIGINAL LOGIC: the LAW OF CONTRADICTION: what is not contradictory is possible – the single law of THE UNIVERSE; identity of the actual and the possible; the possible is materially necessary; recurrence of all actualities and possibilities and the nature the ultimate
Therefore, as an example of necessity, and in illustration of the earlier discussion of CONFUSION OF SYMBOLS, ‘Jesus Christ is raised from the dead’ obtains in countless actual cosmological systems i.e. coherent phase-epochs of the entire one uni-verse
Ultimate identity, behind contingent distinction, of ALL BEING...and, in consequence, the actual and the possible conflate; what is possible is materially necessary; and recurrent; there is BEING that spans ALL BEING in its awareness or knowledge
Interactivity of ALL BEING and therefore there is one and only one universe: the phrase ‘THE ONE UNIVERSE’ may be replaced by ‘THE UNIVERSE’ or ‘UNIVERSE’; dynamics of origin of a coherent phase-epoch of the universe such as ours, meaning and description of ‘origin of space-time,’ of quasi-deterministic, quasi-structural and quasi-causal domains
MIND is coeval and co-extensive with being i.e. as elaborated in FOUNDATION, MIND is being… MIND is being-in-its-relations: if ALL BEING is material then mind is matter-in-its-relations; in a coherent cosmological domain, residual indeterminism is the foundation of novelty and the free element of MIND at the foundation of the symbol and so of human choice, value, knowledge, logic as distinct from the root
Necessary and empirical aspects of LOGIC; concept of DYNAMICS of being and its identity with LOGIC; possibility of metaphysics, definition of a complete system of problems of metaphysics starting with the concepts of POWER and the VOID… illumination and resolution of this system as discussed here and, later, in METAPHYSICS
Possibility of the JOURNEY IN BEING as defined in the SOURCES
Summary of ideas important to the development
BEING
The concept of being has been given a dual foundation in the ideas of power and the void
The problem of materialism is rendered unimportant. In not holding matter in high esteem, science, philosophy, and thought lose nothing – no explanatory or predictive power is lost. The idea of the nature of matter evolves with science and knowledge is not a completed concept. Materialists, however, may think that the world is lost in not regarding matter as ultimate. It could be argued that matter is what has power – a generalization of the idea of matter as what is sensible. However, matter as the subject of, e.g., theoretical physics is a distinct symbol from that-which-has-power. It could then be argued that it is the ‘final destination’ of the subject of theoretical physics that will equate to power. Although this is a distinct possibility, its demonstration would be in two parts. In the first, there would be what has been called a ‘final theory.’ In the second, it would be shown that the final and fundamental theory is sufficient to explain all being; this, rather than some factor intrinsic to a restricted discipline, will be the criteria of finality… It is important to note that the position here is twofold. [1] As revealed by empirical and conceptual study –e.g. science– the understanding of the nature of matter is in transition. [2] There is no loss in being agnostic about the ultimate understanding of matter. Instead, there is a gain in removing the shackles of restriction of ontology and thought to a premature concept regarding the nature of being
It is in the MEANING of being that experience is –a phase of– existence
In other words it would be a mistake to think that experience implies existence as if the latter follows from the former
Solipsism is the position that nothing exists outside experience – it is an attempt to be minimal with respect to entities that are asserted to exist. The consistent solipsist does not assert that the various entities of the world do not exist as they are or seem to be; rather, she or he maintains that, logically, their being cannot be accepted until proven. In order to examine the position that there is only experience, which may be called the ‘solipsist stance,’ its consequences may be examined. From this position, it follows that there is no world, not even a private world, of the thinker –or thinker– but there are only thoughts – which are a part of experience. It may be responded that ‘experience constitutes the world;’ however, this is merely substitution of a different sign but is not the introduction of a symbol or a definition. There would be the experience of identity and continuity but that experience would not correspond to the identity of the individual – for there is, in the solipsist stance, no individual. Similarly, the words ‘you,’ ‘I,’ ‘her,’ and so on would carry the experiential connotations of different individuals but, in the solipsist stance, these would be mere fictions. That individuals and objects are fictions has, as has been seen in various ways, truth to it. At this point, it could be said that the words, you, I and so on correspond to no more than the solipsist’s ‘fictions-of-experience.’ No theoretical or behavioral distinction between the stances has been established. Therefore, to evaluate the solipsist stance, its implications may be further considered. In the stance, there is the experience of personal identity and the experience of other individuals. The personal identity may, for example, speak Spanish, may know some English, and be reasonably good at mathematics and so on. There is, then, the encounter with others – directly, face-to-face, and, for example, through books and journals. In the solipsist stance, there is now, the following curious situation. In all experience – the fictitious experience of the other is not true experience in the stance – there is a certain ability to do mathematics, a certain facility with Spanish, some facility with English, but no German, no Greek and so on. Yet there is, somewhere in the experience, a place where there is German being spoken and yet not understood. There is the reading of mathematics books in which there is encounter with mathematical thought that far exceeds the ability to do mathematics – since there is only experience there is only ability, not my ability or her or his ability. The solipsist stance now faces the following kind of contradiction or paradox. There is and is not the ability to do mathematics. There is and is not the knowledge of German, of Greek, and of every ‘other language in the world.’ Examples such as these, and many others, show that solipsism is, on consideration, self-contradictory except on the admission of separate centers of intelligence and action. Further, paradox apart, solipsism is not the minimal position that, in its statement, it may appear to be. The solipsist logic points in the direction of the standard theory of the world as populated by distinct individuals, with distinct identities and distinct systems of experience
It would appear that the standard theory is the minimal one. The solipsist system of explanation becomes ‘Ptolemaic’ in its working out. However, except that the standard theory is a description of use, there is, thus far, no proof of it. What would constitute a proof? In some sense, what is wanted is not proof but understanding or description of the state of affairs regarding individuals and identities. However, a ‘proof’ might run somewhat as follows. The proof starts with the description of states of affairs according to the standard ‘theory.’ Alternative explanations are attempted. What would an alternative explanation be? It would deny the existence of identity, of the individual and others. It would then be found that the standard theory appears to be the minimal one. The concept of power could then be used to corroborate the equal status of individuals. The THEORY OF BEING or becoming from the void together with the explanatory models of becoming developed in this essay would then show the origin of individuals. Elements of explanation would include the intersection of primal mind and being at the core; and the origin of stable entities as in general cosmology. There would be an exposition of the standard theory that would show the solipsist’s contention to be a natural mistake. There would be a discussion of other difficult points in the philosophy of identity. In the end, there may result a somewhat satisfying system of explanation and illumination. What would have been proved? There is no ‘proof’ – if proof is taken to be the deduction of consequences from axioms, definitions and so on within a consistent axiomatic system. Proof of this kind requires a contained –closed– system and thus proof in this sense is not possible. However, what is not logically possible is not, when the understanding is correct, to be desired. The desire for proof would be based on the confusion of a closed, e.g. axiomatic, system with an open one – the open system of the world. In that open system, understanding is freshening and the quest for proof debilitates the realization of the possibilities of being which, as argued in this essay, require action and risk or openness. That the world is somewhat as it is taken to be has been shown. That it is not altogether as it is often taken to be has also been shown – as in the main thrust of this essay. The possibilities of being have been exposed. Regarding identity, the true objective may be to understand rather than establish
The use of POWER and foundation in the VOID
The resulting ontology –THEORY OF BEING– is one without substance or infinite regress in the foundation or source of being
This THEORY OF BEING enables a theory of identity that may minimally answer the question of solipsism. This thought is implicit in the foregoing development where an outline of some approaches to a theory of identity has been given and it was seen that understanding is more important than demonstration
These ideas enable the elimination of categories of being and make no distinction in the being of things. Thus, there is no distinction between form and thing. This requires re-conceptualization of ‘form’ and eliminates the need to postulate or argue for a separate world of forms. Form is real
The nature of an entity would be known if its elements were given. This requires appropriate conceptualization of the element. Except for the void, there are no universal elements. All systems of elements have a practical character. The element lacks absolute character
There is one universe. This world is not distinct from ‘another world.’ There is no separate world of the sacred. Anything that is sacred is in this world. Although the articles of faith –religion– may strain the imagination, they may be seen as freeing the individual from a confusion of practical and absolute necessity i.e. of probability and necessity. The articles of faith –excepting the frequent and widespread confusion of religion with what it is not– are not patently false; they have power to illuminate or they do not. What is false is that there are two worlds, the world of the sacred and the world of the mundane. The sacred has immanence in the mundane
To a Skylark, P. B. Shelley, 1792 – 1822, opens, ‘Hail to the blithe spirit! / Bird thou never wert’ and so seems to assert a transcendent character to the skylark that derives from its immersion in another dimension or world. I think that it is because of this separation of worlds and the apparent diminishing of this world that I have not found a resonance of feeling with the poem. Shelley’s Ode to the West Wind, with which I have resonance, opens, ‘O wild West Wind, thou breath of Autumn’s being, / Thou, from whose unseen presence, the leaves dead / Are driven like ghosts from an enchanter fleeing…’ In these lines, there is no derivation of power from a transcendent world although there is a suggestion of emptiness or death in the simile of the ghost. These thoughts are recorded not as proof, but as suggestion that the world is seen-felt to have most power when it is experienced as whole in itself
The insight that LAW AND PATTERN ARE IMMANENT in the entities that constitute their range of application
In the void, there is no pattern and law. The void, as conceived here, is an advance over the classical conception of the void or vacuum in which, laws are thought to remain
While immanent in the entities that constitute their range of application, law and pattern may be thought of as imposed from the void by contingent and selective elimination of alternatives which is also the source of local pockets of quasi-causation
The idea that KNOWLEDGE IS THE EFFECT… of the one in the other
This is the key to elimination of the mind-being distinction. It is important to note that this elimination requires an extension of the range of the concept of mind and is, as a result, not a true pan-psychism. A True pan-psychism is a projection of mind-as-we-locally-manifest to the universal
This idea is a key to the understanding of symbol, ideal and external object. This leads to an understanding of truth in which it is not necessary to have a theory of truth. The classical theories of truth are illuminated and their limits shown
LOGIC is possible when there is one being –or property or state of affairs– that is distinct from another
Logics arise from specialization of context. There is no logic that has application in all contexts including the void. There is no universal logic. This does not contradict the earlier assertion that ‘the single law of logic is that only what is contradictory is impossible’ for that assumes the context of exclusion i.e. of sufficiently determinate being
An alternative foundation starts with LOGIC. Since the condition of absence is equivalent to all contexts, and since the core of LOGIC is, in its conception, what is applicable in all contexts, the two approaches are equivalent. The earlier foundation focuses on being, the alternative on logic
LOGIC. The one law of LOGIC is the LAW OF CONTRADICTION that only what is contradictory is impossible
There is an art of LOGIC as the art of estimating the possible
The condition for LOGIC [the LAW OF CONTRADICTION] to have application is that there be determinateness of being i.e. there are distinct entities A and B such that A is not B. The condition to deploy LOGIC is that entity be a form of intuition, which includes symbolic reference, but at the primal level is the same as the condition for LOGIC to apply. LOGIC always ‘exists’ but need not always have application
There is one LOGIC but there may be many specialized ‘logics.’ The condition, in the previous paragraph, for logic to apply, immediately makes for the possibility of implication and negation. That an entity is A implies that it is not B. However, further restriction is required for e.g. transitivity of implication, for the combination of states of affairs –& and or– and other features that make it possible to formulate a sufficiently powerful version of the propositional calculus. A logic is the enhancement of LOGIC in a context in which the introduction of ‘laws’ is the result of a narrowing of focus. Therefore, the naïve assumption that a logic has unrestricted focus or reference may be expected to lead to ‘problems.’ The essential problem regarding a general context of the values ‘true’ and ‘false,’ given that no formal proposition is both true and false, is that a naïve assumption of truth may imply falsehood (and vice-versa.) I.e. the essential problem will be that of paradox. Although axiomatic logic is powerful, the appeal of constructive logic is that the context is defined by construction and therefore the potential for paradox is open to inspection. Axiomatic formulations may avoid paradox by the introduction of a principle to avoid them e.g. the theory of types. A middle ground is obtained through the idea of ‘implicit construction’ in which only propositions are allowed, i.e. in the case of formal sentential propositions, only those that have a truth-value are considered
Now, as clarification of the concept of logic, consider whether physics is a logic. Naïvely, even an axiomatically specified field of theoretical physics is not a logic. However, if a context is regarded as one in which only certain modes of being and patterns of behavior obtain, then –a field of theoretical– physics may be regarded as a logic
A proposition is a symbol. In the absence of application i.e. reference – actual or potential, sentences in the form of the proposition do not denote actual propositions. Therefore, they may be referred to as merely formal propositional sentences i.e. formal but not actual assertions. This point may be illustrated by and used to clarify the famous liar and related paradoxes. Consider, first, the proposition, ‘This proposition is true.’ Is the proposition true or false? If it is true, it is true; and, if false, false. However, with out an additional assumption, a truth-value cannot be determined, i.e., the proposition does not have an intrinsic truth-value. This might be unexpected since the proposition has obvious sense and reference – it refers to itself. However, it is easy to show that the proposition only seems to refer to itself. It can be rewritten ‘The truth-value of this proposition is ‘true.’’ Thus, more accurately, the –intended– reference is to its truth-value; however, it has just been seen that the proposition does not have an intrinsic truth-value. Thus, there is no actual reference. It is the absence of reference that is the source of a ‘void’ truth-value. In the absence of reference, a sentence in the form of the proposition cannot have a truth-value
‘Construct’ the following context. A solar system has exactly nine planets, every planet has a color, and the third planet is blue. Propositions are labeled A, B, C… and propositional variables are labeled x, y, z and so on; and all propositional sentences about planetary colors have a truth-value. It is clear that if x is greater than nine, propositions about ‘planet x’ may lack reference i.e., if x is allowed arbitrary values, the context is not constructive. However, in order to make a point, sentences containing arbitrary values of x will be temporarily considered propositions. Let A be the proposition ‘Planet x of the solar system is green.’ In general, (A) is either true or false and, if x = three, it is false. Now consider (B,) ‘Planet twenty is green.’ Since the solar system does not have planet twenty, (B) is not false. Therefore, (B) is true. I.e. planet twenty is green. Identical reasoning yields a contradiction, ‘Planet twenty is blue.’ I.e. reference is necessary for a proposition to have a truth-value. Alternatively, reference is necessary for a sentence in propositional form to be the sign of a proposition. That is, not all sentences in the form of the proposition are actual propositions. Next, consider, ‘Planet twenty is green and planet three is blue.’ This compound proposition has reference and, if it is assumed to have a truth-value, it may be seen, as for (B,) to be true and false. Thus, in order to have a truth-value, propositions in the form of sentences must have no ‘empty’ reference. I.e., for a proposition to have truth-value it must have reference but no empty reference. Taking up ‘This proposition is true,’ again, it must be conceded that, regardless of whether there is partial reference, there is an empty reference. Therefore, it does not have a truth-value. Therefore, the assumption that it does have a truth-value results in a contradiction –that it does and does not have a truth-value– even though the sentence itself is not self-contradictory
Therefore, the following form of the liar paradox, ‘This statement is false’ or ‘The truth-value of this statement is ‘false’,’ is lacking in complete reference and therefore does not have a truth-value. I.e., the invalid assumption that it has a truth-value is at the root of the liar paradox. The paradox is not due to self-reference. Thus ‘This sentence has five words,’ has a truth-value despite self-reference. In the liar paradox, since the object of reference is the truth-value, it follows that its truth-value is determined by its truth-value. I.e. the liar paradox sentence does not have a truth-value. The following line of reasoning now suggests itself. Assume that ‘This statement is false’ has a truth-value. This implies the contradiction that the statement is both true and false. Therefore, ‘‘This statement is false’ has a truth-value’ is false. Again, the assumption of a truth-value results in a direct contradiction but, in this case, also results in the sentence being self-contradictory
In summary, a sentence in the form of a proposition must have actual or potential reference and no empty reference in order to have a truth-value i.e. in order to be a proposition. Assumption that arbitrary sentences that are formally propositional are symbols for propositions results in invalid systems of logic. One approach to correction of this situation is to allow only real i.e. actual propositions
The relevance of these considerations outside the field of formal logic may be questioned. The question may be addressed as follows. Firstly, and generally, it has been shown that LOGIC is the core of the understanding of being. On a concrete level, there are everyday but invalid assumptions and beliefs whose foundation may be traced to simple logic errors. Additionally, when society as a unit moves ‘forward’ and when the motion has basis in an esoteric system of formal thought that includes the theoretical sciences, considerations such as the present ones help to avoid unnecessary error. I.e. although I have asserted, earlier, the need for openness to error – without which we become closed to growth, it remains valuable to avoid gratuitous error
The discussion of relevance now turns to a consideration of limits of thought and language
Relevance for “What can be shown but not said”
What are the limits of propositional language? One limit is the necessity of reference. Potential propositions i.e. those that are not known to not have reference may lead to paradox if they turn out to not have reference. More significantly, there may be ‘objects’ to which one cannot refer. Thus, I may talk of ALL BEING without actually referring to it. Well known paradoxes arise when one talks carelessly about all being or even when talking of ‘all things specified by an arbitrary property.’ However, there are well known ways of explicitly avoiding classes of paradox. Is it possible to avoid all paradox? It appears that this is not possible. Therefore, should we not engage in talk outside of the formal languages constructed to avoid paradox? Theoretical considerations of what may be said or thought are attempts at understanding and do not imply that silence is required in practice. What may be implied is that attempting to speak “whereof one cannot” may result in paradox or senselessness. (Note that “whereof one cannot speak…” is about the limits of language and thought in language and about what it is not merely difficult to know or empirically impossible to know but what is logically impossible to know; this is relevant to critical thought.) However, the needs of action may leave no choice. Therefore, the theoretical injunction regarding silence implies a practical caution but not a practical necessity. However, the injunction is often taken to be a practical necessity. There is utility but no necessity to absolute caution of thought in relation to action. The academic appears to have a choice but not all academics choose to avoid paradox at all costs. In mathematics, the benefit reaped by risking paradox is too great for some mathematicians to forego. Similarly, there is no necessity that philosophy should forego the ‘paradise of error’ in all its endeavors. I.e., caution is useful but not to the exclusion of all risk. In the world, however, the choice does not exist unless one consciously attempts to avoid the world. Even if the individual attempts to avoid the world, the world may intrude upon the individual. In essential reality there is no choice. What is the principle involved? Risk cannot be avoided; further, it is not always possible to estimate risk. The principle applies also in academics. Certain knowledge does not invariably yield the most certain action – or even the best action. When the academic depends on public resources and public sympathy, there results an imperative in the modern world, c. 2005, to an appearance of certified knowledge, e.g. the Golden Gate Bridge is catastrophe proof, i.e. to risk avoidance. That appearance must be part illusion. In its history, academics can be granted no permanent exception from the law of risk. Therefore, in order to live, it is necessary to ‘speak’ so that action is possible. Life is always experimental. Risk may be reduced but not eliminated. Reducing –perhaps attempting to minimize– risk is but one function of science, of logic, of reason, and of academics
In the previous paragraph, it is not implied that analysis of thought, of language, of sense, of reference, of senselessness, and of paradox is without significance or use. These activities shed light on understanding and help eliminate gratuitous error and non-sense which is intended sense without sense or real reference. One, perhaps implicit, motive to the elimination of all error and paradox, to say only what is true –and therefore only what is obviously true– is to reduce thought and living to a method or algorithm. Arguments in this essay show that this is not possible in an embedded way and that insistence on method results in being closed to possibility
What may be said of the non-propositional functions of language? At present, allocation of the author’s resources requires limitation to the following brief response. The situations in which language is deployed to non-propositional ends are part of the world and may, therefore, depicted in propositional form. Elaboration and development of this line of thought is left for a later project
What may be said of the limits of thought? Response to this question is a brief repetition of the earlier, tentative argument, in RESEARCH PLANS that what can be thought can also be said
Regarded as a process, it is not clear that there are necessary limits on thought and language. This conclusion meshes with the earlier one that there are no necessary limits on being and does not contradict the foregoing limits regarding thought as an embedded system
[As used here, DYNAMICS is not the dynamics of the physical sciences but may be regarded as including the latter as a very special case]
DYNAMICS is the art of effecting the possible
By a simple extension of its scope, LOGIC is identical to DYNAMICS. Used in this sense, LOGIC includes the previous sense and is its natural extension on the view from the root, that being and knowing are identical
Greater detail regarding the treatment of DYNAMICS is given in the SOURCES
DYNAMICS does not play a significant explicit role in the development in this essay. However:
DYNAMICS is the basis of ESSENTIAL TRANSFORMATION
UNIVERSE and the VOID: the concepts. It is shown here that it is inherent in these concepts that THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE LAWS
The void, which is nothingness and therefore entails the absence of all laws and patterns, is present in all entities, which are therefore equivalent and may interact. The void, all actual entities, and the universe, which is all that exists are entities
If the void is ‘appended’ to an entity, the entity is unchanged i.e. the result is the entity. However, due to the absence of law, there is no restriction on the void, which may therefore transform the entity into any other entity. However, since the result of appending the void to an entity is the entity, it follows that the entity is self-transforming into any other entity. This may seem to be paradoxical. However, it is paradoxical only on the view that the normal intuition is necessary; it is no more paradoxical than that being is indeterministic. It is a result of the essential indeterminacy at the core of being
The theory of the void is equivalent to essential indeterminacy at the core of being
Regarding any two entities as an entity, it follows that they must be capable of interacting
The universe is all that exists. The void and the universe are entities. Therefore, the universe is equivalent to the void
That being is essentially indeterministic does not mean that form and structure cannot or do not arise. A ‘history,’ in which form and structure never arose, would be a deterministic history. ‘Form and structure cannot arise’ is a form of determinism. It has been seen, in the various discussions of near symmetry and relative stability, how form and structure –relatively determinate being with quasi-determinism and quasi-causation– may arise. It is in the nature of essential indeterminism that form and structure must arise and that the occurrence will present as contingent but may be interpreted as necessary. The meaning of ‘present as contingent’ is that whereas the becoming of form is necessary, the becomings of particular forms in a phase-epoch of the universe are contingent
If all determinate being is the same being, what is the significance of distinction? The variety of being is without end; the phase between recurrences is as if without significance; even when we approach the ‘same’ scene repeatedly, it is done so, almost always, with fresh vision just as in this life hope is always fresh
That which is possible is materially necessary
BEING
Being is that which has existence
The treatment for LOGIC, the UNIVERSE, the VOID, and for BEING, may now follow as in this essay and in the separate essay, FOUNDATION
The essentials of the foundation –THE THEORY OF BEING– are now at a conclusion. Before taking up implication and elaboration, it will be pertinent to consider:
THE VALUE OF THE FOUNDATION
The foundation illuminates being and the journey of becoming and transformation. However, the illumination is not idle but is possible because it has application
The application may be considered to be two-fold. At primal, general, or ultimate all possibilities are shown – in a generic way; and are shown to be necessary. At the human level, there is, above and in the following, application to the development of understanding [METAPHYSICS,] the nature and way of becoming [TRANSFORMATION,] and to ethics [VALUE, GROUP ACTION, and THE HIGHEST IDEAL]
In using the word EVOLUTION, I refer to the fact of origins, growth and development rather than to a mechanism or theory of evolution such as evolution by variation and selection. For, as noted earlier, a mechanism or theory is NORMAL rather than necessary
A foundation for general cosmology is given the discussion of the VOID and in what follows. [The phrase, ‘general cosmology’ is not used in the earlier discussion.] Additional details and discussion of the foundation is in the SOURCES. The details include a discussion of the ideas of time and space which, though important, is peripheral to the present development of the foundation
General cosmology merges with the cosmology of a phase-epoch of the one universe e.g. the phase referred to as ‘our’ or the ‘known universe.’ The boundary is seen as indistinct especially if reference is made to the phase as a phase of being and use avoided for the prejudiced and prejudicial terms ‘physical’ and ‘material’
In the earlier discussion of the VOID and in what follows, it was learned that:
Cosmological systems may be seen as being born from the void… in the origin of sufficiently stable systems; the relative stability results from sufficient symmetry
What is the genesis of such a system? That there can be no prohibition against becoming implies that there is ‘eternal transaction or equilibrium’ between the void and being –more accurately among degrees of becoming– that is marked by becoming and dissolution [un-becoming.] Those becomings marked by sufficient stability are more than merely transient; and of these, some permit, in the same way, the growth of more or less stable super structure. Variation and selection is the principle of genesis
What is the character of the transaction or equilibrium referred to in the previous paragraph? As consideration includes states that are more and more devoid of entities, there is an approach to states in which there is less and less law and necessity. There come points where the absence of entities is balanced by the absence of necessity so that, as approach is made beyond those points and toward the void, there is a tendency to re-populate such states toward higher degrees of actual being
The relative or quasi-determinateness of a cosmological system makes for quasi-causality, quasi-determinism
A cosmological system is one place, at least, that may favor the origin of life and mind as we have and experience them
That essential indeterminism must result in structure follows from the principle that what is possible is necessary; however, this necessity could be (part or an aspect of) the definition of essential indeterminism
A ‘mechanism’ for the emergence of structure has been discussed at various places above. This mechanism is the familiar ‘variation and selection.’ That there is essential indeterminism at the core of being has been criticized in the literature. It is said that that essential indeterminism could not result in the emergence of entities and structure. It has been shown here that non-emergence is a violation of the concept of essential indeterminism. The mechanism of ‘variation and selection’ enhances understanding of emergence but is not logically necessary to a knowledge of the necessity of emergence from any initial conditions including the void
Although not logically necessary for emergence of form or structure, the mechanism of variation and selection has the following features. In view of the fact that there is essential indeterminism at the core of being, linear progression, continuous unfolding, achieving a destiny are not alternatives to variation and selection. Variation and selection may be seen as a multi-step or incremental becoming within the space of the possible. The significance of the term ‘incremental’ is that the indeterministic variations at each step are small in comparison to the stage or form of being [thus, the void is singular in this regard.] Additionally, it is only the near symmetric, relatively stable variations that are selected. Thus, the degree of improbability associated with each step is not high. At this point there arises the familiar objection that, while each stage is not improbable, the final outcome of many stages e.g. an advanced organism is improbable. The objection of low probabilities is a practical but not a necessary objection. Therefore, to take the practical objection as necessary is in error because its force is derived from the assumption that the final stage was ‘destined’ at the outset. This is not the case. It is not implied by the explanation based in variation and selection. Rather, at the outset – at any stage regarded as initial, there is a ‘space’ of not improbable pathways of becoming. The actual pathway and, thus, the outcome are not determined in advance. The actual path, however, is one of many that populate the space of possible pathways. The probability that one of these pathways will be followed is not low. In other words, an assertion that the outcome is improbable is without valid basis
Thus, while a linear unfolding is not among the logically possible alternatives to incremental variation and selection, a single step is a logical alternative. The mechanism of variation and selection makes it possible to see how the incremental path is more likely than the single step ‘path.’ Further, the mechanism of variation and selection makes it possible to see how and why relatively stable being is associated with near symmetry… why there is stable being rather than mere ephemera
Some implications of the THEORY OF BEING and the void are considered immediately below and in a brief mention of SCIENCE
For illumination of the local origin of quasi-causation, the discussion beginning in the section on the VOID may be reviewed. Recall that strict causation does not obtain at all. Rather, quasi-causation arises locally in quasi-coherent, near-symmetric, relatively stable cosmological domains. Metaphorically, the void causes the [quasi-] causation. [This is partially analogous to the theory of Monads in which the void is ‘God.’] Also, note that even quasi-causation is not universal. Note also the significance of reference to near rather than perfect symmetry
The purpose of this section is to discuss mind, symbol and value for beings that are similar to human being in their capabilities
The free symbol e.g. of the human individual is not at all necessary for mind. However, the free symbol is characteristic of many –it may be argued most– phases of experience of a human being as a cultural individual
The human individual, who travels outside culture, deepens her or his immersion in the larger world but does not usually shed the symbolic nature. An exception may be in those cases where return loses its imperative character. Such cases include those in which return is no longer possible while remaining in the coherent phase of being of which culture is a part
It was said above that mind is coeval and coextensive with being – that mind is being. From the perspective of the void and primal power, this is necessary. Thus, it is not a mere fact. Rather, it is an expression of the nature of being
From the perspective of an individual starting at his or her own perspective within culture, ‘mind is being’ is the consistent and efficient extension of the immediate concept ‘mind-as-I-have-or-experience-it’ to the primal level (repetition)
In the SOURCE documents, there is a discussion of the unities and distinctions among the different modes of human symbol e.g. feeling and perception as BOUND and thought as containing FREE elements; and e.g. feeling as being characterized by intensity and perception by detail and form
These distinctions have a neurological basis. Simply, though not fully accurately or completely, emotion has basis in the limbic system and thought in the neo-cortex. However, the neural systems interact. This interaction or communication arises in evolution due to adaptive integration of the psyche. I.e. emotion and cognition interact. This interaction arises in adaptive evolution. The interaction between emotion and cognition is, however, not merely predetermined but is also cultivated. There is no thought that is not tinged with motivation and emotion; and there is no emotion that mu