JOURNEY IN BEING: FOUNDATION, OUTLINE, DESIGN
BRIEF VERSION AND SUPPLEMENT | Presentation
ANIL MITRA PHD, COPYRIGHT © July 6, 2004
Text | Journey: Nature and Purpose | Foundation | Concepts and Design | Sources
This foundation for the Website for Journey in Being is also temporary foundation for the New Site; all previous developments are superseded
Main propositions are a, b, c … and, if stated before reasons, circular argument is avoided. Tentative or repeated propositions are (hyp) or (rep)
Journey in Being, Nature and Purpose – Ultimate and Present
The Form of ‘Journey in Being’ | Purpose | Transformation and the Ultimate | Living in the Present
Foundation for Journey in Being
The Void | LOGIC | The Elements of Being | Two Divides | Mind | Completeness of the Metaphysics
Journey in Being: Outline of Concepts and Design
Introduction: Journey in Being | Document plans | Nature of the Journey in Being | Reason, Heart and Action | Design
Metaphysics: The Logic of Being | Preliminary discussion of being | Design
DYNAMICS: Transformations of Being | The Experiments | Design
Variety of Being: Ideas, Artifacts and Experiments | Design
Action, Charisma and History | Design
Main Documents | Design | Website
a. JOURNEY IN BEING is the becoming, being and dissolution of BEING within ALL BEING and of ALL BEING i.e. within and of the entire one UNI-VERSE. The essence of BEING is that of the journey…
In the previous paragraph, ‘being’ is used primarily to refer to a thing but also to a process as in ‘the becoming, being and…’ it is only in a concrete cosmology that these distinctions are ultimate
Dissolution or un-becoming is also becoming. Becoming, being and dissolution are similar to creation, preservation and destruction. A distinction is that while the latter terms are suggestive of the power of an external agent the former terms are used here to emphasize that that the becoming, the being and the dissolution are intrinsic to BEING. Since there is nothing ‘outside’ ALL BEING, the intrinsic character of ‘creation’ and so on is essential
Journey in Being or, simply, BEING can be named… but, ‘Can BEING be known?’ The question precipitates extreme responses. Grandeur ‘I can know all things.’ And, delusions of nihiliscience, ‘BEING can be named but not known,’ ‘We are a wretched species who can know truly nothing’
An approach that avoids the extremes, though not a middle path is, instead, to think of answering rather than of fixed answers… of coming to know as a process rather than knowledge as a result. Clearly, there are results –we have some knowledge– if we think we do not it must be the concept of knowledge that is deficient. We may think of ourselves as within a process of coming to know. Where may that process lead? Is it without end? There are tendencies to think –encouraged, for example, by the idea of endless progress– that there is no end but thinking ‘there is no end to this process’ is itself a final point in one line of thought. To conclude from the observation that something has not ended that there is no end is an extrapolation but not a necessary conclusion. It is a conclusion that has meaning only on a certain view of BEING – the view that our being, that of a self-described finite being in an infinite universe, is the way of ALL BEING. At the outset of a Journey, at least, and until we have come to Journey’s end we prefer to remain uncommitted on the existence of Journey’s ends and the nature of the ends
Any actual journey is a mixture of opposites. On the Journey, one is moved by vision and the vision of one’s capabilities may approach omniscience in moments of optimism and nihiliscience when pessimistic. What are my actual beliefs or positions? What I actually believe in the depth of my being, in the organic matter, is not identical to what I think I believe in my conscious thought. In some endeavors – art, religion, literature, poetry, morals, what is held in the depth of being is important. In the domain of knowledge of the world, in science, even though motivated from the deep the formal process does not recognize it: both concepts and experiments are laid bare for view and criticism. But true science will question its own method even in the height of its success. Which is to say that at the outset of a Journey, at least, and until we have come to Journey’s end we prefer to remain uncommitted on the nature of the path
…
The following is shown and elaborated below and continued in ‘being and knowing’ ff.
In all becoming there is relation –interaction or potential interaction– i.e. knowledge or knowing… and, therefore:
b. JOURNEY IN BEING, is the UNI-VERSE in its journeys of being and becoming, its knowing and coming to know. These, together, are the Journey in Being which includes all knowing, understanding, discovery, creation, all narratives and stories
…for, properly understood, MIND [KNOWING] is coeval and coextensive with being; MIND is being-in-its-relations or, MIND IS BEING
This response to the question ‘What is the Journey in Being?’ is not conceived as a fact but as a way of seeing the world…
What is being… and what is knowledge? The meaning of being as used here unfolds in this narrative… but also see the discussion of being. Similarly, the meaning of knowledge or knowing also unfolds but see LOGIC, KNOWLEDGE, MODALITIES, SYMBOL, and VALUE for discussion where what is commonly understood as knowledge is shown to be built up of primitive elements that are here included under the label of ‘knowledge.’ Specifically, mutually adapted elements [e.g. two elementary particles in interaction or that may interact] of being know one another in this primitive sense. It is shown that, although the primitive concept may not be validly conflated with knowledge-as-commonly-understood it is, at root, of the same character and the latter is ‘built up’ from the former. Thus, although, knowing has been explicitly specified as part of the Journey –because it is a part that I emphasize– it is implicitly and fundamentally present i.e. being and knowing are bound together in primitive becoming [these considerations on the continuities of levels of knowledge and identities of being and knowing are continued, also, in being and knowing et. seq.]
c. JOURNEY IN BEING is, also, the confluence of individual journeys –especially the author’s and those surrounding and interacting with the author’s; and the author’s efforts to engage with others, with this world, with ALL BEING, with the ONE UNI-VERSE– in the universal journey that is the being of the entire uni-verse. ‘Journey in Being’ is this journey but refers, also, to this Website which includes the narratives for the journey, especially in the essay Journey in Being
The Form of ‘Journey in Being’
The form of ‘Journey in Being’ is a binding –interaction– between understanding and becoming. Becoming includes action and essential transformation of being. That understanding has degrees of separation from becoming as in a traditional concept of knowledge is given; however, at root, there is no final separation and the assumption that there is leads to error –including delusions of unbounded rationality– and incomplete fulfillment. The ultimate commitment of this Journey is realization and essential transformation and, except for the dictates of LOGIC, employs but does not wait for the progress of knowledge in any limited concept
d. The FORM of the JOURNEY is a binding among knowing, acting and being… including the unbound or symbolic forms; JOURNEY IN BEING refers also to my journey, its NARRATIVE, and WEBSITE (partial rep)
JOURNEY IN BEING is not a new form –of becoming and knowing– but a reversion to an original form that includes and employs but is not restricted to newer forms made possible by the symbolic capabilities and their various enhancements as in e.g. poetry, art, philosophy, analysis and science
It has been said of knowledge –especially of science– that it is ideas that die instead of the individual. I.e. before the advent of criticism, knowledge progressed only by risking actual ‘mistakes’ and not by making, testing and correcting hypotheses or tentative ideas. However, crises force us into situations where action is necessary without the ‘luxury’ of reason – even when reason is ideally possible. But the ideal –it is at most a partial ideal– of reason should not lull us into incompletely premeditated action only in crises. As part of realizing the highest potential, we must still be prepared to DIE
e. The broad purposes of JOURNEY IN BEING are two: realization of ultimates in being –of ultimates– and being fully in the present; which include relations –interaction, distinctions, identities– among the ultimate and the immediate
These purposes are consistent with the nature of the Journey
‘Being fully in the present’ includes enjoyment which includes commitment and is –regarded as– an ultimate value. They may entail labor and goals but these have no value without discernment i.e. their values are not intrinsic. Being fully in the present approaches a form of timelessness; were it possible to merely ‘be here now,’ no judgment would be implied regarding a choice to do so
These purposes are, of course, personal but not only personal. It is taken as given that all persons have, at least, an interest in being fully in the present and that there is interest, to humankind in general and some persons in particular, in the concern with and realization of the ultimate
My motivation in undertaking the journey and its narrative include, of course, expression, realization and enjoyment. Contribution and sharing are also motives. There is also a mixture of confidence and doubt, of intuition and reason. Many of the central propositions of the present essay have origin in intuition and hope – suggested by my own reflections and the thoughts of others. Without confidence in the intuition, I would not sustain the propositions as beliefs. Without doubt, the beliefs would not have made the transition to the status of propositional thought. Without some confidence in the originality of the ideas, I would not write; without doubt, I could not create
One purpose is transformation: to discover –as far as possible– all possible transformations of being; and to realize, through right means, the feasible and the good
It is seen below, that when there is no restriction to the present cosmological system i.e. our coherent phase-epoch of the entire one uni-verse, then it is possible to transform to any kind of being. It is in restricting transformations to the present cosmological system that the question of feasibility arises. In classical understanding i.e. determinism, not all transformations are possible. However, since the boundary between the present phase-epoch and its laws and the entire one uni-verse is not a definite boundary impossibility yields to infeasibility even while ‘remaining in’ the present phase-epoch. Additionally, the same boundary indefiniteness always calls into question any understanding of infeasibility
[As noted below, there is but one uni-verse and as a reminder I use the form ‘uni-verse’. Occasionally, for emphasis, I will use longer forms such as ‘the entire one uni-verse’]
The Journey in Being is an experiment, a ‘Journey’ in possibility, discovery, transformations, right means and desirable –or good– ends
In making transition from ‘this world’ to the uni-verse, the local feeling-understanding of the right and the good cannot be taken, a priori to reflection and action, as guides to the universal
In the local sphere, requirements of action, rule out rigid adherence to either the right or the good. A philosopher has the luxury of purism, practical ethics requires a weave of the right and the good. In the ultimate, the distinction between right and good breaks down
The first division of Journey in Being, Metaphysics, is a ‘Journey in Knowledge and Understanding,’ provides some foundation for the Journey. The remaining divisions are experiments in being, becoming, possibility and feasibility
Knowledge and knowing are essential in that change without awareness does not count as meaningful transformation; additionally knowledge and knowing are important in recognizing and effecting possible transformations
However, knowing –in so far as it is distinct from full being– is at most a component of transformation and the way of knowledge is but one way that is always complemented and sometimes necessarily dominated by experiment or risk in the full transformation of being. Yet, as suggested above:
f. There is no original distinction between being and knowing, between becoming and coming to know
In the original becoming of stable forms, the elements are mutually adapted in symmetry that constitutes the stability of being i.e. existence that is more than ephemeral or transient or lacking in form-al coherence. In this adaptation, each element bears a mark of the others. This may be labeled ‘original knowledge.’ The hesitations in applying this label include that it appears to be only an adaptation to but not knowledge of the other and that it appears to be remote in kind from the symbolic forms that we commonly call knowledge as in the phrase ‘knowledge of.’ The response to the hesitations is as follows. Even the symbolic form is knowledge only knowledge in virtue of its adaptation: hypothesis and criticism are the mode of becoming of symbolic knowledge as variation and selection is the mode of becoming of original being. That the knowledge feels as though it is ‘knowledge of’ is due to the forms of intuition being adapted to aspects of the forms of being. This addresses the issue remoteness in kind. That original adaptation appears to be merely adaptation –but not knowledge– is a remoteness in being. The symbolic forms are relations between a ‘subject’ and an ‘object’ that are constituted of material relations – the original relations of adaptation… and the further structuring and layering of those relations. Thus, the application of the label ‘knowledge’ to both symbolic and original forms – and intermediate forms – is consistent, leads to simplicity in the variety of kinds and in understanding and, provided, the original and the symbolic are not conflated does not lead to error. I.e. the concept of knowledge has been consistently extended – to the root; it has not been conflated with a distinct concept. [The process of extension, repeated over and over in the histories of philosophy and science is: form of intuition -> specialized symbolic form -> consistent symbolic extension beyond the original symbolic form based in part in symmetries -> occasional extension to the root and identification but not conflation with ALL BEING or an aspect of ALL BEING.] To use knowledge and other mental terms in talking of all being is to look at the relational aspects of being. To use a material description of original being and functional physiology in talking of the body [brain] is to look at being as object. However, object as object and relation as relation are truncated modes of description made possible by the forms of intuition; these forms are not only useful but give individuals the sense of individuation. However, the forms of intuition are not ultimate. ‘Object’ and ‘relation’ are –among the elements of– the constitution of being; they cohere in the constitution of being
The apparent distinction is based on a common ‘paper thin’ or flat concept of knowledge that lacks ‘body.’ This distinction foreshadows and mirrors the in-distinction of mind and matter discussed subsequently
g. A flat form of a concept is one that has had so much of its body removed that the objects to which the concept refers seem unreal, lose all power, appear to be ‘epiphenomenal,’ or are even denied existence
‘Denied existence’ – this may be an apparently contradictory term for if something does not exist, what is it that does not exist? The paradox is resolved by distinguishing concept and object. A mental picture –description– is the concept; then if there is no object or actuality that corresponds to the concept we say that ‘it does not exist’ which is a figurative shorthand for ‘there is no object that corresponds to the concept.’ Actual existence claims are often problematic despite this clarification; and the problematic nature may arise from variation and novelty in the mental picture or description and the latest data e.g. scientific theories: thus, for example, the question of the existence of ‘ether’ depends on what is meant by the term and current theoretical physics. Suppose, we think of the ether as a pervasive element whose inertia or drag gives mass to matter then the –hypothetical c. 2004– Higgs boson is a candidate for the ether
Sources of flatness: intellectual impatience, an explicit or suppressed urge to positivism, assumption of a role of cultural watch-dog or police, academic specialization, secularization, will to power of those who have no power other than force, loss of will of the subject, patriarchal systems and thought. A remedy is not in religion, spirituality or metaphysics per se but in understanding the concepts as they are. Due to the forces that result in flatness of thought, this is difficult – but, once the process is begun, not as difficult as it might otherwise seem to be. Patience is required; concepts form a mutually dependent system –a field of concepts– and it is the system and the individual concepts require simultaneous analysis; the process may be iterative and each concept may require adjustment. See, also, a brief discussion of slack concepts in the restoration of ‘body’ to a concept
Other connotations of ‘flat’ may include: shrunken, emaciated, thin, paper-thin, one-dimensional, empty, barren, disembodied
Once concepts have been rendered flat, the original concept may be labeled ‘metaphysical’ and thereby appear to be in the realm of the absolute inaccessible
The nature of concepts has been treated in the sources. It is not important to elaborate the concept of the ‘concept’ here; however, in this essay, there are some important aspects of ‘concept’ that are repeatedly drawn upon
h. The simplest notion of ‘concept’ is that of ‘referential mental content.’ It should be remembered that ‘reference’ is metaphorical; and that even within the metaphor, not all reference is actual and, therefore, ‘referential’ may be replaced by ‘referential or potentially referential’
There is at once a problem about the reference of a concept which has to do with the ‘picture’ of a concept as a picture; so, it is important to remember that, at root, reference is interaction and not re-presentation or de-piction of the object in the ‘subject.’ ‘Concept’ is itself a concept. The forms of intuition are concepts; in holding an intuitive form, the subject functions as though the forms are real and this may be thought of by thinking of the subject as living in an ideal world has more or less correspondence with the world. Most of the varied meanings of ‘concept’ are built upon the basic notion: i.e. they are potentially referential mental contents that are efficacious in understanding. The source of ‘efficiency’ is purposely not specified: it may be a grouping or it may be a form of intuition and so on. Concepts are, typically, useful in understanding the world but not every putative concept has adequate reference; this is one sense of the use of ‘potentially’ and the other is that while a concept may be regarded in abstract it may also be held as a mental content. The ideal world picture also applies to the conceptual construct; although the referent may be thought of as existing in an ideal world even this is a metaphor. Therefore, to ask whether the world exists or whether space-time exists is not to ask whether our concepts are accurate; we may assert that the world exists and has extension-duration even while our concepts may be like shadows. A concept may have a number of meanings –and shades of meaning or use– and, to avoid confusion, these can be regarded as distinct symbols; it is therefore, not at all necessary to be obsessive about having ‘gotten it right’ about the variety of meanings to the point that thought is blocked. As far as shades of meaning for the same symbol are concerned, this may regarded as subject or sense side slack. The following factors are important in the analysis and development of a concept: to have sufficient understanding of the history of the concept so that the trivial errors of history are not repeated, and to be clear about one’s sense of the concept. It should be remembered that the most current sense of a concept is not necessarily the deepest or the most useful i.e. the senses of concepts may become flat; and, in regaining body it may be useful to allow temporary slack [e.g. incomplete definiteness of reference; see the sources for further discussion] in the concept which may be tightened later. It is a sign of a mature system of understanding –a metaphysics– that concepts are tight (hyp) and in tight relation with one another in a field of concepts
However, it is not a requirement that all concepts be ‘tight’ i.e. have no slack for that requirement would be a statement about the world. We are used, in our mature theories, to working with concepts that appear to have precise reference but that is because the theories refer to a part or a phase of the world that is capable of being described with precision. It is not impermissible to regard all concepts as transitional
Even remaining within the realm of transformation that is possible –or thinkable– and feasible and desirable there is an immense range of possibility for the individual, society or civilization; and the choices –considered and contingent– define and are defined by the character of the individual, society or civilization
The following discussion further illuminates the range of choice available: the immediate, a phase-epoch of the one uni-verse, the ultimate and the evaluation of possibility, feasibility and necessity
i. All states of being are possible that are actual… or imaginable, thinkable, describable, conceivable i.e. not containing or implying contradiction
[Demonstration and conditions of validity and feasibility are given in foundation]
‘Contradiction’ requires elaboration. It is sometimes said that what is not self-contradictory is possible. However, there are non-self-contradictory ideas that may contradict actuality i.e. imply that what is actual is impossible and or may contradict the various equivalents of principle of the void. All actuality is ‘contained’ in the principle of the void which requires no assumption. Therefore, in fact, it is sufficient to equate ‘contradiction’ with ‘self-contradiction;’ however, without specification the various forms of contradiction are not at all manifest in self-contradiction and therefore it is practically necessary to refer to contradiction rather than just self-contradiction
That only the contradictory idea is impossible is The Law of Contradiction. It is seen in the sources that even the law of contradiction is not as limiting as it may seem. This is because, given two apparently distinct objects, there is third object that is an integration of their identities; and that due to the Principle of Being, all objects are of the integrated form even while there may be a ‘simple classical’ object that is the primary manifestation
Need for care and some aspects of care needed in using this concept of the possible are described in What Things are Possible?
There is no contradiction contained in or implied in ‘Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.’ There is no contradiction in continuity of identity after death. ‘Death’ is a concept. It appears to be extremely unlikely in this phase-epoch of the uni-verse that Christ did indeed arise from the dead – in any material and literal sense. Perhaps Christ was a magician or perhaps charismatic enough to inspire legend; and perhaps men want to believe. However, in consideration of subsequent reasons, ‘Jesus is raised from the dead’ obtains in countless actual cosmological systems i.e. coherent phase-epochs of the entire one uni-verse
[I use this example precisely because it is shocking to the empirical sense and therefore it makes its point most forcefully. The choice of example is not a statement of personal belief, inclination or commitment and is not intended to be a statement about religion. Were a statement about religion intended, I would not make it in the form of a judgment but, rather, as a statement about the bounded nature of rationality and, in action, the power of belief [faith] – and therefore of the comparative selective force of belief in relation to reason. Additionally, while common knowledge including science serve a valid and useful function in understanding and survival –selection– they are not absolute. The shocking assertions of religion –e.g. ‘shock therapy’ in Zen Buddhism– may serve to dislodge the hold of common knowledge on the individual and point the awareness to a more inclusive truth
… but faith may also result in subservience –relinquishing personal power, in corruption– the abuse of power, and in displacing even valid reason. Thus, selection of a group is not justification of its beliefs
The example is also of a kind that may later be used in discussing knowledge, belief and faith]
j. All transformations are possible that begin and end in possible states
k. Thus, in this way, becoming is indeterministic but results, occasionally, in stable states where determinism and causality or quasi-determinism and quasi-causality
The origin of determinism i.e. of quasi-deterministic phases of being is considered below and discussed in some detail in the sources
This is the subject of value [axiology] which includes ethics [aesthetics]
l. An impossible transformation or state cannot be desirable; and one that contains an internal contradiction cannot be described, imagined or thought
This is part of the project of ‘Journey in Being,’ especially Experiments in Transformation of Being; the key is ‘DYNAMICS of Being’ also see Logic and Dynamics
m. The ultimate and the present require one another
Living in both enhances the quality of all experience
Once the ultimate is realized the purposes remaining are quiet and seeing; and ‘then’ dissolution, fragmentation and forgetting; this is good
n. In the realization of the ultimate, integration and dissolution of vision and being co-exist
‘Doubt’ as the absence of any positive thought has been taken to be a foundation for positive thought. As philosophy, radical doubt is self-negating, therefore empty. As method or attitude, doubt is valuable in encouraging criticism-examination of foundations, but incomplete: doubt alone is not generative of foundation. An alternative foundation is suggested by analogy: replace doubt by emptiness, thought by being the void which is absence of actuality, of be-ing, may be taken as a foundation for actuality… for being, for the world. This pretty analogy is not intended to be foundational…
… Logic itself will, below, find the nature and the foundational nature of the void and in that, in turn, a foundation without dualism or essential monism, without substance and without infinite regress
Allowing word play, the foundation in the void is foundation without foundation. Allowing analogy, security requires letting go. Or, it is not required to find a foundation but simply to know that the foundation is at the ground
o. The concept of the void is that of what remains of the world when ‘everything’ is absent
The first meaning of the void is a literal meaning – that of nothingness, of absence
The so-called existential meanings e.g. of existential angst have no literal connection to the meaning used here; the void is not and has no direct connection to ‘existential’ nothingness
There are various difficulties –logical and metaphysical– that may be associated with the concept of the void or nothingness. It has been denied that ‘void’ refers to anything; logical contradictions have been associated with the concept, its formulations and elaboration; and there is a vagueness associated with what has been written of it. I have identified and addressed the main issues in the present essay and the sources
It is natural and necessary that there will be affinities among different developments of the concept
It is fundamental, here, that all concepts are regarded as open and in a process of elucidation and that no initial assumption is made regarding the existence of a termination point to the process. I have attempted to use this approach consistently… in the evolution of ‘Journey in Being,’ in asking ‘What is mind?’ ‘What is matter? and so on and also in asking ‘What is philosophy?’ ‘What is metaphysics?’… This is particularly true of the void regarding which I am able to look back at the history of my development of the concept and see a progression from an initial point of intuitive use to establishment of the concept to increasing depth and clarity. The void may be better thought of as something to be discovered than given; especially in regard to what counts as ‘thing’ in everything. The consequences of this approach include:
The development and elaboration of the concept and its understanding including an understanding that nothingness is continuous with being rather than an ‘antithesis’ of being. The elaboration of the concept includes, in parallel, a treatment of potential paradoxes and contradictions and simultaneous understanding of the depth within the ‘womb of nothingness’
The initial point of understanding of the depth is that nothingness cannot be, simply, a mere absence of things in the simple sense of ‘thing.’ For, absence of things in permanence entails an implicit law: a law of absence. Therefore, in the void, there may be no permanent absence. As an actual entity, the void is occasional. As a concept the absence is not essential but contingent
An elaboration of consequences stemming from the foregoing concept and logic as developed below on the nature of possibility, necessity, annihilation, recurrence, identities among being… and the nature of logic itself
An understanding of the ‘original’ nature of becoming. It is seen, as above, that becoming is necessary – elimination of becoming is not minimal – but what is its nature. If in the void there is not even pattern or law what is the original nature of becoming? It cannot be law-like. It must, therefore, be non-given: non-deterministic. How then is structure possible? It can only be that when among the ‘random’ becomings, some are [relatively] stable in virtue of [relative] symmetry that there is [relative or semi-] permanence of form which amounts to the becoming of structure. The description of this process and consequences from the underlying logic are detailed in this essay and in the sources. However, the following –in which the word ‘relatively’ omitted for convenience and because it is relative stability that is experienced as stability– is fundamental
Becoming and symmetry is a fundamental mode of becoming that results in stable form. The further development and elaboration of stable form rests on the same mode. If there are other modes that are yet unimagined, determinism is not one of them; however, the logical nature of the discussion of becoming suggests that there are not other modes of becoming. Stable forms are populated also by transients that, in the nature of stability, have little effect or interaction with the stable; except occasional annihilation which may be viewed also as and is similar to annihilation by the void or self-annihilation. Within the stable forms there may be effective or partial determinism and causation but determinism and full causation, in the nature of the logic of the void, can have no universal application except perhaps by occasional, contingent and improbable accident. It is in being within stability i.e. within a stable, coherent phase-epoch of the entire uni-verse of being that entities can have stable knowledge without foundation from without; can perceive patterns not only because of the forms of intuition but also because they exist i.e. the forms correspond to ‘objects.’ Stable form through becoming and symmetry is, therefore the mode of becoming of physical, living, sentient and knowing –cognitive– being that may be otherwise referred to as evolution by variation and selection
The dialectical concept history clearly finds placement but not absolute immanence in this framework. The concept of the absolute idea finds interpretation
[The interpretation is worked out in this essay and has some early elaboration in the sources]
p. All categories, laws, patterns, things, relations are included in ‘everything.’ Laws are things. Laws are not distinct from things. Laws and things have equal immanence in a coherent phase-epoch of the uni-verse
Therefore the void is not at all the quantum vacuum which contains, at least, positive seeds of law
The intuitive idea of a ‘thing’ or an object is the objectification of the intuition. But a ‘thing,’ too is a pattern of being a law –or expression of a law– that is the pattern of its being, the law that permits or conditions and ‘makes possible’ its being
Necessary absence would require actual –not merely conceptual– necessity; therefore contingent absence is closer to the ‘true’ concept of void than is necessary absence
q. It follows once, since void = nothing and void not = any given thing would be laws, that the void is equivalent to any given thing and to all things
This may be called the Principle of the Void
r. Thus the void includes –the potential of– all things and in this extra-temporal way being is determinate and deterministic
… or, more precisely, being has phases of determinateness and determinism
s. Similarly, anything may transform into any other thing, into ‘nothing’ or into all being. Individual being is equivalent to any and all being
[This may be called the Principle of Being or the Principle of Becoming from the Void or the Principle of Identity. This principle is equivalent to the Law of Contradiction… and to the Vedantic principle that ‘I am All Being,’ the identity of the self and all being i.e. that Atman is Brahman. I often refer to the Principle of Being where I could refer to the Law of Contradiction because I arrived, first, at the principle of being and because the Principle makes manifest certain consequences that are implicit in the Law]
In other words identity is not at all as constant as it may seem. Accepting the conditions of being in the present coherent phase-epoch of the uni-verse and over human time scales identity is normally relatively constant for many practical purposes
I use ‘I,’ ‘we,’ ‘me,’ ‘our,’ and so on in reference to the present identity. This use appears to imply a constant identity as is commonly and conveniently taken to be the case but which, due to the above principle the identity, is not fixed. For many practical purposes, the feeling of having a constant identity is natural and valid because while we may have an identity –and a nature– relative to the present phase-epoch of the one uni-verse that identity is not ‘universal identity,’ that nature is not the ‘universal nature’
Occasionally, I may omit specification of the meaning of ‘I,’ ‘we’ and so on but it should be clear that if I am referring to a contingent i.e. not a logical restriction then I am referring to the limited form. It should be remembered that even for the limited form e.g. ‘me the me of this life in this phase-epoch of the uni-verse’ limitation is not absolute but one of likelihood, of probability, of feasibility and perhaps of imagination, perhaps of shared delusion of finitude or of insignificance – the contrary of a delusion of grandeur
t. Or, there is a void attached to every-thing –and to all being– that is ‘waiting’ to transform it into any other thing including the void which is ‘annihilation’ of the thing or of all being
u. All things may interact
v. There are no universal laws except ‘logic’ according to which only the ‘impossible’ will not obtain
The laws of ‘physics’ are the laws or our expressions of law or patterning of this coherent phase-epoch of the uni-verse. Those laws are not at all absolute laws. The only absolute law is the law of contradiction. The laws of the present phase-epoch are sometimes treated as though they necessarily apply to all physical objects but this is clearly not the case. The applicability of the laws contingent to the present phase-epoch and apply only while remaining there. Even that limitation is only likely due to the foundation in the void. For many purposes, while remaining within a coherent cosmological system or coherent phase-epoch of the uni-verse the exceptions are colossally unlikely. ‘Remaining within’ includes following the ‘laws’ of the system. However but for all i.e. absolute purposes it is adherence to the laws of this phase-epoch that are colossally unlikely. Thus the identity of objects in the present phase epoch –any coherent phase-epoch– is relative in two ways: due to the relative nature of the being –laws– of the phase-epoch, see e.g. recurrence, below; and due to the quantum –indeterministic– character of objects as described by the laws of the phase-epoch
w. There is [but] one uni-verse
I would refer only to ‘the universe’ but the near universal use of ‘universe’ in reference to what might be termed ‘local universe,’ ‘known universe,’ ‘coherent phase of the cosmos,’ or ‘bubble universe’ has required that I continue to use the redundant terms ‘the entire universe’ ‘the one universe,’ ‘one universe,’ or ‘one universe.’ I will now use the form uni-verse to emphasize that I mean ‘the entire one universe’ but will occasionally use the longer forms for emphasis
x. In view of the foregoing, ‘grey’ may be an excellent word for the void
Other possibilities: nothing, no-thing, nothingness, non-being, emptiness... consider Sanskrit, Latin or Greek equivalents
y. There is a valid preliminary distinction between no-thing i.e. no thing versus nothing versus nothingness but it is based on a misconception of ‘thing’ (hyp)
The misconception is that ‘thing’ is limited e.g. to hard, material, local, connected object; but as we have seen, laws, patterns… are things
z. Since there is one uni-verse, what is or what may be actual is the possible
aa. All states of being are possible that are actual… or imaginable, thinkable, describable, conceivable i.e. not containing or implying contradiction (rep)
‘I imagine a contradictory state’ is not to imagine a contradictory state. Care is necessary to avoid ‘imagining that a contradictory state has been imagined’
To name or designate an hypothetical state is not to imagine a state. Examples: ‘I imagine an unimaginable state,’ ‘I imagine that three equals four’
The following is a contradiction: the imaginable, thinkable etc. that says or implies that anything that is actual is impossible. As an example consider thinking of ‘A state in which there is never any change in the uni-verse.’ For such a ‘state’ to obtain would make change impossible
bb. All transformations are possible that begin and end in possible states (rep)
Logical necessity obtains of a proposition that is true in all contexts
cc. Material –or actual– necessity obtains of that which must occur i.e. of that which is possible
[Here, material is not used in the sense of matter]
dd. What is possible is materially necessary
The reasoning similar to earlier reason; a requirement for the possible to not manifest from the void would be a law. Similarly, since any possibility and any given state are both equivalent to the void a requirement for the possible to not manifest from any given state would also be a law
ee. What is materially necessary is not thereby likely
ff. In this coherent phase-epoch of the one uni-verse common knowledge and science are an approach to estimation of likelihood and the realization of the possible
But despite experiencing grandness of vision, in the context of ‘infinity of infinities,’ of ‘eternity of eternities,’ see that precious little is known –by humankind– little experience had of what is beautiful, little feeling had for the ‘desirable’ or the good
gg. Some states that are ‘difficult’ i.e. of limited likelihood may be desirable goals, values or objects of contemplation
hh. Since ‘something’ is possible –it is not a contradiction– something must occasionally exist. ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ has been called the Fundamental Problem of Metaphysics which is thus trivially resolved and trivialized. The problems, ‘Why is there presence in the sense of presence of being to the world [awareness, consciousness,]’ ‘Why am I alive?’ are, though apparently more interesting, similarly trivial
ii. What is possible –thinkable, non-contradictory etc– obtains over and over without limit –beginning or end or boundary– in space-time
As described here, recurrence is a generalization of the idea of recurrence in time and of repetition in space
I could have used ‘is’ or ‘exists’ but have used ‘obtains’ as being neutral with regard to tense. Similarly, I prefer ‘obtain’ to ‘has occurred,’ ‘is occurring,’ ‘occurs,’ or ‘will occur’ as being more accurate when describing the extension-duration or being-duration manifold as a whole
Recurrence follows from foregoing considerations since repetition of what is possible is possible. But, perhaps that is not the case e.g. since some instances of what is actual may require the co-existence of the entire uni-verse i.e. those instances may be possible only in the context of the entire uni-verse in which they occur. However, this requirement may obtain only in a ‘universe’ that is actually a law-like or coherent phase-epoch of the entire one uni-verse
jj. Pain and dissolution, beauty and joy obtain. Pain and pleasure have significance in an actual phase-epoch of the uni-verse. In any self-adapted or relatively stable phase-epoch, capacity for pain and pleasure and capacity for endurance are in balance and organisms that are capable of choice experience occasions in which they endure their nature
kk. As a consequence of the development of the nature and fact of recurrence, there is no –ultimate– distinction between the possible and the actual
There is pragmatic distinction between ‘actual’ and ‘possible’ when restriction is made to our local universe or coherent phase-epoch in its classic conception
ll. The following states are thinkable and therefore possible, necessary and –from the equivalence of individual and all being– realizable: a being that ‘transcends’ the gap of emptiness between and so gives meaning to the recurrences; all being complete in itself and self-knowledge
mm. The transcending of the gap of emptiness between recurrences means: the instances of recurrence are contained in being or knowing
From the considerations in these sections on the ultimate and on recurrence the fact of the immense vastness of the possible becomes clear. This clarity is enhanced when we consider that the vastness is conceived in thought –what is thinkable etc– but at the same time the vastness must contain thought that is vastly more powerful than ours since that too is thinkable. I can conceive without fully picturing it of an infinity of ever expanding pictures of being
I am a speck upon a speck-planet in a speck-universe… and at the same time as representative of being and in my continuity and final identity in all being I, and you, are immanent in the uni-verse. Our measure is not contained in quantity or magnitude
The genesis of a coherent and relatively stable phase-epoch can be described as in the sources. Such a description is not at all necessary for the present metaphysics shows the necessity of the actual. However, the given description is an explanation –based in variation and selection against an indeterministic background– that shows the origin of a coherent, relatively stable phase-epoch of the uni-verse i.e. of a cosmological system such as the present one. Transition from ‘chaos’ to ‘order’ must involve process and thus variation is logically necessary; that variation should be a continuous transformation into a stable form or state is law-like i.e. a logical violation of the condition of the void and, therefore, it seems that logic also requires ‘selection.’ Perhaps there are other kinds of genesis of stable cosmological systems involving some ‘principle’ of continuity e.g. God but, at present, I see no escape from regress to an origin by variation and selection from the void. In a coherent and stable phase-epoch there may be robustness of object and or object perception and robustness and continuity of identity; without the origin of stability, instead of robustness and continuity there is transience and Ephemerality. Thus the description is an explanation or theory of genesis – but this is a topic in
Cosmology is taken up later… see the sources for details of development thus far; and see physical cosmology. A distinction is made among general, actual and physical cosmology. Physical cosmology is the cosmology of this phase-epoch of the one –and only– uni-verse; general cosmology is the study of all being – kinds, distribution and interaction of entity with regard to ways of being within and as containing extension-duration and without restriction to category e.g. mind and matter. An actual cosmology is a coherent instance, perhaps ‘local,’ of cosmology of which physical cosmology is an example. If there is a sufficiently general scheme of coherence e.g. foundation in the void then there is no ultimate distinction between general and actual cosmology
In considering the relation between an actual cosmological context e.g. a phase-epoch with the uni-verse a number of interesting considerations arises. For the entire uni-verse all properties are immanent. However for a restricted context properties may be either –or both– immanent and imposed depending on the degree of detachment of the context from the whole. As a result and in consideration of the fact that the only universal law is the law of logic i.e. that the only states that cannot obtain are the impossible or contradictory ones it follows that
nn. There are concepts of God that are not contradictory and, will therefore, obtain in endless actual cosmological contexts. These will include both immanent and imposing Gods and singular and diffused Gods. It does not follow that there is any relevant actual God in the present phase-epoch of the uni-verse
As part of cosmology I also take up
…as coordination of extension-duration. That there is becoming is the being of duration labeled ‘time’ and explains the apparently paradoxical ‘origin of time;’ that what has become is not unitary is the being of extension; intrinsic time is possible only with extension [structure] and it is in this that time and space are originally bound together
…there is no unique time; multiple times are possible with degrees of coherence i.e. weakly and strongly coherent ‘times’ [Multiplicity of time is not analogous to dimensionality of space but corresponds to independence of the elements. This independence, of necessity, can not be eliminated. The appearance of degrees ‘universal time’ is due to coherence among the elements in a coherent phase-epoch of the uni-verse]
…this explains the apparently paradoxical possibility of the ‘origin of universal time’
[…a tentative distinction may be made between a ‘black void,’ the absence of all things, and a ‘grey void,’ the absence of all difference. However, this distinction is not real for there is no actual being or presence or actual duration in the grey void. The utility of the thought of the ‘grey void’ is in the illumination of the imagination: we can think of the grey void as harboring extension and duration without actual extension duration and so imagining that actual duration and extension crystallize out of the grey] (hyp)
…the foregoing is not at all a theory of space-time but a picture-foundation for the beginning of one
The argument regarding ‘God’ of a previous section can be applied also to space-time which therefore can be immanent or imposed in any actual cosmological context
We know psychological states of being-in-the-present that are ‘beyond time,’ ‘eternal in the present’
…but see, above, there is actual being-beyond-time that may co-exist with being-in-time. The void may be described equally as being-beyond-time, being-in-time and containing time(s)
Traditionally, logic has thought of as ‘the principles of valid argument.’ An equivalent notion is that of deriving ‘new’ data or knowledge from given knowledge without further information
‘In the void’ there is neither thing nor law nor necessity except unconditional necessity i.e. the only impossibility relative to the void is what is absolutely impossible. Consequently, ‘logic’ may be absolutely generalized as follows
oo. LOGIC is the art of estimating the possible
Below, the ‘possible’ is analyzed and shown to be identical with the actual provided that ‘actual’ is not restricted to any phase of the uni-verse and in this sense there is no distinction between possibility and necessity of being
pp. Consequently, LOGIC includes the art of the necessary
This is concept of logic different from, but includes, the traditional notion of ‘logic.’ The traditional logic is logic as usually understood and associated with the names of Aristotle – Frege – Russell – c. 2004
How is the traditional notion of logic located within this framework? The traditional notion is of the form: if there is necessity –or possibility– in thought then it is of a certain form. E.g. if there are truth and implication then a logical calculus may be developed around these concepts i.e. a formal logical calculus may be developed around those terms. There are good reasons to trust the logical calculi from experience and, especially as in the case of the propositional calculus for which both consistency and completeness may be demonstrated. The origin of logic is in experience; and its application in the world of experience is always an evaluative and critical process
Traditional logics are applications of LOGIC in contexts of necessity in thought
It has been seen, in the law of contradiction, that the only impossibility is the contradictory i.e. the only impossible state is one whose concept involves contradiction. Therefore,
qq. The one law of LOGIC is the law of contradiction; i.e. LOGIC is the one and only LAW that applies to the entire uni-verse
LOGIC
The first requirement for a capability for LOGIC is that the concept be possible; and then LOGIC asserts only that the contradictory concept is impossible. However, concepts are actual and therefore possible; and therefore the existence of LOGIC requires no more pre-condition than that ‘there are concepts’
However, in asserting that the contradictory concept is impossible, it is not being said that there are contradictory concepts; and if there are no contradictory concepts then LOGIC would exist but be empty. However, the contradictory concept requires only discernment –of distinction– without which there can be no concept. Therefore, the existence of non-empty LOGIC requires no more pre-condition that that ‘there are concepts’
LOGIC is possible if contradiction is possible in principle i.e. if potential reference is possible [the concept]
Potential referential content is necessary and sufficient for ‘propositional attitudes’ and the essential precondition for abstract or abstracted symbols
From cosmology it is seen that all elements in a coherent cosmology have mutual adaptation; and, from the logic of the void all elements have potential adaptation. In the existence of potential adaptation there is ‘potential reference’ in a sufficiently loose meaning. In this loose sense, LOGIC is always possible. However, this loose meaning has little significance for human being
The characteristic of human beings that makes potential reference possible is the capacity for free elements of cognition; these make symbol and language [in the propositional mode of expression] and traditional logic possible; and they make for potential reference as-we-have-it
rr. The class of beings for which LOGIC is possible is defined for the capacity for free elements of cognition
This requirement for contradiction is also the requirement for symbol, choice and decision, and error
Various modes of description are possible. In quantum mechanics, an object may be in a superposition of two states that, in classical mechanics, would be exclusive. Therefore, what constitutes a contradiction may have empirical content but that contradictions are impossible is not empirical. The possibility of contradiction is inherent in the existence of ‘mode of description.’ The impossibility of contradiction may be thought of as the original and trivial tautology… trivial, of course, in statement, but not in its consequences
Traditional Logics
Now ask whether the traditional logics have empirical content. Traditional logics are applications of LOGIC in contexts of necessity of thought. The empirical content of a traditional logic is in the existence i.e. the empirical validity of the context which is a mode of description. If the LOGIC were constructed from actual primitive elements it would seem that consistency would be built in from the start; however, if stated as an axiomatic system, consistency necessarily becomes a concern
The foregoing emphasized the conditions on the ‘subject’ side; here emphasis is on the object side. The following discussion is taken from ‘What is Journey in Being’?
Becoming results in more or less stable being; the least stable are transients or ephemera and the more stable are relatively durable. Even in the most transient, there is a kind of knowing. However, it is in the more stable that there is (more) determinate being and more determinate knowing. The more determinate are stable in virtue of a near symmetry that is their form and the stamp of the universal. According to the argument that a pattern or a law has being so too does the form or the universal. We conceived the form or the universal as a stamp or a class but instead we see them as immanent in being or beings and thus possessed of being
Determinate being is the necessary condition for logic: i.e. that in having being the individual has not some other kind of being which gives rise to the possibility of contradiction that is the constitution of logic: only that which has contradiction is impossible. The single law of logic is the law of contradiction that only what is contradictory is impossible. It is also determinateness of being that makes the capacity for logic possible since, at root, knowing is being. Logic and the capacity for logic are founded in being that is not absolutely indeterminate though such minimal logic and knowledge are far removed from the knowledge and logic of the symbol as we know it they are the foundation of our knowledge and logic in that it is their elaboration that constitutes ours. What is the condition for determinateness of being against the background of all being? It is a restriction of focus such that the identity condition for all being does not hold. An example is the restriction of focus to an actual coherent cosmological system that is inherent in the nature of some individuals within such a system or a choice to limit focus by individuals with the free symbolic capability
ss. I define DYNAMICS as the art of effecting possible transformations; the concept of DYNAMICS is different from the c. 2004 concept of ‘dynamics’ but includes most concepts of dynamics and, as a special case, classical and quantum dynamics [physics]
tt. And, by a simple extension in scope, LOGIC is DYNAMICS. LOGIC and DYNAMICS are the art of the possible
…the extension of a flat concept of logic
I have not recognized the equivalence of LOGIC and DYNAMICS before; hitherto and most recently I thought of DYNAMICS as resulting from an expansion of the scope of LOGIC
uu. LOGIC includes physics
Whereas physics is the science or study or determination of possible physical states of affairs in this phase-epoch of the uni-verse, LOGIC is –simply– the study of possible states
A typical problem in physics: given some conditions i.e. information about the actual physical states in this phase-epoch of the uni-verse and under its laws, to determine further data about actual physical states
Typical problems in LOGIC: determine all possible states consistent with some facts or conditions regarding the states. When the number of facts in ‘some facts’ is zero, this prototypical problem in logic is LOGIC as used here
Thus it becomes apparent why LOGIC is the art of the possible, what is physics and why is physics is included in LOGIC
Similar analogies with other disciplines are possible e.g. other sciences, the symbolic disciplines of language, traditional logic, and mathematics
vv. LOGIC is the law of the uni-verse. The only universal law is LOGIC (rep)
ww. LOGIC as understood here includes the traditional notion of logic (rep)
xx. ‘Knowledge,’ though traditionally thought of as distinct, is a ‘chapter’ in logic. Logic includes ‘knowledge’
Thus far we have mentioned the disciplines in which rigor appears to be a focus – and while even demanding rigor is useful in growth and application of science it is not clear that it is good in every way –even the most important ways– in the long term… for what is it to be alive, to be human to have and seek being? But we now ask ‘May logic include the arts, religion, the humanities, technology… indeed may logic include all endeavor?’
yy. It is not necessary to belabor the idea that logic includes e.g. art. However the assertion is shown in two distinct ways. Art is concerned with the possible as seeing, as creating… and as inspiration toward vision and creation; and even as it falls short it is an aspect of art that it is an attempt to the highest vision, creation and inspiration
These thoughts receive earlier elaboration in the sources
It is important to not lose sight of the rigor and precision of traditional logic. However, it is now possible to understand the place and limit of that precision. It is also possible to see the mesh of precision with ‘quality.’ ‘Quality’ is the most inclusive; precision is an ‘instrument’ but not merely so: for some and for some purposes, precision is an end. Ac