JOURNEY IN BEING
Document status: January 16, 2007
Outdated; maintained out of interest
Essential content absorbed to and no further action needed for Journey in Being
Outline:
Introduction. Foundation. Journey in Being…2
Fundamental Problems. Lexicon. Sources and Influences. Bibliography. Index. The Author
1 Introduction
Objectives. 1. Introduction – in ‘Dimensions,’ to the scope and in ‘Themes,’ to the nature, goals and ambitions of the Journey; the main ideas or concepts and themes. 2. Preface – outline and audience
1.1 Dimensions
In this essay I have written of a system of transformation and of particular transformations – a journey that is a confluence of individual endeavor and universal process
Consider the universe commonly understood from humankind’s major paradigms of science and scripture (for example the Bible.) Or consider the universe as depicted in stories, poetry or myth. Consider the picture that emerges from all stories written or told. In so far as these stories, fictional or true, have definite form, the picture developed in this essay and so the potential of the journey is infinitely greater in depth, magnitude and variety
(It is assumed that when the stories are fictional they contain and entail no contradiction)
Among texts, ancient and modern, perhaps only the picture of the universe from the philosophies of India have approximation to the picture revealed here
The central developments and insight in this essay are founded in Logic (capitalized when I use it in the special sense to be explained shortly) and simple experience e.g. the fact of experience. If this is true, and I claim that it is, then the developments and claims based in them are more secure than those of science or faith
Some readers will doubt these claims; others may have sympathy for such claims and may anticipate the picture that I show. Of all readers I ask that they suspend judgment until they have traced through my argument and narrative
The conceptual Foundation for the journey is in the second chapter; the third, ‘Journey in Being,’ narrates the transformation. The development of the conceptual base is part of the process but the goal includes transformation not only in ideas but also of identity or self – of being
The conceptual foundation has two roles. First, it is a description of all being –of the universe– based in imagination and Logic and, second, it serves as foundation for transformation. However, it is no more than foundation for transformation requires its own journey and experimentation. I anticipate that I may find aspects of pure experiment or action for which the foundation provides no preparation. At present, the transformations are under way – the system and progress so far are described in the third chapter.
I will now attempt to show the magnitude of the canvas that has been revealed in the journey
Being
‘Being’ is that which exists or has existence. Being is that which ‘is.’ The words ‘being,’ ‘exist,’ ‘is,’ have day-to-day uses that are perfectly adequate for many immediate purposes
These words are simple in their day-to-day use and are ‘general’ in nature e.g. to say that something is blue is much more specific than to say that it exists for everything exists (the reader may see that statements of the kind ‘everything exists’ contain an implicit paradox that is addressed later)
It is precisely the simplicity, general and uncommitted character of ‘being’ that is its virtue and that recommends its choice as a base from which to apprehend the entire universe and its variety
To suggest that some specific kind e.g. that matter may provide such understanding is to prejudice the endeavor from the beginning. If the universe is nothing but matter then the approach from being can only strengthen ‘materialism’ i.e. demonstrate it rather than assume it on the basis of (limited) experience
I emphasize an approach in which the nature concepts and categories (kinds of ‘thing’) are not taken as given in advance but whose natures unfold with experience and reflection
I have applied this approach to the most general kinds (being, universe, logic) as well as to more specific concepts such as human being, thought and feeling. Recognition and understanding of this approach has been revealed gradually in reflection on many topics and my estimation of its power has been enhanced by the unexpected depth and variety of understanding that it has made possible
Use and development of the concept of being (in the essay) has been instrumental in understanding the entire universe and its variety
Questioning every meaning at every use in day-to-day activity may be neurotic. However, it is essential when paradoxes or contradictions arise or in adapting concepts to new situations. Consider the assertion made earlier that ‘everything exists.’ Is it possible that a thing could not exist? The idea of a thing that does not exist appears to be paradoxical – if it does not exist then ‘it’ is empty and has no reference… If something exists it simply is; but there is a variety of uses of the word ‘is’ (the verb to be.) Resolution of a range of issues is taken up later… It is useful to make the following distinction at the outset. When I say that something exists I usually mean that it exists at the present time. However, since there is no common word that corresponds to existence at some time (and place) i.e. to mean that something existed, exists or will exist, I will use ‘exist’ in this sense as well. That is, I will use ‘exist’ in the usual temporal sense and in the less common atemporal sense (if ‘instants’ of awareness are actually small intervals of time, the distinction is not absolute.) ‘Exist’ and ‘is’ will have a temporal and an atemporal sense; I will specify the sense that is used only when it might not be clear. That time and space may not extend to all realms will require a generalization of the idea of atemporal existence
There is existence – without existence there would be no impressions, not even the impression that a reader is reading words. What exists? In day-to-day activities it is practical to think or act as though trees, mountains, books and automobiles do exist; only the neurotic would never act this way. However, there is a valid question whether ‘the mountain’ of my experience exists because every further level of description also seems to refer back to experience. If we are to be able to speak of things-in-themselves we will need either a dual understanding of thing and experience or to show that they are identical (at root)
The essay addresses the dual versus identity problem of being and experience i.e. of what exists; it further addresses the question of the variety of being (things, entities)
The Individual
Apparently some people claim to know precise details of a previous life; I have read of such people but not met one. Coming into being of every individual consciousness is obviously possible since it occurred at least once. That is, it is possible again and over and over. Development of the nature of being in this essay shows that all possibilities must be realized and, therefore, that every individual consciousness must be repeated infinitely into the future and has been preceded infinitely into the past: it means that every individual has been ‘here’ before. These conclusions have significance for the understanding of the place of an individual –and of humankind, even of life– in the universe, especially as the assertions have basis in Logic. Some people think that it is irrational to suppose that experience continues after death. The arguments given show the absolute error of this idea
The assertion regarding realization of possibility is part of the core foundation that is based in Logic
I do not have personal experience (yet) of having been alive before. Therefore every recurrence that is required by the argument will also lack experience of past and future consciousness. Therefore the recurrence described does not have the significance that there will be a conscious connection among the different instances of the consciousness of an individual
This raises the question of the nature of ‘self’ or individual identity. Perhaps knowledge of previous instances lies in the unconscious (whose existence may be shown fairly easily and which cannot have significance unless there is ‘communication’ between unconscious and conscious ‘levels.’) Therefore, it appears possible that awareness of other instances may enter into consciousness. This argument is speculative but it does show that an approach to connection among instances of the individual may be through identity
‘Identity’ is considered in second chapter, ‘Foundation’ where it is shown that individual or personal identity must have transformations in which it does not forget earlier identity but in which it merges in more inclusive and even universal identity
The ‘end’ of an individual life (death) is far from cessation of experience; the end is at most temporary. Death is gateway to the infinite
The Universe
Modern science has enabled reasonable speculation about the size and age of the universe that may be summed up as the ‘inflationary big-bang’ theory or model that the reader who is not familiar with it may learn about from texts or popular expositions. The bases of the theory are (symmetric solutions to the field equations of) Einstein’s relativistic theory of gravitation, quantum field theories, and experimental observations such as the cosmic microwave background radiation whose low temperature (2.725 Kelvin i.e. just 2.725 Celsius above absolute zero) is the current remnant, after cooling expansion, of an initially hot universe. Calculations based on the big-bang theory show the age of the universe to be about 14 billion years. If there is sufficient mass in the universe, gravity will slow and ultimately reverse the expansion and the universe will then collapse on itself (big crunch.) However there is evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and since 2002 most cosmologists have considered the evidence to be conclusive. An alternative to the big-bang is a steady state model; however, the standard big-bang theory has faced stringent tests. It is possible to push ‘predictions’ of the model to early times (10-43 seconds) based on quantum gravitation for which no consistent theory is yet available; therefore, predictions of behavior at the down to 10-43 seconds is more speculative; earlier than this no prediction from modern physics is currently possible
What degree of confidence may we place on big-bang cosmology? The consensus among physicists appears to be that it well describes the large scale behavior of the universe from quite early times to the present. However, the following questions arise. What happened before 10-43 seconds or even earlier? Are final expansion, further cooling and death or contraction into an extremely hot big crunch the only alternatives for the destiny of the universe? And, where is the edge of the universe and what happens at that edge? In the symmetric models, a universe that reverses its expansion is finite and, like the surface of a sphere in three dimensions, has no edge. However, that a symmetric and edgeless model, finite or infinite, well describes the local behavior of the universe does not mean that the model must apply at far reaches where there may be further singularities or warps (deviations from the model) into other ‘universes’
Since theory and universe may deviate not only at physical edges, these singularities and warps may populate our immediate world
One scenario sees our universe as one of many bubble universes that are distributed in a much larger space-time continuum. Could these bubble universes be causally connected? In the Einstein theory of gravitation, two regions with common origin cannot interact if the distance between them is greater than the distance light traveled since the origin. The reason that light speed is a limit is not that it is an imposed limit but it is the speed at which effects (forces) propagate (light is a form of interaction.) I.e., the ‘speed of light’ is not an arbitrary or magical number, it is a constitutive property of the (local) universe. However, in a universe that includes this (our) cosmological system (that contains what we may call the empirically observed universe) as a ‘bubble’ there is no reason to suppose that modern physics applies at all (over the entire domain) or that the limiting speed of whatever physics may obtain is that of light in our system. Light speed is not necessarily a (constitutive) property of all being (it will be seen that it cannot be a property of all being)
The word ‘universe’ has not been used consistently in the discussion to this point. There is a use in which it refers to this (our) cosmological system. In a more inclusive use, ‘universe’ refers to a system of bubble universes and the continuum in which they lie. All conceptions of ‘universe’ so far build outward from some picture of a ‘local universe’
Instead, I define the universe as all being and this must contain the observable universe and, if indeed they exist, the bubble universes; that this definition make sense requires that there be no entities beyond the pale of interaction with the known; that there are no such entities will be seen to be the case (this implies that Einstein’s theory is, even in local application, cannot be necessary)
It will follow from the study of being developed in this essay that The Universe is infinitely greater in magnitude and variety than the empirically known universe of modern physics or the universe as in the bubble picture. This conclusion is based in Logic
This suggests questions. How does the conclusion follow from the study of being? What is the sense of ‘Logic’ when capitalized and how can anything follow from Logic alone? In modern analytic philosophy, the older metaphysics such as Hegel’s system, as the study of the entire universe as it is has been labeled ‘dogmatic metaphysics’ and criticized as impossible. Apparently, this criticism should also apply to the italicized claim about the universe. How, then, may the claim be supported?
It will be shown later in the study of being that any depiction or description of a state of affairs that does not contain or entail a contradiction must obtain. (This statement is a part of an analysis of being that is left for the second chapter of the essay.) That is, the universe must contain not only what we know it to contain but also whatever can be consistently depicted or described. For example, an infinite recurrence of the known world must obtain. ‘Imaginary’ creatures regardless of similarity to known ones, even ones that violate the known laws of nature, must obtain. Cosmological systems in which the ‘physical laws’ are different from those in our system must obtain. Works of fiction often contain logical inconsistencies; however, for any logically consistent account that is fictional in this (our) cosmological system there ‘is a place’ in the universe where it obtains (‘is a place’ is placed in quotes to indicate that a rough meaning is ‘somewhere and somewhen’ but that more precise meaning will be developed later.) Anything (including works) that is a depiction and that contains no inconsistencies or whose inconsistencies have been removed must obtain. Such works include classical and modern theoretical physics, any consistent variation of such theories, Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species,’ all works of literature including poetry, all ‘scriptures’ such as the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas and the Upanishad, all dreams, reveries, hallucinations, delusions, speculations, hypotheses… The universe is infinitely greater in magnitude and variety than the local universe and, since any actual imagination will likely fall short of all possible imaginations, it is likely infinitely greater than it has been or will be imagined by human being… These thoughts raise a concern. If so much is not only possible but also actual does this not appear to violate ‘common sense’ and ‘common knowledge…’ and what then is the status of the scientific theories; and what is the true status of the various limits that we typically associate with being human and as such being subject to physical and biological constraints?
I will now discuss this concern under ‘This World’ and subsequently address the concerns regarding Logic and metaphysics
This World
I have been talking at a level that reveals our immediate world (the empirically known universe) to be a minute fraction of all being. This does not mean that I have any thought that this world or even the very immediate present of day to day human life to be unimportant or insignificant. In all discussion of the ultimate, I have a concern for its relation to this world and the final two sections of the chapter ‘Foundation’ address the immediate human world
As far as day-to-day life is concerned, I see the individual whether he or she is typical or charismatic, carpenter or religious leader, tribal or modern, worker or academic on the same plane. Our immediate interest is this world
The infinite is seen through this world; and vision or knowledge of the infinite illuminate this world. What has been said above shows that the infinite is accessible from this world
I will now address the concern regarding the apparent violation of common knowledge, the status of scientific theories and limits. The immediate cosmological system and the limits of possibility within that system are related to the limitless possibility (except logical impossibility) of the entire universe through what I call the ‘normal.’ A normal system is one that arises in symmetry (or near symmetry) and (therefore) stability out of a background of transient ephemera. A normal system has ‘form and substance’ and, simultaneously, limits to possibility. However, the limits that are usually or often taken to be absolute limits or to mark the impossible actually mark what is improbable; the forms that may be taken to be universal and necessary e.g. are local and probable. This discussion is incomplete. It introduces a number of terms without explanation. The completion and explanations are provided in ‘Foundation’
Science
It is now possible to provide a partial characterization of a scientific theory. The word ‘theory,’ even in science, has a variety of connotations. Early in the life of what later becomes an established theory, it may be regarded as hypothetical and its satisfactory status may be questioned. Testing and questioning leads to theories being regarded as more established – or questionable and in need of revision or, ultimately, abandonment. Theories may be quite specific as in the ‘Theory of the specific heat of solids’ or general as in ‘quantum theory’ or ‘Einstein’s relativistic theory of gravitation.’ What makes an established theory a theory? It is not merely that it may continue to have an hypothetical character in that it may be overturned by later discoveries. A theory is usually a system of explanation or prediction with a number of fundamental concepts, definitions and laws that may be expressed mathematically or conceptually; this system typically results in a large body of general theorems or behaviors and special applications and predictions. Thus a theory is an elaborate system and this distinguishes a theory from a simple statement of fact
What is the factual status of a theory? What does it mean to say that a theory is established? Does it merely mean that the theory explains or predicts much and has passed every test so far but that future discoveries may overturn the theory? Does this mean that theories are not facts? The history of science reveals that theories are overturned when the body of evidence against them mounts to intolerable proportions and when some new system is able subsume the domain of the old as well as the mounting evidence against the old. Does this not mean that even the modern theories that are regarded as established may be overturned. This is indeed one view. However the discussion of the concept of a normal (cosmological) system suggests an alternative view. Modern theoretical physics applies, in some sense and as far as is known, within this (our) cosmological system. The overturn of older theories was, in effect, an expansion of (our knowledge of the extent of) this cosmological system. Even within the cosmological system the latest theories are not regarded as absolute and there are various doubts regarding the quantum theories and Einstein’s and related theories of gravitation. However, if we imagine the realms where the application of these theories is incomplete as excised then we can see that
A theory may be regarded as incomplete (rather than hypothetical) relative to all being or complete and factual over a limited domain of being. A theory may be seen as factual but this requires focus on a limited domain. Because the quantum and gravitation theories have not been integrated, then regarded as applying to the entire universe they are certainly untrue; but, in the appropriate domains, they are true. However from the fact that the universe is infinitely greater in magnitude and variety than the known universe it the quantum / gravitation theories are true (if and) only if appropriate restrictions of domain are made
The big-bang theory is has a speculative character even within its own domain and it would not be appropriate to excise realms of incompleteness for these are precisely among the realms of interest. The fact that the big-bang theory has hypothetical elements is precisely part of its interest; that there are factual elements is also interesting in that it is possible to know something of the remote past and remote future
Some but not all theories have factual status. It is therefore not valid to think that a system of explanation and prediction is not factual because it is a theory. Judgment of the factual character of theories must occur on a case by case basis. A reason for the distinction lies in the varied uses of the word ‘theory.’ Some scientific theories are established (over a domain of the universe;) other scientific ‘theories’ are in the process of being established over some domain (which process may result in being modified or abandoned)
Consider the statement, ‘It is 10:00 AM.’ If it is 10:00 AM the statement is true – it is a fact; if it is not 10:00 AM it is not a fact. Thus simple statements of a factual kind (facts if true) are similar in this regard to the factual interpretation of scientific theories. However, the truth of a scientific theory seems to be not such a simple affair as the truth of an assertion that is of simple factual kind. Consider then, a simple statement ‘The sun is shining on my garden.’ If a mist forms gradually and gradually obscures the sun there will be a period of time when it will not be clear whether the sun is indeed shining on my garden. Even ‘simple’ facts are not invariably simple in their factual character
Regarded as universal, the theories of science are almost inevitably false. A biologist might object that the theory of evolution universally applies to life. Regardless of the truth of the biologists assertion, the theory of evolution (as it stands as a biological theory) cannot be universal without qualification because it does not even refer to the behavior of matter as such… Many biologists hesitate to assert that the theory of evolution applies at the boundary between living and non-living things e.g. to the origin of life. On the other hands even major opponents of the theory accept that it applies to adaptation within a species but deny that it may explain the origin of the species. The distinction between the traditional biologist and his or her opponent may be seen as regarding the domain to which the theory applies
Regarding theories as factual in kind (i.e. as capable of being either true or false) illuminates the nature of theory. Theories can be true or false even if establishment of truth or falsity is not simple and there are boundary and in-process cases. That is a theory is not conceptually remote from fact. As fact, a theory is seen to capture the essence of a domain or phase of being (thus a quantum theory applies to a certain kind of object, over a certain range of distances and energies and ‘range’ does not necessarily mean ‘space-time’ domain)
The discussion opened with reference to science and scripture. I have made some remarks that illustrate the nature of truth in science and will take up religion or faith in ‘Foundation’
Theory
I have used the idea of ‘theory’ extensively in this essay and so it will be useful to further discuss the concept
‘Theory’ has come to have various connotations within science, within philosophy, and in common speech. The assertion, ‘That’s only a theory’ regarding an explanation may mean something like ‘That explanation is suspect because while it does explain what it was intended to it is not known to be true independently of what it explains.’ Is a scientific theory anything more than this? In the beginning, many scientific theories do partake of this non-independent character; they may have been created to explain a restricted range of phenomena. In fact the scientist may tinker with more than a very small range and with a variety of systems so that when he or she publishes the theory it is at least a good explanation for the phenomena concerned. The development of theories is a process and a scientist may use ‘partial theories’ from a variety of sources in putting together a system. Still, at publication a theory is typically regarded as tentative or with suspicion and it is only after time and success in tests –experimental and conceptual– over time that a theory is regarded as established and treated by its practitioners as factual. However, even ‘established’ theories are overturned
An established theory appears to be factual over, at most, a limited domain of being
Are there ‘theories’ that are factual with regard to all being?
Metaphysics; Logic
Consider the ‘universe’ by which I mean ‘all being.’ Can the universe have a creator? The usual picture of a creator is that it is separate from its creation. In this sense the universe cannot have a creator because there is nothing outside it. The conclusion is logical; it is based on the concepts of ‘universe’ and ‘creator’ and not on any practical concern or difficulty; further, the logical conclusion follows from very general concepts – ones that refer to the entire universe or to a single division of it
It is possible to make universal factual statements based in Logic
How is it possible to deduce anything from logic alone? It is possible when the premise is part of the constitution of the entity or entities under discussion e.g. the universe is all being
In ‘Foundation,’ some very general properties of being will be developed in the approach just established. This will be labeled the ‘Theory of Being.’ It will be a theory in the sense of being a system; however it will also be factual. The factual character will be necessary i.e. logical
It is possible to establish universal theories that apply to all being; that have no limitation to a domain of being
It might be thought that the general nature of such theories requires that their application or utility will be limited. It will be found that this is not true. The system comprised of ‘Being,’ ‘Universe,’ and ‘Logic’ will be found to be have a range of necessary (and surprising) detail that follows from their constitution
Here, simplicity refers to the concept and not to the entity or entities to which the concept refers. Thus the concept of ‘being’ is far simpler than that of ‘matter’ while being itself, its variety, is far greater than that of matter. Simplicity in concept is that of building in less restriction which allows (and, in the case of being will be found to necessitate) complexity of the entities
The ‘Theory of Being,’ and the ‘Theory of Objects’ are universal and factual ‘theories’
The theory of being regards what is; the theory of objects regards what is known. Some views of the world start with a ‘theory’ of objects; these have the advantage that they avoid the problem of knowledge i.e. of the entity that lies behind the appearance (if there are such entities;) these, however, risk being incomplete with regard to being. Other views start with a theory of being and these must address the problem of knowledge. If either theory is committed to a special form of being (e.g. matter) or of knowledge (e.g. fact) their specific kind of problem may be insurmountable. If the theories are uncommitted at the outset, they should be equivalent
The theories of being and of objects are equivalent
(This will be shown)
These theories constitute a metaphysics. Demonstration of the theories is demonstration and illustration of metaphysics. Metaphysics is possible and necessary
Logic is possible because it is the application of logic to constitution. The reasoning can be reversed and it can be said that whatever form is the constitution of all being is Logic
Metaphysics and Logic identical. A logic is the restriction of Logic to a context; Logic includes all valid traditional logics
(In the beginning logic was inference and argument. However, inference and argument (must) follow some pattern of being. Therefore, logic must be some form of being. It may be said that Logic is the form of all being)
The ‘Theory of Identity’ is the name of the theory (mentioned earlier) in which it is shown that individual or personal identity must have transformations in which it does not forget earlier identity but in which it merges in more inclusive and even universal identity. This theory is developed in the second chapter, ‘Foundation’
Metaphysics and this world
In the sections ‘Cosmology,’ ‘Human Being,’ and ‘Faith’ of the second chapter, ‘Foundation,’ I have followed the following pattern. First, I have made a study of the topic focusing on details and general concerns. I have read others works but subject them to critical and imaginative review – the purpose of which is to better understand and adapt what has been written. I have formulated what appear to be general issues and objectives of study; what approaches best illuminate the topics; what insights conform to (I hope) the deepest and necessary (as far as possible) understanding. I will have had a general picture of the world and cumulative experience from life and study that help suggest question and insight
I then take up explicitly, a search for implications of the general theories (of being) for the system of specialized study. This often offers immense insight. If the general theories reveal the universe to be essentially indeterministic, it will then probably be inadequate to regard human growth, behavior and thought as entirely deterministic… and having made a probable connection I may then search for necessary arguments; I have often found such necessary arguments but have not stopped at the necessary for the probable is also useful (I will distinguish what is only probable.) Such general processes are immensely useful but are, for the most illuminating and reliable outcome, depend on insights from the special domain. Clearly the process cannot (or is probably unlikely) have been one of linear logic but has required incremental progress now of one discipline, now of another and now of the general theory. The reliability or necessity of the results depends, in addition to the reliability of the analysis, on the reliability and necessity of my understanding of the particular topic. Thus the actual reliability of the results is varied and I have attempted to indicate what confidence I place in reasons and conclusions
Sharing of ideas and principles among metaphysics (logic, theory of being…) and particular topics (this world, human being…) results in enrichment, illumination and (often much) improved foundation of the topics and elaboration of the metaphysics (and further confirmation of its utility)
Results – general and special
An entire system and its demonstration are developed in the chapter, ‘Foundation.’ Some results have been mentioned earlier. Here I state only a sample
Whatever exists has being; whatever is known is (called) an object. There are reasons to pre-commit to the nature of either being or of the object; investigation of the committed category is easier (in a narrow perspective.) However, if either of the pair (being, known) is specified at the outset of investigation, the prejudicial commitment is likely to make satisfactory analysis impossible. A dual solution of the nature of being and object is possible
It is not just the entities of the universe that have being; laws, patterns and forms also have being
The absence of being, that I call the void contains no entity, no pattern, no form and no law
If ‘from the void’ there were some entity, pattern or law that never emerged then the non-emergence would be a law. Since there is no law in the void, every entity, pattern and law must be equivalent to it. If there is a non-contradictory description of a state of affairs that does not emerge from the void, that would be a law. The void is equivalent to the entire system of non-contradictory descriptions
The void is the complement of the universe relative to itself; therefore the void exists
Therefore since the void is equivalent to the entire system of non-contradictory descriptions, every non-contradictory system of descriptions obtains (in the atemporal sense)
The complement of any entity relative to itself is ‘a void;’ therefore the number of voids is indeterminate – there are infinitely many voids; however these are all, together, equivalent to a single void; there is effectively one void
The only impossibilities are the contradictory descriptions; any non-contradictory description is possible – and actual
Whatever is possible is actual. It is trivially true that whatever is actual is possible. Therefore, the actual, the possible and the necessary being are equivalent
Every non-contradictory description must originate from the void
The formation of a manifest state of the universe from the void is indeterministic. Within a manifest state, further local deterministic-like and causal-like domains may emerge; emergence of deterministic-like and causal-like domains is necessary; every form must emerge – a form is (the pattern of) a relatively stable or self-adapted state of being; forms are dynamic and possessed of relative stability; static, perfect and completely stable forms cannot come into being – and if they did they would not be subject to spontaneous decay
All stories whether in science, or in scripture, or in myth, or poetry or fiction must obtain. (Except that contradictory systems do not.) The universe is infinitely greater in depth, magnitude and variety than any story or system of stories that has definite form
All entities have interaction. Power, the ability to have an effect, is a measure of being (being is a measure of being)
There is one universe. Although this is (was) true by definition, the interaction of all entities do not require the definition
If a ghost is an entity that has and can have no interaction (at all or with some specific entity) then there are and can be no ghosts. However, there are and must be systems of entities that interact very weakly or occasionally with any given entity. Such entities may be called ghosts; a ghost may have any property as long as it does not result in the entire system having contradiction
There are miracles. If a miracle is something that violates the understanding (laws, patterns and objects) of this (our) cosmological system then there must be miracles
(Relative to a complete understanding –of the entire universe– there can be no miracles. It is necessary that there are no absolute miracles)
If a creator is separate from what is created the universe has and can (logically) have no creator. However, one part of the universe can create another part
‘Intelligent design’ is not a solution of the problem of the origin of form. The designer (if design is causal or determinate) must be more complex than what is designed. It is then even more difficult to comprehend the origin of the designer than it would be to comprehend the origin of life (on a model of causal design or origin.) (Human beings are more complex than the systems that they design.) Neither origin as spontaneous is logically impossible. Origin of ‘the’ creator is simply far more unlikely. Although it may appear that incremental origin of life (random variation and selection of what is stable) is improbable, it is (far) more probable than the alternatives (single step origins or creation.) Further, the improbability regards the origin of a given system and not of some (unspecified) system. It was not given in advance that the life would develop as it has; ‘what will happen will happen’ does not have the same meaning as ‘what will happen must happen.’ The origin of complexity must be probable; the variety of complex forms and systems of forms must be infinite; the origin of any one of these (variation and selection) in a given case may be improbable; but its origin in some case must be probable (necessary;) and the background void must generate all cases
The individual is equivalent to every entity and all entities – in body and in identity
The normal distinguishes behavior in a cosmological system from the entire universe. What is seen to be an absolute limit based in understanding of this cosmological system is at most infeasible when the universe is taken into account; what is thought to be impossible is improbable. However, there is no absolute limitation of the entities whose form partakes of the this system to this system; and therefore the only absolute limits are the limits of logic
A problem of the journey in transformation is to find paths or ways to transform the infeasible into the feasible
Journey
Use of the term ‘Journey’ may now be apparent. In arriving at the ‘Foundation’ of understanding, I have traversed extensive realms of ideas and experience (whose useful aspects are elaborated in the essay.) I cannot say that this journey in understanding has been necessary to the conclusion which can be seen as standing independently in Logic. However, some journey is necessary to seeing the Logic as more than a dry framework; and what is the (significance of) life of an individual or society unless it (re) creates its world
Transformation
… and the process continues in a search for transformations of being and identity
1.2 Themes
This section introduces some of the main themes, concepts, and achievements that are developed in the essay. My overriding ambition has been truth and realization (and adventure.) I have learned much from the traditions of thought and experience. Truth requires testing traditional confines and limits and I believe that I have had success in exceeding these. I have shown that the ultimate in truth and realization is explicitly possible in the direction of depth but that it appears to be only implicitly or in-process possible in the direction of variety. Truth also requires testing my own ideas and estimates of my success and I have endeavored to weave together imagination and criticism in seeking and testing understanding. Further, after arriving at conclusions, even (especially) those that appear final, I have sought to apply them, to integrate them with a picture of the world, to flesh them out – to give them life. Application is itself a form of criticism for it may reveal inadequacies and inconsistencies; I have also subject my reasoning and conclusions to explicit scrutiny; and I have learned that imagination subject to criticism secures not only foundation but also enhances understanding and imagination – within their limits of possibility; I have attempted to estimate these limits and compared them with some of the traditional estimates. The development has been cumulative and in continuing interaction with the ideas of others. As a result of the cumulative character of the development of the ideas, it is in its nature that this introduction should provide no more than a glimpse of the ideas, the realization, and their meaning and significance
Journey in Being
Ambition
The essay narrates discovery and exploration of being toward the overriding ambition of truth and realization of all being (the universe.) This does not imply exclusion of the present; the present requires no justification of its value; and, the present is a ‘window’ (since the goals include transformation and realization ‘door’ would be an appropriate metaphor) to all being. It may be more accurate to say that every journey, every process, every voyage remains in ‘the’ present but that the ‘present’ is capable of transformation, of contraction and expansion
Motivation
My external motives, I tell myself, seem clear to me – to contribute, to have recognition… However, my internal motives are not as clear. I know that I experience passion and adventure in the process, that the engagement gives me satisfaction. Why this is so is not altogether clear. As long as I can recall I have thrilled to the world – the green and blue of hills and skies, the rolling of the ocean and its distant horizons, the infinity of the night sky and the shades and shapes of clouds at night, day and night cities of men and machination, and feats of technology; and poetry. These are motivations to better know and experience the world and one expression of this desire is ‘Journey in Being;’ it is perhaps pertinent that my ‘deepest’ insight has occurred or has roots in thought while alone in nature – for weeks to months and miles from roads and other artifacts of civilization. (I work out consequences, interconnections and so on upon return.) However, the process has not been pure adventure; the tension of doubt is difficult, the work has been arduous (at times) and long and I have felt deprived of simple pleasure. I have not denied myself the normal pleasures of being; nor have I wanted to – I am not ascetic in nature or fact but this has made commitment sometimes difficult. Except travel or at the request of friends, I rarely plan ‘enjoyment.’ Instead I (think I) give in to the drive or desire for it and this, though random and undisciplined, has resulted (I think) in an enrichment of the commitment (because it is therefore integrated into life) and a heightened appreciation of living. In that my (inner) motive has an external source I will identify only my parents who were, on one side, significant in passion, poetry and enjoyment; and on the other side, significant in discipline, and in labor and drive to achievement. I do not, however, see any clear separation of the given from the impressed. If all is influence –given and impressed– does originality have a role? Regardless of whether the particular author, myself, has originality the individual may certainly make claims to original contributions; and the argument in favor of originality is simple: five billion years ago there were no human beings, no human language, no myth or legend, no faith or religion, no poetry, art or science. The individual contributes even if only incrementally; and in any system of values in which claims of authorship have a place, individuals may make such claims. Arguments for freedom of will and choice are similar; such arguments do not imply that all is willing and choosing or that they are easy or more than incremental; nor do they show where and when freedom and choice occur. Even being aware of free will and recognizing or creating choice may be difficult… The (my) process has been an evolution of its aspects in interaction against a background –psyche– that remains in a shade between light and dark
Being
Whatever exists is or has being. In intent, the subject is perfectly general – without restriction; the title of the essay does not imply any restriction to a special concern or interest
Why being?
Being focuses attention on ‘what is there’ without saying that it is this or that thing or kind of thing such as matter, mind, process and so on. It allows that ‘being’ might be matter (and so on) but does not require it in advance of discovery. If being is matter, that may be a result rather than an assumption (a priori commitment.) Therefore, if the world is made of matter, the approach from being will strengthen understanding of that ‘fact.’ Thus being is central to discovery with out a priori restriction – to exploration of the universe i.e. of all being. There are various standard ‘metaphysics’ or views of the way the world is e.g. materialism, physicalism, idealism or mentalism, dualism (mind and matter,) process, relationship, logical atomism (the world is a collection of facts that are either not analyzable because the are simple or are items of sense data.) None of these views is without controversy or problem; and this is almost bound to be the case because the view says right at the beginning ‘that is the way the world is.’ Now, an ‘advantage’ of these views is that one is making a commitment, taking a stand. However, to take being as fundamental is also to take a stand: it is to be committed truth and discovery of truth (and, of course, to the nature and domain of truth.) The concept of being involves no a priori commitments and is therefore fundamental and complete with regard to possibility, kind and extent; any ‘problem’ of the journey, of human and other endeavor, of navigation and knowing, is a problem of being. ‘Being’ also suggests connection to the traditions of thought and exploration; this is suggestive of ideas and promotes continuity of this narrative with the traditions
Journey
This material added to Journey in Being (simple version)
Principles of thought1
Anyone who spends time in careful reflection may spontaneously acquire and recognize certain habits of effective thought. Recurrent habits or themes may be recognized as formal or informal collection; the individual may observe that the collection of habits or principles is an ongoing process that is not altogether independent of reflection on the topics of interest. What is currently (c. 2007) called ‘critical thought’ and includes logic is a collection of principles; the forming, accumulation, and adjustment in light of experience of such principles is an ongoing process within culture
The objective here is some ‘principles’ that I have found useful and, since the discovery of such principles is interwoven with thought itself, to illuminate them with examples and brief discussion. The examples chosen are some of the central themes of the essay. This discussion, then, serves three purposes. It introduces the principles. It introduces the main themes of the essay. Since these themes are among the topics that provided the substance for the principles, the discussion is illustrates the origin and development of both themes and principles
The discussion is continued in more complete, systematic and precise terms in later chapters – especially in the section, ‘Logic’ of the next chapter
Introduction; Kinds of principle
A preliminary set of kinds may be written as strict versus suggestive, formal versus informal, critical versus constructive. In the tradition logic may appear to be strict, formal and critical in nature. However, it will be seen that there is a distinction between Logic as e.g. universal law and logic as the understanding or special context of Logic; and that that, therefore, logic is not fully formal or strict. Additionally, logic may also be constructive in suggesting forms of thought (in logic and mathematics, ‘constructive’ has a technical meaning that is not being used in this paragraph)
Thought versus principles
Although, ‘principles’ may be written down the separation may never be complete because the principles are themselves subject to criticism and because new principles may arise. Formalism, which may never be complete, beguiles us into a false sense of precision which may be attained only by cutting of areas of thought (psyche.) There may be no final separation of thought and principles
The place of feeling and intuition
This discussion has two purposes: first, to understand psyche as a whole and within that whole to understand relationships among cognition, intuition and feeling; and, second, to see what consequences these relationships may have for thought (in particular and, more generally, for the individual.) That is, what are the consequences of dislocations, fractures and lacks in the integration of the psyche. Clarification of the concepts and details are taken up in Chapter ‘Foundation’ – the discussion of psyche is taken up in the section ‘Human Being’ and the consequences for thought are taken up in the section ‘Logic’ under a discussion of Principles of Thought
Feeling
In a common use as related to simple emotion, feeling is a form of binding to the world. My state of feeling excites me to action or encourages comfortable acquiescence in inaction or limited action. Feeling is also attached to thought or thinking. Thus feeling is one attachment of thought to self and world. Feeling is not among the standard or usual designated modes attachment which include knowing, understanding, representing, or preparing for action (motivated by other thought or feeling.) That a feeling may present in awareness without awareness of an antecedent is an aspect of the unconscious; this implies that the standard or usual function of thought is not necessarily its only function. A function of thought may be the precipitation of action as though there were reference even in the absence of reference. Thus while the standard criticisms of metaphysics from Critical Philosophy may be valid on the standard function of thought they do not even refer to thought on the ‘alternative’ function. (Critical Philosophy may hold on the standard function of thought, but further require thought –or knowledge– including thought in language to have a particular kind of relation to the world.) Later in ‘Theory of Being,’ Chapter ‘Foundation,’ the possibility of metaphysics will be shown by example. However, even if that demonstration did not exist there would be a place for metaphysics… Feeling is important because it motivates (is a form of) connection to the world. However, it is deeper than mere motivation because it conditions, moves, and interprets (is instrumental in the interpretation of) every perception and every thought. Without feeling cognition ‘freewheels,’ and there is no focusing of perception or thought. In the later development, feeling will be used in a more inclusive sense than its use here. The objective will be to develop a comprehensive theory (model) of the variety of states of mind on the basis of simple states. The system of feeling states will not be altogether simple and will (minimally) need to account for kind or function and, variety, intensity, degree of binding to context, and the afferent/efferent distinction; a ‘model’ of organization and interaction will also be necessary. Two features of the model or theory will be, first, to define and attempt some degree of completeness and, second, to show and characterize the integral character of the psyche e.g. binding between emotion and cognition
Intuition
Here, intuition refers to the characteristic patterns of the modes of psyche –perception, thought, language, feeling– which are conscious but whose presentation in psyche occurs by means that are not conscious. That I perceive in spatial, temporal or causal terms does require conscious construction of a spatial, temporal or causal picture; and there is a use of language that does not require conscious production (some uses are conscious.) Analysis may be possible, either in learning or in reflection but this does not guarantee faithfulness of analysis; this may be a weakness when intuition is adequate but a strength when it is not. Thus even while analysis may be inadequate in showing limits of intuition it may be useful in overcoming those limits. Analysis itself has roots in intuition; that analysis may be rendered as marks on a piece of paper does not mean that those marks have no form at all. Critical philosophy points to the limits of psyche. However, what is revealed is that, without further reflection, psyche is not altogether adequate in revealing its own limits or possibilities
Integration of the psyche
Cognition may be bound or free. The bound ‘functions’ are those that are normally very closely attached to the world; free functions are those e.g. imagination and thought that may have (some of) the form of the bound functions but have no immediate or close attachment to the world. One ‘consequence’ of the fact the free function has some form of the bound is that thought, imagination may occur in intuitive terms; but that full form is not necessary is a source of the symbol; and this, too, is a form of intuition in that the world itself contains indeterministic or formless elements. It becomes clear that there are combinations of the functions that constitute ‘healthy’ psyche and others that constitute a psyche that is detached from the world or is excessively attached or is fractured. It becomes clear that thought is not possible without intuition and lacks mooring in the body (self) without feeling… It becomes clear that the intuitions have only partial susceptibilities to analysis; therefore there are degrees to which atomic analysis of thought is possible and, perhaps, areas within which it may be completely successful but that complete and precise atomic analysis of thought is apparently impossible. What is found, here, to be true of thought (about thought) will be found also to be true of thought about the world (metaphysics)
Criticism and imagination
Both are essential for without imagination there is nothing to criticize, no acquisition of ideas, concepts or knowledge; and without criticism, imagination is mere speculation. In a stereotype, the stern and angry critic eschews all imagination and requires strict adherence to rigorous principle. What is appropriate to require, is balance between criticism and imagination. The proper balance depends on sphere and phase of activity; there is a time for relentless criticism and another for (temporary) suspension of criticism. In actuality the different functions are often performed by individuals with different temperaments; however, any individual may seek a dynamic and reflective balance of imaginative and critical attitude and activity. Imagination is essential in the formulation of critical principles; and is (important in) hypothesis formation while criticism is (important in) experiment and analysis. I think that criticism and imagination are never completely separated although formal focus may be on one or other. When thinking imaginatively, that a thought even has form is critical even if implicit and constitutive – or intuitive. In critical thought, imagination is required in selection, adaptation, application and even (re) formulation of critical principles. I will now state and discuss some of the main ideas (principles)
Reflexivity
A principle should satisfy its own form or criteria (if applicable.) this is the principle of reflexivity. It is one that I think is very important and generative of other principles. The principle can be generalized: every principle should satisfy all principles (pushing this to extreme might be practically absurd; when applied with care the principle may be highly useful.) The generalized principle may also be called reflexivity. Applied to suggestive ‘principles,’ reflexivity is cross-fertilization of ideas by synthesis or analogy. Reflexivity generates both criticism and imagination and critical imagination, imaginative criticism; it encourages search for tacit assumptions and limits. Some persons are naturally permissive in their own thought and prohibitive of play in the thought of others; some other persons exhibit an opposite tendency; applied, reflexivity encourages individuals to move away from counterproductive extremes
Extensive and continuing study, reflection and experience
Ideas in disciplines that are not in the immediate interest may be suggestive of imagination and criticism. When integrated, the system of ideas builds up toward a ‘world-view’ that is extremely useful in the rapid intuitive suggestion of ideas and rejection of untenable ideas. It may be thought that ‘no idea should be rejected.’ There is truth to this; however, given that there is always a welter of ideas (in the literature and in imagination) it might be crippling to have no rough and ready estimation and to have to explicitly analyze every idea. This is reflexivity-in-action at intuitive and even sub-conscious levels. Since a world-view can contain errors and can even be extremely limiting, it is good to have an open attitude towards ‘paradigms;’ this is a form of reflexivity. Since such paradigms are not always held consciously, it is not always possible to subject them to criticism. The individual is naturally resistant to a change in his or her world-view; a perspective that shifted every moment would not function well as a living world-view and, yet, shifts are sometimes necessary (or good or occasioned.) An exposure to a variety of perspectives and world-views is conducive to recognizing such a view as a perspective and, when appropriate, to change
Focus on questions in interaction with answers
On doubt and assertion. Consider the positions of materialism (the world is made of matter) and idealism (the world is made up of mind)
Mind and matter
Materialism is a standard position in the modern world c. 2007. It is not the only position. There are various reasons to doubt it. It seems clear enough (even though there are scientists and philosophers who disagree) that the world has minds in it. But how could mind be made of or be a manifestation of matter? This is one of the reasons for the doubt. However, the doubt regarding the existence of mind has an absurd ring and there are alternatives to this doubt. The first is that the world is made up of more than two (fundamental unchanging) substances – mind and matter; however, if mind and matter can interact as they seem to do, they would not exactly be distinct and so this position also has an absurd ring. A second is that the nature of ‘matter’ is not adequately understood. The notion of matter in science before nineteenth century science was largely of inert particles that interacted (force) without any mediating medium over space. This picture does not seem accommodating to mind. However, even though the quantum theory has not (may not have) explained mind it is clear that its picture of matter is more mind-like than was the older picture. There is no reason to suppose that the understanding of ‘matter’ has ended with quantum mechanics. In fact, there is no reason to suppose that the concept of matter at any given time is a precise description of what exists. Therefore, the statements, ‘the world is made of matter’ or ‘mind is a manifestation of matter,’ are not altogether right or wrong but lack in definite meaning. Therefore, if the objective is to get valid answers, the question ‘What is matter?’ should, pending a final clarification, be held in interaction with the twin question ‘Is the world made of matter?’ Now, a similar assertion can be made regarding mind. Many modern thinkers (c. 2007) object to the idea that the world could be made up of mind. However, any assertion or objection in this regard must be based on an idea or conception of mind; and, in modern practice, also upon a picture that mind obtains at some level or degree or kind of organization of matter. It is generally held that mind does not inhere at the lowest levels but must first inhere at some biological level i.e. at some level that is not the lowest. I have shown that this leads to contradiction and that therefore mind inheres at every level of ‘material’ organization. But this sounds quite absurd. The absurdity is that there may be a mind (with emotions and thoughts) in e.g. an electron. This absurdity is resolved by distinguishing human mind (mind-as-I-experience-it) or animal mind from Mind. This level of ‘Mind’ is not the very highest as in Hegel’s ‘absolute spirit’ but occurs at the lowest levels and is quite unlike human experience but whose organization into levels and so on is ‘higher’ e.g. human-animal mind. It becomes clear that mind and matter are not distinct substances that constitute the individuals (human beings, electrons) in which they ‘inhere’ but distinct aspects of the individuals. With further relaxation of definition it may be said that mind and matter are identical, are the same substance. If our common phenomenal world were the universe, this might be an ultimate resolution of the problem of mind and matter – the problem of substance
The constitution and variety of being
It is possible to go deeper – to ask ‘What is substance?’ and to ask ‘Is there any substance?’ (Substances are regarded as the uniform, unchanging and ultimate constituents of the world. A motive for introduction of substance is to explain or understand the variety of the manifest or phenomenal world in the simplest of terms.) ‘What substance or substances constitute being?’ presumes the existence of substances. Therefore ‘Are there substances?’ is an important question. An alternative to foundation in substances is a foundation in processes (or relationship.) However, ‘Being is made or constituted of process,’ though perhaps productive of insight, and though it does not require substances (there is no lowest level of organization) still sounds rather like substance theory (a modified substance theory might require no lowest level of substance.) I leave for the next chapter the development of the ‘Theory of Being’ that may be seen as a response to these issues
The Theory of Being
The actual source of the theory was a simple and sustained concern the character of being with tentative answers (the substance-like explanations: substance theory or ‘substance ontology,’ process and relationship theory, Plato’s theory of form – to which Aristotle’s substances were an alternative, insight from modern science) that suggested that there is no necessity for substance-like explanation i.e. a ‘foundation’ in the absence of being that I labeled the ‘void.’ In sustaining the question I was finally able to find the logical foundation for the Theory of Being developed in the next chapter. The results of the theory and its consequences have been so simple yet surprising and deep and varied that I continue to question its validity and to even question whether I ‘discovered’ it or stumbled across it (by luck.) Yet the theory shows that: the void must result in being and thus answers the ancient question of why there is a world, that the foundation of being is in the absence of being and that substance-like or form-like theories of being are neither possible nor feasible (but may have extensive practical uses,) that the universe cannot be deterministic or causal at large (it would be temporally deterministic if its state at one time determined its state at all times, the concept of cause is more complex but temporal causation is roughly and circularly the idea that every event is the necessary result of previous events or, in probabilistic causation, the probable result,) that the universe at large must be unstructured and indeterministic and a-causal but that local deterministic-like and causal-like do and must arise, that the indeterministic behavior at large must be complete in that deterministic-like behavior can only occur in limited domains or phases, that there are origins of time and space and ‘matter’ (though not necessarily of Time) while also explaining the apparently paradoxical phrase ‘origin of time,’ that the universe (i.e. all being) is (must be) infinitely greater than the human-empirically known universe in depth, magnitude and variety, that anything that is possible is actual (this assertion requires significant elaboration of meaning before demonstration, in particular however it seems to stand against the common regularities of our world but the necessity of causal-like domains and so on shows that this is not the case) that the one law of the universe is Logic (distinct from logic – the assertion characterizes Logic and leaves open a determination of its relation to logic,) that any actual occurrence recurs infinitely (unless such recurrence entails contradiction,) that the universe as all being cannot have a creator but that one part of the universe may create and ‘set in to motion’ another part (the terms ‘all being’ and ‘creator’ require elaboration;) this (our) cosmological system is an example of a domain with partial determinism-like behavior, it must be infinitesimal in relation to the entire universe which is present as background that may interact with the local system but, as revealed by the apparent stability of the local system, must interact with extremely low probability; the likelihood of ‘escaping’ the ‘normal’ or determinism and causal like behaviors, is also of low probability but not impossible and there is ‘always’ a possibility of annihilation of the local system; finally, the normal concept of impossibility (except logical impossibility) must be replaced by improbability, the necessity of normal behavior (e.g. scientific laws but not logical necessity) is replaced by high probability, and the concept of limit is replaced by infeasibility or difficulty. This is a small sample of the results of the theory; further results e.g. in metaphysics, logic and cosmology; proof and elaboration is left to ‘Foundation.’ This variety of examples has shown the importance of recognizing and holding the questions contained (often implicitly) in approaches to explanation, understanding and knowledge
Further examples
Further examples from the essay include the nature of language and thought and the nature of morals (what is the source of morals and morality, what is morality, do morals have justification except in convention or feeling or common belief or other morals, what is good, what is the relation between the real and the good – the world as it is and the world as it may be held that it should be, what is the relation between morals and feasibility i.e. what is the significance of something that is thought to be a moral good but turns out to have a remote physical, biological, psychological, economic or political feasibility?)
An alternate way to focus on questions is to…
Avoid a priori commitments
An a priori commitment is made when an analysis begins with a fabricated notion (construct) such as ‘The world is constituted of matter.’ It is rather like having an open mind but it is more than that because it requires awareness not only of explicit positions or beliefs but also of characteristic but not necessarily explicit forms of thought and speech
The nature of concepts and theory
In the discussion so far a number of concepts have arisen and include ‘mind,’ ‘matter,’ ‘substance,’ ‘void,’ ‘universe,’ ‘time,’ ‘space,’ ‘being,’ and ‘logic.’ ‘Concept’ is itself a concept that will be taken up later. Still, there is much that can be learned from the discussion about the nature of concepts; I will list these as a set of statements and explain those that may not be obvious by now. The meaning of a concept is not fixed. The meaning of a concept depends on the state of understanding; alternatively, the meaning of a concept is usually fixed only within a given world-view or metaphysics (a metaphysics is a description or theory of the way the world or universe is; this rough definition will be refined in the next chapter.) More precisely, even in a fixed world-view the meanings of the concepts are not fixed; it is the entire world-view that has meaning or is a picture of the world; within the total system of meanings the individual concept meanings may adjust and change. As understanding of the world grows, the world-view (metaphysics) grows; concepts may be added and discarded; (the meanings of) existing concepts may change. Growth in understanding is (in general) an incremental, step-by-step process; within any such steps there are minor step-wise adjustments of individual concepts. (It would be possible to give an axiomatic formulation of significant portions of ‘Foundation’ but I shall not do that while understanding remains in flux.) The historical progression of metaphysics (and science) is often taken to mean that the process of understanding is unending; however, that it has not ended does not mean that it will not end in a final view. Perhaps: there should be no a priori commitments to unending growth in understanding and realization or to finality (in the developments, finality with regard to depth but not explicitly with regard to variety will be demonstrated.) If the world is essentially infinite in relation to the instruments of psyche (including cognition,) growth in understanding could be final (complete.) If there is a mode of understanding or aspect of knowledge that is complete it must be regarding a finite portion of the world or a finite representation. Talk of the universe as ‘all being’ without regard to variety is finite. This is a source of the assertion that the Theory of Being is ultimate with regard to depth; that this very general assertion is not empty follows from its numerous implications just listed; further consequences follow regarding cosmology, human being and mind and society, faith when the general theory and more particular areas (necessarily regarded as tentative even when commonly and academically regarded as given or close to impeccable) are taken into mutual consideration
On fact and theory
I have made extensive use the idea of ‘theory’ in this essay and in the use here I have regarded a variety of theories as fact or even ‘superior’ to fact in that they are not ‘mere’ or ‘trifling’ facts. However, ‘theory’ is often regarded in contrast with ‘fact’ as in the phrases, ‘one theory of the emotions is the James-Lange theory,’ ‘there is a variety of theories of the origins of language,’ ‘it's merely a theory,’ and ‘I have a theory that you didn't show up because you're angry with me.’ So it's a good idea to explain and justify my use of ‘theory.’ The examples show that theory has a number of distinct uses such as ‘hypothesis,’ ‘model,’ ‘explanation or partial explanation,’ ‘guess,’ and, in ‘it's merely a theory’ the use may be derogatory. In contrast, some theories such as Newtonian Mechanics explain so much and so accurately that they seem like fact – except of course that it has been replaced by other theories in twentieth century science. However, regarded as an explanation of a range of phenomena, Newtonian Mechanics is factual. (There is a detailed discussion in ‘Foundation.’) The complete indeterminism of the universe shows that the theories of physics cannot apply to the entire universe, yet they are locally factual. This is one sense in which theory is fact; and it shows a breakdown in the distinction between fact and theory for, given that an electron cannot be an ultimate particle of being (this follows from the Theory of Being) its being must partake equally of fact and theory. (The assertion does not alter the immediate and practical aspects of our acquaintance with the electron.) Is there any theory that is universally factual? I have indicated above and will demonstrate the universal yet factual and necessary nature of the core Theory of Being. The core of the Theory of Objects and of the Theory of Identity are, similarly, factual (and are extensions of the Theory of Being.) Here too, in an ultimate realm, there is no distinction between fact and theory
The Theory of Identity
In referring earlier to the Theory of Being I listed a number of consequences that were to be shown in ‘Foundation.’ These included that the size (and depth and variety) of the universe (all being) is infinite in comparison to the size (and depth and variety) of the empirically known universe; that what is possible is actual; that what is actual is repeated infinitely; and that one part of the universe may create another but that the universe as a whole has and can have no creator. What is the relevance for the individual of such implications of the Theory of Being? The statement regarding possibility implies that there is a being whose identity is the universe. The Theory of Identity develops the concept and nature of identity and shows how the (sense of) identity of an individual overlaps and merges in universal identity
Human Being and Society
While the discussion so far is at an abstract level that appears removed from the everyday, the essay develops the topics human being, society and faith and consequences of the Theory of Being for them. What is the relation of the abstract or general level of the universe (all being) and its infinitesimal component – this (our) cosmological system and, particularly, the human world? I said earlier In the discussion of mind I use the term ‘psyche’ when referring to the necessarily interacting functions of cognition and feeling (emotion.) I prefer to not emphasize the term ‘psychology’ because of the flat characterization of mind in current academic psychology (c. 2007.) Under the discussion of mind, there are treatments of growth and exceptional performance of the human psyche
Morals
Morals were mentioned in a general context earlier. Some issues considered are the nature of morals and morality including the right and the good; the status of particular morals and systems of morality, morals and religion or faith; the logics of morals and moral systems; the origins of morals (which do not necessarily lie in logic;) significance of psychophysical and economic considerations for morals; morals and commitments; public and private morals; morals and politics; morals and politics; and some important moral problems of today e.g. war and peace, and poverty
Institutions
There is a discussion of economics and technology, politics, education and research, law and direct and indirect (via other disciplines) implications for the nature and concept of these institutions from the Theory of Being
History
A study of history is useful in a number definite of ways. An example arises in the study of the nature of science. Acquaintance with the succession of scientific theories, e.g. in physics suggests that science is never final, that a scientific theory is always tentative. This is clearly a valid interpretation in a perspective that looks to a detailed science as being an ultimate theory of the (most fundamental elements of) the universe. It is necessary, however, to be careful with such conclusions. For example, restricting consideration to this cosmological system, there is a possibility that some form of quantum theory will be a final physical theory. An earlier discussion pointed out perspectives in which theories may be final. History, may be similarly conditionally useful in understanding religion and a variety of disciplines, human activities and institutions. There are more ambitious ways in which history may be useful. One of these is the use of history to make predictions or to learn lessons about choices. I am not an expert in history but there seems to be no general agreement about this possibility even allowing e.g. only general conclusions such as ‘civilizations decline’ or that there are factors of decline so that decline may be averted or slowed. (Some conclusions e.g. global nuclear will likely destroy modern civilization seem reasonable.) It might be interesting to speculate whether decline of civilizations is as practically necessary as death of individuals (neither appears to be logically necessary over finite periods of time excepting the end of the world or known universe.) A number of discussions have made some conditional appeal to history. However, I have not yet developed a systematic approach to history or its use and there is no general discussion of history in the present edition
Recognize tacit distortions of perspective and paradigm
It is natural for a perspective or perspective to have tacit
aspects or components. In some cases a perspective is constitutive of a form of
life; as a human being I may look at a mountain and experience it in the
characteristic way that human beings experience mountains; I may talk to other
human beings and, perhaps with a few words, evoke an experience whose general
features are similar to those of my experience. Certainly, some of those
features may be culturally determined but surely human biology defines limits
to the possibility of culture defined experience. My experience of an actual
mountain seen from a distance is similar to my experience of a photograph of a
mountain. 
If I were to hang a traditional Japanese painting on my wall, my
experience of ‘the mountain’ might come to be different. Perhaps the
traditional Japanese visual experience of mountains and the modern Western
experience are different and similar. Does a mountain goat resting in a shade
at the heat of midday have a similar experience? I may speculate that the
experience of a mountain goat is not (the same as the human experience) of ‘the
mountain’ but, perhaps, of a vague and looming presence. The speculation is
unfounded. I do not know what the mountain goat’s experience ‘is’ or whether
its object-experiences has the same character as human object-experience but
the following speculation is more reasonable. An inanimate object has no
experience but there is a continuum from a rock to human (it does not follow
that the mountain goat lies on this continuum) and that at some place in the
continuum there is a vague visual experience that is not quite that of the
object even though it is still definite and detailed. It is reasonable to
suppose that the human experience of the object has contributions from the
perceptual and the conceptual including linguistic (English and so on) system.
The example is intended not as definitive of (an aspect of) perspective but as
illustrative of its subtleties and manifold aspects – especially of perspective
as constitutive of a form of life. In the history of ideas, perspectives and
paradigms abound; they are characteristic ways of describing and so of seeing
the world (or an aspect of it.) Given that they are different, they may each be
seen as distorted; but when they provide some hold on the world they may also
be possessed of truth. Given that a paradigm may be seen as a (cultural) way of
life is the label ‘distortion’ appropriate? Whatever waits for perfect symmetry
does not come into being. Distortion and constitution are twin aspects of being
(becoming.) ‘Distortion’ is real enough and can be recognized via variations in
paradigms but an essentially negative value attached to it also comes from a
perspective – that of criticism (which has its own truth and distortion.)
Perspectives and paradigms of culture (including ways of ‘seeing’) are
maintained by (or in) institutions and include what amounts to ‘peer pressure.’
This pressure may be subtle and ‘enforcement,’ in addition to being applied may
also be a state of mind: the individual expects and may seek reward and or
avoid censure by remaining within the confines of the group perspective (in
varying degrees of awareness.) Awareness of the phenomenon comes in varying
degrees and education may include instruction in the perspective that ranges from
the explicit to the subtle
An example of distortion
A quite well recognized example is the education of the modern analytic philosopher in the philosophy of mind. A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, 1994, Samuel Guttenplan, editor and author, may be used to illustrate the point. A central theme of Guttenplan’s introductory essay to the Companion is the difficulty of locating (understanding the phenomenon of) mind in a materialist perspective (which perspective is the ‘default’ and common position in the academic circles of analytic philosophy c. 2007.) Now there must be some subtlety to an accommodation of mind within materialism; however, Guttenplan deploys a number of (now) traditional artifices to raise the accommodation from needing care to the level of categorial chasm. Among these are the identification, by analysis, of difficulty without pushing the analysis far enough toward resolution of difficulty. This is done repeatedly so that the student is left with a ring of interlocking ‘problems’ that becomes his or her paradigmatic intellectual foundation. The student may go on to a life of intellectual productivity, publication and teaching; which process is thereby self-perpetuating. What is the ring of issues? There is the now common analytic map of mind as the tri-polar continuum: experience, attitude, and action; in the treatment of mind in this essay the placement of attitude and action on the same categorial level as experience and identification of a distinction of experience from action and experience from attitude (an implicit or tacit Cartesian divide) has been pointed out and rejected. However, the common analytic conceptual framework is seen to be plagued by Cartesian error (that it may presume itself to have avoided) at the outset – before the introduction of analysis of the three poles and before the analysis in terms of the ‘material substrate.’ A second set of issues concerns the analysis of each of the three poles. In each case, traditional ‘difficulties’ are introduced and analyzed sufficiently to establish the issues but not analyzed further or analyzed in terms of standard ‘solutions’ that are themselves not pushed to limits. What more can an author do than repeat what is in the literature? Well the author could follow Plato’s dictum and refrain from writing or, if write he or she must, then write in Plato’s often unassuming and non-dogmatic style. Here in the recanting of the state of literature (itself an example of the same) is a perpetuation of the system (ring) of issues. Finally, Guttenplan addresses the material base of mind. I select only two examples from the account that traverses a number of problems and standard solution attempts. The first example is the over-determination that is thought to arise in thinking that actions are caused by both experience/attitude and material (brain) processes. Assuming a distinction between the mental and the material (rather than seeing them as aspects or, better, descriptive modes of the individual) leads to the thought that actions are over-determined. Having introduced a difficulty which it is assumed exists, Guttenplan is now faced with the necessity of solving an artificial problem; the traditional solutions – identity, functionalist and eliminative ‘theories.’ These are all bound to inadequacy or failure since they are trying to solve a problem that is a problem of the introduction by definition of a divide or gulf that does not exist and whose solution approaches assume the problem. The second example is the problem of intentionality: how can mental states in which I have a thought about something (intentionality is precisely ‘aboutness’) be realized from matter which is (assumed to be) constitutively devoid of aboutness. The doubt about the ability of matter, even in complex organization, to have intentionality makes sense, perhaps, in the Newtonian picture. However to assert the impossibility on the modern picture of matter is to say that a sufficiently complex quantum system could not manifest intentional behavior; the basis of this claim would have to be a deep theorem in quantum theory or sufficiently complex computational model of the quantum theory. Needless to say there are no such theorems or adequate computational results. (There are additional concerns. Just as in the case of consciousness, the results will require interpretation; it should be necessary only to show that intentionality results from aggregate behavior; a negative result would not necessarily be conclusive – the quantum model or the theory itself, as it stands today, might be inadequate; and further analysis of intentionality itself may be helpful, perhaps even necessary.) The doubt regarding intentionality, therefore, equates a paucity in imagination or computation with a (lack of) property of matter. It is entirely analogous with the fundamentalist (creationist) argument: ‘I cannot imagine how complexity can emerge from the variation and selection of material process, therefore complexity cannot so arise’
Note: the discussion of the ring and of individual problems and the argument should be elaborated and sharpened
Further artifices of Guttenplan’s establishment of the standard perspective (I am not asserting that they are consciously selected to produce a desired effect) include an approach to concepts by eliciting student input (regarding the nature of mind;) thinking of examples is a necessary and excellent approach to concepts (as well as an excellent approach to instruction) but it is also essential to go sufficiently beyond immediate conclusions from examples and also to critique the examples themselves; lacking this, even though students are not formally exposed to the paradigm, prejudice may be built in from the outset due to the incorporation of naivety and because students may have had exposure to the literature and will have been somewhat exposed to the paradigm indirectly through the culture. This artifice as well as the selection of nice examples from life in London and Paris may have the effect of leaving the student with the feeling that this wonderful modern system of philosophy of mind, so careful and intricate in its development, is grounded well in life… I cannot avoid the thought that the conditions of survival of any institution (industry) include that it be functional but not too functional
Identifying tacit distortions
How may tacit distortions be identified? First, of course it is important not only to think carefully (imaginative criticism) about the subject (mind in the example) under consideration but also to think carefully about one’s approach to the subject. This is the reflex applied at multiple levels. Also note that the ‘standard analytic’ approach to mind involves a priori commitments: the Cartesian divide and the essential inertness of matter and a commitment that stabilizes many perspectives regardless of distortion: commitment to commitment. One of the difficulties identified in the standard approach arose out of a confusion between a deficit in imagination (or computation from a model) to a deficit of matter (or model of matter.) Broad study and experience and familiarity with history might help avoid these errors not only because of the exposure to other ways of seeing but also because the exposure to the idea of perspective and errors of perspective. In addition to applying and cultivating the reflex to one’s system of thought and group or culture defined paradigm, the individual may practice suspending (premature) judgment; this may be difficult for forming judgment is essential to development; what may be practiced, and this is a function of the individual and of instruction (mentorship,) is an intellectual fabric of commitment and doubt
Doubt and faith
The discussion has two parts. In the first I consider the necessity of doubt and faith in being alive. In this part I consider common and special faith; common faith is faith in the regularities of the world and normally requires no act of faith. Special faith is a high degree of belief or action based in a belief that the universe is greater in magnitude, depth and variety than is commonly accepted. Special faith is not necessarily religious faith but falls short of certain knowledge. Faith may be seen as a state of mind that is conducive to action in the presence of doubt. Why should there be any occasion for religious faith in light of the implications of the Theory of Being? The Theory of Being is a rational theory but doubt is a psychological condition. Even though I have been satisfied with the underlying logic, I continue to criticize it – doubt has been and remains an essential part of its development. Finally, while it is possible to act in the presence of doubt, faith may enhance the quality and strength of action. But is not truth a value? I will h