REALIZATIONS OF BEING
COPYRIGHT JUNE 2003-December 2014
This edition narrates
essentials for realization.
The preface is overview. It explains but is not essential to the narrative. For an introduction, see the § Aim (§ stands for part or section).
§ The author, after the main text, describes my background.
The aim of the realizations (§ Aim) includes ‘to realize the highest immediate and ultimate forms’ of being (definitions are given in the narrative).
This aim is enhanced by ideas, especially a
worldview or metaphysics—i.e., knowledge of the universe and our relations to
The main narrative, § Realizations of being, has two emphases, ideas and realization (action). Ideas inform action; and actions complete and confirm ideas; ideas and realization remain in interaction.. The ideas are developed through § A perfect, unique, ultimate, and practical metaphysics. Action or realization occupies the remaining sections.
Definition is not the province of the preface but there are two terms that it will be useful to explain here.
One term is civilization which, in the sense used here, is not about particular phases of history or culture, is not about superiority of a culture, and it is not about humankind against the rest of life or the universe. Of course it emphasizes humanity but it is about the entire stream of being seeking higher immediate and ultimate life. Concepts of civilization are discussed in § Civilization and realization.
The second term is tradition which we usually associate with history continuous, established, and commonly accepted ways of thinking and living. The narrative will employ the term tradition to refer to the cumulative system of ideas and action, primal through modern, including the modern academic, practical, and spiritual or religious disciplines. Of course, there are errors and closed ends in the tradition. For brevity, I will sometimes use ‘tradition’ for ‘what is valid in the tradition’.
The ideas are developed in §§ Experience and foundation through A perfect, unique, ultimate, and practical metaphysics.
The core of the ideas is a worldview or metaphysics called the universal metaphysics or, simply, the metaphysics.
Metaphysics is knowledge of being which for the purpose of the preface is knowledge of the world-as-it-is. Because the knower contributes to the form of knowledge the possibility of metaphysics has been in doubt in the modern west, especially since Immanuel Kant who used the contribution of the knower to develop a critical and constructive philosophy. However, the argument in the narrative is that we know that there is experience (e.g. consciousness). This cannot be doubted (doubt is a form of experience) and it is the beginning of a system of also perfectly known concepts (§§ Experience and foundation—Meaning of the metaphysics) that is used to build a metaphysical framework which is filled in by ‘imprecise’ knowledge which, it is shown, cannot and does not need to be precise and which, it is shown, by a criterion of utility rather than perfect faithfulness is also perfect. There is a realm of perfect knowledge which though mediated by the knower is perfectly of the known; and there is a realm where the knower contributes to the known.
Can this contribution be eliminated? From the developments in the narrative the answer is ‘yes’, in some cases of significance, but also ‘no’ in many other cases of significance. But ‘significance’ has the following ambiguity—its greatest import occurs in views prior to that developed here and (while it does not lose all importance) its significance is here seen to be greatly diminished regarding knowledge of the vast detail of the more immediate that is a fill-in for the metaphysical framework. In other words a ‘critical realism’ in which knowledge points to the world rather than being precisely of the world retains an importance but, relative to ‘standard’ modern western epistemology, the importance is diminished.
In § The real there is an example of perfect understanding in a local realm, that of the ideas of mind and matter, that is traditionally seen as problematic. This results from an analysis of concepts from the tradition in light of reason and the metaphysics. Other examples of such cross ‘perfection’ can be found at my website http://www.horizons-2000.org.
The following comments on the metaphysics are pertinent. (1) Its central assertion is that the universe is the universe of possibility (this is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics). It is crucial that this is demonstrated. There is doubt but the exposition and resolution of doubt are left to the narrative. (2) Therefore the metaphysics-worldview shows the universe to have limitless extension, duration, and variety and to be limitlessly greater than the universe shown in the standard worldviews including science, traditional speculative metaphysics, and ancient through modern religion. (3) The universe has identity and the individual partakes of its power and identity. (4) The universe is universal process (this may be perspectival in that process and absoluteness may be equivalent but different perspectives). In any case, while in limited form the individual approach to the universal is process—a journey—without limit to extension, duration, and variety in its forms and peaks of realization.
Is this metaphysics and its related worldview new? Many elements have been seen before. The idea of ‘Being’ goes back at least to Plato. Perhaps, however, that I have insisted that it refers to existence and only existence is new—for thinkers are invariably finding deep meaning or understanding being in terms of our world. Of course there are deep meanings but they are within being and not of all being; this insistence, which could be seen as trivializing being empowers it and, since depth is allowed within being, there is no trivialization. Similarly, the features of our world should not be used to characterize being because it is not known in advance that those features characterize the universe outside our empirical cosmos.
The central feature of the view is that the universe is the realization of all possibility (the fundamental principle). To interpret ‘possibility’ as physical possibility (allowed by the theoretical or everyday physics of our world), would be to import the features of our world to the metaphysics. How is this prevented? In the first place, regarding being as existence means that it has only the features that are common to all worlds. Then, it may be expected and it turns out from the demonstration of the fundamental principle, that it is logical possibility that is pertinent. A well known interpretation of logic versus science is that logic is valid in all worlds while science is valid only in some worlds (and our science is not known to be valid beyond our cosmos). However, the all worlds interpretation is an interpretation and involves no demonstration; further the worlds, even for those who regard them as real are not thought of as constituting connected universe or part thereof (and the reason for this is in part the lack of demonstration). This feature of the metaphysics and the consequent immense power, which includes both method and application, are new.
There is, however, a historical idea, the ‘principle of plenitude’, that has similarity to the fundamental principle. This principle goes back to Plato and has various interpretations in the history of philosophy and religion. All earlier interpretations suffer from lack of foundation (proof) but let us look at specific contents of plenitude. In religion it has referred to the ‘chain of being’ whose highest expression in Neo-Platonism “details a strict, religious hierarchical structure of all matter and life, believed to have been decreed by God. The chain starts from God and progresses downward to angels, demons (fallen or renegade angels), stars, moon, kings, princes, nobles, men, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals, and other minerals” (from Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great chain of being). The view is limited by taking as its ‘elements’ just some elements of our world and of a hypothetical religious cosmology. A philosophical statement of the view is that given an infinite time all possibilities occur. This version was known to Kant who believed it true but thought it impossible to prove. Of course it seems obvious in terms of probability theory but a probability interpretation can be seen false in a world where time is a continuum (order of infinity that of the real number system) but some of the possibilities constitute a countable collection, finite or infinite. In any case, lack of proof apparently prevented development of the principle of plenitude beyond being an interesting idea. Thus, in its most fundamental aspect the fundamental principle of metaphysics of this narrative is essentially new and this newness lies in the demonstration, interpretations, and consequences that it entails.
In looking to see what consequences the fundamental principle has, I have employed secular and non-secular thought as suggestive. That we and our science see our world in terms of cosmos, space, and time suggests that these features should be part of the new cosmology but not universal. The new cosmology requires a larger system that ‘transcends’ space, time, cosmos, matter, mind, and energy while it includes their valid aspects. Perhaps the being of mind andor matter are logically necessary but if that is the case it requires logical demonstration and not the speculative thought that ‘matter (mind) is obviously the nature of the world’ The proof of this transcendence, its nature, interpretation, and some of its features are new.
In the Indian philosopher Shankara’s Advaita system, the universe is seen in neutral terms, Brahman, whose manifestations include the ‘physical’ (physical is a modern western term) cosmoses and individual selves (Atman) as realizations of the potential of Brahman. Therefore, the Atman (plural) are, when they come to see and experience, Brahman itself. Further manifestation and dissolution are recurrent (but not necessarily simply cyclic). Of course, even if not stated in original Advaita, the fundamental principle requires that there be many levels and threads of manifestation and Atman and that ignorance (the Eastern idea) and guilt and shame (Western), to the extent that they survive particular atman, are shared and therefore not corrosive of the strands. However, ‘good’ is important to the individual and death is a reminder of the preciousness of time in this regard (this point has been emphasized across a range of cultures) and the good is significant and shared across the strands (in ‘this life and the rest’).
Yet Brahman is perhaps too vast to be corrupted or improved by our thought and action whose importance lies in our world and (perhaps) beyond but not all the way up to Brahman. Yet that does not mean that the good is unimportant in the universal and, as seen in the narrative, the effectiveness and enjoyment and possibility of good are functions of intelligent and passionate commitment. I have used these ideas in their general form. Still, the fundamental principle enables demonstration (new) and new interpretation and elaboration (some just given).
The ideas show the ultimate nature of what will and may be achieved, its existential meaning, and suggest means of achievement.
The discussion in the narrative is an open template that I am using in my process and that others may adapt to their process. I thought that this would be more useful to readers than a current in process narrative. That narrative may come later. Meanwhile there is further specific (template) information at template.html and general information linked from my site http://www.horizons-2000.org.
One origin of this work is personal. I have long sought understanding of the world and my place in it. Writing enhanced the process. But I also seek to communicate and share in the ‘stream’ and this is a motive to publication.
Perhaps the system of the narrative is has newness in human history (see the first paragraph of § Aim, for what may be new and what elements are not new). In any case I have felt I am a partial author: it has often felt to me that the ideas possessed their own force (over and above generation by ‘ego’ and what I have absorbed by reading and by being part of a number of cultures). It is interesting that the metaphysics implies that this system of ideas has occurred times without limit before and after (and it justifies the phrase ‘has occurred after’).
In addition to the general acknowledgements above, I acknowledge the world of nature. I have enjoyed time spent in ‘wilderness’ I recently recounted over a hundred week-to-month-long wilderness trips, most of them sojourns, in places across the United States and Mexico. Nature has been a multiple source of inspiration. I have long experienced it a portal and motive to and ‘ground’ for the real and the ultimate. In this connection I have recently (2008) learned of the Tibetan Buddhist notion of Beyul—remote places regarding which ‘In the Buddhist tradition, the goal … is not so much to reach a particular destination as to awaken within oneself the qualities and energies of the sacred site, which ultimately lie within our own minds’ (from the XIV Dalai Lama of Tibet’s introduction to Ian Baker’s The Heart of the World, 2004). And it is in nature that I have had many of the central ideas and intuitions of my thought.
The aim of the nature pictures in the text is to symbolize nature inspiration (currently, pictures appear only in print versions). Some pictures are more than symbolic—they show places of specific and significant inspiration.
The main sources in developing the framework and the ‘fill in’ for the metaphysics have been the traditions, experience, and reason. I have learned directly and indirectly. I have learned from the secular and the transsecular; and from western, eastern (mostly South Asian), and ‘primal’ (especially Native North American) cultures.
For longer essays, sources, slide shows, photographs, and contact details, readers may browse my ‘Journey in Being’ website http://www.horizons-2000.org. Readers interested in my background may refer to the description at the end of the narrative on The author.
It will be useful to be explicit about my positions relative to the worldviews (see § Standard cosmologies). My (non-dogmatic) education and upbringing included secular as well as trans-secular elements and exposure but the secular dominated—I was moved to naturalism, the view that the essence of the universe is the world of nature. (I now think it clear that this position does not have definite meaning since the discovery of nature cannot be said to be complete; see also § The Real and other §§ to see that this discovery can never be complete even if there is no supra-natural.) However, I maintained a window of doubt (the possible incompleteness). At the same time, I found the idea of the trans-secular and some parts of some trans-secular systems to have emotional and moral beauty and appeal; I appreciated the suggestiveness of what may be significant in this life and thrilled to the mystic suggestion of worlds beyond. I pursued the partial paradox until the discovery—a story in itself—of the metaphysics. This revealed (1) essentially all tradition to have literal or symbolic truth and, importantly, limit and error (again, see §§ The void through A perfect, unique, ultimate, and practical metaphysics and others) and (2) distortion in our secondary interpretations and renderings of these systems—especially but not only the trans-secular. However, by this time, beginning around 2000, this mattered less for the metaphysics not only went far beyond the systems but also integrated with what is valid in them (primarily literal for the secular and significantly symbolic for the trans-secular). Explicitly, I find significant though limited truth, beauty, and power in the secular and trans-secular systems, framed by ultimate though in process power in the metaphysics (§ Standard cosmologies and §§ The universal metaphysics through The Real).
I do not regard this work as complete. I sometimes think that the ideas are complete but I am ever seeing new meaning and interpretation, new approaches and new applications, having new insights, new doubts—and new responses to doubt. The process revealed by the metaphysics is without end. In my present life, my engagement in this process continues. All this may lead to modification of this work, additions in the form of reports of process and thought, and perhaps new works. This explains my use of the term ‘narrative’ to describe the work even though narration is not its only mode of discourse.
My process, which I regard as modest so far, lies in the combination of nature immersion as ground and as inspiration, experience with psychic catalysts (non drug), modest spiritual endeavor, learning from the tradition, and the ideas of this work.
There are three classes of audience or interest—general, academic, and ultimate.
The general interest is in the main ideas and implications for immediate life.
The academic, scholarly, or intellectual interest is in the metaphysics, its demonstration (and therefore possibility), its development and elaboration, and application to a range of disciplines and topics and problems within philosophy (especially metaphysics). The academic interest should be in the entire narrative but is particularly in §§ Prologue through A perfect, unique, ultimate, and practical metaphysics.
Finally, the ultimate interest is that of entering into the universal process shown by the metaphysics and for which an approach is laid out in §§ Civilization and realization through Transience and arrival. Regarding process, these sections present a template rather than details. This form is suitable for adaptation by others to their own process.
The some concepts and the system as a whole may be unfamiliar to readers. The main problems of understanding will be those of intuition and of meaning. There may be problems of intuition—even though the system is internally and factually consistent, the metaphysics may seem at dissonance with reader’s worldviews. The problem of intuition should be resolved by recognizing that counter-intuitiveness is natural when encountering an unfamiliar worldview or paradigm and by attention to meaning. And problems of meaning are likely—many of the terms such as being, experience, universe, and realism are familiar but are used with specific and often new meaning (sense). Attention to definition will address this problem. There is another problem of meaning—the meaning of the system of ideas and action depends on the relations among the terms (concepts) and is greater than the collection of individual meanings. It will take time and perhaps more than one reading to see the relationships and to build up a ‘picture’ of the system as a whole. The result will be the understanding, analytic and intuitive, of a new and powerful worldview.
It may be useful for readers for me to recount my informal and intuitive experience with the view. What I am going to emphasize is (a) feeling comfortable with and effective use of the new view is enhanced by intuitive understanding and (b) it is useful to explicitly undertake to reeducate one’s intuition, especially in situations such as the present one in which one is confronted by a view that challenges both formal understanding and intuitive appreciation.
In the ‘beginning’ my worldview was implicitly that of ‘naturalism’—i.e., the universe is rather like our natural world but, again implicitly, this was not entirely uncritical because I held several ‘windows’ of doubt. The evolution of the formal aspect of the new view, from doubt to intuition to speculation to proof and to working out the implications, occupies several years (the explicit phase began around 1991 and continues). However, the formal story parallels an intuitive process. The intuitive process was multifold. It required feeling toward the ‘correct’ meaning of various concepts such as being, experience, law, universe, void, logic and science. I was used, for example, to thinking in terms of many universes. I used the phrase ‘in another universe’. However, it was critical that some term be reserved for all being and the term I chose was ‘universe’; therefore there can be many worlds, there can at least logically be worlds and gods and creations of worlds—however these are all part of the universe which therefore is not created. The intuition of this idea took time to sink in. However, intuition was not the only concern.
Perhaps this idea of universe is problematic. What if there are distinct worlds each with their own space and time but the worlds do not interact and cannot interact—they do not even belong to the same space-time (or lack thereof). Are the worlds then as good as universes (even on the definition as all being)? There appears to be no logical reason to choose between them as different universes or part of the one universe. However, the metaphysics entails that there can be worlds that are separate for ‘periods of time’ but that in the ultimate there is interaction. And is this interaction a logical or material principle. I now prefer to see it as the former but the details and implications of the ‘logic’ remain in need of working out.
Today, in my everyday thinking I often revert to older habits of thought and of course this is fine for many day to day activities but the reversion often occurs even with regard to cosmic matters. But this happens less and less frequently and when I noticed the reversion I made a conscious decision to consciously not revert. I found it particularly important to guard my thought and speech when interacting with others even though a difficulty is that many would not know of what I spoke. My resolution is that I outline my thought to close acquaintances and let them know that one reason is reinforcement of my habits of thought (but also not to be overbearing or crusading or too rigidly consistent with the practice). The old habits are attenuating. But there is more than just transition to a new view. Fact implies and the new view requires that the old and the new should coexist and this requires care; this too becomes part of the intuition.
An upshot of the transition of my view is that it is not merely a passive process. I have had to realize a need to reeducate myself and, alongside the subconscious process, to consciously undertake a reeducation.
The aim of the realizations—so far as it is good—is
The aim is understood and empowered by showing
Elements of the view occur in previous thought.
In discovery, many ideas narrated were experienced
In new contexts of meaning, care is crucial. Without
Synthesis is essential to this framework. Though meaning
Since new contexts have some continuity with the
Many concepts of the text are familiar. However,
Understanding will be further enhanced in
To know the utmost reach of being requires faithful
Common cosmologies are secular and trans-secular.
David Hume showed that theories that capture
experience on limited
History illustrates this: since Newton's synthesis
So, science allows wide open metaphysics
beyond its border. What
Mythic cosmology, even where it conflicts realism,
offers intuition of an
A metaphysics that agrees with explicit cosmologies
An aspect of secular thought is significant—valid
The world of narrative has no beginning or end but a
Experience is subjective awareness. That there is
Experience is the core and theater of our human
Experience is the rock of knowledge of things—knowledge
In reality it is not an argument at all. There is no
We will continue to exemplify the significance of careful argument.
If there is only experience then it either does or
does not range over
The proof of the reality of the world is more than
That the world is real does not imply it is as
Further return is as follows. Experience mediates
It has been said that growth of knowledge is
analysis of meaning.
It will also be seen that realization of new
These thoughts show a value to care in foundation.
Foundation does not emerge in a single step. New
There are also major increments such as, here,
insights into the
‘Experience is subjective awareness’ is not a word
Comments on definition and the verb ‘to be’ will be useful.
The definition of experience above was not truly a
It was a definition by pointing and naming, also
In clarifying ‘experience’ we saw that ‘there is
In this case the self evidence is clear—experience
From familiarity with use of an axiomatic approach
Perhaps the meaning of ‘is’ in ‘there is experience’
However, the ‘showing’, above, was a simultaneous
In what follows, this perfect clarity and facticity
In common situations (‘there is an electron’)
Therefore, when we admit common experience or
Consider uses of the verb ‘is’. ‘A planet is a
In standard use, ‘is’ is the present tense singular
form of the
In what follows ‘is’ may denote any mix or
neutrality of verb
Discussion now turns to existence and being which
When we say there is a planet Earth we mean that
From reflections above, existence is not an empty
However, ‘existence’ has been seen as problematic.
A concern: given illusion, existence may empty—but
we saw that
Consider, now, the negative form ‘Unicorns do not
exist.’ If it is true,
The resolution is that ‘unicorn’ is, first, a
concept (defined, for example,
Finally, contemplate ‘everything exists’—this suggests
existence is too
(Note that the conceptual analysis of existence,
Something has being if we may say that it is, i.e.
that it exists.
‘Existence’ has been used to mean ‘the mode of being
In its source in the basic term ‘is’, being is
As we have already seen in relation to existence,
Ideas such as ‘non-being’, ‘neither being nor
Being is neutral to kinds such as space, time,
matter, mind, spirit
This neutrality is an essential part of the power of
Sometimes such concepts (non-being etc) are a
sophist result of
The kinds are useful, even essential, as kinds of
being. Analysis shows
From the reflections on experience, the core of
The universe is all being. There is one and only one
‘Being’ discriminates only existence from
Discussion so far shows robustness to the world—the
But what can we tell of the variety of being? And
why is there
The universe contains all creation but is not
Knowledge of the natural world is coded in laws and
The laws of natural science are familiar
A law is a reading of a pattern; the pattern itself
This ‘realism’ may be extended. Morality, civil law,
The void is the absence of being—null being; as complement to
There is no inconsistency to existence of the void.
Yet, despite proof
From the void (and therefore from the universe and
every part of it)
That the universe has no limits is named the fundamental
If power is degree of limitlessness, the universe is
The worldview that results below
It is crucial to use of the metaphysics that its
In this section ‘concept’ will refer to referential
This useful freedom allows formation of concepts
From limitlessness of the universe the only concepts
This minimal realism constitutes an explicit meaning
Another term for realism is logic: the universe is
the object of logic—
Realism resolves doubt that should arise about
The object of realism (logic) is the universe. All
valid science and
Agreement with fact includes agreement with the
The vastness and forms of realism (logic) await
The vastness of form is immensely greater than the
Thus there is no real divide between the concrete and the abstract.
As realism, logic has been reconceived and is near
This account of explicit meaning should be
The universal metaphysics implies what follows.
Natural science and human experience have domains of
The universe has neither beginning nor end. In a
The universe has cosmoses without limit to number or
Logic is not a Law. A universal Law over and above
That a cosmos such as ours shall exist is given by
the metaphysics. Still, we
To continue, near symmetry is a source of stability
The universal metaphysics requires the being of
realms—far larger than
The background remains on the border of the sensible and beyond.
Subject to realism the metaphysics entails the being
of all mythical
Every state or element of being is equivalent to
Relative to the void (or other manifest state), all
Laws and manifest
However breadth is ever open—the extension,
Every Law, every cosmos is repeated without limit.
Every atom is a cosmos, every cosmos an atom.
The universe has and must have manifestation and identity
now be reemphasized that realism redefines the concept and
Individual identity shares these powers with the
The new mystery reveals endless adventure of ideas and being.
Though real, individual and group are relative
(every atom is
Apparent and experienced limits are part of the
Realization is given. Still, effectiveness is
enhanced in engaging the
While in limited form realization is endless
The oneness, connection, and continuity
In unlimited form, realization is the Aeternitas—the eternity in a
The idea of the abstract object as discussed earlier
Aeternitas has no further
experience—Aeternitas creation is closed.
That realization for limited form is endless
But Aeternitas as one, only, final, absolute object
is fiction: it would
Does the experience of matter vs. experience itself
The Real (‘The’ capitalized) is the
ultimate in its true nature. It has
Let us reflect on the possible divide between the
natural and The Real.
Begin with the metaphysical concept of substance. A
function of substance
In monism the universe has (is) one substance.
A substance is eternal so disallowed by the
It was seen earlier that experience is real and that it is relationship.
Mind tentatively names the substance of experience. In
‘Matter’ and ‘mind’ name being-as-being and being-in relationship.
In the universal case there is no substance and
The contrary would be a Law, so the metaphysics
The common, adaptive, case is so well formed as to
In trying to enhance understanding via the
metaphysics we have found
Also illuminated is substance: there is none. From
the metaphysics the void
As with mind-matter, so it is with nature and The
Real, and knowledge of
Emotion or passion is critical and its complexities
are addressed in secular
The mosaic, its necessity, gives meaning to pain. If
we are to be in the
What is engagement with the ultimate? It has been
In a perspective that there is a merciful god, pain
In the perspective of the universal metaphysics The
Real and the
Knowledge and emotion, realization and being are
ever in process.
Georg Cantor founded ‘transfinite numbers’ larger
than all finite
Obviously, absolute death is a ‘limit’. However, the
What is the ‘beyond death’? The realization of all
Identity is eternal adventure, ever fresh, of joy
and pain, of
If remembered, ignorance, shame, ‘evil’ are shared—so
Yet Brahman is perhaps too vast to be corrupted or
improved by our
We can let imagination run but imagination is
limited. There are
The Real includes but is beyond what is real in the
Can anything definitive be said of this realm?
The idea of the abstract object shows a way for
The meaning of the metaphysics has been given
In foundation in experience and being the
metaphysics is perfect. From
The universal metaphysics resolves foundation of being
Though logic is ultimate, its forms continue to
Being and experience—world and knowledge—are known
The metaphysics has foundation in concepts so devoid
There is significant ‘tradition’—part of traditional
knowledge from literal-
Where the metaphysics is complete if remote, the
The two main be joined and each compensates the
other’s lack. The
The union is a practical metaphysics—perfect in that
limited forms in
Our civilization is the web of human culture over
The metaphysics reveals a limitless universe open to
Individuals foster Civilization;
Politics, values and morals, and economics are
essential in the idea
Civilization provides ways, rough methods, of
The standard forms of the disciplines—
Our apparent limits are Laws or
The apparently stable initial ground
It is worth repeating: ultimate realization for all
Sacred scriptures speak of divine magnificence. An
The universe and the place of individuals in it are
Action is not ‘mere’ process—ideas are a partial
The ultimate is not fully immanent in limited form:
This is the core mechanics of realization. Change
may begin with
Development of ideas above is in breakdown,
This is the analysis and synthesis of being; it
Risk emphasizes acting even in the presence of (existential) doubt.
Therefore from the significance of what it reveals
At the front of realization the final resource is to
take a step of
The vehicles of realization are individual and
The places of realization are ground—nature, and
Modes of transformation are intrinsic and extensive.
Transformation of being was seen to be via ideas and
The metaphysics shows inevitability of this
Realization is inspired by powers of being and
The disciplines offer catalysts of mind-body change—such
Disciplines, East to West, may all have use in
In summary, these ways cycle through be-ing
Realization begins in the present, perhaps
with the disciplines,
Living in transience—in joy and anxiety—is on the
My approach in this narrative is from experience and ideas with inspiration from tradition, including science, and metaphysics as understood in philosophy.
Earlier, philosophy was one of my central and passionate interests. I remain interested in philosophical thought and process but the earlier central interest has been replaced by thought and action as in this narrative. Thus while I have learned so much from ancient through modern and eastern and western philosophy, my interest has grown to become wider than philosophy as process or content, especially in its modern analytic and continental forms.
My learning in philosophy and related topics comes primarily from imaginative and analytic thought, experience, extended reading in the ‘literature’ over a lifetime, writing, criticism, and interaction with others. I have also benefited from humanities courses including a year of undergraduate philosophy.
I have read and thought widely in the science, philosophy, and history of biology, especially evolutionary biology. The paradigms of evolutionary biology have been immensely suggestive to my thought, generally and for this narrative. Other major academic interests include mathematics, logic, and theoretical physics.
I owe a debt to the history of ideas. The main page and a number of essays on the website http://www.horizons-2000.org have or link to sources.
I am especially interested in the lifestyles of ‘primal’ peoples. The interest is personal—the truth of such styles, the contact and knowledge of nature for its practical and aesthetic interest. What is especially interesting academically is the mesh of primal knowledge in the narrative form, which includes ‘myth’, and our religious and formal systems.
For me, nature has been a ground of being and inspiration. The inspiration is general—nature as portal to the ultimate—and specific: many ideas and intuitions recorded here occurred over the years on trips to and in America and Mexico’s ‘wilderness’ areas.
My education is in engineering (Bachelors, PhD), science, mathematics (Masters), and computation. I have done research and taught in these subjects as a professor at undergraduate through graduate university level. At university I took a wide range of doctoral level courses in engineering, physics, and mathematics.
I worked in mental health for a number of years. Here, I was fortunate to learn much about mind. Direct learning was enhanced by reading, study, reflection, and conversation.
I enjoy cooking for myself and friends. I was responsible for an establishment serving South Asian Indian food in the late 1980's.
I live on the Pacific Coast in Northwest California. I backpack in the nearby Trinity Alps (the website above links to photographs). The towns of Eureka and Arcata have friends, entertainment, and culture. I enjoy playing musical instruments. Access to nature allows bicycle rides through lovely natural areas. I go on a long ride three to five times a week. At home I have books, access to information via the Internet, and my computer at which write and convert my writing and graphics to web format.
My plans for the future include the process described in the essay.
Friday, December 19, 2014