ANIL MITRA, © COPYRIGHT 2012—2013
This edition identifies absolute givens, identifies
essential undefined terms, and postulates any axioms and methods.
As of the 22nd of March, 2013 the document is in process.
Gv = given, Df = definition (s attached to a symbol is plural form, e.g. Gvs and Dfs), Exp = explanation, Dem = demonstration (since—most—demonstrations are given in other narratives ‘Dem’ also means ‘Theorem’), $ = there is, " = all, Rm = remark, Cap = capital, lc = lower case, sub = substituted / substitute etc. as appropriate, Conf = will be confirmed later, Strg = will be further confirmed andor strengthened later, Ref = reference (when a reference is not stated it is to one of the narratives linked above), Pvs = previous, Ab = above, Bel = below, Abs = absolute, Imp = important, Inf = informal use of a term (to contrast with formal use of a term as defined in the text), Rec = recap or summary…
Df. Experience. Id kinds (pure, ref, active; creative, free)
Gv. $ experience.
Exp. Illusion, delusion, hallucination and so on are experience. \ If ‘all is illusion’ $ (still) experience.
Dem. The ab Gv. See the ab Exp.
Dem. $ existence. (‘Existence’ is not vacuous).
Df. Concept, object, meaning. (Higher concept: a case of concept. Percept: case of concept).
Df. Real / external world.
Dem. Experience is an object. Concepts are objects.
Dem. $ a real world (not free). Desc real world: concept creation / object.
Df. Being is that which exists.
Dem. $ being. ‘Being’ is robust and discriminating.
Rm. The power (inf) of the concept of Being is its neutrality to kinds such as space, time, matter, mind, spirit, soul, and the varieties of word-as-world. Use of Being does not strap development down with commitment to unproven ontology but allows any ontology to emerge from analysis.
Df. Robust and discriminating concepts.
Dem. Experience, existence, and Being are robust and discriminating.
Df. Logic (constraint on freedom of concept for possibility of reference).
Rm. ‘Logic’ is not of Being as Being but of Being in relation to Being (e.g. understanding). Discovery of Logic is experimental.
Dem. The hypothetical concept that does not satisfy logic has no object. ‘The hypothetical but IlLogical object does not exist.’
Def. A limit on Being is a concept that satisfies Logic but (still) has no object.
Rm. Logic (Cap) is a constraint on concepts but not a limit on Being (when Universe is introduced ‘Universe’ may be sub for ‘Being’).
Df. Fact (lc)—non-compound concept or percept
Df. Fact (Cap)—the immanent fact (lc)
Df. A law (lc) is a pattern. The Law (Cap) is the pattern. (Rm. Here ‘law’ and ‘Law’ refer to scientific law.)
Rm. Laws (Cap) are limits on Being (except vacuous cases such as ‘It is what it is’).
Facts and Laws are not distinct. A Fact subsumes a pattern; a Law (not generalized) is a Fact. Laws as Facts are given as are Facts as Facts.
Dem. Facts (Cap) and Laws (Cap) have Being.
Rm. The distinction between Facts and Laws is arbitrary. (Strg.)
Df. Science is conceptual projection on data points and concepts.
Rm. Science may be regarded as universal hypothesis or (valid) fact over a limited domain. The strength and appeal of universal hypothesis is well known. The strength of the factual interpretation is that it not capable of invalidation (on the assumption that the data are valid). A meeting point of the two views of science is the hypothesis over a domain that extends beyond the domain of validity but the limit of the extended domain is not known or hypothetical.
Rm. Science (as fact) and the logics (approximately) may be regarded as part of Logic.
Rm. Science and logic have dual and common origin. Discovery in both is experimental.
Rm. The ab Rm concerning the logics is eminently sensible. The Rm regarding Fact requires only a trivial alteration in the meaning of ‘Logic’.
Df. Universe º " Being.
Rm. The concept of limits regarding Being apply to the Universe.
Dem. (1) There is one and only one Universe. (2) There is nothing outside the Universe—i.e., the Universe has no ‘outside’. (3) Laws (Cap) and Facts have Being. (4) The hypothetical Being that violates Logic does not exist. (5) All Laws and Facts are in the Universe. (6) All Objects are in the Universe. (7) All concepts are in the Universe. Even IlLogical concepts exist / are objects. (8) The Universe has and can have no (external) creator. (9) The Universe has no beginning or end. The Universe is.
Rm. One part of the Universe can be implicated in the creation of another.
Rm. In the immediately ab equation of ‘concepts’ and ‘mental objects’ used to explain abstract objects should not be conflated. The latter is given no basis by admitting concepts as having Being and therefore having objecthood. These rm Strg.
Df. The Void is the absence of Being.
Dem. $ Void.
Dem. The Void contains no Being (and therefore no experience, concept, object, or Law).
Df. FP (fundamental principle of metaphysics) ‘The Universe has no limits’.
Rm. Thus far FP is a name and ‘metaphysics’ is part of the name without significance. The concept of metaphysics is introduced later.
Dem. The Universe has no universal Laws.
Rm. Laws are temporary limits and part of the constitution of the forms of Being (bel limits / Laws are seen to normally be inherent in origins).
Rm. The Void / Universe, Being, every object inherits the limitlessness of the Universe / Void.
Rm. Except that there is at least one, the number of Voids is irrelevant.
Rm. A Void may be regarded to be associated with every element of Being.
Rm. The Void and the Universe are equivalent. Every element of Being is equivalent to every other. (That something must come from nothing is a trivial corollary.) There are no substances as original, constant, and exclusive sources of All Being. At the deepest and most general level the question of foundation is forever closed.
Rm. The impossible objects are not (cannot be) realized. FP Þ all other objects are realized. The Universe is the object of Logic.
Df. Realism is (negatively) the constraint that concepts satisfy Logic to have objects. Positively, it is assertion that all Logical concepts have objects.
Rm. Realism º Logic. \as for Logic, Realism is not a limit but a constraint on concepts.
Rm. The term ‘Logos’ is related to this use of Logic.
Rm. The forms of logic are approximations to parts of Realism / Logic. While the logics may be experienced as strict and ‘limiting’ this Realism / Logic is the most liberal of realisms.
Def. Metaphysics is the study of Being as it is.
Dem. $ Metaphysics.
Rm. The metaphysics of FP is the metaphysics ab (limitless universe, Realism / Logic, every Logical / Realistic concept has an object).
Def. The Universal Metaphysics is the metaphysics of FP.
Rm. The adjective ‘Universal’ ab applies.
Rm. For its domain the Universal Metaphysics is unique to within detail. It is therefore also called ‘the metaphysics’.
Rm. From dem the metaphysics is perfect. It is ultimate in capturing All Being and, figuratively, in showing the Universe as ultimate.
Rm. The metaphysics is a unique, perfect, and ultimate Universal Metaphysics.
Rm. It is crucial to understand the meaning of FP. Its explicit meaning lies in Realism / Logic. Its implicit meaning lies in the implications.
Rm. The minimal Realism associated with Logic constitutes an explicit meaning of the metaphysics: given Realism, concepts have objects.
Rm. Many momentous results flow from the metaphysics; proofs will not be given. This should not suppress that there are numerous non-trivial implications.
Rm. At the extreme pole from the trivial is the full understanding of the ‘womb of all reality’ in the Universe.
Rm. In between are implications for abstract objects (they are in the universe), identity, science (stemming, e.g. from interaction of the properties of the void and stability / indeterministic transition of quantum systems and from implications of identity and universe as all being for space-time-matter), logic and set theory (sets must be in the universe), and the range of disciplines and endeavors.
Rm. Since all objects are in the Universe an abstract object is in the one Universe—or it does not exist. What then is the difference between abstract and concrete objects? If the mode of acquaintance is experiential—from the world—the object is concrete. If we project the projection may be to an actual object or not. In the latter case the projection has an object provided it is ‘Logical’. What we normally call abstract is in this case. However, the projection to an actual and known object is also abstract in this sense. All objects have an abstract and a concrete side. What side we emphasize determines what is so far the distinction between the abstract and the concrete. However we now see that there is no fundamental distinction. If the abstract seem to be a-causal and non-temporal it is because the concept is one for which causality or temporality is absent from what is abstracted. Of course, if we restrict attention to this (or some particular) cosmos there is a practical distinction between the concrete and the abstract. Even here however the distinction is not as rock solid as has been thought. Today we regard number as abstract. Our earliest acquaintance with number was empirical. Because of the apparent perfection of the abstract definition of number since the nineteenth century we prefer the abstract notion and because of the apparent reality of the notion of number we may therefore tend to think it ‘resides’ in an ideal universe. We now see that the abstract and the concrete are not fundamentally different and that both reside in the one and only Universe. In both cases a concept refers to the object. In both cases thinking of the object as the concept (e.g. a mental object) is misguided. For a concrete object that resides in the Universe it may or may not reside in our cosmos (in that the cosmos is normally distinct from the rest of the Universe). Those abstract objects that have space, time, and causality left behind in the abstraction may be thought of residing in every part of the ‘material’ universe and in no part. However the case is that they have but one location of residence which is a compound location and the fact that they seem to reside everywhere is a consequence of them not being tied to some particular place (similar considerations arise for time). Their seeming unreal and intangible character arises especially when causation is left behind in the abstraction: the compound that is abstracted seems intangible because the abstract of each part that is part of the abstract whole is non causal.
Rm. The vastness (limitlessness) and forms of Logic await discovery (the known logics are but forms of and within Logic). While the forms may be rough and constraining Logic itself is the true and most liberal realism.
Df. Cosmology = (study of) varieties and forms of Being.
Rm. The study of Universe, identity, duration and extension (and time and space), Matter (Cap) and Mind (Cap), variety, peaks, dissolutions, Aeternitas, realization for limited forms, ideas and action, individual and civilization (lc and Cap), transience and structure, are topics in cosmology. \ Cosmology is part of the implicit meaning of the metaphysics.
Rm. Natural science and common experience have domains of validity but the Universe—the object of the metaphysics—is greater without limit than those domains. The Universe is limitlessly greater than our cosmos.
Dem of ab rm. Implicit in ab.
Df. Identity is (sense of) sameness.
Dem. The Universe has Identity and manifestation in acute, diffuse and absent (non-manifest) phases. Such phasing is without limit.
Dfs. Duration marks difference associated change of same identity; extension marks different identities.
Dem. From the df, duration and extension are interwoven.
Dfs. Time-space are coordinate measures of duration-extension (when such measures exist).
Dem. Duration-extension, where it exists, is immanent in Being.
Dem. Duration-extension are relative (from Universe º All Being, i.e. from the fact that the Universe has no outside). There are phases of as-if absolute duration and extension.
Rm. The two pvs Dems apply to space-time.
Rm. The universe is marked by a patchwork of duration-extension-manifestation.
Rm. In English ‘exists’ is associated with present tense. This limitation is not present ab. Therefore we may say that ‘exists’ is some combination of ‘existed’, ‘exists’ and ‘will exist’ and is more general according as duration and extension are but two marks changing and different identity respectively. Similar remarks (obviously) apply to the uses of the word ‘is’ generally and particularly ab.
Def. First order being is Being as Being.
Def. Matter º first order Being.
Rm. Matter (Cap) is not to be understood as º matter in our cosmos. Further, only some aspects of matter in our cosmos that fall under Matter (per se).
Rm. The universe is marked by a patchwork of duration-extension-Matter.
Dem. The variety, extension, duration, and summits of Being in the Universe are without limit.
Dem. All beings—especially individuals—inherit these powers (inf) of the Universe (except for conditions of coexistence which however vanish when the individual assumes universal identity).
Df. Power is degree of limitlessness.
Dem. The Universe is ultimate power.
Dem. The individual inherits the power of the Universe.
Rm. The paradox from ab and apparent limits (cosmos versus Universe, individual experience versus individual as revealed in ab dem) is removed in light of the metaphysics and recognizing that the apparent limits are temporary.
This is a good place to address doubt
Rm. There is a raft of standard and non-standard problems for the concepts introduced and assertions shown. For statement and resolution see Ref.
Very imp rm. The main doubt of the development concerns demonstration of FP. The essence of the doubt concerns existence of the Void for which proofs have been given—see Ref. I have called the proofs ‘demonstrations’ because their foundation is complete. This may seem problematic but such problems concern only higher concepts and not the lowest concepts of experience and Being regarding which, were they not given, you would not be having the experience (substitute a descriptor that is satisfactory to you) of reading these words. You may balk at the term ‘you’; you may say ‘perhaps there is only experience, perhaps ‘I’ am an illusion; this concern is addressed in Ref. The crucial doubt remains existence the Void. While the doubt has its formal side the enormity of the implications adds weight to the doubt that is difficult to separate from the not inconsiderable formal side.
How may this residual doubt be addressed? The first address of course is the varied proofs of which some are true proofs in form while others are plausibility arguments designed to address the psychological side of the doubt. I have not been able to remove all doubt.
Perhaps the most effective approach to the doubt is to (1) Note that FP has no inconsistencies or true absurdities whatsoever (which includes the formal and psychological sides as well as what may be called the practical side, e.g. apparent contradiction with experience and science, which are already included in the formal but which may and are also addressed independently) and (2) To admit the doubt.
For—there is already practical doubt regarding realization—when and in what form shall this occur… will my engagement be sufficiently powerful in ‘this’ form? The formal doubt adds to this doubt and enhances it as an existential challenge. Thus the half full half empty perspective sees a diminishment of material certainty but an enhancement of existential challenge.
There is a formal side to the existential. From the text we can see that the academic and human implications of the metaphysics (FP) are immense. It is at least an experiment to take up the challenge. We know from twentieth century developments in logic and mathematics that we do not have the certainty that we once thought (which is driven home from FP) but that this make research even more provoking. Examples of such uncertainty include the axiom of choice in analysis and the openness of mathematical systems to hidden inconsistency. FP may be added to these challenges that add to our adventure in life, death, pain, and joy…
Dem. Experience is relation between elements of Being.
Rm. Pure experience is internal to, e.g., the individual.
Rm. Mind (cap) or experience is thus identified as ‘second order Being’.
Dem. Every atom is a cosmos, every cosmos an atom.
Dem. \ the distinction between Mind and Matter is empty.
Rm. There are limitless modes of Mind and Matter (each associate with some domain of Being with coherent properties). However, there are no further attributes beyond Matter and Mind (third order Being is a term without fundamental significance beyond second order Being).
Rm. Manifestation of a domain (cosmos) and individuals of animal level intelligence or higher would seem to normally be the result of incremental origin from a more primitive situation or perhaps transition from another structured situation. However, spontaneous origins occur without limit. That they normally require (if such is indeed the case) must correlate with ‘normal’ origins being a higher order of limitlessness (infinity) than spontaneous origin.
Rm. Mind (lc) as we experience it is an order of Mind as ab. Consciousness is experience. The difference between consciousness and experience is not one of kind but one of degree of intensity, focus, concentration, variety, self-reference (includes ability to identify consciousness—i.e. experience of experience), and degrees of freedom (concept creation). The degrees of freedom are the source of creativity and error and higher logic (i.e. logic not ‘hardwired’ into the organism); language further accentuates consciousness of consciousness by providing a cultural place for the idea of consciousness and by being an instrument of attention to consciousness. Apparent cases of awareness without consciousness are in fact cases in which the self-referential aspect of higher consciousness is absent in which experience is not recognized even though it is present. The putative on-off character of consciousness is on-off of awareness of awareness. Is there a level of growth beyond consciousness? Apparently not for while Matter is Being-as-Being and Mind is Being-in-relation (to Being), there seems to be no further level Being in relation to Being-as-Being is no more than Being in relation to Being. There can of course be many modes of Matter (the possibilities of manifestation) and therefore, correspondingly, of Mind and consciousness; and there may be many levels of power and intelligence of Mind but they lie within the realm of Mind, experience, and consciousness.
Def. Aeternitas is realization of acute and peak universal identity in or as-if in a point-instant.
Dem. $ Aeternitas.
Df. A form is limited º the form does not realize or experience Aeternitas.
Rm. A limited form has transitions to and from limitlessness.
Dem. While in limited form realization of the ultimate, though given, is limitless in extension, duration, variety, summit and dissolution of Being.
Rm. Realization of the ultimate does not require engagement. However, it seems inevitable that enjoyment and efficiency of realization requires engagement (of individual) and commitment (past and future goal orientated behavior which of course includes abandoning goals and goal behavior at times).
Rm. Since Mind and Matter are ultimately distinct there is no difference between action as Mental (ideation) and action as Material. However, in limited form the distinction is practical.
Imp rm. Ideas and action are the modes of realization.
Rm. For limited form science and logic are ever experimental and empirical endeavors.
Rm. For limited form any approach to ultimate science and logic require participation and immersion in Being.
Rm. While the individual seems a concrete identity, all identity is transient and transitional. What constitutes individual and group is relative (every atom is a cosmos, every cosmos an atom). However the distinction between individual and group is not relative.
Dem. The transience of individuals marks and is a place of their relation to the Universe. Without transience there is no realization. Transience is the ground on which to build realization.
Df. Human civilization is the web of human cultures across time and continents.
Imp rm. Individual and civilization are the vehicles of realization. Individuals foster civilization, civilization nourishes the individual (against the primitive background that may be called nature).
Df. Civilization (Cap) is the matrix of civilization across the Universe.
Df. A discipline is an established way of doing something. The disciplines may be labeled ‘academic’ and ‘endeavor’ (the latter includes religion).
Df. A way or method is a way of doing something. The disciplines are ways and provide established ways. There are ways of development of the disciplines.
Rm. Civilization (lc and Cap) provide ways of ideation and action—disciplines of thought, discovery, and transformation.
Rm. The standard forms of the disciplines—secular and trans-secular—are marked by incompleteness and error but their core constitutes a ground on which to build.
Transience and Realization
Dem. The transient disciplines are a ground on which to build toward realization.
Rm. Our apparent limits are Laws or expressions of Law which also constitute initial ground on which to transcend limits on the way to universal realization.
Rm. The transitions involve break down—splitting—and building of Being, appropriately called analysis and synthesis of Being (and includes analysis and synthesis of ideas).
Rm. Analysis and synthesis include risk of splitting—experimental via catalyst and pure experiment—and build up. Build up may be conceived but must also be true risk. The combination is optimal.
Rm. The disciplines suggest catalysts of transient change—of ‘mind’ and ‘body’ (e.g. shamanic and yogic). Incremental change in being and disciplines (ways) is secured in experience, reason, and recollection (memory).
Rm and partial rec. The dimensions of realization are Transformation—for Being and Civilization. Modes of transformation of Being are Ideas and Action. Transformation of Civilization is habitation of the Universe—via intrinsic transformation of Being and by instrument or technology.
Rm. At the front there is individual trial and sharing. There may be teachers but there are no ultimate masters. It is a little and exp paradox that proclamations of master-hood are temporarily useful.
Dem. Death and pain are given. They are not absolute. They are gate and motive to the ultimate.
Rm. Life, death, pain, and joy are gates to the ultimate.
Rm. The givenness of realization does not negate the value and challenge of endeavor or the facts of pain and death but gives meaning to life and death, pain and joy, and challenge.
Rm. While in limited form realization is endless process—and ever fresh in variety—a Journey in Being. While in limited form, the forms of knowledge and Being are ever open—an eternal challenge. While foundations are closed, variety is ever open.
Realization begins in the present, perhaps with the disciplines but requires risk—experiment, splitting, and rebuilding of Being and Civilization. The increment of splitting and rebuilding may be impermanent but may be secured in experience, reason, and recollection (for Being) and in habitat (for Civilization).