ANIL MITRA, © COPYRIGHT 2013—2013
Journey in Being
‘Journey in Being’ is an endeavor of discovery, revelation, and realization of greatest Being. Narratives of the endeavor are linked at the head of this document; these and other material may be found at http://www.horizons-2000.org.
This narrative has its origin in my thought that an axiomatic development might be useful in showing and improving some aspects of the structure of the journey.
The document is a development of the main structure of ‘Journey in Being’ in axiomatic form. A standard view of axiomatic formulation is that it shall begin with undefined terms, unproven axioms, and some ground level of method of proof whose foundation is also axiomatic.
The Possibilities of Axiomatic Development
It is commonly thought that a worldview or metaphysics must be based on substance (in some sense) or on infinite regress. These alternatives are not altogether different and in any case neither can claim to be a final foundation.
The question arises whether there can be any final foundation for metaphysics or at least for some significant part of it. There is of course a further level of difficulty concerning metaphysics regarded as knowledge of things as they are andor knowledge of the universe. This difficulty is that we know things in experience and (1) the universe contains or may contain things that are so remote as to be beyond experience (2) even immediate things as known are not independent of experience. It is commonly thought that these difficulties imply that metaphysics as knowledge of things as they are is at least impossible but may even be without meaning.
I have found that some aspects of the universe are susceptible to metaphysical knowledge. While the entire universe in all detail is not thus susceptible to human knowledge the extent of the susceptibility is surprising. It includes experience, being, and the universe as a whole. This metaphysics—surprising in its immensity and depth of foundation is part of the development. Now, our knowledge is part of the universe and therefore it should not be surprising if ‘method’ should turn out to be an implicit part of the metaphysics. What may be surprising is the extent to which explicit method has explicit foundation. This too is part of the development.
What is a World View?
What is a world view? I hold that it must be more than a general metaphysical view of the universe. It must include our relations to the universe; and the relations should not be merely the passive or material relations but should also include the active relations which include questions of ego, aim, action, motive, and commitment. These are perhaps issues of detail but they may be founded in the concept of experience and therefore experience is the first concept in the order of development. It may perhaps be seen as a further benefit that this approach is instrumental in founding or method as discussed in the previous paragraph.
A Journey and its Necessity
The development of the ideas of in this narrative is not the result of thought alone. Naturally my ambitions and motives are an informal part of the process. Further, my personal history of endeavor—my ‘journey’—which includes a number of realms has been essential to the development.
It is shown in the metaphysics that knowledge and experience of the universe for a limited form of being must be eternal process. It is further shown that the greatest completion of the metaphysics requires ongoing action and incremental transformation of the being of the ‘metaphysician’.
Thus it is essential to the development that it should be a ‘journey in being’ on individual and universal levels.
I have found both aspects of the process—the personal and the universal—to be a wonderful adventure.
Structure of the Development
The main development is a series of definitions, assertions, and proofs which are marked as such by prefixing them with the terms ‘Definition’, ‘Assertion’ and ‘Proof’. ‘Assertion*’ marks an assertion whose proof follows immediately and obviously from previous definitions and assertions and for which proof is not given.
The development is supplemented by remarks. Some remarks are no more than commentary. Others are sufficiently relevant to a general development of the ideas to include but are not in the main sequence (of definition-assertion-proof) and therefore whose treatment (and demonstration if warranted) may be informal.
Definition. Experience is subjective awareness.
Remark. Experience may be referential (‘attitude’), pure, and active. These combine as ideas (pure and creative) and action.
Remark. The definition above and the following assertion may seem to be circular when taken together for is not ‘experience is subjective awareness’ and ‘there is experience’ circular? It is not for in saying experience is subjective awareness it is not being said that there is experience. This concern regarding the use of ‘is’ in definitions and assertions is further addressed in the discussion of existence below.
Remark. Experience may be referential (‘attitude’), pure, and active. These combine as ideas (pure and creative) and action. Note that when an experience seems to be referential there is no implication that there is an objects or even that there are objects and reference at all.
Assertion. There is experience.
Proof. (Demonstration) Experience is (given)—it is (the medium of our) presence.
Remark. (Explanation) Illusion, delusion, hallucination and so on are experience. If ‘all is illusion’ there is (still) experience.
Remark. ‘Demonstration’ and ‘proof’ are somewhat interchangeable but I use demonstration above to emphasize that it does not depend either on previous proof or on unproven (though not necessarily altogether unfounded) assertions. Generally a chain of proof must terminate in un in unproven assertions (which include analytic content of definitions and methods of proof). From this general fact the claim is frequently regarded as universal. However the fact of experience shows that it is not universal. The core of the ‘metaphysics’ developed in what follows terminates, similarly, in givens. How is this different, say, from the metaphysics of Kant that is founded in the categories of experience? We know of course that Kant’s use of the intuition of space, time, and cause are unfounded (he regarded them as founded from Newtonian Mechanics). However, this is not the crux of the difference. What is different and would obtain even if Kant’s categories of intuition are founded in today’s quantum-relativistic physics is that his categories are at a level that is high enough to remove them from the realm of the given.
Definition. Existence is that which is (there).
Remark. The definition above and the following assertion, taken together, may seem to be circular. However the ‘is’ of the definition and the ‘is’ of the assertion are distinct. The former use is as in ‘is defined to be’ while the latter is as in ‘there is water on the surface of Earth’ of ‘there is tree on Mars’; the former use of ‘is’ is defining while the latter is asserting and the definition-assertion pair is therefore not circular. Now, from the definition, it is trivial that there is existence if we allow that existence may be vacuous. Therefore what is to be proved is that there are existing ‘things’ or, strictly, at least one existing thing.
Assertion. There is existence.
Proof. Since there is experience.
Remark. I.e. ‘existence’ is not vacuous. However it would be rather trivial if the only existing thing were experience and if the only experienced thing were experience itself; in what follows it is seen that the ranges of experience and of what is experienced are rich.
Definition. The real world is what exists independently of it being experienced.
Remark. The real world is sometimes called the external world.
Assertion. There is a real world.
Proof. If there is only experience it is the world.
Assertion. There is experience of experience.
Proof. This is inherent in the assertion that there is experience.
Remark. In this experience is different from (most) other objects, especially ‘material’ objects.
Definition. An object is what is experienced. The concept is the experience.
Remark. This meaning of concept includes the ‘higher’ meaning of concept as unit of meaning. It includes percepts.
Definition. A concept-object pair constitutes meaning.
Remark. The object may be ‘empty’. A concept is icon and symbol (e.g. word, sentence) in association. Iconic content is necessary in order to identify objects. Symbols make for efficiency in thought and communication.
Assertion. Experience is an object. Concepts are objects.
Proof. We have experience of experience. However even non-reflexive experience is experience and therefore an object. Concepts (in the sense used here) are experiential.
Remark. All concepts have a creative element (they are generated by the organism and not merely the result of the world on the organism) that gives them an element of hypothesis which in some cases may be negligible but in other cases is significant. If altogether negligible the concept is ‘bound’ (to the object); if freedom is significant the concept is free (has creative freedom). The free character is a source of both error and creation (of powerful and realistic conceptual systems).
Robustness and Discrimination
Assertion. The real world is far more than (individual) experience. (Remark. This is true even though there is significant illusion.)
Proof. The world as known in individual experience is far greater than what is in the direct experience of the individual; the former is in fact greater than the individual’s experiential knowledge of his or her own capacity for knowledge. Therefore the idea that the world is only experience is either (a) an alternate labeling of the world or (b) an extension of the notion of experience (e.g. the world including experience is the experience of the universe as a whole) or (c) some combination of a and b. Now (b) may be true (or not) but this does not affect the assertion. We can regard (a) to be true but it is far more effective to regard the assertion as true.
Remark. This situation is similar to many examples from the history of thought. An example is the ‘Copernican revolution’. There is more than one valid system of description of the motion of the solar system—e.g., (1) motion around the sun and (2) motion around the earth. The Copernican revolution recognizes that (1) is immensely simplifying (over the Ptolemaic system). In the later development of Newtonian mechanics both (1) and (2) are possible but (1) is far simpler and seen to be natural in that the sun provides an inertial frame (to good approximation).
Remark. The position that there is only experience is a brand of what is called ‘solipsism’. The above proof dismisses this kind of solipsism. The earlier assertion that experience of experience is inherent to (talk of, our kind of) experience is already a dismissal of solipsism. It is not obvious how this might be extended to the experience (such as it is) of, say, a snail to which we might be willing to attribute experience but not experience of its experience. The extension would require proof that all experience includes experience of experience. The later assertion that every atom is a cosmos may entail that experience is intrinsically reflexive and this consideration deserves attention.
Definition. Being is that which exists.
Assertion. There is Being. Being is robust and discriminating.
Proof. From considerations above.
Remark. The power (informal use) 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. If an ontology, e.g. materialism, should emerge it will do so in a position that is stronger than the argument from science which, as long as physical science is not known to be complete, cannot be more than one of the stronger plausibility arguments.
Definition. Logic (Capitalized) is constraint on (creative) freedom of concepts that is necessary for possibility of reference.
Remark. In the definition above ‘constraint’ may be replaced by ‘system of constraints’.
Remark. ‘Logic’ is not of Being as Being but of Being in relation to Being (e.g. understanding). Discovery of Logic is experimental.
Assertion. The hypothetical concept that does not satisfy Logic has no object. ‘The hypothetical but Illogical (i.e., that violated Logic) object does not exist.’
Proof. From the definition of Logic.
Definition. A limit on Being is a concept that satisfies Logic but (still) has no object.
Remark. Logic (Capitalized) is a constraint on concepts but not a limit on Being (when Universe is introduced ‘Universe’ may be substituted for ‘Being’).
Definition. A fact (lower case) is a non-compound concept or percept.
Definition. A Fact (Capitalized) is the immanent fact (lower case).
Definition. A law (lower case) is a pattern. The Law (Capitalized) is the pattern.
Remark. Here ‘law’ and ‘Law’ refer to laws as exemplified by scientific law and not as in ‘the laws of the land’.
Remark. Laws (Capitalized) are limits on Being (except vacuous cases such as ‘It is what it is’).
Fact and Law
Assertion. 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.
Proof. A Law is a pattern or compound Fact. A Fact is ‘simplex’ pattern or Law.
Assertion. Facts (Capitalized) and Laws (Capitalized) have Being.
Proof. Even facts and laws have Being. This is because they are concepts, i.e. ‘are there’ (recall that concepts are objects). However, Facts and Laws have Being is, simply, because they are there.
Remark. This illustrates the power of the concept of Being. If we insisted that existence was material existence (or mind-stuff existence or symbolic existence or existence of any specific kind) the existence of any thing that is not obviously of the kind would be in question. For example the answer to the question ‘is a fact or pattern material’ may seem to be ‘yes’ but it is certainly not ‘obviously yes’.
Remark. The distinction between Facts and Laws is arbitrary. (This remark will be strengthened later.)
Definition. Science is conceptual projection on data points and concepts.
Remark. This is the aspect of science that is essential in this development. That science should have a domain of verification and significance and that it should refer to something outside that domain and therefore be testable (falsifiable) outside that domain is implicit (if the intent is universality as explained in the next remark).
Assertion. Science may be regarded as universal hypothesis or (valid) fact over a limited domain.
Proof. It is implicit of course that the science in question is valid. Therefore it has a domain of validity. There are formulated criteria for science. However, these may or may not fit institutional science—i.e. science that is accepted by the body of working scientists and users of science (e.g. in engineering and technology). One implicit criterion is that a scientific theory should have a track record of success beyond its original formulation (in fact since most acceptable theories begin by integrating what is pertinent in older ones they generally get off to a ‘running start’ that of course gives hopes for but does not guarantee a successful record in the future). This ‘track record’ is precisely one of going beyond its original domain of application. Therefore even though successful theories generally will not be fully universal they will have gone through partial universalizing.
Remark. 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.
Science and Logic
Remark. Science (as fact) and the logics (approximately) may be regarded as part of Logic.
Assertion. Science and logic thus understood have dual and common origin. Discovery in both is experimental.
Proof. The concept of science and Logic thus understood are derived from experience of factual and conceptual agreement described above. Therefore, while not absolutely a priori, the concepts are grounded in given experience. On the other hand the content of science and Logic (the sciences and the logics) cannot be other than experimental in their discovery (even if built into language and the language capability the experimental aspect is one of evolution).
Remark. The remark above concerning the logics is eminently sensible. The remark regarding Fact requires only a trivial alteration in the meaning of ‘Logic’.
Foundation of the Foundation
Remark. In the introduction I noted that there would be foundation not just of a view of the universe but also of the method behind that view. I was careful, of course, to note that the foundation would not be entire (entire foundation might be rather depressing and occasion for regret). The foundation, so far as it will be developed, is not yet complete but some groundwork has been laid out above.
Remark. Definition of ‘metaphysics’ is deferred to a point in the development where it is clear that metaphysics is significantly meaningful—i.e. where there is a significant domain of (true) metaphysical knowledge. However, development of metaphysics has already begun and continues.
Definition. Universe (Capitalized) is all Being.
Remark. The concept of limits regarding Being apply to the Universe.
Assertion. (1) There is one and only one Universe. (2) There is nothing outside the Universe—i.e., the Universe has no ‘outside’. (3) Laws (Capitalized) 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.
Proof. Obvious from the definitions of Being, Law, Fact, and Universe.
Remark. One part of the Universe may be implicated in the creation of another without violation of the definitions of Being through Universe.
Remark. In the immediately above 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 remarks are strengthened later.
Definition. The Void is the absence of Being.
Assertion. There is a Void.
Proof. As complement to the Universe the Void exists.
Proof. (Alternate) The existence and non-existence of the Void are identical.
Assertion. The Void contains no Being (and therefore no experience, concept, object, or Law).
Proof. From the definition of the Void.
Fundamental Principle of Metaphysics
Definition. The fundamental principle of metaphysics (FP) is the assertion that ‘The Universe has no limits’.
Remark. Thus far FP is a name and ‘metaphysics’ is part of the name without significance. The concept of metaphysics is defined later.
Assertion. The fundamental principle of metaphysics.
Proof. The Void exists and has no Laws. Every state emerges from the Void for the contrary would be a limit on the Void. This power (informal use) is conferred on every element of Being including the Universe for the contrary would be a limit on the Void. This demonstrates that the Universe has no limits.
Assertion. The Universe has no universal Laws.
Proof. A universal Law would be a limit.
Remark. Laws are temporary limits and part of the constitution of the forms of Being (later, limits and Laws are seen to normally be inherent in origins).
Remark. The Void is limitless and therefore not only the Universe but Being and every object and individual inherit the limitlessness.
Remark. Except that there is at least one, the number of Voids is irrelevant. (Two voids have precisely the limitlessness of one.)
Remark. A Void may be regarded to be associated with every element of Being.
Remark. 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.
Instrumental form of the Fundamental Principle
Remark. The impossible objects are not (cannot be) realized; this is not a ‘material result’ but inherent in the notion of impossibility. The fundamental principle implies that all other objects are realized. The Universe is the object of Logic.
Realism and Logic
Definition. Realism is (negatively) the constraint that concepts satisfy Logic to have objects. Positively, it is assertion that all Logical concepts have objects.
Assertion. Realism is Logic. Therefore, as for Logic, Realism is not a limit but a constraint on concepts.
Proof. From above considerations.
Remark. The term ‘Logos’ is related to this use of Logic.
Remark. 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.
Definition. Metaphysics is the study of Being as it is.
Remark. This is an original meaning of metaphysics.
Assertion. There is metaphysics.
Proof. From above considerations.
Remark. The point is of immense importance for it stands against a strong modern tradition of anti-metaphysical thought (there is in fact more than one such tradition and the errors of the traditions are shown in references linked from http://www.horizons-2000.org). Why does metaphysics succeed here where it fails elsewhere?
Remark. From the failure of classical metaphysics the very definition of metaphysics is generally in question today and there are a number of activities that have been suggested as the content of metaphysics.
Assertion. Metaphysics may be restituted to its original meaning.
Proof. From above considerations.
Remark. There is value to restituting metaphysics to its original meaning for that meaning is a powerful one and as shown here the power is not vacuous but rich. Further, the restitution will not invalidate other activities that are today called metaphysics. Nor need the restitution strip these activities of the appellation ‘metaphysics’ provided that the different activities that fall under the appellation are not conflated or confused.
A Unique, Perfect, and Ultimate Universal Metaphysics
Remark. The metaphysics of FP is the metaphysics above—i.e. the metaphysics that reveals the limitlessness of the Universe, the metaphysics that shows the identity of Realism and Logic and so on.
Definition. The Universal Metaphysics is the metaphysics of the fundamental principle (FP).
Remark. The adjective ‘Universal’ above applies.
Remark. For its domain the Universal Metaphysics is unique to within detail. It is therefore also called ‘the metaphysics’.
Assertion. The metaphysics is unique, perfect, ultimate, and universal.
Proof. Uniqueness and universality are shown above. Its perfection lies in that it captures All Being precisely (the breadth captured explicitly is immense and the remainder of Being is captured implicitly). It is ultimate in capturing All Being (the degree of perfect explicit capture cannot be greater for, e.g., while it does not capture local science, local science is imperfect).
Remark. It is further figuratively ultimate in showing the Universe as ultimate.
Meaning of the Metaphysics
Remark. It is crucial to understand the meaning of the metaphysics—i.e. of FP. Its explicit meaning lies in Realism / Logic. Its implicit meaning lies in the implications.
Remark. The minimal Realism associated with Logic constitutes an explicit meaning of the metaphysics: given Realism, concepts have objects.
Significant Implications of the Metaphysics with Trivial Proof
Remark. Many momentous results flow from the metaphysics; proofs need not be given—the text will simply record that the proof from limitlessness is trivial; it will be implicit that Logic may not be violated but this is not problematic because Logic is itself defined in implicit terms. This should not suppress that there are numerous non-trivial implications.
Remark. Remarks may contain demonstrated assertions and proofs are sometimes given but otherwise left to the reader.
Deep Implications—Proofs Difficult or Inaccessible
Remark. It is implicit that the difficulty-impossibility is for a given form, e.g. human being.
Remark. At the extreme pole from the trivial is the full understanding of the ‘womb of all reality’ in the Universe.
Implications at the Intersection with Human Knowledge—Challenging Difficulty
Remark. 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.
Unification of Abstract and Concrete Objects
Assertion. The distinction between abstract and concrete objects is not fundamental. All objects are in the one Universe.
Proof. (With elaboration of the meaning of the assertion.) The following remark.
Remark. 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 the distinction between the abstract and the concrete is so far (in the literature). 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.
Subject of Logic is Vast
Assertion. The subject of Logic is limitless.
Proof. The subject is the Universe.
Remark. 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.
Definition. Cosmology is (study of) varieties and forms of Being.
Remark. The study of Universe, identity, duration and extension (and time and space), Matter (Capitalized) and Mind (Capitalized), variety, peaks, dissolutions, Aeternitas, realization for limited forms, ideas and action, individual and civilization (lower case and Capitalized), transience and structure, are topics in cosmology. Therefore cosmology is part of the implicit meaning of the metaphysics.
Assertion. Natural science has 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.
Proof. Implicit in the foregoing development.
Definition. Identity is (sense of) sameness.
Assertion*. The Universe has Identity and manifestation in acute, diffuse and absent (non-manifest) phases. Such phasing is without limit.
Duration and Extension (Time and Space)
Definition. Duration marks difference associated change of same identity; extension marks different identities.
Assertion. From their definitions, duration and extension are interwoven.
Proof. Because identity is not sharp given as to always have its differences distinguished as same versus different object.
Remark. The assertion should have said that duration and extension are logically interwoven and therefore from limitlessness shall be inseparable in some cases and separable in others.
Definition. Time and space are coordinate measures of duration-extension (when such measures exist).
Assertion. Duration-extension, where it exists, is immanent in Being.
Proof. Otherwise they would be outside the Universe.
Assertion. Duration-extension is 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.
Proof. As immanent in Being it is logically possible that there are cases of their being relative. Therefore there are actual cases (from FP). Now since the relative includes the absolute case but not vice versa, duration-extension is relative. That there are as-if absolute phases follows from FP.
Remark. The previous two assertions apply to space-time.
Remark. The universe is marked by a patchwork of duration-extension-manifestation.
Remark. In English ‘exists’ is associated with present tense. This limitation is not present above. 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 above.
Assertion*. The Universe has no beginning or end or limit in extension. The Universe is.
Definition. First order being is Being as Being.
Definition. Matter (Capitalized) is first order Being.
Remark. These definitions require no justification. What will require justification is the dual introduction of the foregoing concept of Matter together with the later concept of Mind.
Remark. Matter (Capitalized) 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).
Remark. The universe is marked by a patchwork of duration-extension-Matter.
Assertion*. The variety, extension, duration, and summits of Being in the Universe are without limit.
Assertion*. All beings—especially individuals—inherit these powers (informal use) of the Universe (except for conditions of coexistence which however vanish when the individual assumes universal identity).
Definition. Power is degree of limitlessness.
Assertion. The Universe is ultimate power.
Proof. From FP and the definition of power.
Assertion*. The individual inherits the power of the Universe.
Remark. The paradox from above and apparent limits (cosmos versus Universe, individual experience versus individual as revealed in assertion above) is removed in light of the metaphysics and recognizing that the apparent limits are temporary.
Remark. There is a raft of standard and non-standard problems for the concepts introduced and assertions shown. For statement and resolution see narratives linked from the site http://www.horizons-2000.org.
Remark. (Important) 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 narratives linked from the site http://www.horizons-2000.org. 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 narratives linked from the site http://www.horizons-2000.org. 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…
Assertion. The metaphysics poses existential challenge regardless of the issue of doubt regarding its proof.
Proof. The foregoing remarks.
Foundation of the Foundation
Remark. The extent to which the metaphysics and its method may be founded is now clear. The depth foundation of the metaphysics is complete in the foundation in the Void (or any element of Being). This foundation shows that while substance is not possible it is not at all necessary or even useful. An immense metaphysical and cosmological development follows from this foundation. However, the metaphysics-cosmology is not complete. For limited form knowledge is ever incomplete and its greatest completion lies in action; however, while action is a process of realization, realization, too, is ever in process (for limited form). This shows the aspect of completeness and the aspect of incompleteness (which is occasion for celebration and adventure). It was seen in discussion of doubt that the ‘complete’ and ‘open’ parts of the foundation are open to doubt (though not to claims of factual or Logical consistency or to claims of psychological absurdity) and that this is not negative (existentially) but adds to the adventure. It was further noted that, in terms of rigor, this is on par with the most certain of the potent elements of modern secular thought and simultaneously goes far beyond that thought in some crucial directions.
Mind (and Matter)
Assertion. Experience is relation between elements of Being.
Proof. Experience is ‘experience of’.
Remark. Pure experience is internal to the individual. Although it seems pure it must be the result of internal relations for a point has no experience. The purity of pure experience is no more than seeming purity.
Remark. Mind (Capitalized) or experience is thus identified as ‘second order Being’.
Definition. Mind (Capitalized) is second order Being—i.e. the experiential relation between elements of Being.
Assertion*. Every atom is a cosmos, every cosmos an atom.
Assertion. Therefore the distinction between Mind and Matter is empty.
Proof. From the assertion about atoms and cosmoses, mind is matter is mind… and so on to the root of Being.
Remark. There are limitless modes of Mind and Matter (each associate with some domain of Being with coherent properties); this follows from FP. However, there are no further attributes beyond Matter and Mind (third order Being is a term without fundamental significance beyond second order Being).
Remark. 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.
Assertion. The definitions of Mind and Matter are rational and justified.
Proof. They fit one another; they are generalizations of our notions of mind and matter; they cover and exhaust Being.
Remark. Mind (lower case) as we experience it is an order of Mind as above. 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. As experience, consciousness is not evolutionarily adaptive; what is adaptive is the forms and degrees that consciousness assumes—for consciousness as experience is given to being but its forms arise in origins (which may of course be spontaneous and not incrementally adaptive but this is likely so rare and typically lacking in stability as to make it insignificance and therefore significant forms of consciousness are adaptive in overwhelming frequency). Any argument for behavior that is as-if conscious but not consciousness that is based on awareness without consciousness is disproved by the foregoing remarks. The concept of a-consciousness that has appeared in the literature of consciousness has been founded and justified in precisely such basis. The concept of a-consciousness therefore lacks foundation and proof of existence; it serves no function that consciousness does not serve; and, while there may of course be mechanical intelligence without significant consciousness, there is no intelligence without any consciousness (experience) and, further, the evolutionary argument shows that except by (rare) fluke of becoming, consciousness must be aware of consciousness in degree that is sufficient to its autonomy.
Assertion. All consciousness and awareness are experience. All awareness has some degree of consciousness (for awareness is relation). Awareness of awareness is on-off but awareness is not. There is no mode of Being ‘higher than consciousness’ but there is higher consciousness. The forms and degrees of consciousness are adaptive. Grounded and autonomous consciousness must be self-aware in measure sufficient to its autonomy. (The proviso here is that the being under consideration is not the result, extremely unlikely, of spontaneous origin.)
Proof. The foregoing remarks.
Definition. An unlimited form is one that realizes all identity as a state of being.
Assertion*. There is unlimited form.
Definition. Aeternitas is realization of acute and peak universal identity in or as-if in a point-instant.
Assertion*. There is Aeternitas.
Remark. Aeternitas is unlimited form.
Definition. A limited form is one that does not realize or experience Aeternitas (as long as the form is sustained—i.e. does not transition to unlimited form).
Assertion*. A limited form has transitions to and from limitlessness.
Assertion*. While in limited form realization of the ultimate, though given, is limitless in extension, duration, variety, summit and dissolution of Being.
Remark. 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).
Journey in Being
Assertion. While in limited form realization is endless process or Journey in Being.
Proof. From the definition of limited form and FP.
Ideas and Action are the Modes of Realization
Remark. 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.
Remark. (Important) Ideas and action are the modes of realization.
Proof. From considerations of Mind and Matter.
Future of Science and Logic
Assertion. For limited form science and logic are ever experimental and empirical endeavors.
Proof. From the limitlessness of the Universe and the concept of limited form.
Remark. For limited form any approach to ultimate science and logic require participation and immersion in Being.
Individual and Group
Remark. 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.
Assertion. 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.
Proof. Non-transience and realization are possibly consistent only for unlimited form. Without building on transience there is no building.
Remark. Spontaneous transition to the ultimate is given. However, building is the place of engagement, commitment, and enjoyment.
Definition. Nature is the ground or source of individual and group.
Assertion. There is no absolute or final ground.
Proof. Every atom is a cosmos.
Remark. There are places of primitive development that may be called ‘nature’.
Definition. Human civilization (lower case) is the web of human cultures across time and continents.
Individuals and Civilization are the Vehicles of Realization
Remark. (Important) Individual and civilization are the vehicles of realization. Individuals foster civilization, civilization nourishes the individual (against the primitive background that may be called nature).
Assertion. Nature and civilization (society) are significant places of realization.
Proof. Nature is ground—and source of Being and therefore place of attunement. Civilization is nourishment and place of community.
Definition. Civilization (Capitalized) is the matrix of civilization across the Universe.
Assertion. Individual and civilization are vehicles of realization.
Proof. The individual is the locus of experience. Civilization (Capitalized) is the matrix of individuals and civilizations. Individuals are locus of realization; Civilization is locus of population (and nurture).
Remark. In the ultimate, in Aeternitas, Civilization and Individual merge as the one and only Universe (especially in acute phases of manifestation and identity).
Definition. A discipline is an established way of doing something.
Remark. The disciplines may be labeled ‘academic’ and ‘endeavor’ (the latter includes religion).
Definition. A way or method is a way of doing something.
Remark. The disciplines are ways—they provide established ways. There are ways of development of the disciplines.
Remark. Civilization (lower case and Capitalized) provide ways of ideation and action—disciplines of thought, discovery, and transformation.
Assertion. Civilization provides disciplines which are a ground of realization but marked by incompleteness and error.
Proof. (And explanation) Culture, an aspect of civilization, embodies cumulative experiential learning (oral tradition, informal, written, and ‘formal’)—i.e. civilization embodies cumulative understanding of means. However, incompleteness and error are part of the constitution of incomplete realization.
Incompleteness of the Disciplines
Remark. 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
Assertion. The transient disciplines are a ground on which to build toward realization.
Proof. Obvious since the assertion refers to ‘a ground’ and not the ground.
Remark. 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.
Remark. The transitions involve break down—splitting—and building of Being, appropriately called analysis and synthesis of Being (and includes analysis and synthesis of ideas).
Remark. 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.
Remark. 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).
Remark. (And partial recapitulation) 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.
Assertion. At the front there is individual trial and sharing. There may be teachers but there are no ultimate masters.
Proof. Individuals and civilization are roughly in step; while on the way they embody progress and therefore the teacher; absence of ultimate or perfect master-hood is part of the constitution of incomplete realization.
Remark. It is a little and easily explainable paradox that proclamations of master-hood are temporarily useful.
Life, Death, Pain, Joy, and Challenge
Remark. Death and pain are given. They are not absolute. They are gate and motive to the ultimate.
Assertion. Life, death, pain, and joy are given; they are not absolute; they are gates and motive to ultimate.
Proof. Only the claim about motivation above does not follow from FP. However life and death is all there is; therefore if there is motivation at all it comes from life etc. The experience of motivation is motivation; we do have experiences of motivation; therefore there is motivation. Consequently life, death etc. are motive to the ultimate.
Remark. What might be a reason to provide such minutiae of proof? In the end the motive must be that the whole development stands together as a system. Why, however, the minutiae when there are larger doubts? The response is the same: get rid of all doubt of which we can get rid. Is there an intrinsic value to proof of minutiae in and of itself? Yes (1) it is an exercise in proof that may be useful in developing other proof (proof assertions of greater consequence can often be broken down into a sequence of proofs that are each trivial in themselves) and (2) it is enjoyable—not merely in itself but because it is development of a skill that may be useful.
Remark. 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.
Remark. 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.
Recapitulation on Realization
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).