THE WAY OF BEING
Anil Mitra, Copyright © February 2015—April 2015
There are four parts: Introduction, Ideas, Realization, and resources. Only the main parts, Ideas and Realization are numbered. The parts are divided into chapters and then sections. All further sub partitions are called sub-sections.
Planning for this document is in The way of being-essential-reserve.html
Comment. Was aim!
Comment. Combines The aim and The way of being.
The immediate (‘this world’) and the ultimate are not for each other. An ultimate expression of the aim is to live—in feeling, thought, and life—in all worlds as one.
The aim and the way of being are derived later.
Comment. Was Origins and motives.
…and motives. Add personal?
Inspiration and sharing
Comment. Was two separate sections Inspiration and Sharing and contribution.
…and contribution (implicit); is now placed before civilization…
My inspiration has been from the beauty of the world and ideas.
My first inspiration is the beauty in the world—an inspiration to appreciate it and cultivate and share it.
A parallel inspiration from ideas—as possessed of and interwoven with the beauty of he world and as instrument in appreciation.
It was via thought that I came to express the aim of realization above.
Emotion, thought, and action
Comment. Repeated later in various aspects e.g. ideas-action, thought as imagination-criticism, emotion-thought.
It is evident from the inspiration that the:
Connectedness and interaction of heart (emotion), mind (thought), and realization (action) have been essential.
Emotion without thought is directionless, thought without emotion is flat. Emotion, sometimes passion and sometimes muted, fuels the imaginative and critical side of thought. Action completes ideas; without ideas there is no action.
Civilization and a third way
Comment. Mention the secular and the trans-secular; and a third via the ordinary as metaphysics below in A third way.
Realization—process and progress—are part of civilization understood as the collection of human societies and cultures across time and continents.
The beginning of civilization is in primal (not primitive) culture. For simplicity I consider a simple account the dominant modern forms of worldview and take up a more detailed account later. The world is complex but for the present purpose the following simple account is sufficient.
The secular worldview is centered on human being and finds its cosmology in science which is largely if tacitly taken as the science and physical cosmology of ‘today’.
The non or trans-secular view may accept science but holds that there is more and is more inclusive. Religion is a mode of the trans-secular but many religions prove inadequate to people who seek ‘more’—who accept the wonder of the religious sense but not the cosmological content of most traditional religion.
There is a third way, not new, that seeks expression of wonder via experience and thought. It is adventurous, passionate, and imaginative, and expresses its reflections in action. It is and must be both imaginative and critical. Being critical is not merely a corrective tool. It takes us back to foundations and critiques even our inherited modes of action, thought, language, and reason (e.g. logic, the method of science, and the nature and role of experience).
This way has occupied thinkers from India, from Plato and before to the modern time and has been called ‘metaphysics’.
To put the process of civilization simply, two dominant ways are (a) today’s science at least tacitly defines the limits of the world and (b) today’s religions as seeing beyond the limits. This narrative follows an alternative that critical imagination to foundations to find truth and perhaps to build on firm ground.
We find that the world is already the ground—there is neither need nor possibility of another ground: that foundation is finding the ground that is already there and perhaps to build on it.
A simple way of re-thinking another way is this:
Dogmatic science, speculative metaphysics, uncritical faith, have virtues but are limited. The polarity, singly or jointly, sets the terms of a false dialog. The ground sought in this work would avoid the pitfalls, use the virtues of the ‘terms’. However, the work seeks more. It seeks to take reason and feeling to their root so, as far as it may occur, to build toward ultimates in being.
Now the alternative ‘terms’ above may seem like a ‘setup’. Reasonable people might reject them as representing the way they think and live. However, the terms stated do represent much of what is tacit and default in our modern attitudes and ways of living.
Readers may be familiar with ‘Pascal's wager’, an argument by the seventeenth century mathematician-physicist-philosopher, that since if God exists, there is an infinite gain to living as though he exists but only a finite loss, the rational person should live as though he exists (the ‘bargain’ can be stated in terms of modern optimization theory—i.e., to maximize expected outcome). Obvious counters are along the lines ‘What if God wants people to live in truth rather than faith?’
There is a ‘rational’ version of the argument. If we accept that the universe may be greater, perhaps limitlessly greater, than as seen in our worldviews then surely we should devote some energy to seeing beyond those views. What would be involved would be more than questioning the explicit views. It would question even and especially what is seen as the foundation of the views: our critical modes of rationality and so on; our imaginative modes of hypothesis; and our faith based modes… singly and jointly and, as far as we can, to their very foundation. Then, if indicated, we should or might act on what we find. In actuality the process would be iterative: learning a little, reflecting a little, guessing a little, thinking and acting a little, correcting… and in the end, perhaps, finding ‘quantum’ changes as the outcome of incremental process (in using terms ‘a little’ and ‘increment’ the flash of ‘quantum’ insight is not ruled out). This narrative records the outcome of such a process.
Origins of the narrative
Comment. This would probably contain repetitious material. Point out where such material is.
Comment. Was before Origins.
This is what is found:
This is shown consistent with experienced limits. The task explored is the intelligent and committed (passionate) cultivation of the realizing.
Includes material that can be used as a manual.
In process version
There can be no final full version. Therefore an in process record. However, aims at such completeness as may be warranted and useful. Where incomplete point to links at http://www.horizons-2000.org and program of update: document design and maintenance.
Comment. Was in ‘audience’ as scope and originality.
Understanding the world as a whole
This work seeks understanding of the world as a whole. It draws from ideas of others—to learn, be inspired, criticize, and build—but it is not a synthesis of other writing.
To understand the world, there will have to be a concept of the world. It is more than just its substrate (matter or mind…): it is the universe of being, especially as seen and formed by sentience—particularly human being.
Being part of historical process requires intent to be original
The history of the relevant literature is, on account of the magnitude and depth of the undertaking, always, so far at least, that the endeavor in process. This essay intends to be part of that process—i.e. originality and significance are part of its intent.
The meaning of ‘originality’ here is not before others but essential contact with ordinary and extraordinary being.
Source in experience
But the first source of understanding is experience. Understood broadly, experience is not only experience of the world but also immanent in understanding including thought (and feeling and emotion): experience is of the world which includes experience. The ideas of others, the inherited worldviews become part of our experience.
As ‘understanding of the world as a whole’ there can be no pretense to completeness. A picture must be painted in broad strokes. It should, at first, be a framework. Ideally, the framework should be (chosen so as to be) comprehensive-as-frame and precise as perfectly faithful to its ‘objects’.
That said, there must be a picture and not only a framework. There must be reference to and attempt to frame a broad—as far as possible the broadest—range of ideas and experience. Ideally the broad and detailed picture should have a degree of comprehensiveness at least relative to what is valid in the cultural traditions of human knowledge and practice (and perhaps should shed light on what is in principle invalid). However, we do not expect precision (even the most precise physics is not perfectly precise) but we may perhaps discover that precision is undesirable (we will discover this and the undesirability will stem from the fact that it is impossible but also from the fact that there is something better).
Source in ‘tradition’
Both framework and detail will draw from the tradition—as incorporated or immanent in ‘our’ experience.
Definition of tradition
Comment. Have this at one place.
Tradition will be what is valid in the history of cultural systems of knowledge and practice (institutionalized and otherwise).
We want not only to understand but for our understanding to be effective. That is, the explanatory system that we come up with should be more efficient than mere description of detail. That is the explanatory system should be explicitly compact but should contain (imply) a breadth of consequence. Of course this is not new with regard to the idea of ‘explanatory system’. It is already implicit in the notion of ‘concept’ and ‘percept’ (there is another notion of concept as mental content which will contain both and the rest of mental content such as emotion and will as well).
One constructive approach to resolution of the tension between compactness and breadth is that the ‘picture’ should seek depth which is the comprehension of the range of ideas and experience in terms of a few fundamental ideas. It would be ideal if the fundamentals do not refer to further depth—i.e. the ideas would be self revelatory. Thus this essay seeks breadth of scope and depth of understanding.
Literature of this kind typically stops at ideas. The ideas may refer to action, to realization but it is not typical for the writer to undertake action from the ideas and to write about the ways and progress of action.
In the second main part of the essay I do write about realization—from the ideas I develop aims, principles and a program of action; and I describe outcomes.
Comment. Was placed before Kind, scope, originality… as Outline!
An in process document
Comment. Retain only for in process versions.
Purpose: it is in the nature of the way that its narrative will be in process.
An informal introduction to the way and the narrative.
Preliminary and background material for which informal presentation is efficient and appropriate. The aim of the material is to provide context and assist understanding.
Comment. Foundation, main conclusions on being and the way of being.
Realization and the way of being
Comment. The process, the way, and the path.
Comment. The topics fall under (1) Understanding and accessing the ideas and the way and (2) Resources for realization.
The narrative as a manual
Comment. Mentioned under aim of the narrative! Repeat?
How to use the in process version as a manual.
Form of definition
SMALL CAPITALS are used in defining or first explaining a concept.
Comment. This is the form of comments.
This is the format of normal text.
These are topics significant, e.g. as categories of being or important to realization, for which it will be illuminating to see the dependence on metaphysical development.
Comment. Continue to evaluate basic issues for inclusion.
Part I Ideas: the given and proof; metaphysics and cosmology; the way.
Part II Realization as essentially continuous with the ideas: action as metaphysics.
Theory of knowledge
General considerations on experience and knowledge. The question of implicit and uniform criteria.
The theory of experience and realism.
The metaphysical framework and that it carries its own warrant (which includes us). Kantian interpretation.
The practical metaphysics.
Introduction: the concepts of logic and science.
Experience, being: abstraction, unification of percept and concept (so science and logic) at level of the given.
Extension under the universal metaphysics; identity of realism (deduction-premise = logic-science) and metaphysics. Realism, the possible, and the actual as identical.
Identity, space and time.
Metaphysics, general cosmology and variety, peak, dissolution of identity.
Stable cosmology, cosmology of life and identity, and mechanisms for the above.
Metaphysics, general cosmology: death as real but not absolute; communication across death and non manifest states necessary.
Stable cosmology, cosmology of life and identity: mechanisms for the above.
Stated in the introduction with relation to life, human being and civilization.
Derived from principles later.
Was under ‘audience’ but this is a good place for it because originality and scope are part of the problem of understanding.
Scope, depth and originality
Comment. See the previous sections.
Comment. Growth of understanding requires synthesis of meaning which draws from but goes beyond the established. Terms, new and old, will have and be imbued with new—at least variant—meaning.
Comment. Emphasize system meaning as integral to concept meaning.
Comment. Comments on significant meaning.
Features that address understanding
Comment. Include? Was under audience! Details are in the realizations-resource version—topics and content should be revised and minimized.
The following are addressed above: the nature of the work (scope, depth, and originality); that action is and must lie under ‘scope’ because ideas are incomplete without action and there can be no action without ideas; the issue of meaning in relation to the work.
The features include (1) statement of the nature of the work (scope, depth, originality; ideas and action), (2) issue of meaning addressed by definition and system; but allowance of at least discussion of in process non systematic elements (3) use of doubt as a tool for clarification (parallel to its critical and existential function) (4) concepts that are universal-local (a universal concept must include the local) as well as local concepts (as important and as exemplifying and systematized by the universal) (5) parallel summary or essential version of the narrative.
Ideas and action are complementary and necessary
Heart and mind
Comment. Was in origins and motives.
Mesh of heart and mind factual and essential.
Heart and mind as source of imagination and criticism. Either as source, both as critic.
Comment. This was mentioned above. Reduce, eliminate?
The crucial point
Comment. Was System of human knowledge and worldviews. Imports Tradition from just before. Places Worldviews in a separate section (next).
Tradition and modes of expression
A system of human knowledge
Logic and science
Comment. Combines Worldviews and their significance and Standard worldviews and their deficiencies.
Worldviews and their significance
Worldviews; their forms; significance of explicit worldviews; inclusive approaches to worldviews (metaphysics and cosmology).
Standard views and their deficiencies
The primal; secular and trans-secular (latter as inclusive); meaning of nature and spirit; fundamentalisms in all views… as deficiency of process; worldview of the narrative (and anticipating the significance of being).
Comment. Standard cosmologies and worlds (world is cosmology plus human interest). In the secular the human also emphasizes art, values…
Comment. The trans-secular includes the secular. The ‘trans’ may be religion and / or metaphysics but should also include action. Include brief discussion of religion—its aspects, its literal vs. symbolic meaning—and their single and dual presence, and its cosmology and functions of religious cosmology.
Comment. Similarity and dissimilarity between science and true religion: (a) science studies the universe dispassionately but may be motivated by passion; (b) religion seeks the ‘trans’ and its means are likely to be legend, intellect, and passion; religion requires careful definition; the fundamental question regarding god is not whether but what god is.
Recognizes the limits of the common secular and trans-secular; recognizes the possibility of more.
An approach from the ordinary. The ordinary is the extraordinary.
Metaphysics as the understanding of the ordinary.
That metaphysics has what is valid in the special disciplines as its parts.
That metaphysics may go beyond the common secular and trans-secular without bound (except agreement with the valid).
Extension of the third way
The possible bounds of being: the greatest is all possibility; the least is the empirical world.
Estimates, e.g. from intuition., science, probability.
Way of demonstration. Laws and limits apply only to manifest being—not to the absence of being. Violation of intuition whose source is an adapted cosmos; but no violation of reason or the empirical (logic and / or science).
Comment. Was Imagination, doubt, and criticism.
Imagination and criticism
Comment. Was Imagination and doubt.
Mutually necessary and mutually penetrating.
Two roles for doubt
Critical and essential.
Sources of imagination and criticism
Comment. The realizations-resource version has details.
Wide ranging cumulative experience and cultural immersion; openness, reflexivity (‘meta-thought’) and judgment; interaction with others; retreat.
Perceptual and symbolic imagination.
Here are the kinds of interest in the essay.
This is the picture of the universe as the realization of all possibility; that this understanding does and should carry with it its own warrant; that the picture goes far beyond the standard worldviews; that the picture includes significant consequences for the individual, civilization, and the nature of the universe.
The ideas constitute a system of understanding the universe of all being. That they are founded in the ordinary enables (a) intrinsic foundation (b) their containing and going beyond the standard secular and trans-secular.
I hope that this will be taken up not just by ‘academics’, ‘scholars’, ‘intellectuals’ and ‘philosophers’ for it shows the identity of the ordinary and the extraordinary, the necessary mesh of the immediate and the ultimate and their mutual support, and it shows the way to the ultimate.
The varieties of experience
‘Experience’ refers to all mental content. It includes the ‘functions’ as seen in modern psychology: perception, thought and conception, feeling and emotion, willing… without subscribing to completeness or precision of such schemes.
It includes the experiences labeled ‘thought’ or ideas and the experience of formulation, choosing, and intending action.
It emphasizes the mutual essentiality and interwoven-ness of thought and emotion, i.e. heart-mind (the Sanskrit citta is / sees heart-mind as one… that is analyzable and allows different emphases and intra-actions but does and should remain undivided).
Comment. Manners, forms, kinds, and associations (but not the association itself except that the association may be experiential). Should mention the kinds etc., particularly ideas and action; concepts (two meanings; also see discussion of meaning, below) and percepts (are concepts in one of the meanings), feeling and emotion, thought, will…
Comment. The importance of heart and mind!
Comment. ‘The concept’ will mean definition and, where indicated, clarification, purpose, and relation to system of ideas.
Experience as such
The varieties of experience are concrete; we know of them only roughly. If we assert that they are, the assertion is rough. However:
When it is asserted (below) that there is experience as such it is talk of experience without reference, explicit or implicit, to the kinds…
… we are talking in the abstract but this is not merely an abstract term but what is common to a collection of concreta that is so general that the general term refers precisely to something in the world which therefore is there. Here is an original (in the sense of coming before other sources or considerations) source of precise knowledge.
The abstracta are not other than the concreta but the former inhabits the latter.
Doubts about experience
Is there experience?
Doubts such as this are important not only because they occur but especially because doubt is clarifying. If I doubt something, the doubt may prove true or false but, either way, clarification and knowledge (assertion or negation) result.
Doubt of course is a process.
At the end of doubting we find that:
Experience is so basic as to not need definition in other terms. As basic it is properly defined ostensively—by noting it and pointing it out and naming it. The facts of experience may be explained in material terms but experience itself cannot be explained or understood in terms that have already excluded it.
There is a similar problem in the conception of matter. However, relative to our experience of the world, matter is more remote than experience for experience is the medium of knowing. But a problem of dualism arises when we think of the sides of experience—experience of experience versus experience of the world—as distinct. When we do not so and falsely dichotomize experience we avoid the false dualism and the false question of how to reconnect across the false gulf between world and experience—between matter and mind.
Anything but experience?
Perhaps we have only experience. From the fact of illusion we may question whether any apparent object of experience truly exists. Solipsism is the view that there is only experience and no world—i.e., no object of experience. The solipsist would say experience is the world.
Again, the significance of doubt is clarification and truth. So, to clarify, we must ask:
What are the implications of solipsism—What is the solipsist saying?
He or she is not saying that there is no picture of the world but that that picture is in and only experience. The essential problem of the solipsist is that the picture has no explanation on his / her own terms. And the resolution is to point out that:
Each picture is one labeling of the world; each is a relabeling of the other. That #1 is a labeling of the whole picture in terms of a pictured limited mind is untenable. Thus #2 obtains even as the solipsist is free to reinterpret it as #1 in which, however, ‘mind’ must be interpreted as spread over all being. In these terms, since #1 and #2 are not different, the alternatives of ‘perspective’ may—and will—prove empowering of understanding.
It is significant that the resolutions are not merely resolutions of fact. The doubts may be stated in factual terms but these terms may conceal what is at issue. Consequently the resolutions are more than factual. They are true enhancements of understanding.
The working of doubt
Doubt clarifies the questions and so, not just resolution, but insight into the nature of experience and the ‘real world’.
Experience and the real world
There is experience of a real world of which experience is a part (experience is real but not the only real).
Two true pictures
Same sense, two interpretations of experience
Untenable sense of experience
Extended meaning of experience
See mind and matter.
Significance of experience
Experience as relationship
We intuit that experience is relationship. But how. First elaborate the interpretation. What of pure thought? It is internal relationship. And it serves as relationship to be (if there is a potential object; later we show under the metaphysics hat all logical concepts, i.e. referential experience, have objects).
But how is experience relationship at all. Begin with ‘experience is of the real world which includes experience’. Imagine a surface around the experience and the object. Then the experience is an aspect of what is (mostly) within that surface. To say the experience is a relationship between an experiencer and an experienced assumes a ‘metaphysics’ of the situation. However, we can say that the experience is an aspect of what lies within and that what lies within is not monovalent: there is a difference between experience and experienced and any presumed experiencer. Loci of awareness have centers that are also and roughly corresponding loci of control. Perhaps ‘experiencer’ is metaphorical; however, there is, in the experience, an alteration within the said loci and that alteration, of which the experience is at least an aspect if not the alteration itself, is a function of what lies within the surface—i.e. a function of relationship provided that relationship is not mere interaction but includes the inter-actors. That is an origin of ‘I’, ‘me’, and ‘self’; and from this perspective the experience is of something experienced by the experiencer. The ‘I’ etc are not mere artifacts but have reality.
Further analysis of experience
A far more detailed analysis of experience is possible. A scientific account, say in terms of physics and biology, would find experience as a function of fundamental physics and biology and their organizations and processes. An account that took experience itself as primitive—a ‘metaphysics’ of experience—would also be useful. Neither is preferred over the other; each has its merits and limits (of the scientific: omission of experience itself and the omissions and over commitments of current science; of the metaphysical, the limits would be similar but from the side of ‘mind’ rather than ‘matter’). A particular merit of the approach from metaphysics is that it talks directly of experience which is the subject under consideration. Still, the two approaches would be enhanced—meshed—in interaction provided the limits of each were understood and taken into account.
A.N. Whitehead’s Process and Reality (1929), is a remarkable account of an entire ‘metaphysics’ with experience as fundamental. Today, there are a number of impressive but incomplete ‘scientific’ accounts. However, such accounts are too specific and over-detailed from the beginning perspective of this essay whose aim regarding the nature of experience (and being) is to get a precise framework for being and experience (with sufficient but not too much abstraction it will prove possible to get a framework that is precise, universal, and immensely useful). The aim here will be to paint a picture of the framework and what is valid in the sum of human knowledge in broad strokes such that ‘perfection’ in some sense or combination of senses is achieved and is useful relative to the aim of the way of being. This will be more than a framework for the aim; it will provide a path and show the path to be effective relative to the aim. This system provides also a background for grounding and working out layers of metaphysical and / or scientific detail.
As the place of significance
As the place of living being, significance, and knowledge (they are of / projected on the world but occur in experience).
A sense in which experience is ‘everything’.
The range of experience: a psychology
Two meanings of ‘concept’
a. Concept as mental content.
b. Concept as higher concept, as freely formed, as unit of meaning.
In discussing meaning, #1 is our focus.
Not all meaning is in terms of reference to an object. However, referential meaning is what is used in understanding the world. Here, meaning shall mean referential meaning (unless otherwise stated).
Non referential meaning
Comment. An aside.
An example is expression of a mental state such as pain (‘ouch’) which seems to have no object. But we can (and just did) talk of such meaning in referential terms. And perhaps there is (always) an implicit object. In the example, ‘ouch’ would not always have the same intent. It may be a mere expression (which by itself relieves pain). Or it may be letting others know (for empathy or help). Or it may be both. Thus it may be shorthand for ‘I am in pain, have been hurt, and need help’ which is referential.
Sufficiency of this concept for present purposes
Comment. Was Completeness of this conception of meaning.
In linguistic meaning words are associated with concepts. ‘Tiger’ evokes an image of a tiger.
Words may be iconic (pictures) ‘g-r-r-r’ sounds like g-r-r-r. But ‘tiger’ does not look or sound like a tiger. Most words are not iconic.
Thus words are efficient in thought and communication.
However, sentence structure does depict things in the world. ‘The boy hit the ball’, by its subject-predicate form, evokes a picture.
A further efficiency of language in thought and communication.
Crucial significance of this concept of meaning
Without a concept in mind, and perhaps conveyed to another, there can be no meaning. If I say ‘tiger’ you may feel fear if it evokes a an image (concept) but otherwise not. ‘Tiger’ has no meaning without an associated picture concept.
The example also shows that an object requires a concept. No concept, no object.
and you associate no concept (picture) with the word, you will not .
However, associations are not unique or 1-1 and they vary over time and between people. Sentence structure is partially conventional; but it is also metaphysical: to say that all sentences must be in subject predicate form in which the subject is a ‘noun’ is to say that all reality is in that form.
Therefore being clear about meaning and language encourages (1) definiteness and clarity of reference (2) avoiding ambiguity of reference (3) encompassing what is real (at least a beginning thereof).
There are of course times when we do not want clarity and so on—but not in understanding and clear communication.
Careful use of this notion of meaning results in what we say actually referring to something.
It clarifies that some basic kinds are defined by naming; others are defined in basic terms. In an axiomatic system there are therefore undefined terms. In fundamental metaphysics however, such naming is identification of a fundamental real.
It exposes knowledge that is implicit in meaning.
Synthesis of meaning is synthesis of knowledge (but mere analysis is not); and, analogously, transformation of being is analysis and synthesis of being.
It avoids contradictions that arise from mistaken objects or thinking that there is an object where there is none. This includes the classical paradoxes that have shake the foundations of logic and mathematics in the time of Greek thought and again in modern thought, roughly around the beginning of the twentieth century.
As in ‘the meaning of life’.
Why we live! Being alive.
Relation to concept meaning is rough.
Comment. Why experience and meaning before explicit introduction of being. Why other topics after.
Explanation of the conception
In English the word ‘is’ (present case singular form of the verb to be) typically refers some ‘where’ at roughly the present time. However, it is useful to use ‘is’ in a sense that does not pin down any particular region of space and time or to space-time-other-measures-of-difference at all. There is no English word for this meaning of ‘is’.
Another definition of being
However this meaning of ‘is’ is equivalent to ‘obtains as some regions of entirety’.
Note that the phrase ‘obtains as’ rather than ‘obtains in’ for the ‘in’ case suggests that there is a container of some sort that contains being without having being. But this violates the meaning of being for the container would also have to have being. The definition of being can be rephrased:
Of what kind of is being?
What kind of thing is being—and is it a ‘thing’? In the sense used here, being is not an thing (entity) or process or relationship or even an entity-relationship-process at all. It is a descriptor or quality of things that ‘exist’ (existence is discussed below). Thus, if x exists, it would be proper to say ‘x has being’. These distinctions are important; and the importance has been emphasized in the history of metaphysics. However, we will find that the distinctions are not as important as might seem. But, certainly, if we think that the characteristics of being are to be found in some particular entity / relationship / process / quality we would be making an unwarranted specialization. More: we would be negating the point to using the neutrality of the concept of being (i.e. as the quality of existence, being makes no distinctions regarding specific kinds such as tense or measure of difference or matter or mind and so on).
On language and metaphysics
Human languages emphasize the distinctions present environment with a degree of precision that must be a balance between the needs of adequate distinction and the needs of action in real time. This is of course good in practical terms (adaptation, quality of life). However, the distinctions emphasized are not and need not be (for adaptation) either precise or ultimately ‘real’ or comprehensive; they need not even be entirely consistent (of course, if inconsistent the inconsistencies should be effectively ‘quarantined’ and not plague common use).
There is thus a need to modify language to metaphysical purposes. This would also be practical from the perspective of evolving long term aims (such aims as may be feasible and valuable). The question that then arises is How shall language be tailored to metaphysical use? The answer must, it seems, be that there must be give and take between specification of a language for and use of metaphysics. Of course such a process might begin with a catalog of the metaphysical deficiencies of common as well as technical languages but then correction for the deficiencies would be an interactive process of hypothesizing language form to depict the true metaphysical situation as well as applying those language forms.
The meaning of being
Just what is there. Not special, not metaphorical in non being as being.
But is must mean ‘in some regions’ which should not yet be specified because space, time, dimension, and meaning of the lack thereof have not yet be discussed let alone established in any sense.
There is being
We have seen that:
Existence and ‘is’
Comment. Was ‘Is’ and existence.
The generic ‘is’
…and some micro and macro issues of language (micro: the adequacy of terms relative to the presuppositions of language; macro: the adequacy of the presuppositions).
Existence and being
The problem of negative existentials resolved by appeal to meaning
Importance to metaphysics
Importance to human being and realization
Some problems of being
Being is trivial
Being cannot be known
Knowledge of being as being is a very special case
What has being?
Being and human being
What is the essential problem of metaphysics?
But is not the foundation of metaphysics to be found in substance?
Must there be being?
Or, the universe is entirety.
Nothing outside. Closed as in no transactions(not the meaning as in point set theory).
Not created, has no creator.
Contains all acts of creation.
Logically, the universe cannot be caused for a cause is due to something else but for entirety there is no something else.
The universe and possibility
The concept of possibility
Given a context—a domain and a principle—the possible is what is consistent with the context.
Possibility is relative to context.
The actual is possible.
The necessary is that whose negation is impossible.
Domain—a cosmos, earth, a laboratory, imagination, critical imagination, a game, the universe…
Principle—cumulative experience, ‘common sense’, liberalism, conservatism, reason, physical law, logic…
Of particular interest here are cosmos, universe… and reason, physical law, and logic…
From the point of view of understanding imagination and criticism (as in evaluation of truth) are important.
Necessity is most commonly thought of in terms of universe as domain and logic as principle.
A crucial issue is What is logic? A concept that violates physics of one domain may be consistent and so possible in another. A concept that violates logic is not possible in any real domain (here there is a confusion that arises in some thinking—because I can form the concept of ‘square circle’ some thinkers have assigned it a kind of existence; but this is a confusion of meaning: the concept-as-concept has unquestionable existence; but it has no object—as object its non existence is unquestionable; the confusion is to conflate concept and object and so to give the confused term some kind of intermediate existence).
Logical possibility is a constraint on concepts for realization; other kinds of possibility are a further constraint or limit for realization under particular circumstances.
The actual and the possible
The actual is always possible. The possible is the same as or exceeds the actual.
The universe and possibility
With the universe as domain there is no exceeding the actual; the possible and the actual are identical.
The universe and Logical possibility
We will find below that the universe is the realization of logical possibility.
The conception of Logic.
Comments on science here?
‘World’ has multiple connotations. In ‘real world’ it meant, simply, that there is a complex whole that is the object of experience. That world included experience.
Another connotation is that same complex whole but with the place of life and sentience and what is of significance to them emphasized. This world includes the culture. The difference between world and universe is one of perspective.
What does would it mean to say the null domain does not exist? See the discussion of meaning. In a preliminary way we may think of the existence of the null domain as analogous to the empty set: they do not contain any ‘thing’ but exist nonetheless.
The following pertain to domains other than and are in contrast to the null and the universe.
Have outsides. Open as in may transact.
One domain (including the universe) may create or be implicated in the creation of another.
May be causal…
I.e. causing and / or effected.
Comment. Was Pattern!
Comment. Details of Pattern and natural law omitted.
A law of nature (or pattern) is a limit: the fact of the law is that some patterns are allowed, others are impossible.
The concept of the cosmos allows that its objects may be incompletely defined.
In the twentieth century our cosmos whose material causal connections are currently best understood from physical laws and of which knowledge is also (empirically) limited by causal connection (primarily speed of light, secondarily intensity of information), came to be regarded as the universe.
Under the aegis of science and secularism, our cosmos has come to be regarded as the universe. Though not universally held in secular thought this is a widespread tacit position.
In secular thought even where it is acknowledged that this knowledge is likely deficient, it is very often the default if tacit view. That the speed of light is commonly regarded as universal significantly promotes the view from tacit to explicit status.
However, cosmos may be far from the entire universe. Our laws—and light and its speed—are in no way given as universal.
The searchlight metaphor
Comment. Was part of Cosmos!
The searchlight metaphor of the philosopher Karl Popper is that what science sees is where it directs its attention. In other words, though absence of evidence is not evidence, it is tacit in thought or an unspoken agreement that:
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
On the other hand:
The probable limits of the universe
We will show from examination of the properties of the non manifest (more precisely from the fact that it no intrinsic properties) that the universe is the realization of all (logical) possibility. But can we estimate size and variety from other considerations?
The history of science suggests that much remains to be discovered. Prior to the twentieth century there was little intimation of the interwoven character of space, time, and matter (and so a realist notion of the dynamic of the cosmos as a whole) or the quantum reality at microscopic levels (with macroscopic implication and occasional manifestation). That there was no intimation was the result of prior science and its worldview being the ‘eyes of our vision’, i.e. the searchlight. Similarly, our present science may provide no final conception of what future science might reveal.
From a different perspective ask what the magnitude of possibility space is. It is the limitless extent, duration, and variety of a universe whose concept has only the constraints of logic. This however is not a handle on probability for probability is estimable only when we have incomplete knowledge of a definite actuality. But the possibilities of logic are not necessarily the actualities of the universe. However, if we do make that conflation, we find since possibility space is limitless and assigning uniform probability, that the variety of the universe is infinite.
Comment. Brought here from earlier so as to have the concept of ‘universe’ available.
Sameness and difference
Comment. The following subsections are new.
DIFFERENCE is the most elementary pattern.
Sameness and similarity are not at all the same concepts.
Two things can be similar—identical even—in all their intrinsic properties (those that do not refer to the rest of the universe) but not the same.
If they were the same, they would not be two.
UTTER sameness is absence of difference.
Identity and time
Comment. New remark:
This conception of identity is emphatically not that of utter sameness.
Identity and existence of objects and persons
Object and person not essentially different.
Only objects experienced at least indirectly have significance (later we find that existence implies indirect experience).
Extensionality refers to modes of difference—with or without sameness.
The concept. Space and time and only space and time (their dimensionality not fixed in general).
Two ways of going beyond extensionality.
The nature of space and time
Space and time are immanent in the parts of being where they obtain.
But one domain can set up an as if external space and time grid for another. For example (perhaps) our cosmos for the galaxies.
The only dimensions of extensionality
From the modes of difference relative to sameness, space and time are the only kinds of extensionality.
This does not imply that space and time are universal; or that they be precisely definable and measurable; imagine, for example, a cosmos such as ours where space and time have measures precise beyond the common need and a background that lacks difference, and a continuum in between that ranges form vague to precise difference.
Where precise and where vague
Why or how they are interwoven
Two ways of being beyond time and space
Space and time are not absolute—they are immanent in being
As if universal and absolute space and time
Comment. New section! Not a new topic.
On the derivation of space and time
It may seem as though space and time have been derived from prior principles. However, the derivation assumes ‘difference’ (however, that there is no ‘third’ kind of difference beyond space and time has been proved).
Later we will prove the fact of difference from an angle that may be so far entirely unexpected.
Comment. Added. One of the topics for unfolding development with the metaphysics. Therefore will be taken up again: so distribute material appropriately.
Experience as source of the ‘mind’ metaphor
Comment. In what sense is it a metaphor?
Experience as relationship and basis for an ‘I’ or self
Matter and mind as general terms
Mind requires form
If mind has complex working it must have adequate processing power—some combination of speed and form. This form may be a ‘form’ of matter but need not be the local form of matter.
The substance case
In the strict substance case, i.e. if matter is the only substance and excludes mind, there can be no experience although there can be behavior as if there is experience. Therefore, we must relax ‘strictness’—i.e., matter as the only substance does not exclude mind. Then (a) mind must be already present in matter as relationship and (b) experience of experience, i.e. high level of mind, is built from the primitive but (c) in this case it is the being of that world, not matter or mind, that is the substance. Then we can say: matter is being as being and mind is being in relationship (or first and second order being). But then it will not matter whether we use the term ‘being’ or ‘matter’. Here, the form that makes for complex mind will be formed from local matter.
That our world or cosmos is substance like only for some purposes
Comment. Therefore will take up again later after developing the metaphysics.
Comment. Since the order of development is changed.
Comment. Was Definition.
It contains neither concreta nor abstracta.
The non manifest
In the non manifest there are neither concreta nor abstracta nor pattern nor law.
The void and the non manifest
The question of existence
Comment. New section.
Does the void exist? An answer is given later (‘yes’).
Though what metaphysics is has not been specified so far, it has already begun above. The concepts of being, experience, universe, and pattern and natural law (as conceptualizing no more than their definition) are perfect; they (define objects that) have being; and, below, this perfection will be extended to realism and the principle of the method of this system (which is therefore perfect and, as will emerge, ultimate in showing the universe to be without limit). It is important to note that this perfection applies initially to the framework of these concepts as abstracts. Tradition will be incorporated to the framework but it remains to be seen how and what perfection will mean in the extended setting.
In this essay, metaphysics will have its philosophical meaning. However, that meaning is contentious and far from monovalent. The meaning here will be an older one. But the older meanings have been challenged and today there are modern alternatives.
There is no point to denying the significance of the variety of meanings. What is needed is to show that the chosen meaning shall be a possible and significant one. In order to do that there follow (very) brief discussions of metaphysics and its history.
The concept of metaphysics in this narrative
Two classical branches of metaphysics
Objections to metaphysics and responses
Impossibility of perfect knowledge—i.e., of general metaphysics
Speculative character of special metaphysics
There are other classical conceptions of metaphysics
Today metaphysics has different connotations
Examples. (1) New concepts of metaphysics and (2) New activities under metaphysics.
Reasons and responses.
The significance of metaphysics
Origin of the secular—trans-secular divide
Comment. Was Other. Is now in two §§: this and the next.
Comment. Introductory comment: refer to Scholasticism, India and more!
The modern era
The rise of system
A variety of conceptions of ‘metaphysics’
The restitution of metaphysics
An open slate
Back to fundamentals
Comment. It is more effective to take this up here rather than in the Introduction to metaphysics.
Imagination and reason
Comment. Was Hypothesis, speculation, and reason.
Comment. Emphasize (1) general influence on my thought (2) precursors to the universal metaphysics.
Demonstration and statement in terms of possibility
Comment. ‘and statement in terms of possibility’ added.
Comment. Derivation from the non manifest.
The non manifest is the absence of being.
There are no patterns or laws in the non manifest.
If from the non manifest there is a state that does not emerge, that would be a law of the non manifest.
But this is unclear. What is a state that does not emerge? There must be a concept of the state; if its object does not emerge, we say ‘the state does not emerge’.
The non manifest is as if cause without being part of a cause-effect pair.
It will be given interpretation formulations below. The alternate formulations will contribute to applicability and / or bringing out its meaning.
Importance of demonstration
The essence of ‘all states emerge’ has been contemplated in the history of thought. This essence has been called the principle of plenitude—In an infinite time all possibilities occur.
There are several problems with the principle: (1) Though it makes sense it is not true (it seems that some form of it should be true but it is not clear what that form should be), (2) It has not been proved in the history of thought, (3) It requires an infinite time (what is proved above does not specify time but is implies boundless extensionality and beyond), (4) It is couched in terms of possibility but does not specify the meaning of possibility, (5) It speaks in terms of time where we would rather speak from the abstract and derive time, (6) It is not clear what the implications of the principle are or how they may be derived, (7) It seems interesting—a curiosity but not a deep base for metaphysics, but (8) There would be no reason to expect that it should form such a base except that we will find that the demonstrated ‘All states must emerge from the manifest’ will provide such a base—and not any base but an ultimate base for metaphysics that reveals an ultimate universe.
The importance of demonstration, then, is (a) It sufficiently addresses these various problems (b) It is sufficient to the ultimate metaphysics noted above (b) It provides a method which is sufficient to development of the metaphysics. Of course it requires to be supplemented by tradition and experience. But even the framework is suggested by tradition and experience and in turn tradition is framed and grounded by the framework.
Particularly the demonstration shows that if we have a concept of some emergent system that is not impossible from (the form of) the concept itself, and if that system does not emerge then that would be a law of the non manifest. Therefore the system would emerge; and therefore the only concepts that do not specify emergent systems are those that are impossible from the form of the concept itself. This specifies what ‘all states’ means—it means all possible states and it also specifies to what kind of possibility ‘all possible states’ refers. It cannot refer to possibility relative to this world or to a laboratory or to physical law for relative to these, impossibility does not flow from the form of the concept of the state but from something over and above the concept, i.e. the world / the laboratory / or the physical law. Impossibility relative to the concept, then, must be logical impossibility for that is the kind of impossibility (or possibility) that inheres in the concept.
An ‘objective’ statement
If there is a concept whose state does not emerge from the non manifest that would be, as we have seen, a law of the manifest. This needs further analysis. What if no states that violate physical laws of our cosmos emerge? Then the physical laws would be laws of the non manifest; states violating physical law must emerge. What if a single instance of physical law violation did not emerge? There would then be this law: that instance does not emerge (a particular fact never emerges or a particular fact must emerge are both laws—of the non manifest).
If a state that did not satisfy logic (i.e. it’s concept is illogical) did not emerge, that would not be a law of the non-manifest because logic is a constraint on concepts but not a limit on objects (regarding which it has no meaning). But if a state did satisfy logic its non emergence would be a law of the manifest.
In the foregoing I mean logical possibility but omit the term because ‘logic’ requires clarification—which will be given below in discussing realism.
In terms of concepts
There are various conceptual systems that satisfy logic. The notion of logic must be that they are not mutually disallowed; that where they are distinct they are not contrary; and that if one system includes another, the more inclusive one is to be chosen as defining.
Avoiding inconsistency in the concept of possibility
Comment. Moved up and demoted one level.
Statement in terms of realism
We have seen that the universe cannot violate logic (this is shorthand for that a concept or description of the system of the universe cannot violate logic). Further this does not assume logic but specifies it. We would be justified in using the label ‘Logic’. The specification is not empty: our logics are approximations to it (remaining in general to be completed and in any cases of inconsistency to be improved, replaced, or discarded).
Still, that all states are possible seems contradictory. Could our earth, the solar system be other than they are? No, of course not. ‘Fact is fact.’ This can be seen as a point of logic in which the derivation from a fact to itself is seen as a special case of deduction from ‘premise’ (the fact) to ‘conclusion’ (the fact itself). In this way, the realm of fact (therefore science as fact on a given domain rather than as hypothetical beyond the factual domain) is incorporated to logic (and so soundness as truth of premise and validity of deduction is the criterion of logic. But this is an enhanced conception of logic which guarantees that its conclusions are true and which, therefore, we label ‘realism’.
Regarding the apparent contradiction at the beginning of the previous paragraph, it has been resolved along the way to realism. But there is more: realism requires the truth of all facts (thus realism is of course not just tautologous but most trivially so; which however does not imply that it is shallow or useless; rather we will find it powerful and deep).
But if we are doubtful about the facticity (truth) of our facts and their meaning (since facts are not bald but presuppose relatedness which may be provided by a system of relations such as a metaphysics) and if we are doubtful about the validity and sufficiency of our logics—i.e. if we are doubtful about the soundness of our proposed realism, then what is the status of this realism as reliable to the truth?
Let us first dispose of the ‘sufficiency’ doubt. If the realism provides a reliable framework, it may then be filled in by detail (tradition, experience, criticism… but of course experience and criticism are part of tradition—i.e. since the world contains knowledge, knowledge is not just of a material world but of experience and knowledge and therefore method itself) and the detail may be of no more than local and temporal import (our cosmos) and therefore may not need to satisfy the criteria of perfection of the framework to be locally perfect in service of ultimates and ultimate aims.
We have seen that there is experience which is of a (the) real world which includes experience. We have seen that there are being, universe, and the non manifest. The descriptions of these abstracta (which are not non concrete but immanent in the lesser concreta) entails their existence. But now we have seen that the same descriptions already contain the limitlessness of the universe. That is the primitive descriptions already contain primitive facts and primitive reason (logic) and we need no more for the framework (‘primitive’ does not mean ‘not deep’ or ‘not of great consequence’ and we will indeed find and are already beginning to see great depth and consequence (variety).
Imagine a being that knows and is everything over entirety. The being ‘sees’ all’; it can think but does not need to as far as knowing brute fact is concerned. For that being ‘everything’ has already emerged (in an atemporal sense).
I am limited relative to that being. But:
Existence of the void
Since the universe is the object of realism and the concept of the void entails no contradiction, regardless whether there is or is not manifest being, the concept of the void has an object. That is:
Comment. From the fundamental principle.
Alternate proof from the void
Since the void contains no law, every state emerges from the void.
Something from nothing
Comment. From the fundamental principle.
Comment. From first principles.
In something from nothing, ‘something’ is not caused by ‘nothing’, i.e. the void. This is an example of a non-causal event.
Comment. Change to criticisms?
Critical doubt from logic, science and experience
Critical doubt is doubt that is questioning. It may negate arguments and conclusions but, if not, it may contribute to their strengthening.
Response to critical doubt
These doubts have been adequately addressed and more. The outcome is ‘realism’; more precisely, analysis of traditional reason suggested realism which was validated and well interpreted from criticism. Critical doubt has performed a valuable function.
From common sense
Common sense is part of ‘experience’.
From the magnitude of the conclusion
This is not a doubt but a reason to insist on truth and therefore doubt.
Essential doubt from existence of the non-manifest
Some doubt remains.
Response to essential doubt
Comment. Further taken up below.
From the magnitude of the knowledge content of the conclusion we must emphasize both its magnitude for being as well as doubt.
The doubt is not the doubt of absurdity, patent untruth, definite paradox, or patent error of proof. An ultimate metaphysics of great consequence for (human) being may and will be built up from and around the fundamental principle. The situation is familiar in science, mathematics, philosophy, and the human enterprise. Where there is significance, absolute demonstration is lacking. And yet, if there is no absurdity, we use the significant while awaiting improved demonstration; it is a risk worth taking (which can be cast in terms of optimizing expectation of outcome).
Comment. Order of first two sections altered.
On proof, intuition, and explanation
Comment. Subsumes two sections: On proof and intuition and On explanation.
Comment. Was On principles.
Our knowledge is the only place to begin.
Need for systematic account of knowledge.
Depth, power, breadth, and limits
Comment. Was an earlier subsection.
All states emerge from the void. Thus the void may be seen as ground or foundation.
However, the void may be seen as associated with every element of being. Therefore all states emerge from every state.
From its properties the void may be seen as associated with every state. That is, the foundation lies in every state.
Power and limits
An eternal peak of being would be a law of the void—a limit on its power.
The fundamental problem of metaphysics
Comment. Was an earlier subsection.
Something from nothing
We saw that the universe does and must go through non manifest and manifest phases. This resolves what has been called the fundamental problem of metaphysics—i.e. why there is (manifest) being at all.
The significance of enquiring about something from nothing
A new fundamental problem of metaphysics
What then might a fundamental problem of metaphysics be? It must be about being!
The fundamental problem of metaphysics is that of determining what has being. Why? (a) The motive to ‘being’ was its non-specificity—its power and its lack of discrimination. To see specifically what being may be used to tell us we may begin by finding what has being. (b) We will find that since not only particulars have being but their patterns and laws as well, that ‘What has being?’ tacitly includes all questions about the universe and its occupants.
The metaphysics, we see, frames and illuminates ultimate answers. This would be a kind of death if it were not for the fact that variety and extensionality were limitless, ever open, and ever fresh. The formulating and answering of these and related questions—and of Kant’s famous three questions ‘What can I know? What ought to do? What may I hope?’—are part of the fundamental question.
And while the metaphysics provides a ‘depth’ answer, it leaves ‘breadth’ and ‘peak’ open. Therefore, except as metaphor or symbol or allegory or moral, no answering that aspires to definiteness can be complete. Here we begin an answering—a framework that shall, for those individuals and cultures and civilizations of this and other cosmoses and natures that so desire, be filled in according to local experience, thought, passion, and action.
Extension to all valid knowledge
From the fundamental principle we know of things that we cannot access (while in limited form).
‘Tradition’, our valid and detailed knowledge and practice, never can or does achieve perfect knowledge of and being as the universe (while civilization is limited). However, tradition is a temporary instrument of realization to be discarded when outgrown.
Comment. As an explicit section this is new.
A theory of knowledge
Comment. A new section; where in the super-section should it be? The end?
The extended metaphysics is perfect in terms of the aim of knowledge of the ultimate. This is because the framework is ultimate and perfect as faithful; the tradition etc as fill in is perfect (sufficient, cannot but need not be perfectly faithful) as instrumental toward the aim of realizing the ultimate. The old concerns of epistemology are no longer pertinent to this realization.
Of course this does not eliminate those old concerns but they become practical to local aims rather than universally essential.
But the question of what is going on when we think we have knowledge remains at least locally essential.
Unity of experience
Comment. Was Unity of experience: metaphysics, logic, mathematics, science; and an afterthought on affect and metaphor.
Metaphysics, logic and science
Affect, metaphor, and indirect and potential reference
Existential doubt and existential attitude
Comment. Was Doubt and existential attitude. The realizations-resource version also has the following detailed discussions.
Comment. From the following points, writing this section is not a priority for the essential version.
Purposes to this section, from the now demonstrated power of the metaphysics, include to restate, elaborate and improve the critique and the response.
However, there is an additional point that stems from (a) the earlier statement that existential attitude regarding living in the presence of uncertainty ‘will be extended to presence of incomplete knowledge’ and (b) the Extension to all valid knowledge (which certainly contains uncertainty… and immense incompleteness).
The response to this point is (will be seen to be) that in relation to the aim of realization the uncertainty and incompleteness of the tradition cannot but need not be overcome. Overcoming is not possible because imprecision of detail is at most asymptotically removable; and because the knowledge of a limited form such as human being will always be incomplete. However, this overcoming is not desirable because the incomplete and imprecise knowledge of details is precisely what is needed on the way to the ultimate: a process in which limited form is in transformation (the argument is developed later) through death and in which process knowledge of old forms is shed metaphorically as the skin of a snake as new, varied and more inclusive form is incrementally and adaptively acquired.
The essential doubt about the metaphysics concerned existence of the void.
The situation is the same as for any realist (no factual or logical inconsistency and eminently reasonable) proposition.
On account of the potential for great return on the investment, we therefore adopt the metaphysics as an existential attitude or principle of reason.
Of course, we have seen that the doubt is groundless; it is prompted by the magnitude of the proposition and unclear thinking; but since experience and being are limitless, the metaphysics is valid as a principle of thought and action that stands against nihilism.
The metaphysics as a ‘scientific theory’
Learning and doubt
Comment. This summary stands in till details are written and / or imported and edited from the main source.
Objects are concrete or abstract. Though they seem distinct the metaphysics shows they are ‘equally real’ (within realism, every concept has an object). They seem different, not because the abstract are essentially non-concrete but because abstraction omits certain concrete features. This union of the abstract and the concrete has significance for cosmology and the nature of the real.
Significance and present purpose
The nature of the world and objects.
Significance for realization.
Other ‘applications’ in the narrative.
The concept of the abstract object
No fundamental distinction between the abstract and the concrete.
Just one kind of abstract object.
Objects in general
Just one kind of object.
All objects are in the one universe.
Any Platonic ‘universe’ is part of the one universe.
On the concept of the void
Some properties and issues of the void can now be addressed. For completeness there will be repetition.
The void is the non manifest
Existence or being of the void
The void contains no law
The concept of the void is ultimately simple
Not a substance
More powerful than substance
Not characterized by simplicity or complexity
The number of voids is effectively one
Objections to the void as absolute nothingness
Alternate characterizations of the void
Problems with the alternate characterization
Existence of the void as a principle of realism
Comment. Was a separate § Existence of the void: a principle of Realism or Logic-Science.
No universal causation
No universal causation in anything close to the usual meaning of causation (Aristotelian, Newtonian, Einsteinian, quantum, or Whitehead’s actual entity or having come into actuality as ‘reason’). Similarly, no universal dynamics as we understand the term (Newtonian, Einsteinian, quantum).
On the other hand, the void or any element of being may be seen as the cause of all being.
Causation and dynamics emerge!
There can be no universal mechanism of emergence. But see Stable cosmologies for probable / frequent mechanisms of emergence of populations of stable / causal domains (e.g., cosmoses).
Concerning cosmological systems
Are causal domains.
May be temporarily without causal relations to the rest of the universe.
Cannot be eternally without relations.
It is in the perspective in which there is temporary causal or other isolation that universal possibility has significance.
As cause, creation is participation in coming into being as cause.
A more general sense of creation has little significance.
Creation as causal is not universal. Except that the universe is created there is non causal creation. In this sense, emergence may be seen as self creation.
However there is no causal self creation. But, a domain, having emerged and / or had causal creation from another domain, may participate in its own continued ‘evolution’).
Mind and matter
Comment. Revisited. Was stand alone. Here we consider only the non substance case; continuing importance of the (as if) substance case.
Comment. Complex mind must have complex form (call it matter or not). But must it—cannot speed compensate at least somewhat for complexity? But it must have some form! It may not be the matter of the ‘local’ cosmos.
Comment. This discussion complements the earlier where it was seen that in substance terms, mind and matter were relationship and related. The only modification needed is to discuss independent mind and matter that may obtain in the non single substance case. This case is either (a) transient or (b) two or more substance. These cases only receive importance (in general) when the outcome is a single substance non transient. That is, the single-substance like case is (generally at least) dominant.
Comment. summary stands in till details are written and / or imported and edited from the main source.
Review of discussion and its purpose
Comment. Purposes: understanding mind and matter in terms of substance: a thought experiment. Similarity of the argument with the discussion regarding nature and spirit, below.
The universal case: relaxing the assumption of substance
Nature, spirit, and the Real
Comment. Subsumes two sections No ultimate distinction between nature and spirit and The Real.
Nature and spirit
Comment. To have the content of the old § No ultimate distinction between nature and spirit.
Spirit refers to the apprehension of things beyond nature. If nature is what we know empirically, from the metaphysics the distinction is true.
By an argument similar to the one regarding mind and matter, the distinction can only be one of ignorance.
Aeternitas and Brahman are acme of the spirit.
Aeternitas and Brahman are more than names
Comment. Subsumes two §§ Aeternitas and Brahman and Aeternitas and Brahman are more than names.
From the metaphysics they are more than names: they are ultimate real.
From nature as real, our process in the immediate-ultimate is a relationship between the real and the Real (Brahman and Aeternitas).
Nature, spirit, and death
Comment. Was Death.
The relationship between nature and spirit, if not realized in ‘this’ life, is culminated across death as discussed in Death, identity and memory.
The power of being
The power of the concept of being, now emphatically clear, will continue to emerge in what follows.
Meaning of the metaphysics
Place in the history of metaphysics
Comment. New section.
As continuation and restitution of metaphysics as realism.
As realization of some ultimates.
Personal history in ‘resource’.
Comment. Aim or goal? ‘The aim?’
Comment. Aim was stated in the introduction Here it is ‘derived’.
Comment. Show how the issue of the immediate-ultimate is subsumed or otherwise subsume it!
Realization of the ultimate is given. Significant meaning is not to be found outside the universe. Therefore the ultimate aim must be living in the immediate and ultimate as one.
It is a part of metaphysics.
Some general purposes to development of cosmology
Comment. The word ‘general’ has been inserted.
Knowledge of world—variety, extension, duration; power and being in the world.
Comment. The phrase ‘for cosmology in realization’ is new.
1. Principles and content continue to be worked out together. Principles are content.
2. System is just the ordering of the received in the present. Its power is (a) it sees wholes where there would otherwise be only parts (b) abstraction is not necessarily projection, and (c) its economy is therefore one of omission rather than distortion.
3. There is a natural order of progression from (a) abstract metaphysics to (b) general cosmology, stable cosmologies, to cosmology of life and identity.
Comment. Need radical variety and proto-stable cosmologies.
Comment. Comment on implications of the metaphysics for space-time.
Comment. Add: General cosmology is cosmology without particular reference to or the restrictions of special cosmologies.
Detail / link.
Time and cross phase
Ideas—essential to becoming
Essential to realization / program of ideas.
Time. Secondary to becoming. Emphasize again after becoming. Cross phases. All.
Design and planning
For the entire process / ways and design.
Time. As needed. Cross phase. All.
Ideas for phases of becoming
Continuous with becoming and sub-phases / ways and design.
Time. As needed. Cross phases. Becoming.
For the ultimate in the immediate and the phases / everyday practice of thought, presence, and action.
Time. All. Cross phases. All.
Support, shared endeavor / civilization: engagement in the world.
Time. After ‘nature’ begins.
Support, synthesis with organism, independent / artifactual being.
Time. After ‘civilization’ begins.
The universal: pure being
The ultimate in the present / pure being.
Time. All; especially when ‘becoming’ is sufficient. Cross phases. All; everyday practice.
This chapter outlines needs for investigation. Definite outcomes will be placed at appropriate places in the narrative. I have not distinguished below those topics that are important to the aim and those that are worth pursuing because they seem to have potential.
Essential to external action, i.e. becoming
Times. Ideas and action are generally interactive. Since my ideas are relatively complete they are now secondary to action. They support action. I may and hope to return to ideas and writing later.
Places. All. Emphases: field—notes, home—essays, sharing, publishing.
Program of study:
Design and planning for the entire process. Includes phase selection and design.
Times. As for ‘knowing’… and as needed in action, below.
Places. ‘Home’ and in process in field.
Comment. This section was placed with ‘becoming’. The move here gives unity to the ideas and streamlines the narrative.
This section serves the goal of transformation. Its vehicle and thus intrinsic target is Psyche (of which the Path: ideas can be seen as an aspect). The targets or places of deployment, via effectiveness of psyche, are Nature, Civilization, and—secondarily—Artifact; these are not mere applications: they feed back into psyche.
Comment. For details of the following see the realizations-resource version; modify before import.
Times. Optional preliminary to action. Ongoing and as needed in interaction with becoming.
Places. ‘Home’ and in process in field.
Comment. Was Ideas: ways.
Blurring of the distinction between ways and catalysts. The distinctions are that ways are continuous, embedded in everyday life; catalysts are abrupt in their effect, explicitly experimental.
Example: Right thought and action
Comment. Was Ideas: catalysts.
Example: Beyul of Tibetan Buddhism.
Comment. Was ‘Practical’.
Comment. Was Becoming, action, or realization. Should have been Becoming or action and realization.
Comment. The ideas for transformation were place here but are now under Ideas for ways of being and becoming.
There are a number of phases under Becoming. For convenience they are separate sections.
Times. Becoming is the ongoing and immediate priority.
Comment. Was Everyday practice of thought, presence, and action.
Right everyday thought, practice, and action for being in the present and the ultimate as one.
I find adapting to circumstance energizing. Presently, rising hours before the sun is adaptation the rhythm of the day—after a time of ‘work’ there is still an entire day of light, especially in winter.
This routine is for home, in society. It is adaptable to other situations—special events culture (travel, living) and nature immersion, …
Everyday practice—thought, presence, and action
Rise before the sun—begin with dedication of my life and the day to the way of being, to focus on essence; and affirmation of commitment..
Dedication. I dedicate my life to The Way of Being: / Its discovery, revelation, and realization— / To live and grow in all worlds as one; / To shed the bondage of limited self— / So that I may see The Way so clearly / That living it, even through difficulty / Is flow over force… / And so to show and share its truth, power, and care.
Affirmation. I commit my being, thought, speech, and action to the way; to a positive attitude; to the good and care of the world and all persons, especially to seeing but not taking imagined or real fears and resentments as affronts to security and sense of self. I pray for these things, especially for the good and understanding of those I may resent.
Review and meditate on realization and other priorities and means (priorities).
Realization—work, care and meditation (below); action and experiment; ideas; and writing—in process journal (field notes), essays, and publishing (networked and printed).
Regular and occasional tasks—everyday, weekly.
Meditation-in-action includes practice of meditation that is continuous with living. It is an essential part of realization.
Meditate: focus and focal issues; quieting—spaciousness of being; death as spur and transition; pain and resentment—their defusion in relinquishing ego to ‘being’; meditation-in-action. Incorporate yogic elements—e.g., of the Gita, the Tantra…
Act on my ambitions and final goals. Accept pain and joy.
Meditate on—own my strength, power, pain, and weakness: I am their active core and source—and so of their transformation as energy.
Be assertive in discovery, cultivation, and expression of my power and goals; seek and encourage active receptivity.
Be assertive about and transform or remove myself from negative influence.
Meditate on my truth; not let apprehension prevent speech or action when good or ego force them when not. Consciously expose myself to and act on my fears, selected for importance.
Healthy living—routine, sleep, food and fluids; avoid toxic substances and influences.
Exercise and physical yoga
Exercise—posture, general (aerobic, flexibility, hiking fitness and strength), and yogic.
Evening—realization / renewal; review the next day, plans (and special events realization if energy-time; evening chores; meditate; sleep early.
Nature as ground and inspiration.
Times. The ongoing and immediate priority.
Places. Selected for ground, contact with the real, vision (quest), inspiration.
Comment. Details: immersion, everyday practice, catalytic transformation, inspiration.
Comment. Beyul and the quest for vision.
Times. In parallel and subsequent to transformation of being and identity.
Comment. Details: immersion and sharing, everyday practice, catalytic transformation, inspiration.
Comment. Dimensions: social structure; political economics, culture-secular and trans-secular, knowledge, practice, and their institutions.
Times. In parallel and subsequent to ‘civilization’.
Places. Centers of philosophy, science including the symbolic, and technology.
Comment. Details: concepts and technology, sharing in an institution.
Comment. Was Pure being.
Times. For all times but emphasized after substantial achievement of ‘becoming’ and / or in relation to knowledge of and / or approach of death.
Places and phases. All.
Return to ideas.
Living in the present. The now as eternal.
Enjoying life, being useful.
How I live now.
Mutual action toward greater being.
Death and its significance: being in relation to the fact of death and its relative nature.
Comment. Was Pure being: program.
Daily practice, meditation, yoga. Sharing.
Just being. Simplicity. No goals but presence. Emptiness.
Comment. Was Charting the way, then Overview, and is now Overview and plan.
Comment. The material of this section is redundant. Its purpose is to serve as a plan.
Time. As needed, at major review, and parallel to path
Design: The way.
Program: this Overview
Time. All times and places (home, nature, civilization).
Time. As occasion arises; parallel and guide to action.
Review and follow the program of Ideas which includes investigation for ways of being and becoming.
Comment. The following through artifact are raised a level for convenience.
Time: immediate… sequenced as follows:
Comment. Review and study this point was here but, parallel to the move of the linked section, this point is moved to earlier to Ideas.
Comment. The daily practice aspect of this point is now moved earlier. Follow Everyday practice of thought, presence, and action (repeated from above) as Ideas, in Nature and Civilization, and for artifact.
Time. Immediate: 2015.
Review and follow Nature.
Time. In parallel to nature… above: 2015.
Review and follow Civilization.
Time. In parallel to civilization … above (civilization has priority): 2015.
Review and follow Artifact.
Time: all times; when transformation of being is substantial; and as closure to this life.
Review and follow Pure being.
Writing for understanding and sharing.
Comment. Was The realizations: assessment, process, prospect.
Comment. Change? To what? Must review the source, the realizations-resource version.
Comment. Incorporate in ‘the way’ (which title will change) under ‘path design’ (of which there is more than one sub-section and which needs to change).
I feel that the ideas are sound as definitive metaphysics and cosmology for being and identity as realism (all possibility) and as guide to the way here and through the great gateway of death. For detail see assessment of narrative material and presentation.
The path is of course always at a beginning—there is a sense in which there is no success or failure; there is always being in the present and ‘wonder’.
I am so far most pleased with my attempt at nature immersion where I have seen and learned much. I seem to have seen much in meditation-in-action of which the ideas are a phase. This meshes with nature immersion. The practice of meditation and other phases are at a beginning except ‘artifact’ which is still a planned prospect.
Regarding the aim I have some satisfaction about the sufficiency of the framework of ideas as a framework. I have satisfaction that the practical metaphysics (framework and tradition) is in principle sufficient. However, it can be no more than that while we are in limited form though of course there may be greater and lesser or better and lesser achievements. My achievement is a beginning.
As to realization, I have some satisfaction regarding the approach. Yet much improvement remains. As to the process, we are always at a beginning and I am at the beginning of a beginning. Still there is much wonder in this beginning of beginnings.
To continue with the phases, daily practice of awareness and ‘wonder’, to sustain awareness of priorities—particularly awareness of death as real and as gateway.
To maintain a sense in which every moment is:
… and if that is too much to want then to have moments of that sense often enough to have a sense of continuity to them.
Comment. Was a sub head immediately under Realization.
Field notes are commentary on realization—what I do, what I learn, and the process and status of realization.
This section will have rough notes and / or links to rough notes from the field.
As a record. The emphasis will be on experience and realization. However, ideas will also be included.
As ‘ground’ for reflection, to see what has been accomplished, and what is needed.
The form will be ‘rough’.
I will write in the field and on return. The field notes may be scanned, uploaded, and linked.
Comment. Was History of the metaphysics.
Comment. Put others’ contributions (‘In history’) earlier—under brief history of metaphysics or universal metaphysics?
Comment. Streamline the following?
Comment. This may be seen as continuation of A brief history of metaphysics!
Comment. Was two sections Sources of inspiration and My motives.
Comment. Was Ideas parallel action. Emphasize that each is incomplete without the other. Emphasize realization.
Comment. See Assessment below.
Comment. Was Assessment of narrative material and presentation; and before that, was Contribution.
Comment. There are three places that discuss achievement: (1) Part II > The realizations: assessment, process, prospect (2) Retrospect and prospect above and (3) this chapter. Coordinate and minimize these and note in some of the places that redundancy is ok.
The discussion is primarily on the material.
Comment. Presentation is an ongoing issue whose sources are my tensions between (a) action and ideas, (b) system and ongoing revelation, (c) my limitations of thought and narration.
Comment. New section.
The purposes intrinsic and comparative evaluation for improvement of the process and the narrative and to assess and place the work laterally and historically in human thought and practice.
Comment. This and the following are possible headings.
Comment. All these need review.
Comment. Was Criteria for significance.
Comment. Was Correctness. Soundness includes validity of argument and foundation (premise). It includes correctness.
Comment. Was the first part of Major contributions which is now this section and the next What is new…
Comment. The topic was central achievements.
The universal metaphysics, its foundation, ‘self revelation’—i.e. that it includes its own proof as part of our being, its scope relative to experience, its revelation of the universe as realization of all possibility, its appropriation of realism as redefinition of logic and science.
The universal metaphysics draws from experience as experience-including-tradition, finds what is universal, which frames and enhances tradition according to (a) alternate and valid criteria of perfection and (b) improvement of prior frameworks to conventional perfection (e.g. issue, redefinition, resolution, of ‘mind and matter’ and their completeness; nature of identity, space, time and question of absoluteness versus immanence (sometimes called relativity of framework—I use ‘immanence’ to avoid confusion with Einstein’s relativity).
Universal realization as a consequence of the metaphysics; and an approach to realization (the center of the ‘ideas’).
Revision of a system of human knowledge.
Interpretation of ‘discipline’ as immersive which includes the formal. Discipline merges with practice.
Interpretation of and implications for the disciplines.
Incorporation of intrinsic practices and deployment of the extrinsic toward realization.
Comment. Promoted. Was under what was Major contributions.
Repetitive but detailed.
Is the central idea (universe as realization of all possibility) an advance over tradition (where the idea occurs but is not developed or proved) and ‘everything is possible’.
Can there be anything new? The answers to this are (a) apparently at the level of depth and (b) the metaphysics shows that the notion of breadth is ultimate (which implies the new idea of boundless variety which entails perhaps an old hope of ever freshness).
Though the central idea occurs before as the principle of plenitude, it proof and therefore understanding and development do not. Therefore, consequences for action in history are minimal.
Metaphysics is of course ancient, dating, in the west, at least back to Thales (c. 600 BC). It has a long tradition recorded earlier. In the recent period metaphysics has taken some new turns away from its meaning as knowledge of being as being. The old meaning is restituted, justified, and given new significance: the metaphysics is perfect and reveals that the universe is the greatest possible…
In addition to the main ideas the following particulars of the metaphysics are new.
Concepts—the system and individual concepts are revised with regard to content and establishment; here the idea of realism as revising Logic-Science and as part of the metaphysics is new; there is clarification of ‘possibility’; unification of the abstract and the concrete…
Comment. Was part of Contribution as Significance for the history of ideas.
Comment. Title enhanced.
Comment. See system of human knowledge for details.
The revision below in view of the metaphysics is manifest.
Comment. Title enhanced.
Comment. The distinction: Universe, artifact, and symbol is artificial.
Comment. Topic is promoted; was under Human knowledge.
Comment. Comment on prospect for the metaphysics and for realization.
Comment. Was ‘Resources’.
Comment. Review for effectiveness! In addition to human consider nature, civilization… under general!
Comment. Was Modern sources.
Comment. The third way.
Comment. The way of experience and experiencing are being and becoming.
Comment. The sub heads are new.
Teachers—in secular and trans-secular ways and disciplines.
Traditions, intentional and spiritual communities, universities, modern networked systems.
Comment. My work. Was Archive.
Primary: the realizations-resource version.
Comment. Alternate titles: lexicon.
Comment. Source: originally journey in being-detail; also in the realizations-resource version which has improved definitions, e.g. identity and extensionality (was extensivity). So, requires revision—this document should be combed for terms; concordance is a potential source. Also see ‘terms to define’ in the plans.
Comment. Source: the realizations-resource version. How to make this essential? Combine with History of the metaphysics?