Meaning and proof—the naming of the given encapsulates definition of the given and proof of its existence. This aspect of proof is outside the premise-to-given dimension of proof; it identifies and names givens which function as premise; and it is valid only where the concept defines something whose givenness is beyond question. We may question the given in general but there are cases in which we find it, after questioning, to be beyond further question. An example is being: that there is being is beyond question because that there is (verb to be) a question shows that there is being. In such cases proof by observation is just as certain as deduction.

In other words we are talking of situations where soundness is collapsed into definition and observation of the object. Note that a sound argument has been defined as follows: a deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true—otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound—Validity and Soundness, from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. However, the definition should be: a (deductive) argument is sound if and only if the conclusion is true and the truth follows from the argument (and not by coincidence or two canceling errors etc). Then, the IEP definition actually provides criteria which follow from the definition here and the nature of deductive argument. This general case will be taken up for the present development later.

Experience

Experience names awareness in all its manners, kinds, and forms.

Experience has being.

Experience names awareness in all its manners (pure, receptive, active), kinds (cognition, emotion), and forms (quality, quality, shape…).

Experience is relationship.

Even pure experience is relationship.

The following are the same picture with different labels: there is nothing but experience and experience is of a real world that contains experience.

The following are not different pictures, they are different labelings of the same picture: (1) There is nothing but experience. (2) Experience is of a real world that contains experience. These are alternative labelings (in which ‘experience’ has the essentially the same intension but different extensions). Neither is ‘right’ but each is illuminating in its own way.

Significance and knowledge are dually of the world and experience; experience is the place of expression and core of living being.

Universe

The universe is all being.

The universe is all being over all time, space and beyond.

The universe has being.

The universe has no creator.

Domain

A domain is a part of the universe.

The null domain is the part that contains no being.

The non null domains have being.

Although in analogy to the empty set and the zero force as force we may assert that the null domain has being we do not make this assertion at this point in the development.

One domain may participate in the creation of another.

Pattern

A pattern is a particular (set of) arrangement(s).

Patterns have being.

So far as the pattern obtains other arrangements do not obtain. In this sense a pattern is a limit.

Extensionality

Difference is the most elementary pattern.

Utter sameness is absence of difference.

In utter sameness, there is neither thing, nor pattern, nor knower or known.

Sameness with difference refers to identity of person or object and marks time.

In this sense, identity is not sameness with regard to every property. What change in time are intensive properties of an object, including being.

Difference without identity marks space.

What changes in space is the object or part.

Relative to identity, the modes of difference are space and time.

Extensionality is the generalized notion of ways of difference of a person or object. Time and space are examples. From their conception as exhausting the ways difference can occur regarding identity—i.e. sameness versus difference, they are the only ways.

In a treatment in which, at least in the beginning, we chose to avoid our intuitive connotations of space and time we would use alternative terms, e.g. duration for time-like difference and extension for space like difference (and the notion of extensionality would refer to duration and extension). The terms space and time would be could then be introduced together with the following distinctions.

To the extent that identity is not well defined, space and time are not well defined. To the extent that the ways of difference are not well distinguished, space and time are not. To the extent that identity is not universal, space and time are not universal.

Space and time are immanent in being (and have being). That is, their essence is that they are not absolute and external grids—they are relative. But a domain can have an as if relative space-time grid (perhaps set up by another domain).

Space and time have being.

Tradition

The term tradition will here refer to what is valid in the collection of cultures, primal through today, of living beings.

Tradition includes fact, and science, and principles of reason. The parts of tradition generally have local validity or truth.

Modes of expression

Two non-exclusive and major modes of expression are the mythic-holist and the literal-atomic.

A dominant mode of expression in the modern world is the literal and the atomic. In other cultures the (often oral) mode has been the mythic-holist. However the range from literal-atomic to mythic-holist is a continuum. Scratching the surface shows the naïve literal-atomic and the naïve mythic-holist to have elements of one another. Particularization leads from the mythic-holist to the literal-atomic; appropriate permissiveness leads validly from the literal-atomic to the mythic-holist.

Cosmos

It is not inconsistent with our valid traditions and their principles or reason that the universe is greater than our cosmos without limit to space-time-beyond and variety.

It is allowed by—i.e., not inconsistent with—tradition (and its principles of reason) that universe is the universe of all possibility—i.e., it is the greatest possible with regard to space-time-beyond and variety of being.

In the twentieth century, secular thinkers came predominantly to see our empirical cosmos as the universe. However, there is nothing in reason or philosophy or science that implies that case. That is, reason and philosophy and science allow much more. The greatest that they allow is that the universe is the universe of all possibility or greatest possible universe (any picture that violates fact in its empirical domain or logic is not possible). The existence of myriad other cosmoses and more, even ephemera and ghosts violates neither fact (including science) nor logic.

The fact that the universe of all possibility is allowed by the tradition (e.g. science and principles of reason) is not that the universe is universe of all possibility.

Natural law

The natural laws of our sciences are readings of patterns.

The patterns themselves may be thought of as Natural Laws.

We will think of the real patterns of myth-holism as cases of natural law.

Natural Laws have being. This will be written as:

Natural laws have being.

In ascribing being, here, it is not implied that the Laws and patterns are perfectly faithful or universal.

The void

The void is the null domain.

Metaphorically, the void is the absence of being.

The void contains no pattern or natural law.

Does the void as the null domain have being? So far this is to be regarded as an open question.

The fundamental principle

Thus far we do not know that the void exists. However, consider that the natural laws apply to manifest being. Consider a composite concept temporarily labeled as the Void: void-null-domain and void-as-absence. It has an object Void that contains no Law. If there is any object that does not emerge from the object Void, that would be a Law. Therefore all possible objects emerge from the object Void. This is summarized as follows:

All possible objects emerge from the void since the contrary would be a natural law of the void. This defines a possibilist view of the universe.

What are the possible objects? I.e., what does ‘possible’ mean in this context? Consider a concept or conceptual picture violates our laws of physics but not the facts or logic. If the object defined by that concept did not emerge from the void, it would be a law.

In this paragraph, for brevity, ‘fact’ will refer to ‘fact-science-logic where valid’ (here, science is regarded as the laws or principles regarded as a fact on their local domain of validity rather than the laws or principles regarded as universal). Since the metaphysical framework is consistent with fact, the sole limiting principle of the metaphysics is fact, which is now labeled realism. However, since ‘fact’ is limited, this constitutes a redefinition of science and logic.

Consider particular facts including science as local empirical fact rather than universal projection; regard this as ‘fact’. Define realism as the constraints of fact and logic on concepts. Then realism is the appropriate criterion for possibility—if a realistic object does not emerge from the void that would be a law of the void. Therefore what obtains is far greater than revealed in science and logic.

However, our sciences and logics are limited. Therefore realism constitutes a redefinition of science and logic which we could label Science and Logic but collapse into a single concept—realism. This realism is already under way in the tradition but is clearly open to vast, perhaps unimagined realms of discovery.

It follows that the universe is and will subsequently refer to the universe as the universe of all possibility, the greatest possible universe, or the universe of realism. This is called the fundamental principle of metaphysics. (abbreviated fundamental principle).

Metaphysics

From realism, the universe must go through non-manifest phases. Thus the void (the non-manifest) has being.

Thus being, experience, universe, and void define a sound metaphysical framework (i.e. for these concepts) that, as framework, is ultimate (a) in capturing the universe perfectly and (b) in showing the universe to be ultimate.

The concepts of being, experience, universe, and void are perfectly faithful in that they are concepts with precisely defined objects. That is, they constitute metaphysics as perfectly faithful knowledge of being. Thus they constitute a Kantian-like framework which is perfect because while Kant’s categories were too detailed to constitute metaphysics, the abstract character of the four concepts above permits perfectly faithful knowledge even though there is an experiential gap between knower and known.

It would seem that this metaphysics might be trivial. However, we just saw that it is far from trivial.

What is the place of tradition, especially local culture, in the metaphysics so far? If the universe is limitless with regard to possibility it must confer this power on local forms. However while we (individual, civilization) are limited, realization of peak power is a process. The imperfect aspects of culture-tradition play an essential role in this process (and they include of course experiment, trial, and reason). Further the metaphysics shows that they are essentially lacking in the sense of perfection as faithfulness. On the other hands they are the essential practical tools of process. Therefore in a practical but also existential sense (i.e. they include the notion of being-in-the-world) they are perfect in their way—imperfect as pure knowledge but perfect means.

Since the metaphysics so far is a limiting framework for all being it is such a frame for valid tradition. Tradition in process fills out and provides an instrument for action within the frame of the ultimate and the tradition is inspiration for the metaphysics suggesting what is significant.

The framework as framework is perfectly faithful depiction; the tradition is not. However, the framework shows that tradition-in-its-detail is never perfect in this sense but that since it is the only instrument we have (it includes our in process knowledge and their in process principles), tradition is perfect in a practical sense. This sense is ‘good enough’ knowledge which includes both the instrumental and knowledge as serving and deriving from being-in-the-world. Thus the metaphysical framework and tradition complement each other and the result is a practical metaphysics that is perfect in an extended sense.

The extension is perfect in an extended sense that, for the metaphysics is perfect depiction and for the tradition is ‘good enough’ and ‘there can be no better’; and the components of the extension are necessary to and enhance one another (the term the metaphysics will hereafter refer to this extension of the framework).

It will be useful to consider an example of the interaction: in some but traditions death is considered absolute. The metaphysics will later show that death is real but not absolute. This is one of many examples that show at a deep level that the metaphysics is a system of interaction among tradition and framework: the tradition illustrates and inspires the framework and the framework enhances the tradition, often showing where it may be raised from tentative to definite.

The metaphysics can, therefore, be regarded a single coherent system. The sense or concept of being has not changed. And no error will accrue provided, except where a conflation is shown to be warranted, there is care to not confuse the ideal (framework) objects with the practical objects.

It is useful to consider another example. If our cosmos is formed from a single pure eternal kind (‘substance’) the kind must somehow include experience and world (we might call these mind and matter). That is, experience and world are two sides of the same kind (on the substance view). They are not different—but how so? World is, roughly, being-as-being and experience is being-in-relationship. Now focus on the universe. Substance is untenable because it would be a law of the void. But from limitlessness of possibility, the universe must have identity that is conferred on individuals (at least as process). From this perspective, too, experience and world are meshed as one.

What the example shows is that the metaphysics and tradition are not just complements but that they form a union that is mutually enhancing and, as already seen, perfect.

That is, the result of the union of the metaphysics and tradition may be regarded also as metaphysics. The former is universal, pure and epistemically perfect. The latter is universal, practical, and practically perfect. The meaning epistemic perfection here is ‘faithful depiction’; the meaning of ‘practical perfection’ is that of the best possible means of realization.

Pain and joy

From the fundamental metaphysics, our lives are mosaics of pain and joy. This gives some meaning to pain.

Though not part of the development of the metaphysics comments on pain and joy are appropriate here as (a) preliminary and (b) to show an immediate application of the metaphysics to the human situation.

From the fundamental principle life will generally be a mosaic of pain and joy. This is not saying very much for pain might be infinite and joy infinitesimal—but more will be said later in pain and enjoyment).

Still, that life is this mosaic gives meaning to pain.

Doubt and existential attitude

The immensity of consequences of the metaphysics should lead to doubt. Let us therefore allow doubt. If doubt is essential (rather than merely critical or refining), this must be good for it is an existential challenge to act in face of uncertainty (though not absurdity in this case). The metaphysics may be adopted as part of the existential attitude: it then becomes an action principle in the sense that appropriate action and resource under it maximizes expected outcome.

Something from nothing

We saw that the universe does and must go through non manifest phases. This resolves what has been called the fundamental problem of metaphysics—i.e. why there is (manifest) being at all.

The name ‘fundamental problem of metaphysics’ was used by Martin Heidegger

The fundamental problem of metaphysics

This does not imply that there are no fundamental problems of metaphysics. What is or are the problem(s)?

The fundamental problem of metaphysics is that of determining what has being.

That is, the fundamental problem, is that of determining to which of our concepts there concept objects in the sense of perfection.

Why is perfection important? The significance of the question is heightened by the fact that even in the most accurate scientific theories we tolerate some inaccuracy. The response is that we tolerate inaccuracy in science because we have reached the current limits of accuracy but we use science as a practical instrument. Science is practical; by contrast it is immensely useful to have some systems of perfection—i.e., neither the perfect nor the practical is better: each has its use and (we have seen) that the join is mutually enhancing. Perfection is important where (in addition to rather than over and above the practical disciplines) we would and can talk with certainty. Metaphysics is a perfect complement—a complement with perfection to the practicality of other systems including science. The metaphysics is the metaphysics of the present development and we have seen it to be perfect. The sense of perfection of the metaphysics however is not uniform. How shall this potential problem of ‘imperfection’ be addressed? It already has been addressed: no error will accrue provided, except where a conflation is shown to be warranted, there is care to not confuse the ideal framework objects with the practical objects of tradition.

Why is the problem of determining what has being the fundamental problem? It is a fundamental problem because what have being are the objects of the universe. When we reflect that it is not just ‘things’ that have being, but also patterns and processes and laws—whether of literal-atomism or mythic-holism—and (as we shall see in considering objects) that even endeavor has being, we see that this problem is the problem. It is therefore the fundamental problem.

The power of being

The power of the concept has and will continue to emerge.

The development so far amply illustrates the power of the concept of being. This power will continue to emerge. Particularly seeing limited forms as cases of being—as distinct from just matter or only mind or only spirit—will be empowering in any path to realization of what we have already seen to be necessary, i.e. the peak of being.

But what is this power? What is its nature? It is that in invoking such kinds as matter, or mind, or spirit, or symbol, or space and time as fundamental we would be committing to possible error (in view of the developments so far it would be committing to real error). However, commitment to being is the absence of such commitment; this constitutes avoidance of error. Yet it is not commitment to no commitment; this is further avoidance of error and allows truth to emerge (and as we have seen this truth is not contingent on the standard categories even though it deploys the categories to certain ends).

Objects

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 has significance for cosmology and the nature of the real.

The modern concept of abstract object (see Abstract Objects Stanford—Encyclopedia of Philosophy) contrasts with the notion of concrete object. The latter refers to our familiar worldly objects such as books and bricks and the objects of science. The abstract objects are exemplified by a novel (not the book), a cuboid (the form of the brick), and the objects of mathematics (when defined by symbols and concepts). Clearly the concrete objects exist in space and time and are causal. Where do the abstract concepts reside? If a novel is not a book itself, where is the novel? Where is a mathematical object such as the number one? This suggests that abstract objects lack all or some spatiotemporality and causality (thus there are mixed objects).

According the metaphysics, there is one universe and all objects are in it. Further, within realism, all concepts have objects. I.e. the abstract objects (as objects) reside in the one universe. That is, it is only to the degree that the universe is non spatiotemporal that abstract objects can be truly non spatiotemporal and this is one source of abstract objects. Another, but not essentially different source, is that while the abstract objects are in space and time, the abstractness of their definition results in spatiotemporality and causality not being relevant to their nature (in the case of mixed objects the relevance is partial).

That is the abstract are not essentially non-concrete; rather abstraction omits some concrete features. Conversely the concrete are known perceptually and since the percept is a concept and not the object, the concrete are tinged with the abstract.

Thus the abstract and the concrete are not essentially different. They are both in the one universe. Of course the approach to conceptualization may be different. In defining the concrete, the empirical is emphasized; for the abstract the conceptual is the crux. But, in as much as meaning invokes both concept (including percept) and object, the distinction between the empirical and the conceptual is not as great as we tend to conceive it. This lack of distinction between the empirical and the conceptual is heightened by the metaphysics. Thus all objects are abstract from some perspective but concrete from another

This extended notion of object will vastly extend the cosmological picture and will be immensely useful in understanding its nature.

Cosmology

Cosmology is the study of the variety, extension and duration of being.

In the following we study the cosmological picture and its principles together. Both picture and principles derive from the metaphysics.

On proof and intuition

Many proofs from the fundamental principle are so trivial (some of course are not) that proof may be omitted. What is important is interpretation, which will be given, and challenge to intuition. The issue of intuition may be addressed by (a) carefully following the formal development, (b) remembering that the metaphysics is proved and consistent with tradition, and (c) allowing time for assimilation.

The fundamental principle asserts that the universe is the universe of possibility. It follows that (a) many proofs of very consequential but unexpected results will be so trivial as to not require explicit demonstration and (b) that the results, as is the case for the principle itself, will often be very counterintuitive.

Obvious proofs will not be given. However, there will come a point where proof will be indicated and given. It is anticipated that the future development of the metaphysics will have parts that are immensely difficult (e.g. to human minds); this is a consequence of the metaphysics. However, the metaphysics also says (as made explicit below) that there will be an ‘evolution of intelligence’ that will be at least in step of the demands of proof. Further, any given form may find new approaches to conceptualization that make proof much easier. Perhaps, as has already begun, we will find mixed human-computer approaches to simplification.

The problem of intuition should be overcome by (a) attention to the proof of the fundamental principle and its basis in the given (b) attention to the fact that the principle is not in violation of the tradition (even though it is surprising relative to traditional worldviews) (c) careful attention to the meanings of concepts and the system of concepts as defined and developed here (acknowledging but not directly using other meanings) and (d) allowing time for familiarization.

General cosmology

The principle of general cosmology is the fundamental principle. Consequences follow.

The universe is a manifold of acute, diffuse, and absent manifestation, identity, space, time, causation, and variety; these have no limit but realism; they peak in Aquinas’ Aeternitas and Vedanta’s Brahman (all knowing and being manifest as one). This power is conferred on the individual. While in limited form, however, realization is eternal process; overcoming suffering is significant but we do not wait for it in the path of realization; and the path is made effective and enjoyed by intelligent (cognitive-emotive) commitment (including passion). Pain and enjoyment are a mosaic; this gives meaning to pain. Death is real but not absolute—it reminds us that this life is precious. The briefest answer to the question of memory across death is that in the abstract the individual is already in the ultimate.

The universe is a manifold of acute to diffuse to absent and space and time. As such it is self contained. Within this there are phases of acute, diffuse, and absent manifestation and identity. There is no limit to the extension (in space-time and beyond) and variety of these manifestations (and the peaks of being may be called the Aeternitas of Thomas Aquinas—all being and knowing as a fact; or the Brahman of Adi Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta; or The Real of some formulations that emphasize the difficulty in apprehending the ultimate object). This power is conferred on the individual.

The identity of the individual constitutes a problem. In going through non manifest phases how is there the memory that is necessary to identity? And how can Brahman and Aeternitas be facts when process is eternal. There are two approaches to answering this. A concrete but somewhat unsatisfactory answer is that between the absolute void and sentient form there are grades of formed-ness including a proto-void that is the container of memory. Then, the individual is an expression of dispositions (from Vedanta); it is this that survives death; and for the individual, perhaps no more is remembered; but within Brahman all is known—at a higher level—and therefore remembered (it is possible and therefore individual lives will generally be mosaics of enjoyment and suffering: more on this later). But this concrete approach is not altogether satisfactory because of eternal process. A second approach is abstract. Recall that the concrete may also be seen as abstract. In the abstract approach spatiotemporality and causality reside in spatiotemporality plus non-spatiotemporality and causality plus non-causality; and in this largest ‘domain’ all is (possible); that is what is said is true even though I do not understand how its truth manifests.

In greater detail, manifestation and identity cycle through acute, diffuse, and absent phases; and there is no limit to the extension, duration, and variety of these cycles and their peaks (i.e. the variety is so great that there is no mere repetitiousness and, of course, there are peaks within peaks…).

Some details

We saw earlier that ‘To the extent that identity is not well defined, space and time are not well defined. To the extent that the ways of difference are not well distinguished, space and time are not. To the extent that identity is not universal, space and time are not universal.’ It now follows that within possibility, all such cases obtain (note the similarity to and inspiration from Einsteinian space-time-matter).

The variety of local or cosmological systems and their laws is without limit. The cosmoses may be seen as lying on a grid connected, sometimes by explicit space-time, but generally via the incompletely-extensional whole (universe). Every atom is a cosmos, every cosmos an atom. All limited cosmoses are repeated in precise and variant forms, as far as ‘possible’ without limit. A cosmos has the possibility of self-annihilation at any moment (or not); therefore infinitely many will self-annihilate. Further for any cosmos there may and so for many there will be annihilator events and annihilator cosmoses. All this occurs against a background at many levels from void, to proto-void, to semi-form (note the analogy to the quantum world and vacuum). Our cosmos is repeated in its precise and variant forms without limit as an infinitesimal part of this grid. It is possible that a cosmos will have ghost cosmoses that are at most temporarily isolated from them (there is no ultimate disconnection or non-interaction). Therefore a limitless sub-collection will have such ghost cosmoses, each passing through the other(s) with barely a whisper. Temporally, even though this is probably at least partially metaphorical, the cosmoses which have a limitless range of small to large scale manifestation, may be seen against a transient to void background. The universe, as we have seen, has no external creator. However, there may be local creation of one cosmos by another. That is, there may be local ‘gods’. It is possible that the story of the Bible (or Koran or similar ‘Hindu’ accounts), in some form made self-consistent, is realized in some cosmoses; therefore the stories will be realized infinitely often. The same is true of all fiction.

Death

This section is ‘detail’ because the contents occur earlier.

What we have seen is that death is real but not absolute.

In this life, death is a reminder of its preciousness.

The proto-void and the ephemera

The void presents as so potent that we are inclined to attribute power and ‘stuff’ to it. However, the reason we may want to do this is that our scientific (though not logical) reason and intuition tell us: no manifest being, no power. But a lesson of the metaphysics is that this kind of reason and intuition are misleading. The void has power even though it contains no being. We are of course so accustomed to causation that we will think of the power of the void as causal. But that is metaphysically unnecessary; but it is allowable provided that we admit a vastly different notion of causality than the scientific-intuitive one.

Still, the metaphysics that there is a proto-void that has much ‘stuff’ and causal power. The main reason to bring this up is that it may provide a place to fill the science-intuition versus metaphysics gap without compromising the metaphysics.

The ephemera are roughly related to the idea of the proto-void. Imagine yourself in the place between being awake and sleep. You are imagining shapes and colors and spaces. They are like shadows—they seem to have no causality of their own. How could they depict reality? The do depict reality except of course that there may be intrinsic contradictions as in logic, as in the art of M. C. Escher. They are real. But are they significant? In themselves they are significant at least as depictions of a ‘shadow world’ and as a source of imagination. Perhaps, also, they are pathways to and from absence of being and formed being. We will be investigating significance below.

Significance

We are also interested in stable cosmologies, e.g. that of the local cosmos. This will also help see the significance in general cosmology.

Above we saw that the consequences to the metaphysics are immense in magnitude. But what is their significance? Some consequences, e.g. the eternity of identity, are obvious. But others, e.g. the truth of fiction, are not obvious. The cosmologies taken up below for their intrinsic significance help to answer the issue of the significance of various aspects of the general picture.

Stable cosmologies

Our cosmos has a degree of formed-ness and stability. The universe is a collection of formed stable cosmoses against a transient-void background. What principles are available to explain form and stability?

Let us elaborate the foregoing question. We have seen that the universe is a limitless collection of formed stable cosmoses of variety far greater than suggested by our cosmos—i.e., the fundamental laws and not just constants have limitless range. This is just a beginning for ‘every cosmos is an atom, every atom a cosmos’ and all this occurs against a void-proto-void-transient-ephemera background.. What principles are available to understand their form and stability. For example what is the source of physical structure and particular structures such as the laws of physics of our cosmos; what is the source of life—and what are the kinds of cosmos that are necessary for or facilitate life and lower and higher sentience (and what further high forms of sentience may there be)?

Principles

Since every origin complies with the metaphysics, this is the most general explanatory principle.

The origin of a specialization of form, stability may derive from another specialization that is less specialized but still not the most general picture; but for foundation without further foundation this must lead us back to the general case.

But we are also interested in more specific processes that explain form and the population of form in the universe.

It is inherent in the general process under the metaphysics that it need have no explanation or mechanism or understanding other than that the metaphysics requires it. But we also interested in more specific processes that are explanatory mechanism in the sense that we can see how they occur as more frequent, but perhaps not so universal processes. Any reasonable mechanism is necessitated by the metaphysics; what the metaphysics does not require is that such mechanisms be universal. The metaphysics contains all more specific ‘explanations’ but is not limited to any of them. Thus the metaphysics is the ‘parent’ of all principles.

It is sufficient to consider origins from the void.

We may consider origins from any state but there is no origin that is more general than origin from the void; we choose the latter because it is maximally explanatory—i.e. the explanation / mechanism of formation from the void need posit no further form.

Because there is no form in the void, the origin of form is indeterministic. But form has at least some degree of determinism. A goal of explanation is to illuminate the ‘balance’ between indeterminism and determinism—between absence and occurrence of form. A classic mechanism is stepwise via indeterministic increment between stable states where population is maximized where the product of frequency and longevity is a maximum. Fecund transients are very short lived. Perfect symmetry is frozen. The optimum lies somewhere in between.

So we now face the question of the detail, the mechanism of such a process. What is the process of origin of form from the void? The void has no form; therefore the process cannot be determinist in the usual sense (it is determinist in quite another sense in which all form ‘comes’ from the void). But the same is true at every step: the origin of new form, i.e. form not at least implicit in the old form, must be indeterministic.

Would the origin of form be large step or incremental? From the metaphysics large steps do occur; such steps need have no explanation other than the metaphysics requires it. However, it is reasonable that (a) small steps from an already formed system are most probable (b) the net process is not ‘seeking’ an end in form (this is inherent to non-determinist origins) (d) that the individual steps show no preference for stability (e) but that stable outcomes are (by definition) longer lived and (f) that some kind of near symmetry (and thus conservation) is inherent to relative stability (the problem with perfect symmetry is that perfect symmetry and stability are ‘frozen’ in their perfection. Thus there is a balance between stability and the need for process. This balance will lie, as part of a distribution, at a place where the product of longevity and frequency of origin (fecundity) is a maximum. This shows that contrary to some opinion, emergence of structure requires indeterminism which occasionally finds relatively formed states whose behavior is a mix of determinism and indeterminism. There is no other mechanism at this level of generality. The most common way in which this occurs is by some kind of incremental variation and selection. There may be other alternate mechanisms and explanations to the incremental and within the incremental there may be specialized cases. However, it is interesting that the universal metaphysics requires that this incremental mechanism is not the only way but is a definite way—i.e., it is not merely a hypothetical mechanism. Thus we have given two arguments for incremental variation and selection—a reasonable frequency-longevity argument and a necessary metaphysical argument. A classical argument for determinism has been that ‘new structure cannot emerge via random process’. However, this ignores that the very notion of essentially new structure is excluded by the concept of determinism; and what we now see that ‘pure randomness’, if we interpret it as absolute indeterminism is not so random (indeterminist) after all. The history of form is a path navigated a the boundary of stability and instability. It may be obvious to many readers that these thoughts derive inspiration from both modern evolutionary biology and the ideas of symmetry and symmetry breaking in modern physics and cosmology.

Standard science so far does not explain the origins of our cosmos (there are some ‘non-standard’ explanations). The metaphysics requires the origins and end of our cosmos. However, specific and understandable explanatory mechanisms (e.g. causal-like) will have to be sought somewhere between standard science and the metaphysics.

There are some scientific explanations, these include the ideas of Lee Smolin in which a population of cosmoses generates more cosmoses via black holes and there is naturally population selection of the more stable systems which are, from the picture itself, the ones more productive of life and sentience. The ideas are (a) that we look beyond our cosmos and (b) that we look at populations in which the evolution of life is at least a metaphor—it is not suggested (or denied) that cosmoses and other universal structures have something like DNA or sex.

There is no compelling reason to think that origins obey our laws of science, particularly its conservation laws such as conservation of energy.

Unlike some the current speculative cosmologies of origins, there is no compelling reason to think that the origins come from situations in which our conservation laws (e.g. mass-energy) hold. In fact the metaphysics requires that ultimate origins (from the most general case / the least formed case, i.e. the void, the proto-void, and the ephemera) must be non conservative (conservative is not opposite to but is a particular case of the non conservative continuum).

Origins from a non conservative background provide an explanatory template for conservation laws: conservation of energy, for example, lies at the stable interface between deflation of energy dissipating and inflation of energy generating proto-cosmoses.

Population significance

What this suggests for population significance that while within realism all stories are possible, the ones that follow the foregoing template are probable. Thus while many of our traditional accounts are imbued with moral and psychological significance, their significance for cosmology is not great or, more precisely, does not appear from the developments so far to be great. Naïvely, the account of incremental origins from humble (void) beginnings seems counterintuitive—surely God was necessary to explain the beauty of the world—closer examination shows it to be the most probable explanation (including that if there are hierarchies of gods, their origins too is generally incremental). Somewhat similarly, quantum theory has some explanatory power for local origins (up to, say, the level of Lee Smolin’s kind of account) it is clearly deficient for its lack of explanation of the origin of the theory itself and its conservation laws (but note that on some accounts ‘anything is possible’ under quantum theory).

Stable cosmologies

How may we go to an account that is more general than one based in our kinds of law but yet more specific than a general incremental account. What principles might we uncover? Approaches include (1) Learning from our laws and their forms, including near symmetry, relative stability and how it comes about that there is simultaneous symmetry and symmetry breaking (there must be a balance between stability on the one hand and on the other hand effective origins and change, the related (2) Conservation laws, e.g. momentum and energy and reasons that a conservative universe is stable (non conservation means extreme dissipation or extreme inflation and of course extreme inflation may be a path to relative stability) and dissipation laws (e.g. entropy and, remembering that these laws seem to be statistical in nature, how they may contribute to structure and form—from the simple ‘usefulness’ of friction to the complex relations between entropy and life), (3) Learning from the ‘forces’ of our cosmos—the strong and weak are implicated in binding of particles, the electromagnetic in radiation and chemistry, and the weaker gravitation, since it is or seems strictly attractive, in the larger scale structures, (4) The scales of our cosmos—microscopic to macroscopic and how, e.g., the microscopic gives rise to possibility of form and variety at the level of organisms, and (5) ‘Accidents’ such as the abundant occurrence of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon; the abundance on earth of water and the special physical and chemical properties of water including its anomalous expansion and that it is a medium of chemistry and solution.

Alternative and extreme cosmologies and physics

These overlap the stable cosmologies

Motive

Exploration of the world—our cosmos and its laws are one scenario out of limitlessly many implied by the metaphysics.

Exploration of metaphysical possibility—what is the universe like, what variety and identity are there, what is the origin of our cosmos and its laws and what is its relation to the rest of the universe? Thus far there are two pictures (a) our cosmos and variations (b) the metaphysics of this narrative. Not only do we want to explore the latter in its full range but we are also interested in special cases—laterally and from the level of our cosmos on up.

Constraints

Note that some thinkers interpret ‘metaphysically possible’ in restrictive terms such as (a) should not radically violate our laws and (b) mind requires a body. It is interesting that while these two requirements should be interesting, they are not necessary. Particularly, if we are interested in the most general case, Logic is the only restriction and (b) if we are interested in the origin of our laws (and mind) it is essential to start from more general scenarios.

Sources

Generalization and variation of known laws, conceptual or thought experiment, adaptation, conservation (energy, momentum, angular momentum, Noether’s theorem), entropy (and dissipation and availability) issues, experiment and empirical evidence and suggestion.

Conclusions

There will be pockets of improbability but generally the foregoing population picture will obtain. There is a vast theory of possibilist and probabilist form awaiting development. It is generally the self-adapted systems that will have anything more than the barest sentience (see further discussion in cosmology of life and identity below) and these higher forms of sentience, being locally adapted, will be less to see other self-adapted systems and very unlikely to see transient systems. Thus while the formed cosmoses will be high in population, their sentient forms will predominantly see only their own cosmos (at least until such sentience adapts at a still higher level—organically or culturally). At a certain level of evolution there will be a tendency to see the local cosmos as absolute but think or conceive beyond this situation. Since we can at least think of and, as this account shows, even reason about higher cosmoses and the ultimate we are perhaps higher in this sense though fairly obviously far from ultimate.

Cosmology of life and identity

Approach to the ultimate

Though realization is given to limited form (the individual), intelligent and passionate (committed) engagement enhance effectiveness and enjoyment of the process.

Implications for relations to the ultimate

What circumstances over and above the universal-possibilist case does the probabilist case hold for relations of limited forms to the ultimate? Importantly, local adaptation (perception and free concept formation) enable understanding that goes beyond organic adaptation. This may and as we are now reading does enable universal understanding—some knowledge of the ultimate. Thus knowledge of approaches to the ultimate are also enabled (perhaps the knowledge is not too great but the metaphysics shows that realization for limited form is always at a beginning). These approaches may be ideational (e.g. meditative practice), behavioral (nature immersion, service, mutual spiritual practice) and technological (moving beyond earth to universal civilization via material and information technology).

God—particular versus diffuse, concrete—e.g. person—versus abstract, remote versus immanent

Abrahamic type conceptions of god, divested of inconsistency, are realized. However, these realizations are seemingly not probabilist and therefore the significance of the ‘gods’ is primarily symbolic. Remote personal gods are thus apparently of less real significance. What of local personal gods? These, too, seem improbable except as far as life is part of the ‘god-process’ and this appears to have some significance. However, here it is the abstract god (of which the concrete is a special case) that appears to have the greatest significance for it includes the ultimate. We are as noted earlier strands and dispositions-realizations within this process and therefore it is here that we find the ultimate into which we may enter.

Intelligence, evolution, and significance

We have via intelligence some, if very partial, control over our fate and evolution. It is possible and therefore will occur that we (at least in identity beyond death and together with organism from the corners of the universe) rise to the level of constructing peaks of the universe (there will be depths too). It is in the nature of significance and of the void background (no external god) that such peaks, whatever the mechanism, is the highest significance.

Begin by considering the specifics or our organism rather than ‘universal organism’. We have seen that origins to the present state of our organism have been significantly not under our control (this is fairly obvious). However, it is also clear that we are able to affect our evolution if only minimally (and often adversely). This is of course not new for since the origin of life on earth, life is among the factors that affect the biosphere (life and environment) and the changed biosphere provides new niches and opportunities. What is qualitatively new is perhaps only the result of a single or a few quantitative changes among which is our intelligence (the meaning of the term requires clarification; surely it involves all elements of psyche including perception, physical capability, and emotion over and above mere cognition; and perhaps it should be defined implicitly: ability to apprehend and negotiate the immediate-and-the-ultimate). Perhaps the latter is not particularly remarkable but it is in the nature of our organism that we find it remarkable. In any case, the outcome is qualitatively remarkable even though it is clear that we are far from what is possible.

What is possible? It is clearly possible that that we can—organism can—become greater authors of our own evolution and the evolution of the universe. Two questions arise. Is this likely to result in the greatest variety-height of form? What is its consequence for ‘significance’? The metaphysics itself is neutral on the first question: it allows great variety and height of both conscious and blind form. However, there is clearly some probability advantage of ‘intelligence’ taking over from ‘blindness’ (perhaps the real issue is the nature rather than the issue of intelligence). Given this, the metaphysics requires that there will be peak phases of the universe that result from intelligence; and that from the identity of being, we will be part of such phases (not necessarily as this human civilization). The issue for significance is twofold: the peak phases of intelligence will be phases of consciousness and therefore of significance. Further, however, ability to appreciate the peak is (part of) significance.

But there was an assumption in the previous paragraph in the equation of intelligence and consciousness. How can we argue about this? Some philosophers and evolutionists have argued that consciousness was selected in evolution for its greater adaptivity. There is an error in this argument: surely a non-conscious organism could have instrumental if not conscious intelligence. The argument should go back to basics. We saw earlier that organism and experience (‘mind’ and ‘matter’) are constitutively interwoven at root levels. Thus there is no separating organism and experience. What is or may be selected for in evolution is articulation, processing ability, concentration of experience, freedom of pure experience, self-reference of experience; and this does not result in the higher experience that is our consciousness but, rather, it is that consciousness.

Pain and enjoyment

In a stable organism in a stable cosmos under the paradigm of adaptation, pain and enjoyment are in adaptive balance. This gives further meaning to pain.

We saw earlier that the metaphysics implies that pain and joy are a mosaic and that that gave meaning to pain. In stable cosmologies pain and joy are adaptive; therefore, pain will not exceed joy (roughly). This gives further meaning to pain. This does not exhaust meaning for we may actively search meaning as in the human endeavors of psychology and religion.

The significance of the word ‘enjoyment’ is that whereas joy may be interpreted as in-itself, enjoyment suggests active engagement of life, feeling, and thought.

Adaptivity

In stable cosmologies pain is adaptive. However, pain will normally have limits. Joy, too, is adaptive. Though pain is a ‘problem’ it will not be adaptive for it to absolutely outweigh joy. Pain and joy are a mosaic that, from adaptivity, are normally in some balance. The adaptive situation therefore gives further meaning to pain; particularly it helps address ‘suffering’ that arises from ignorance of the nature of being and pain.

‘Meaning of life’

This kind of meaning—significant meaning—lies in being in process (seen here as negotiating the immediate-ultimate).

There is nothing outside the universe; there is no external creator. Therefore there is no true meaning to be sought in these ideas.

In some existentialisms we are alone in the universe; we are our own seekers and creators of meaning; this is sometimes seen as close to nihilism.

Here we see the truth of the existentialisms. In the ultimate we are the universe and its meaning and significance. But how does this affect the immediate? It gives us the knowledge that even though we may not have the ultimate in meaning, it is part of our destiny. To enjoy it optimally, however, we must engage; we accept the mosaic of joy and pain, the experience of success and failure. There is nothing outside the process therefore being in the process is (the source of) meaning; the thought that there might be some ultimate and external authority on meaning is based in the errors that see the universe as created by such agency and that see the ultimate as a state of frozen perfection.

Realization

Journey

The individual realizes the ultimate. While in limited form this realization is eternal process—a journey in being. This follows from the metaphysics.

Nature of realization

Enjoyment and effectiveness are enhanced by intelligent, committed and passionate engagement. The process always begins here-now and connects to the ultimate.

This does not exclude detachment from too much investment in outcome.

The ‘journey’ connects the immediate and the ultimate. It begins here, in this world. It is incremental but saying so is not to exclude significant steps.

Immersion and the disciplines

The cosmology developed above is derived from that of modern society. This is appropriate for modern cosmology and the metaphysics go a long way (to the ultimate). It is not the point here that the primal and other traditions have no intuition of the ultimate but only that in the here developed way is one way that suggests how to realize.

How? Of course we use the suggestions of all tradition but the final mix is imaginative and critical (the primal have critical aspects as in the strengthening and weakening or strengthening of prescription according to experience). But the modern cosmology and metaphysics suggests some ways (as developed below). The primal and other traditions can add to this.

The intrinsic and instrumental disciplines—the traditions of the east are, though limited just as the west too is limited, developed beyond our psychologies of being. I call these disciplines intrinsic because they apply to our being in contrast to the extrinsic or instrumental of the west that apply primarily to the environment or instrumentally to the individual.

The oral narratives of some primal traditions may be described as immersive (there is no need to generalize; we learn from examples). What this means is that the narratives are not templates to apply but are also lived. This is a significant learning that can be made from the primal (though of course the idea of immersion is not absent in western thought as in the poetry of William Blake and many others and the experience of the western mystics).

What does immersion mean? First, what is non-immersion? The western sciences tend to non-immersion. The natural sciences are essentially objective in their orientation. The social sciences are significantly objective and instrumental. Technology is the technology of instrument and control. To be immersive is to blur the boundaries, to join the oppositions of object and subject. Our social sciences and efforts should merge, thinkers will be actors (e.g. VI Lenin and MK Gandhi); but actors will be thinkers. Ultimately this will be the way of a natural science that leads to realization. The theory of experience shows that ‘electrons’ have experience. There will be no way but to be involved at all levels. But how? We begin with the closest to our niche of being.

Dimensions

The dimensions of process are nature or ground, civilization (individual and community in interaction), psyche (the place of being and significance and source of instrument), and the universal.

In choosing the elements from some culture(s) for projection, there will be some arbitrariness The points are to begin, not uncritically, and that we can return to reexamine and improve.

Nature—in western cosmology, nature is primitive. It is of course multi-dimensional—physical, cosmological, biological and, on some accounts, also of experience (mind). These constitute a scientific ground of being. Then there is the nature that is lived in—land, river, forest, mountain, lake… This is ground, sustenance, and inspiration. Nature is frequently distinguished from mind and spirit. However, the metaphysics as well as the earlier analysis of mind show that the real distinction must lie in our picture of nature versus our picture of mind. Thus, finally, I do not hold with those who refer to the additional reality of a spirit world. There is one world in which spirit and nature are one but the distinction arises as fundamental on account of incompleteness in perception and of knowledge.

Civilization—includes community. So far as there is a communal identity or even soul, it is an aspect of civilization. But civilization also emphasize an external aspect—technology and artifact and their role in realization. Some observations: individuals, community, teachers, and taught are in process together at the forefront; traditions and culture among peers and pass from generation to generation; at an inclusive level the process is civilization. Definitions: Human civilization is the web of human community across time and continents. Universal civilization is the matrix of civilizations across the universe. The process: civilization nurtures the individual, individuals foster civilization. The metaphysics requires and suggests that civilization forges its way to becoming an individual. The process of civilization is also intrinsic—the being of civilization: civilizations in interaction, individual strands interweaving—and external—the employment of physical and life sciences, travel in the world (which merges with the inner as in the Beyul below), and technology in the service of exploration and, via information processing and networking, of identity. Aspects: it is important that the dimensions of civilization include the practical cultural domains of knowledge, politics, and economics. In the process of realization these may come to emphasize immersion as much as instrument. Ways to connect immediate and ultimate—preliminary: perhaps the primary block is fundamentalism in secular (naturalism where ‘nature’ has limited interpretation) and trans-secular domains.

Ways to connect immediate and ultimate: (1) Material-quantitative and spiritual-qualitative implications of the metaphysics are important. (2) Belief is not necessary. (3) A way through the secular / trans-secular: via the metaphysics. (4) Infuse social institutions with the open (eternal process) and immersive implications of the metaphysics. (5) Institutional and charismatic initiatives are important. (6) My path has to be multiple: through my being and sharing.

Psyche—refers to mind, spirit and soul (to the extent that they obtain). Though the distinctions are the result of ignorance they are convenient. Good and evil are real (the metaphysics) but we seem to sense this via emotion, experience, and thought rather than corporeal sense. We can think of spirit as the part of psyche with which we sense the higher things of which we are a part; soul is what survives death; and psyche refers generically to all of these and to person and identity. The essential sense of god is that of a process in which we partake. The essential psychology here is related to the aim and shall be (a) our apprehensions of the real and (b) ways to apprehend the real: we have discussed (a) and discussion of (b) is ongoing.

The universal—is ‘everything’ but, particularly, emphasizes the unknown; it includes the previous dimensions. All dimensions, especially the universal, straddle the known and unknown.

Dimensions: details

Nature

Nature can be seen as the ground of being. It can be seen in various ways, e.g. scientifically. Here, however, we are especially interested in other aspects—the experiential and via experience as gateway to the universal.

Nature: explanation

Nature is the most ‘elementary’ of the dimensions. We tend to think that its province does not overlap spirit. Where we see spirit in nature we tend to think of it as separate. However, it was argued that this is simply because what we see in nature as incomplete—i.e., it is our seeing (or thinking) that is incomplete and not nature itself. As our knowledge of nature grows (ancient intuition such as the mystic and the philosophical, mind as part of nature, society as expression of nature even though perhaps remotely so in our understanding, modern physics being more suggestive of mind than classical physics) we begin to see the unity of nature and spirit.

Psychology or theory of realization

Refer to ‘book’.

The focus

The topics will include or be limited to:

1. Apprehension of the real (or the ultimate). This will include psychology (the structure of the apprehension) and epistemology (justification or validation).

2. Ways to apprehension of the real—activities including ritual and programs such as the eightfold way (its essence), reasons for these activities (why they work and how they are based in psychology), and marks of successful apprehension of the real. Hick’s views on religious pluralism, critical realism, and view of the religious life.

What is psychology?

Psychology understands mind in general and conceptual terms.

Detail

It expresses the conceptual in and learns from the particular. It is concerned with the dimensions of mind (cognition, emotion); motivation and how it translates to behavior; it is concerned with relations to the immediate and the ultimate.

Modern academic psychology tends to eschew the ‘unobservable’. Though the ‘heyday’ of this tendency is now past, it is still strong. Even non-academic western psychologies tend to hold that the non or supra natural is only ‘in the mind’. Perhaps all traditional psychologies have a limited view of the ultimate. It is immensely hard to outgrow our adaptive experiential orientation in such a way as to be oriented to the ultimate without violation of what is valid in that orientation.

The purpose of this discussion of psychology

The purpose is to serve the aim.

Detail

The purpose is to serve the aim to live in all worlds, especially the immediate and the ultimate, as one. The focus therefore is on this aspect of perception, cognition, emotion, and motivation. Detailed concerns are of course important, but especially as they relate to the primary focus.

A principle

In the aim of perfection we do not wait for perfection.

The focus

The focus is practical—we are interested in transformation. We are of course interested in theory, particularly because that too is practical.

The primary psychology of concern is psychology of transformation. It is not that psychology of the proximate is not of concern; however it is part of a psychology of transformation since the proximate is part of the ultimate.

The essential psychology

The essential psychology is the theory of realization.

Individuals are strands of the universal, we are its dispositions become concrete.

In universal process individual memory is recollected as part of a higher individual. There is an endless continuum of levels—above self, from SELF to BRAHMAN and below self, from the void and its transients to self.

Detail

The essential psychology is not a theory of how human psychology ‘works’ rather it is the theory of realization—that it is the metaphysics and the cosmology with emphasis on the relations between the individual and the ultimate (which includes groups). How it works is valuable in itself and as support for human aims. At this time this text makes reference to the enormous output of writing in the tradition. But I emphasize the maxim that in the aim of perfection we cannot wait for perfection. That is, practically, perfection in ultimate terms includes sacrifice of aspects of self.

A goal for the future is to work a full but relevant psychology into the theory of realization.

Elements of psychology may be divided according to binding to the world versus freedom. Perception and primal feeling are binding; we are not normally free to perceive the form of mountain as something else and we are not normally free to ignore pain. That is tied in with survival. Yet we are free in some ways; we have freedom of concept formation which is adaptive in surviving in new environments—that is, freedom of concept formation is part of the adaptation of adaptability. We have a degree of freedom of affect—the ability to invest emotion in new objects and pursuits and this too may be seen as ability to adapt to new contexts, even the universal (even if this arose in small ways, the difference between the small and the universal in this context is one of degree rather than kind).

The immediate and the ultimate in psychology

An important element of this psychology is to keep a balance between the immediate and the ultimate.

Detail

The aim of the practical parts (practice and ritual) psychology would include developing and sustaining this freedom while maintaining adequate respect for the immediate or normal. It would further include sustaining this balance between freedom and ‘necessity’ with regard to all elements noted above: the elements of cognition, cognition and emotion (heart-mind), mind and body, individual and civilization, and nature and universe.

Civilization

Introduction

Individuals are in process together. The process is communal. Together, we compare learning—develop traditions shared among peers and from generation to generation. There are venerated and charismatic teachers but to think in terms of mastery over transience is stasis.

At a more inclusive level the process involves civilization.

Civilization: the concept

Human civilization is the web of human community across time and continents. Universal civilization is the matrix of civilizations across the universe.

Detail

Civilization nurtures the individual, individuals foster civilization. The metaphysics requires and suggests that Civilization forges its way to becoming an individual. The process of civilization is also intrinsic—the being of civilization: civilizations in interaction, individual strands interweaving—and external—the employment of physical and life sciences, travel in the world (which merges with the inner as in the Beyul below), and technology in the service of exploration and, via information processing and networking, of identity.

Civilization: dimensions

It is important that the dimensions of civilization include the practical cultural domains of knowledge, politics, and economics. In the process of realization these may come to emphasize immersion as much as instrument.

The immediate and the ultimate

I seek to formulate ways to connect the immediate and the ultimate.

Introduction

The tradition provides ways. In the secular the ultimate tends to be this world and cosmos and so the primary connections are material and human. The material emphasizes improving the material aspect of life and exploration (and utilization) of the cosmos. The human dimension is seen as living the good life: enjoying the world and what it offers, sharing and contributing—voluntarily and through work—and enjoying the fruits of work. The ‘spiritual’ is not absent but rather than to the real, it refers to ‘higher’ aspects of psychology and culture.

The trans-secular sees a greater universe than does the secular and so sees further connections. There are conflicts and commonalities among the different trans-secular systems and between the secular (and its components, e.g. the nations) and the trans-secular. The conflicts among the trans-secular are largely the result of fundamentalist interpretation and the political economics of religion (religion is also political and economic). The commonalities include moral principles-behavior and symbols of the real (which is or includes the spiritual). Issues of the trans-secular include the negative aspects of its politics, the limited reality of its symbols (which we might see intuitively but are starkly brought out by the metaphysics), and that while religion flourishes in some places it has lost its hold in others. Reasons for this loss are the ascent of science and political-economic freedoms that diminish the need for religious light: the idea of spirit remains positive for many secularists but the compulsion that results from misery and coercion has been removed.

However, the metaphysics shows the standard secular and trans-secular to be severely limited. What it shows is the greatest opportunity that transcends the secular divide; it does not do so compulsively; it cannot do so compulsively for realization must begin with volition. This requires freedom from coercive religious and other politics. On the other hand it also implies that there are limitations to the separation of secular and trans-secular affairs (the separation is important in helping guarantee freedoms of thought, freedom from persecution). This sets up a paradox. The secular divide retards realization while it provides freedom to pursue realization. Its source is a defect of human nature—ignorance and coercion—but its purpose is to protect human value. But the metaphysics and its implications show the crucial significance of going beyond this many faceted stand-off.

While one source of the stand-off is that of the different fundamentalist systems, it is not so commonly recognized that the secular worldview has its own limits and fundamentalisms. The limits are by now obvious: the standard secular worldview is severely limited. The fundamentalism is in taking this limited (e.g. naturalistic) worldview as complete. ‘Soft secularism’ takes it as complete by default; hard, i.e. positivist secularism, believes that it must be complete (but of course does not regard its position as belief).

Thus the argument here is not that of secularism and trans-secularism, one is right and one wrong (in any case there are so many strands within each that the meaning of right and wrong in simple terms is compromised). It is that, while the valid elements of both—tradition—have positive contributions, both are severely limited. What is the way out?

Intellectually, there is a simple answer. The metaphysics has made belief irrelevant; it has shown an ultimate that, as such, requires no belief. Realization, then, is a positive process (which is not to say that there is and shall be no mystery; for there is, especially with regard to the realms of being and as knowledge does not displace true mystery) and all that is required is engagement (which of course is an immense endeavor and may be experienced as difficult and in which the symbolism of the traditions may be invaluable).

Problems of the intellectual answer include the following. While the metaphysics has made the psychologically imperative character of belief rationally unnecessary with regard to realization, it has not removed the strength and various sources—intrinsic and social—of the psychological imperative (for belief could already be seen to be irrelevant with regard to realization from the conflicts of fundamentalism and the symbolic meaning of religion). So the psychological issue is the conflict from the various needs and reasons for fundamentalist belief on one hand, and the inertia of secular comfort on the other. Simultaneously, there are the social issues of communication and organization in relation to the trans-fundamentalist (secular and trans-secular) inertia and reaction which is both psychological and political-economic.

The block

I begin to see that a fundamental issue is not the secular versus the trans-secular but fundamentalism (secular and trans-secular, explicit and implicit) versus openness.

Ways to connect

This emphasizes the psycho-social side. Intrinsic connecting has been set up in the foregoing and continues in path.

The following ways are tentative

1. It is important to see not just the material and quantitative but also the spiritual and qualitative implications of the metaphysics (system).

The nature of the universe includes experience of The Real as spiritual.

2. Belief is not necessary.

Belief may now be replaced by a mix of positive knowing (the givenness of the ultimate) and ‘existential faith’ in the face of doubt and variety. A practical concern—communication and allocation of resources (all institutions, secular and trans-secular, require and take resources).

3. The way through the secular and the trans-secular.

Modern science (quantum and relativistic) has points of contact with the metaphysics, especially in the notions of the void (quantum vacuum), mesh of space-time-being (the space-time-matter of general relativity), and suggestions of mystery from quantum theory (stability from indeterminacy, analogy at least to mind-life-spirit in various phenomena including entanglement and the self-origins of replication and complexity). But these are only suggestions. Clearly, science is far from ultimate and the potential is immense. Regarding the trans-secular, one way is to focus on symbolic meaning, to fuse that meaning with the metaphysics, and perhaps to render the fusion in symbolic (parable or story, myth, legend, allegory) terms. Would institutionalization be significant?

4. To infuse social institutions with the implications of the metaphysics.

I do not mean ‘symbolic infusion and invocation’ such as prayer and artistic rendering (nor should I exclude symbol). However, what I mean is that there are implications for our cultural, political, and perhaps economic processes and institutions. We have seen that the new trans-nomial worldview implies that science will never be at an end and that limited form—individual and civilization—shall never exhaust science; therefore the realization of any ultimate science or even greatest possible science, shall be by enhancing its approach or method to include explicit and intrinsic immersion (application of science is extrinsic and perhaps only implicit). But the same should be true of other institutions—political-economic, other aspects of culture, education and other. And what of symbolic infusion? Would this be anti-‘democratic’? Offensive? And regarding symbolic infusion—what and how?

5. Institutional and charismatic initiatives are important.

And compulsive and exclusive rationality as well as emotionality are to be avoided. Both are adaptive and there separations come in degrees, not absolutes; each ‘informs’ the other; generally, they work together

6. My path has to be multiple.

Intrinsic—my thought and being; individual—my process; and sharing.

Processes

Elements of process are means (ideas and action), disciplines and mechanics of transformation (ways, catalysts, risk, reflection, consolidation), modes (intrinsic—of being, extrinsic—of environment and technology), places (nature, civilization, psyche, universe), vehicles (individual, civilization, intelligent artifact), and phases (becoming: nature, spirit, civilization-artifact and pure be-ing).

Elements (non exclusive) of the process may include means (ideas and action), disciplines and discipline in process (mechanics: ways of living and catalysts of change; augmented by reflection, experiment, risk, learning…), modes (intrinsic—of being, extrinsic—of environment and technology), places (nature, civilization, psyche, universe), vehicles (individual, civilization and, later, truly sentient and intelligent artifact), and phases (becoming: nature, spirit, civilization-artifact and pure be-ing).

Process elements: details

Means

The means are ideas and action.

Derivation

The net process is that of being: the being of individuals and so on. The goal is transformation but the very fact of an aim involves ideas which give sense and direction to process which render process as action and the outcome as transformation. Ideas and action are the means of transformation.

Disciplines

The tradition offers disciplines or received knowledge and practice.

Derivation

Transformation and the intent to transform do not take place in a vacuum. Others came before us; tradition includes a cumulation of ideas from bits of understanding to a broad understanding of being; tradition also includes ways of transformation and ways of analysis; these become consolidated in disciplines which are also in process (sometimes the activity of exceptional individuals). There is a discipline of disciplines; it may be encoded in culture; it may be explicitly recognized; it is especially active—recognized or not—at times of transition.

Mechanics of transformation

A mechanics of transformation is, simply, analysis and synthesis of being. It may use the disciplines—e.g., the ways of the religions. Its essential mechanics is choice-risk-consolidation.

Detail

What would a mechanics of the process be? We seek activities that are transformative. That includes not only action but also ideas. Ideas and action are in interaction. An action has a transformative effect. We see this in ideas and seek to multiply it. We take a risk; in ideas we see the outcome and reject what does not work, admit what does.

In detail a mechanics of transformation is as follows: it involves risk which is intelligent where possible but sometimes true risk. The ‘cyclic’ process, then, is risk, outcome, learning at various levels, consolidation andor letting go (rejection) conceiving and making choice… or, briefly, choice-risk-consolidation (consolidation refers to both ideas and transformation of being itself).

Ways and catalysts

A mechanics has two elements—ways of living, and particular catalytic activities such as meditation, fasting, and exposure.

Modes (of change)

Change is either intrinsic or in external circumstances.

Derivation

The external includes social organization or civilization, technology with perhaps material changes in the individual (prosthetics and medicine, machine assistance including intelligent machines. We tend to think of the organism’s being as relatively fixed and so, on the intrinsic side, to emphasize ideas. For the most part even the major religions, even where they see salvation, it is salvation of the individual. They do not see the individual becoming something else, something greater. But some religions see and we have already seen here that we are already part of the absolute; all that is required is transformation of degree. And it is important to emphasize transformation of being because that is what we aim at. Perhaps what we achieve in this life will be small but perhaps not. We do not know the future with precision.

Places of change

The dimensions—nature, civilization, psyche, universe.

Vehicles

Individual and civilization (artifact would be included at the point that artifact acquires knowledge of significance)

Phases

Phases of a ‘journey’ correspond to the dimensions and the aspects of process. Be-coming versus be-ing defines a broad division.

Derivation

A particular journey may recognize phases that correspond to dimensions and aspects of process.

Foregoing considerations suggest (a) BECOMING: transformations in ideas and transformations in being (individual-civilization and artifact-technology) and (b) PURE BEING.

Path

Foundation

This brief overview attempts to avoid being too simple and too sophisticated. The former never gets into real action; the latter never gets out of preparing.

The ‘principle’ will be to look at extremely brief versions of two pathways, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta and its consequence, and derive a third from the suggestions of these ways and reflection on their deficits, especially in light of the universal metaphysics.

Buddhism

The focus is the multi-faceted psychology and salvation from suffering. The response is therefore a multi-faceted, e.g. eight-fold, way.

Metaphysics: most metaphysical questions are useless, they do not address the central issue of this life, suffering and its psychology (note: the universal metaphysics brings an end to metaphysical question in the direction of the ultimate which provides an imperative in this life and its connection to the ultimate).

Psychology: suffering is universal; its cause is ignorance; so there is an end to suffering; the way is the way out of ignorance.

The way: because the manifestation and inducements to suffering are multifaceted, a multifaceted response is needed, e.g. the eightfold way.

Advaita Vedanta

Metaphysics is important to Vedanta: we are Brahman. The psychology is the alienation of the ego from the true self (Atman: Brahman) due to the natural ignorance of ego. The way emphasizes seeing and overcoming the mistakes of ego. It may be simple: an inspired vision of truth. Other ways, adapted to various personal situations and degrees of potential (in this life), are programs to overcome ignorance.

Metaphysics: Brahman, the ultimate, already contains all manifest being in the form of disposition; therefore all beings are already Brahman; however, our limited form is a source of not seeing this and therefore of alienation.

Psychology: the source of alienation is (over) identification with the separate self as ego; therefore the way back to original Brahman overcoming ego: seeing through and beyond it to the identity of self (Atman) and Brahman (note: the universal metaphysics requires that seeing be extended to being).

The way: the way is of course multifaceted, e.g. as in the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Brahma Sutra, and the Tantra of Kashmir Saivism (note: Adi Shankara, a main author of Advaita, does not refer to the Tantra).

Universal Realism

Metaphysics: individual and universal identity are the same (as for Advaita); the universe and individual (Brahman and Atman) are both processes—individual identity ever approaching the latter (this is one perspective; there is another in which they are one timeless ultimate).

Psychology: the sources of alienation include those of Buddhism and the Advaita. However, there are further considerations. The metaphysics of eternal process is proved. While we are in that loop, perfection in the ultimate cannot wait for ultimate perfection in this life which is a mosaic of pain and joy. Perfection in this life is a balance or equilibrium between the perspectives of local perfection and process. The elements of process are described in earlier sections of realization.

The way: the mechanics is choice-risk-consolidation (see discussion of mechanics of transformation, earlier). From the universal metaphysics and other previous considerations this is worked out below.

Template

The definition of the template derives from earlier sections of realization.

It incorporates ‘dimensions’ as ‘place’. It is not necessary that every instance shall have every aspect.

Definition

Introduction—general or specific action; nature of the particular action, plans; remark if the action has redundancy…

Aims—state, process, knowledge of being | understanding, knowledge of practice.

Phase (dimension)—area(s) of focal activity grouped efficiently: ideas (pure and applied), action (identity-civilization, artifact-technology) | universal-all: the phases seen as a single process.

Time—now, year, life, beyond | all.

Sequence—i.e. co-requisite andor prerequisite—parallel or prior to phase vs. all.

Elements

Vehicle—individual (practitioner / direct learning-teaching) andor shared (civilization) | being.

Means—ideas (study discipline) andor action (below) | being—direct and study of mechanics of transformation by increment—risk-learning, ways, catalysts.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—direct experiment with being: way-catalyst | reflexive: development of discipline.

Mode—intrinsic vs. instrumental-artifactual.

Place—nature, psyche, society | universe-all-home.

Action

Practice in action including ritual action | action as practice.

Discussion

For details and items not covered in this template / no discussion so far.

Plan: introduction

Introduction

Sources for plans are linked from the already mentioned plan for study and action. Also see charting the journey.html (dated but useful for its format) and matrix.

Significant detail in journey in being-detail.

Plan—template instances: ways and planning

1. Ways and catalysts, mechanics, elements, and phases

Ways and catalysts, mechanics, elements, and phases

Definition

Introduction—general action.

Aims—revaluation of ways and catalysts, the mechanics of transformation, elements of process (see process elements: details), dimensions (see dimensions: details).

Phase (dimension)—universal-all.

Time—now—life.

Sequence—parallel to all.

Elements

Vehicle—repetitive: individual, direct learning-teaching, shared | being.

Means—ideas-action as above.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—some suggestions: (a) the metaphysics, possibilities and imperatives for realization and action, (b) reflex process or ‘discipline of disciplines’, (c) tradition, study, experiment, eclectic selection and integration, (d) experience-immersion: for cases a, b—ideas, the literature, nature; for case c: practice with a teacher andor in a related community, and (e) reflection.

Mode—intrinsic.

Place—nature, psyche, society | universe-all-home.

Action

…

Discussion

…

2. Path and phase design and selection

Path and phase design and selection

Definition

Introduction—general action.

Aims—conceive, reconceive, and select phases; select phase for primary current emphasis; define criteria for relative completeness and review accordingly for transition to another phase; review for parallel work on more than one phase (e.g. ideas under continual review and use); consider one main endeavor—perhaps a synthesis—for (my) life amid the ‘many worlds’ as one; review path.

Phase (dimension)— universal-all; elaborate.

Time—now | all.

Sequence—

Elements

Vehicle—self then civilization.

Means—ideas and experiment.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—meditate, reflect on goals and means | and on what is fundamental.

Mode—primarily intrinsic but perhaps also instrumental.

Place—all-home.

Action

Practical aspects of implementation—place, travel…

Discussion

Many worlds as one: my intent for this phrase is to live, as far as it is correct, in the immediate and the ultimate, self and other, inner outer…

Plan—template instances: ideas

3. Ideas

Ideas

Time frame: ongoing

Ongoing, in parallel with other phases.

As of 2014 the ideas are relatively complete and the following is to be in parallel with action.

The metaphysics

Study, concepts, and criticism: the whole system and general reading, specific problems (e.g. memory across death and the void), special topics (e.g. oral tradition, the logics, extreme physics).

For the phases of action and pure being

Study, concepts, and criticism.

Planning the entire enterprise

Note that main sources for study and reading are in plan for study and action.

Detailed implementation for planning is in the instances ways and catalysts, mechanics, elements, and phases and path and phase design and selection.

Also see the realizations, below.

Ideas: details

Definition

Introduction—general action.

Aims—knowledge of being (including Jnâna yoga) | understanding, knowledge of knowledge.

Phase (dimension)—ideas | universal-all.

Time—all (emphasis: a time in the future of return to ideas).

Sequence—co-requisite to all phases of being; each phase will have its own study program (see this resource document).

Elements

Vehicle—individual and shared | being—deploying the full nature and source of ideas.

Means—ideas: study| being—aspects of being supportive of truth and fullness in ideas.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—ideas and knowledge as practice (emphasis: the tradition of philosophy) | reflexive: the nature of ideas and their validity.

Mode—intrinsic.

Note—the study will emphasize the metaphysics, psychology of realization including the yogas.

Place—nature, psyche, society; university and other institutions | universe-all-home.

Action

Knowledge is inseparable from and completed in action (‘action without action’ is not action).

Discussion

Some details regarding the aims—see the resource and other documents in the archive for details of a program—some specific topics are: foundations, logic studies, science of possibility, mereology, development and application of the pure and practical metaphysics.

Also note—Jnâna yoga, typical of a number of eastern traditions, is about knowledge and understanding but there are distinctions from the way these terms are understood and practiced in the modern west where what is emphasized is intellect (of course not divorced from experience). The main distinctions are (1) the aim and object of focus is not that of detached intellect and subject but of embodied knowledge of the ultimate and ways to the ultimate and (2) practices for the individual (not just ‘mind’) aimed at seeing truth and being-in-truth (e.g. samanyasa, sravana, manana, dhyana whose inclusion and elaboration is deferred till I have greater exposure and an opportunity to integrate the practices into my knowing). The ideas may be seen as contemplation which interacts with meditation—meditation provides the space to see—that relaxation that heightens awareness of internal and external worlds, in contemplation we come to see and this coming to see is not just intellectual but permeates our being.

Some important special topics include (i) study of logic, abstract systems, mathematics, and border and alternative physics… for the universal metaphysics and realization, (ii) alternative cognitive, emotive, mythic paradigms for understanding and immersion.

Plan—template instances: becoming (action)

4. Nature as ground and inspiration: Beyul and quest for vision

Nature as ground and inspiration: Beyul and quest for vision

Definition

Introduction—specific action.

Aims—seeing and being the real, being on the incremental way | understanding the way of pilgrimage and vision.

Phase (dimension)—ideas, identity-civilization.

Time—immediate.

Sequence—before action in the world and artifact-technology.

Elements

Vehicle—shared and individual | being.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—pilgrimage: Beyul to open self to qualities of sacred places; and vision quest: to awaken vision.

Mode—intrinsic and. instrumental for being.

Means—study of the ways of pilgrimage and vision.

Place—nature and psyche, society; consider the Trinity Alps, Barranca del Cobre, and other places.

Action

These are ways of action; undertaking with understanding of the way is essential.

Discussion

…

5. Transformation of being: yoga, meditation and related practice

Transformation of being: yoga, meditation and related practice

Definition

Introduction—specific action; also see beyul and quest for vision.

Aims—expansion of psychic space (and to see ‘vikalpa’ and maladaptive neuro-endocrine pathways as such); experience and process in the many worlds as one; Beyul—pilgrimage—as place of intrinsic realization: seeing-being through consciousness and body: my awareness-being as and in transaction with universal being

Phase (dimension)—universal.

Time—all.

Sequence—parallel to all specific phases.

Elements

Vehicle—individual | shared: find communities and teachers of practice | being.

Means—study of meditation and related ritual; study of Dzogchen, Tantra; reflection on death—limits to form and transience, death as real but not absolute—as lever to (a) fullness of thought and action in this life and (b) to experience of this life as continuous with the ultimate.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—regular meditation and mindfulness; meditation in action | reflection on meditation (some details are in the discussion below).

Mode—intrinsic.

Place—all.

Action

Meditation in relation to individuals and world.

Discussion

On discipline—meditation in action requires bringing the outcome of meditation practice into daily life and so making that life the ground to the ultimate; and while we meditate on the ultimate and thus infuse daily life with it we also bring this attitude to all activities including and especially the ‘mundane activities of daily living’ (which means that we do not experience those activities as merely to get out of the way, as a waste of time). What are these activities? I shall not detail them here but simply state their principle: they are the activities that sustain mind-body: the essentials (e.g. of Maslow) of survival, security (which includes preparation for the ‘higher’ elements), belonging, esteem, self-actualization, and self-transcendence (Maslow added the sixth ‘need’ later). Two points are relevant: the ‘lower’ needs and imperfection in relation to being a well adjusted human being are important but should not be obsessed over—risk and forward motion are important; and the hierarchy is neat in the meshing of the immediate and the ultimate. I maintain a current sequence of my particular task and other ‘needs’.

6. Civilization: engagement in the world—ultimate and secular

Civilization: engagement in the world—ultimate and secular

Definition

Introduction—specific actions.

Aims— Human and universal: shared endeavor, action toward universal civilization. Shared being | understanding nature and path of shared realization (this aim has two parts, the one stated and an implicit one—i.e. secular engagement informed by and supportive of the shared being and realization).

Phase (dimension)—identity-civilization | universal-all.

Time—2015⁺.

Sequence—after or parallel to Beyul and quest for vision.

Elements

Vehicle—civilization | being.

Means—shared ideas and action | shared development of mechanics.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—sharing the aim of realization: political, economic, and universal (spiritual) dimensions | reflection on the needs and on effective communication.

Mode—intrinsic and. instrumental.

Place—psyche and society; consider a tour of spiritual groups, universities and other institutions; establishing / living in a dedicated—spiritual—community | universe.

Action

Practice as action; leading into ‘real’ action.

Discussion

…

7. Proper living

Proper living

Definition

Introduction—specific action.

Aims—living in and attitude of the way of being; identify ‘vikalpa’ (thinking) and maladaptive neuro-endocrine pathways of reaction in relation to self, others, and world; and replace by appropriate thought and living.

Phase (dimension)—ideas, identity-civilization | universal.

Time—all.

Sequence— parallel to all specific phases.

Elements

Vehicle—shared (civilization) | being.

Means—study of ways and mechanics of realization.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—way or lifestyle, e.g. the eightfold way.

Mode—intrinsic.

Place—all, especially society and home.

Action

Action is part of the way.

Discussion

…

Artifact: time frame—emphasis when the previous frames are under way

Information and networking science (a) for independent and cooperative being and (b) preservation and evolution of identity.

8. Artifactual being

Artifactual being

Definition

Introduction—specific actions.

Aims—independent and adjunct being.

Phase (dimension)—artifact-technology.

Time—2015⁺.

Sequence—after engagement in the world.

Elements

Vehicle—organic level of being.

Means—emphasizes concepts to be modeled and on the nature of practical, experimental, and evolutionary implementation.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—direct experiment with organic, mechanical, and symbolic being: | related conceptual development (e.g. theory of artificial being).

Mode—instrumental-artifactual.

Place—society; universities and other research (and development) institutions.

Action

Concepts and experiment in a shared and designed institutional context.

Discussion

…

Plan—template instance: pure being

9. Pure being

Pure being

Definition

Introduction—general action.

Aims—my being as part of Being; consciousness as part of Consciousness | understanding.

Phase (dimension)—universal-all.

Time—‘now’—in parallel with becoming | all—after becoming: a phase that emphasizes be-ing over be-coming. The time will be defined by either or both of (a) satisfaction with some completeness of be-coming and (b) the reality of death makes be-ing significant over energy toward be-coming.

Sequence—when satisfied with the ‘action’ phases | in view of approaching death.

Elements

Vehicle—self and sharing experience-learning (civilization) | being.

Means—ideas co-illuminating practice-action | being—open search for direct transformation.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—meditative expansion of and freedom in conscious space | reflexive development.

Mode—intrinsic.

Place—‘here’ | all.

Action

Practice (and ritual) as action | action as practice.

Discussion

…

The realizations

Place

The place of the realizations is immediate and the ultimate.

For details see the plan above.

Process

The process—all endeavor is in process—in ideas-action-shared endeavor. Ideas reveal the universe; and ways and paths of action. Paths of becoming, join nature immersion as ground and inspiration; ways of becoming, especially risk and consolidation, life ways and practices, psychic catalysts (non drug), shared endeavor in realism, learning from tradition, and publication of works.

All endeavor is in process—in ideas-action-shared endeavor. Ideas reveal the universe; and ways and paths of action (and plans and reviews). Paths of becoming, join nature immersion as ground and inspiration; ways of becoming, especially the mechanics (risk and consolidation), life ways and practices (e.g. eight-fold, yoga…), psychic catalysts (non drug, e.g. fasting, isolation, exertion), shared endeavor in realism (world and spirit), learning from tradition, and publication of works.

Personal

My endeavor so far, which is and which I regard as in process, lies in the combination of nature immersion as ground and as inspiration, experience with psychic catalysts (non drug), spiritual endeavor, learning from the tradition, and the ideas and publication of this work.

Evaluating the accomplishment

I was going to say, above, that ‘my endeavor so far which I regard as modest in accomplishment. However, although I feel that to be true and relevant to improvement, it is also irrelevant in that (1) being in the process, seeking to better it is crucial and (2) we are always at a beginning.

What do I feel is most significant, over and above the general endeavor? It is nature immersion, the ideas, and their interrelation; and the shared endeavor.

Transience and arrival

Transience and arrival—realization begins in the present, with perhaps with traditional discipline and practice. It requires risk—reflection and experiment—and consolidation individual form (heart, mind, and body), and in culture and artifact. Living in transience—in joy and anxiety—is on the way… is essential in realization, ever a flux of transience and arrival. While limited realization is endless process—ever freshness in variety and depth in a journey of realizations of being.

The future

The future—the path is always at a beginning, in be-ing and becoming. Becoming is always on the way, somewhere in process (above); exploration, sharing, publishing in world and ultimate, entraining and being entrained by society and civilization. Be-ing is immanent, being in the present (and its practice, e.g. meditation) and a time when death speaks: enter into a time of be-ing.

For a map, see the plan above.

Personal

My plan and hope is to extend the work so far—to continue exploration of this world and the ultimate; to extend it in a variety of ways to the social world and civilization—publication of course, but also to attempt to entrain civilization in the process, and perhaps as a specific way of sharing and mutual endeavor, to establish a research and action group or institute dedicated to ‘journey in being’.