Canonical dilemmas

For The Way of Being

Previously Dilemmas of Interpretation and the Real

For reference only
Include only a much reduced version

Anil Mitra © November 2017—May 2018

Home

Contents

Introduction

Dilemmas and paradoxes

Main theses

Aim

Means

Brief version of the canonical dilemmas

Preliminary material

Legend

The dilemmas and interpretations

Experience

Meaning

Reason

Being

Possibility

Metaphysics

Cosmology

Agency

The emergent real

Resources

 

Introduction

Dilemmas and paradoxes

There is direct and faithful knowledge.

The rest is projection, interpretation, and metaphor and may be

1.     Irrelevant,

2.     False,

3.     Partial truth, or

4.     Truth.

Different interpretations and projections lead to dilemmas and paradoxes.

Main theses

The main theses are

1.       Individual dilemmas may be resolved to eliminate inconsistent interpretations, reveal the truth of consistent interpretations, and yield insight into fundamental concepts;

2.       A collection of dilemmas may be built up systematically over the range of knowledge of the world, and

3.       Via mutual adjustment for consistency, the system may lead to improved pictures of the real.

Aim

The aim is to systematically uncover such dilemmas and paradoxes, actual and potential—via (1) the canonical dilemmas, and (2) the outline of the section dilemmas and interpretations which derives from the essential concepts, and to

1.     Resolve the paradoxes,

2.     Eliminate false interpretations,

3.     Interpret the truth and meaning of alternative interpretations.

4.     From this, via reason, build up a local-universal picture of the real, human being and process in it, and possibilities and realizations for human destiny amid the local and the ultimate.

Means

REASON is the means.

In its broadest interpretation, reason includes imagination, criticism, experience, action, logic and inference, tradition and culture including knowledge and its methods, and is REFLEXIVE upon itself and among its elements.

Brief version of the canonical dilemmas

We arrive at the canonical dilemmas by sifting through the progression of concept building in the main dilemmas (main dilemmas-essential.doc).

Experience

Experience as subjective awareness is the core and essence of (our) Being

The world is experience or a field of experience as selves-experiencers—experiencings—experienced-being as nature. Here it is understood that ‘experienced’ includes indirect experience; then if there is an object that has no experiential effect, its existence vs non-existence has no significance (and on the universal metaphysics it does not exist). With this understanding the world is nature and includes whatever it is that matter may be, e.g. matter as directly or indirectly experienced-being, perhaps with the exception of experienced experience.

Meaning

Meaning, rooted in use, resides first in experience and then in symbol—word and language

Referential meaning, rooted in use, resides in the tripartite symbol-experience-experienced or language-concept-object—and absolute separation of meaning from world is impossible and absurd

Degrees of perfection in meaning arise from degrees of perfection in metaphysics and associated epistemology or nature and criteria of knowledge

Reason

Reason is reflexive use of all aspects of psyche-body—and culture—in conceiving and realizing optima of psyche-body

Being

Being and existence are the quality of what IS, in the sense of the verb to be that recognizes only the distinction between existence and non-existence… in this use, ‘Being’ transcends the distinctions of the common parts of speech of (the English) language

Seemingly empty and without an object, this notion of Being is ultimately empowering to—an ultimate—metaphysics and cuts through the limitations and confusions of substance and either / or metaphysics… and enables the recognition of ‘what is real’ and ‘what there is’

Possibility

LE shall mean less than or equal to.

The essential kinds of possibility are (a) logical and (b) real or natural-universal. The latter is LE the former.

Equality yields the greatest real possibility—is consistent with our normal reality approximated by science and everyday experience—in which the universe and its identity are limitless in extension and variety, individual identity approaches universal identity, and for any state of the universe there is a greater sentient state

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the study and knowledge or knowing of the real and is possible. The approach to study of metaphysics, particularly the relation between the real and the logical, is via the concepts of experience and Being.

Analysis of Being shows the nature of the non-manifest or the void includes that it exists and contains no law and so the real is identical to the logical—that is it shows that the universe is ultimate and so yields an ultimate metaphysics

This metaphysics is abstract but meshes with the concrete in a perfect metaphysics with associated dual epistemology—perfect correspondence for the sufficiently abstract and a mix of adequate coherence-correspondence or perfect pragmatism-as-means-of-ultimate-realization

Cosmology

General cosmology, the study of extension and variety of Being in the universe, is (obviously) continuous with the perfect metaphysics.

The metaphysics allows and requires particular paradigms within general cosmology—general single step formation-maintenance-dissolution vs population-efficient incremental-variation-adaptation for stable form, which includes via analysis of identity an entity-interaction-process dynamic, e.g., of and as in local cosmoses, evolution of sentient forms (life), and creative novelty for psyche

The particular paradigms yield local cosmoses and their patterns and laws—but there is a conceptual gap between this general notion and the particular laws and their forms

Tentative ideas for filling the gaps include conceptual, logical-mathematical, and computer modeling—and the logical-mathematical include study of forms, especially symbolic representations that may be capable of modeling their analysis, and interpretations for temporality

Agency

The AIMS of agency include meaning in the here-now and the universal, sharing realization of the ultimate in this world and beyond, and understanding – knowing – generating means for the same

The means include development and deployment of: the metaphysics, theory of psyche-agency from analysis of identity and experience, reason, traditional and experimental ways and catalysts, and templates and programs for realization

Synthesis—the emergent real

The world is a field and world as selves-experience-world (experiencers-experience-experienced) perhaps embedded and interwoven with ‘nature’.

The world is a mesh of the field as particulate-limited and unity-limitless.

The limited self has the—perhaps hidden--means to realize, through challenge and enjoyment, the ultimate in the particulate-limited and especially in the limitless unity.

Preliminary material

Definitions

The aims of this section are to briefly comment on use of terms and to provide meanings for the main givens and some alternate uses.

Other documents have extensive systems of definition.

On the uses of the terms

Many terms here have multiple uses, especially at the edge of understanding—and so I will define some of the important terms used here. See the essential concepts for a more complete set.

Definition should not be ad hoc and so I will attempt to (1) Adhere closely to received meaning, (2) To have a lay out a system that is be empirically and conceptually coherent and consistent; and complete relative to the metaphysics of the narrative.

To understand the narrative, readers should follow the given meanings. Inherited meaning may add richness but should not be imposed.

Two critical problems in understanding the text will be (a) that the metaphysics to be developed may seem to be a form of idealism but is in fact neutral not only with regard to choice of substance but to substance altogether and (b) that the metaphysics presents a view of the universe and its inhabitants that may seem unusual and unexpected, especially to people who see the universe as essentially limited and through a scientific-materialist lens.

Indefiniteness, inadequate and too much specificity of language for metaphysical use

Language is often inadequate to metaphysical use because of its indefiniteness, misplaced concreteness, and inadequate to too much specificity.

Example—entity

The common denotations of ‘entity’ is that it is a ‘noun entity’—and similarly for ‘thing’ and ‘object’.

In this they contrast to interaction, process, quality, trope, and so on s well as to ‘generalized abstract existent’ which is neither noun-entity nor process nor quality nor trope but which may be any of these and more in special instances.

However we would like a single term to refer to all of the above. Entity in the sense of abstract entity could perform that function. As we will see, while meaning of Being is the quality of things in virtue of which they exist, it can refer to all the special cases above for we can say of noun entity interaction, process, quality, trope… and generalized abstract existent that they have Being. Thus noun-entities, interactions etc are all beings.

On the other hand we have not enough specificity. (1) It is not altogether clear that ‘entity’ means ‘noun entity’, and (2) there is a range of kinds of noun entity which is not limited to the common kinds… and so on.

The common terms will be Being, beings, and a being.

Example—the verb to be

The definitions below, beginning with the verb to be ‘is’ corrected for these issues.

On defining

Though defining may begin ad hoc, we aim at a metaphysical system of related concepts that is internally coherent (consistent) external coherent (empirical, applicable) and complete relative to the aim in formulating the system.

An ultimate metaphysics should be maximally complete with respect to the universe.

‘Maximally’ means, at least, to aim at implicitly but not explicitly containing every last fact.

But more than that it means to show the universe in its most encompassing and relevant aspects and to be able to place our being and interaction in it. It will provide some answer to the question of our destiny relative to universal destiny.

Existence and the verb to be

‘Is’ present singular for the verb to be. Its metaphysical use here relates to existence. To EXIST, it is necessary and sufficient to be able to validly say of it that it IS.

Here we want to be less specific than common use of the verb to be (though we may want to be specific at times).

We want the word ‘is’ to suppress common distinctions and choose ‘is’ because there is no common form of the verb to be that always sees commonality where use sees distinction.

The distinctions to be suppressed—abstracted out is a better term—are (a) is vs am vs was vs were vs will be, (b) place, (c) sameness, difference, andor their absence vs space and time andor their absence vs spacetime andor its absence, (d) Being abstracted from Being-experience vs Being-experience, (e) ‘is’ asserted and assertible as perfect correspondence truth vs pragmatic truth, (f) Being as needing no further specification to be real vs identification with substance to be real, and, on the substance case, (g) grades of substance… this is continued in and may be combined with Being, being-experience, existence.

Experience, consciousness, mind, and psyche

Experience

EXPERIENCE, generic for all forms of subjective awareness or CONSCIOUSNESS, begins as a fundamental named given, and includes conscious modes of sensing, perception, knowledge, feeling, reflecting and referring-iconic – symbolic - conceptual, willing, acting and reason.

Note that the formal meaning begins as a given, subjective awareness, that, on some forms of materialism, may seem irreducible as well as indefinite as to its existential status. However, the formal meaning of experience is broadened and experience is seen as part of the fabric of nature.

Bring all discussions of the above point in line with one another; eliminate repetition and refer.

In addition to the formal meaning ‘experience’ is sometimes used—does DOUBLE DUTY—in the sense of CUMULATIVE EXPERIENCE.

Attitude and action; modes of experience

Experience already has ATTITUDE and ACTION built in; there is no need to think of attitude and action as further MODES OF PSYCHE. And ‘PURE EXPERIENCE’ already has EXPERIENCE OF EXPERIENCE (reflexive experience), INTERNAL ATTITUDE, and INTERNAL ACTION built in, and is potential and may be truncated EXTERNAL ATTITUDE and EXTERNAL ACTION.

A more inclusive meaning for experience

STRICT MATERIALISM is the case precisely when everything is made of matter and matter has no part that is mind.

Since we know that there is experience—the feeling that we know is experience, and since on strict materialism there can be no such thing as experience, it follows that strict materialism does not obtain.

However, since we can see the world as experiencer-experience-experienced, naturalism and permissive materialism are more ‘natural’ than strict materialism.

The naturalism is that where ‘stuff’ or matter corresponds to what is experienced, it must therefore contain experience since we experience it; and while matter is the external view of things there is an internal elementary relating that is elementary experience. This elementary experience is not consciousness as we experience it but it is what builds up as consciousness.

Later, the context of such naturalism and the more general and universal case will be elaborated.

The universe of experience

CORE OF BEING—the essence and the real.

ATMAN—essence of individual being.

BRAHMAN—essence of universal being.

WORLD—the immediate to ultimate reality of beings.

Experience is the core of being—of Atman – Brahman – World

Is there a being (entity) that is never experienced?

To clarify, imagine that there are two universes.

This violates the later definition of ‘universe’ as all being but we are doing a thought experiment and not setting up a theory.

Imagine that we live in universe1 and universe2 never interacts with our universe.

Does universe2 exist? Well, yes, given the hypothesis—but its existence makes no difference to us.

A being that has no interactions has no significance (to us). Its existence has no significance. We can take it to not exist.

Experience is an interaction and it is our only aware interaction.

A being that never interacts with the one universe may be taken to not exist.

Later we will see that there are no eternally non-interacting beings.

A being that never interacts with a world, e.g. our immediate world or my world, does or may be taken to not exist relative to that world.

The world may be taken to be naturally comprised of experiencers-experiences-experienced entities.

A natural entity that affects no beings’ experience is effectively non existent.

Experience as noted earlier is generic for all forms of subjective awareness… and includes attitude and action.

An experiencer is a locus of heightened awareness.

The experienced are loci of ‘otherness’ and includes the ‘material world’, other minds, and the rest of the universe including the experiencer.

If that seems incomplete, note that (a) what is not experienced in the entire universe of all being over all its extension is effectively non-existent and (b) the experienced includes stored knowledge.

Free will

FREE WILL is the ability to determine action by seeing and creatively conceiving possible actions and outcomes; randomly, experimentally, andor rationally deciding upon an action; willing behavior toward that action; and, in continuing to act, reflexively applying the same process to the situation which may have changed due to external reasons or learning.

The details of the definition are especially important as free will is frequently misconceived and/or inadequately conceived in such way as to make it trivial or unachievable. Free will has sometimes been thought of as ‘unimpeded’ which makes it trivial where possible but impossible where at all non trivial—and this has been thought to show that there is no such thing as free will.

FREE WILL SENSE is the sense that we have free will. The purpose to introducing ‘free will sense’ is to argue against the argument that since free will is impossible from determinism vs randomness, free will is therefore an illusion. But science does not weigh in perfectly on the determinism vs randomness issue; further the argument against free will from this dichotomy does not recognize that both indeterminism and form partial determinism may be present and it is at their intersection that the interesting processes of origins and evolution of the universe and life and creativity and free will lie. Therefore the argument should not be that ‘free will is an illusion’ but that free will may be an illusion.

Now for the simple argument promised above: since Free Will Sense is agreed to be as effective as free will we therefore need not distinguish free will and free will sense. The question of free will as illusion therefore is irrelevant (and makes and does not make sense).

Abstract and concrete

ABSTRACTION—selection of the given of and in experience. Thus abstraction does not stand against CONCRETION for both lie on a continuum, and both may be perceived and conceived. Generally, however, the abstract is capable of perfect knowledge in a correspondence sense, which is possible because of sufficient abstraction, and, again generally, the abstract is known conceptually (and sufficient reasons should be given for existence—and this will be done in an impressive ultimate context).

Difference, sameness, given, extension, absence

DIFFERENCE—a fundamental GIVEN, SAMENESS—absence of difference, EXTENSION—sameness, difference, and their ABSENCE.

Extension may also refer to SPATIOTEMPORAL extension, SPATIAL extension, and sometimes to DURATION.

Universe

The concept

UNIVERSE—all that is there over all extension (the universe can have no OTHER).

‘All there is’

‘All there is’ is crucial and its omission often leads to unnecessary vagueness, confusion, and sometimes, especially in theology when God is defined as distinct from the physical universe, to contradiction.

Other uses, here given distinct names

Commonly, ‘universe’ has multiple uses, and these uses are meaningful; therefore, here, we suggest alternate terms such as cosmos (ours and others), empirical cosmos, physical universe or physical cosmos, parallel universe, and MULTIVERSE. These alternate terms are sometimes vague, e.g. ‘physical universe’. And care is needed, e.g., so as to not confuse ‘universe’ in ‘physical universe’ with the present definition of universe.

The extent of the universe

In the metaphysics developed here, the universe is seen to be limitlessly greater than our cosmos or multiverse.

Can there be non interacting sub-universes?

1.     Existentially and materially, other non interacting sub-universes have no significance—there is no difference (to us) in their existence vs non-existence.

2.     The universal and perfect metaphysics to be described, which is proved elsewhere, implies that there is exactly one universe. I.e., all sub-universes interact.

Being, being-experience, existence

BEING, BEING-EXPERIENCE, or EXISTENCE—‘what is there’—is the QUALITY of being ‘SOMEWHERE’ in the extension of the universe.

‘Being’ will do double duty, specifically as in Human Being is just another animal. There it might seem as though I am not following my own dictum to terms only as defined here. In fact, I will be careful to distinguish the meanings even though the bare sign ‘Being’ will be the same. The reason for doing this is to acknowledge the use of ‘Being’, not as the greatest Being, but as the most full nature of Being as known empirically.

[‘Being’ is not a being—as conceived and noted by Heidegger; rather, if of something it may be said that it ‘is’, it exists, is a being or has Being. Thus Being is at least as if a quality. However, with sufficient abstraction the distinction between quality, interaction, thing, process and so on is null. While ‘object’ often means thing, it may be used in a more generic sense as quality and so on or even TROPE.]

[In the present use, ‘Being’ is not a standard part of speech.]

[Being is of necessity knowable and by the universal metaphysics to all knowers—abstract-perfectly and/or concrete-pragmatically. In concrete cases where being-experience is interwoven, we may regard ‘being-experience’ as the object or the being as a pragmatic object. These brief thoughts are elaborated later.]

Beings

A BEING—the plural is beings—is a defined REGION of the universe.

The region may be one of extension, but other regions are contemplated, e.g. a region of precision, or of energy. And the regions need be neither simple nor connected.

Power, cause, effect, epoch, isolated domain, relative epoch

POWER—the ability to have and receive an EFFECT. Experience and knowing are special cases of power. An object that has no power at all is unknowable and effectively does not exist. In the metaphysics to be developed all objects have power over all others. An EPOCH is a CAUSAL DOMAIN that is temporarily causally ISOLATED from the rest of the universe. If two causal domains are temporally isolated from one another they are RELATIVE EPOCHS.

Knowing and experiencing are special cases of power. On the material side material causation and effect, and force are cases of power.

The void, pattern, natural law

THE VOID—absence of Being including PATTERN and NATURAL LAW. A pattern or a natural law is a being.

A significance of pattern or law is that they obtain when the information to specify the system is less, often much less, than the raw information.

Possibility, real possibility

POSSIBILITY for a Being—consistency with the concept, definition, or reality of the being. Kinds or real possibility, e.g. natural and universal, are defined later.

Logical possibility

LOGICAL POSSIBILITY—possibility from which contingent limits are abstracted, i.e. the logic in question is deductive. LOGIC in this sense includes conceptual and factual consistency. Two relative epochs are temporarily logically separated.

Argument, inference, deductive logic, inductive logic, fact

LOGICDEDUCTIVE LOGIC but interpreted generally, may be: FACT, or factual consistency, inference, deductive logic, ARGUMENT, INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT and SCIENCE, and the absence of an ULTIMATE A PRIORI, and even REASON and RATIONALITY.

Reason

Reason—an example of a world that should be defined carefully, e.g. with regard to intension, but should also be left open, say with regard to extension. REASON as the optimum use of mind and body in relation to freedom of will… and so entailing all aspects of psyche, arriving at knowledge and decisions, enjoyment (combine with other elaborations)

Mind, psyche

MIND—there seems to be no uncontroversial word that covers experience, attitude, action, sense, perception, conception, thought, imagination, will; study the words from Indian Philosophy (citta, manas…), and Greek and Latin (PSYCHE…)

Metaphysics

The concept

METAPHYSICS will be knowledge of the real.

That this is questionable is standard epistemology at least since Kant.

However, it is not quite as commonly acknowledged that the epistemic critique of metaphysics due to the concept not being the object, also calls into question the nature of knowledge.

Is knowledge something received, a priori to the known? How can that be if knowledge is part of the world?

Perhaps we should have a correspondence notion for the pure abstract and a correspondence-coherence-pragmatic for the concrete.

The universal metaphysics will show the perfect adequacy of this in the local-universal without negating the need for the historical more careful local analyses.

That was an example of an anti-either/or.

Ethically, too, the above generalized conception of knowledge may be indicated.

Related notions

Given the common but perhaps metaphorical notion of a VEIL between knower and known, metaphysics can be seen as LIFTING THE VEIL.

It may be seen as necessary knowledge and truth, especially on an extended account of knowledge.

Cosmology

The concept: general cosmology

COSMOLOGY, i.e. GENERAL COSMOLOGY, may be seen as knowledge of the variety and extension of Being in the universe.

The border between metaphysics and cosmology

The border is not at all sharp but one that is somewhat of convention.

As a guiding principle the border between metaphysics and cosmology shall be the border between the abstract and the concrete, the necessary and the contingent, the general and the real, and the eternal and the temporal.

The abstract sciences tend to metaphysics, the concrete to cosmology.

Local and physical cosmology

Local cosmology is concerned with the form, structure, laws, and formation-maintenance-dissolution of local cosmological systems including ours.

General vs efficient formation

The adaptive principle of formation and maintenance, and perhaps of dissolution, is essential to at least a preliminary understanding of the origin of form and structure. It is a ‘DARWINIAN PARADIGM’ applied to cosmological systems.

Some standard cultural and metaphysical paradigms

Standard cultural paradigms

Primal

Grounded-intuitively empirical, usually unwritten: spiritism, animism, totem, taboo, unity of existence

Secular

Metaphysics—limits to the real, materialism-universal mechanism, causation, non-teleology, scientific realism with optional reductionism; idealism-ordinary, Platonic, and ethical; neutral-synthetic and of Being—vs—open metaphysics subject only to logic

Epistemology—related depictive vs. immersive epistemologies

Transsecular

Neutral—vs—karmic

Remote—vs—immanent Gods

Material—vs—ideal

Self as limited, particulate—vs—approaching ultimate consciousness in which we participate eternally

Dogmatic and open epistemologies

Some dilemmas

Modern paradigms are progress over the earlier and primal—vs—the modern are incomplete and the earlier have truth.

The secular is essential truth—vs—the transsecular have symbolic truth and point to a real realm beyond.

Idealism or materialism is true—vs—the truth is some mesh—vs—substance is not fundamental and the approach to truth is through Being.

Metaphysics based in ‘Being’ or ‘existence’ is too vague to be useful or aesthetic—vs—Being, meshed with tradition and modernity, is the basis of an ultimate ideal-pragmatic world view.

Metaphysical paradigms

Standard minimal

STANDARD METAPHYSICS: a minimal metaphysics that begins with immediate NAÏVE EXPERIENCE, with minimal cultural interpretation and subscription to ability to go beyond. As minimal, the guaranteed ability is minimal but its limits are also minimal—i.e., any absolute is impossible

Neutral

NEUTRAL METAPHYSICS—(i) universe as field of experience with form, (ii) individuals as concentrations in the field, (iii) allows interpretation in which individual and universal identity are united

Universal ultimate
Regarding any paradigm of the real

Any paradigm of the real ought to account for the real ultimate, its attributes, and space, and time

General and special metaphysics in the literature

General metaphysics as rational speculations regarding the universe tailored to specific explanatory goals.

Special metaphysics of real or hypothetical objects in a limited realm, e.g. politics or religion.

An ultimate metaphysics would be one for which the metaphysics is ultimate. A universal metaphysics would be a metaphysics of the universe. Here, universal metaphysics shall be an ultimate and universal metaphysics.

The metaphysics of the way of Being—in this document

ULTIMATE  METAPHYSICS—a metaphysics that as metaphysics is ultimate; alternately a metaphysics that shows the universe to be ultimate. In the present case an ultimate metaphysics of the universe is a metaphysics that shows the universe to be ultimate.

UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS—here the ultimate metaphysics of the universe used generically to cover all of pure – pragmatic – perfect below—(i) universe as limited only by logical possibility (the fundamental principle), (ii) consequent dual metaphysics of ultimate identity of individual and universe in abstract, meshed with the concrete present, (iii) matched by dual interactive perfect-pragmatic epistemology

PURE METAPHYSICS—the abstract side of the universal and ultimate metaphysics; epistemological criterion: perfect faithfulness according to correspondence criteria.

PRAGMATIC METAPHYSICS—the concrete side; epistemological criterion: pragmatic, with coherence, good enough criteria and, where possible, perfect correspondence.

PERFECT METAPHYSICS—interactive mesh of pure and pragmatic metaphysics, more than juxtaposition: the pure illuminates gives further justification to the pragmatic, the pragmatic illustrates the pure and is instrumental for the ends revealed by the pure; epistemological criteria: dual—see the epistemological criteria for the pure and pragmatic metaphysics above.

Key concepts

As of 1/18/2018, all sections except those on meaning and reason begin with key concepts.

Dilemmas associated with main dilemmas are marked by a star*.

Dilemmas marked by two stars** are repetitions and may be temporary.

Legend

Work to be done in is in red font

Counterpoint is indicated by purple font

The dilemmas and interpretations

Experience

Experience (subjective awareness), consciousness, existence, meaning, reason, knowledge-action, psychology, agency

As experience is effectively ‘everything’ in a certain sense, the subsequent sections are pertinent to experience.

Introduction

We begin with experience as the at least apparent medium of our Being

We are alien to the universe, accidents with only illusion and no real connection or immersion—vs—via experience, are the stuff of the universe

We are alien accidents without real connection to the matter or substance or Being of the universe—vs—we are not only connected but are immersed, the stuff of the universe—of Being—by our experience and knowledge as these are at least an essential part of and interwoven with the universe—and—we are thus essentially of the universe—and indeed—we are the universe—but—all this and demonstration will emerge as the narrative unfolds.

Why is there mind or consciousness and what is its nature—in itself, existential, and substantial?

There is no experience—it is an illusion as, for example, this is a material world—vs—experience is the primal given*

There is no experience—it is an illusion—vs—there is experience—and—the first concept of experience names experiential content—and—illusion is experience—and—that there is experience is not a hypothesis that is tested experimentally but the identification and naming of the phenomenon of phenomenality—and—this is the essential content of Descartes’ cogito—i.e., stripped of the self.

On strict naturalism or materialism there can be no experience—and—therefore strict materialism cannot obtain*

On strict naturalism or materialism there can be no experience—vs—materialism and naturalism cannot be strict and there is experience.

Experience is existentially and practically marginal—vs—it is the core of our being*

Experience is marginal to our intrinsic and instrumental being—vs—it is the core of our being and central to our action.

Experience is epiphenomenal—vs—experience is causal and we have agency*

Experience is epiphenomenal, i.e. experience is caused by physical events but are materially and perhaps even experientially acausal and phenomenologically ‘just along for the ride’ in that the sense of agency and freedom of the will are illusions—vs—experience is causal and we have agency.

Experiments demonstrate epiphenomenalism—vs—that is but one interpretation of the simple experiences that, any case, does not extend to a life of experience*

There are experiments that demonstrate epiphenomenalism—vs—(a) that is one possible interpretation of the experiments and (b) the experiments do not model significant (causal) interaction among consciousness, the sub-, pre-, non-conscious, and material over time.

As substances, matter and experience or mind cannot interact—vs—mind and matter cannot be strict or independent substances

As substances, matter and experience or mind cannot interact—vs—they are not substances but both part of nature (Being)

The mental emerges at some level of material organization—vs—the experiential and the experienced are interwoven at all levels—and—it is complexity, obvious awareness, and capability that emerge and not the mind-kind itself that emerge*

The mental emerges at some level of material organization from the material and is the only true explanation of experience and consciousness—vs—the material and the mental are the same in kind—and—emergence cannot be the emergence of a new kind or substance—but—there is emergence and it is emergence of a higher order of mind for which there may be a precise numerical criterion rather than a gradation (which may also be present)—and—it is built up by layering, compartmentalization, feed back in the brain—and—this emergence is entirely the same as and analogous to natural emergence in natural systems.

Experience and agency are mysterious on naturalism—vs—experience and agency are natural*

Our agency and very presence of experience are mysterious on a naturalistic account—vs—they are part of nature, e.g. with matter corresponding to experienced nature and experience being an internal state corresponding to internal relations and experience and agency (including cause) being part of nature rather than a mysterious or contradictory insertion into the causal chain in nature—and—this yields a notion of an aspect of nature that goes to the root of nature, whose form in higher neural systems is the first concept of experience and may be regarded as a generalization to a second concept of experience that is interiority at lower levels and though phenomenally different—much more elementary—than our consciousness, is of the same kind.

There is no freedom of will or agency—vs—freedom of will and agency are the names for choice making activity—and—their denial is born of erroneous materialism and denial of what is thought to be idealism

There can be no freedom of will either (a) we do not have unimpeded will or (b) neither determinism nor indeterminism can support it—vs—(a) the idea of unimpeded will should not be part of the concept or definition of freedom of will, but (b) freedom of will requires ability to see and create a conception of alternate futures, evaluate their values, choose from among them, act with dedicated effort toward its execution, and to do this iteratively, based on learning that occurs in the process  and (b) freedom of will occurs at the intersection of indeterministic events occurring in a determinate structure; and freedom of will is crucial to our human being.

There can be will without freedom of choice—vs—without freedom of choice, will is without meaning*

There can be will without freedom—vs—effort necessitates choice and therefore freedom.

Experience is all there is—vs—there is a trivial meaning according to which that does not make sense—and—an extended meaning on which it turns out to be tautologous

Experience is all there is—a naïve solipsism—as, if not intended as true then still a challenge to the standard view—vs—the ‘standard’ view of experience and the experienced or real world.

There is no self—vs—self is not an object but a locus of connected but local awareness, attitude, and agency (action)*

There is no self—vs—self as a locus of experience or experiencer which gives rise to the experience-experiencer-experienced model.

Identity is illusory—vs—identity is real*

(Related to self)

Identity is illusory—vs—identity is real

Identity is insubstantial—vs—identity is substantial*

Identity is insubstantial—vs—identity is substantial

Identity is limited, e.g. to the organism, birth, and death—vs—all identity is connected*

Identity is limited, e.g. to the organism, birth, and death—vs—all identity is connected

Identity is ordinary, i.e. as we ordinarily experience it—vs—identity also peaks in the universal*

Identity is ordinary, i.e. as we ordinarily experience it—vs—identity also peaks in the universal

Other minds are illusory—vs—they are illusory only on a view that confuses the limited with the unlimited*

Other minds as illusory as a challenge to the standard view—vs—the standard view of (a community of minds) in a material world—and / or—a neutral and perhaps natural view of the world as a field of experience with individuals as concentrations of experience.

Experience and psychology are different ‘subjects’—vs—this thought is born of an untenable behaviorism

Behaviorist psychology—vs—phenomenal psychology as instrumental and real—and phenomenal psychology as a science that can inform and be suggestive to other sciences.

Natural sciences inform psychology—vs—what informs and what is suggestive to what is open and determined case by case*

Natural sciences inform psychology—vs—as long as incomplete, which they are, they are generally at most suggestive, except where it is possible to show them to be informing to psychology—and—psychology is an independent science and can be seen as a natural science which, if complete and definite, can inform physics and biology and where not can be suggestive—and the sciences are suggestive.

Because phenomenal psychology would talk of the subjective there can be no science of it—vs—in fact phenomenal psychology talks of repeatable givens and in the extended sense of experience, it is the only psychology—vs—but with many divisions*

A priori, external events are even more illusory than the phenomena. We reason that they can be objective because (1) we observe the same event (while my experience of ‘hot’ is not your experience even if we grant phenomenal similarity or identity) and (2) the observations are repeatable—vs—even if we do not refer to neurological similarity, the phenomenal (1) is more direct and (2) has intra and interpersonally repeatable—i.e.—where it has such repeatability, the phenomenal and its theories are no less than the objective and its theories (‘theory’ is used in the sense of pattern).

Mind and psychology have not to do with and are independent of experience—vs—they are all about experience*

Mind and psychology have not to do with and exist independently of experience—vs—in the extended sense defined earlier, experience is—at least effectively—the ‘stuff’ of Being and the universe.

Experience has no structure or temporality—vs—it is co-place of the structure of the experienced-—but—form and structure lie in the object in the abstract case when they may be perfectly captured in experience*

Experience as just experience—vs—a psychological model of experience as (get this right and more or less complete for once and for all) perception from quality or sensory modes to structure and form, experience of experience (thus experience is in the natural world rather than outside it), conception and thought, feeling and emotion, and experiential action and will; and their integration in a self with personality and development over time.

Experience is a mere pragmatic tool and has no content (knowledge)—vs—pragmatic knowledge is content—and—abstract knowledge is real and potent*

Experience as a mere navigational or pragmatic tool—and / or—experience as faithful to an object. I.e. knowledge as pragmatic and / or knowledge as faithful.

Knowledge is essentially an instrument, pragmatic*

This depends on knowledge as pragmatic—and / or—knowledge as of the object.

There is no true objectivity—vs—this calls into question the meaning of objectivity—and—it has a correspondence truth meaning for the abstract and a mixed correspondence-coherence-pragmatic meaning for the ‘concrete’*

There is no true objectivity and as if objectivity, the sense of ‘of the object’ is pragmatic and or coherence—i.e., the sense of the object is built up of coherence among experiences and between experience and action—and / or—knowledge as correspondence.

Only the abstract can be known perfectly—vs—again this calls into question the meaning of ‘perfect’; the pragmatic may be regarded as perfect for some aims and this will be its essential aspect relative to the ultimate*

Only the abstract can be known perfectly—vs—the abstract is known perfectly in a correspondence sense—and—the concrete via an also perfect conception of knowledge in a joint correspondence-coherence sense (via multiple experiential accounts of objects)—and / or—a perfect conception of knowledge in a pragmatic sense—and—these are developed later into a powerful system.

The abstract is ineffable—vs—it is perfectly real*

The abstract is ineffable—vs—all knowledge is tinged with the ineffable—but—this is the result of the desire to see the seemingly most obvious parts of the world as absolutely real (the fallacy of misplaced concreteness).

There is essentially a priori knowledge—vs—while the form of knowledge for a limited being is prior to the being, the nature of that form and formation is not opaque to intelligent experience

Because the form of experience is outside or prior to experience there is essentially a priori knowledge—vs—the entire world is open to perception-conception-reason.

Knowledge as knowledge is useless—vs—it is a repertoire for use and a place of aesthetic value

Knowledge as knowledge is useless—vs—its uses are potential (and can be seen to be manifest).

Science and its uses suggest knowledge requires and is completed in use—vs—indeed we like knowledge to be completed in action but that enmeshment is such that there is no final separation except in the pure case of abstraction*

Science and its uses suggest knowledge requires and is completed in use—vs—knowledge as abstract stands by itself—and—its value is in itself, as will be seen, for its depiction of a greater universe and in use—and—knowledge as concrete is always in interaction with action and completed only in action—and—there is no action without experience or knowledge of the action.

Meaning

Introduction

Meaning emerges from the field of experience and thus the concept of meaning to be presented is not a ‘theory’; nor is it ad hoc.

The tripartite conception to be presented is essential to clarity of meaning and avoiding confusions that might otherwise occur regarding meaning and its use; it is critical to the idea and establishment of knowledge; and it is crucial in understanding many logical and semantic paradoxes and their resolution or elimination—which brings about not only clarity but advances in logic and semantics.

Though we call the symbol-experience-experienced or word-concept-object ‘tripartite’, by contracting symbol-experience to experience or word-concept to concept we obtain a ‘bipartite’ concept of meaning.

Note that ‘word’ may be compound in various ways, e.g. compound words such as ‘bipartite’ and sentences and other linguistic occurrences, e.g. a novel, a treatise, or a speech act.

‘Meaning’ shall be ‘referential meaning’ because that is what is needed here.

There may be cases where non referential meaning is a referential object.

Meaning is conventional—vs—meaning as having reality content

Meaning as conventional—vs—meaning as having reality content—and / or—analysis of meaning as clarifying reality content and avoiding and resolving paradoxes of various kinds critical in avoiding and resolving paradox—and—synthesis of meaning as including creation of knowledge.

Word meaning is merely lexical—vs—meaning in use as description*

Meaning as lexical—vs—meaning in use as description rather than prescription, with lexicon as supplement and norm.

Word designates object—vs—word meaning as symbol-concept-object*

Word designates object—vs—word meaning as symbol-concept-object.

What is the nature of referential concept meaning?

What is the nature of referential concept meaning? Referential linguistic meaning? Why is the symbol-object or sign-concept-object notion of meaning important?

Concepts are not necessary to word meaning—vs—without a concept no object can be located

Concepts are not essential to word meaning and the concept is then an add on to word-object—vs—concept as necessary and symbol-concept-object as sufficient to address confusion and paradox arising from the inadequate word-object notion of meaning.

Symbol-concept-object meaning is unique and rigid—vs—there are rigid meanings, especially in some fixed contexts*

Symbol-concept-object meaning as single and fixed—vs—there are rigid meanings in fixed contexts but the general context is indefinite and/or fluid—with greater fluidity in varying context, especially new context.

Rigid meaning is never given—vs—there are rigid meanings, especially in some fixed contexts**

Rigid meaning is never given (lexical)—vs—given—vs—given only in definite contexts, e.g. very specific and limited, technical-at-a-given-time, and, as we will see, rational metaphysics including the ultimate.

There is no metaphysics as perfect knowledge of the real—vs—there is some perfect knowledge of the real

There is no metaphysics as perfect knowledge of the real—but note—metaphysics has not yet be defined and while the actual situation is subtle—we will see that there is some perfect knowledge of the real.

Sentence meaning is determined by received and a priori rules of grammar—and—grammar is also adaptable to use, discovery, and to resolve grammatical paradox

Sentence meaning as determined by received rules of grammar—and—grammar is also adaptable to use, discovery, and to resolve grammatical paradox.

Grammar should be prescriptive—vs—grammar must respond to discovery

Grammar as prescriptive—vs—it cannot be as there is no ultimate authority—vs—descriptive—vs—psychological—vs—logical—vs—realistic.

Sentences are not pictures of the real—vs—they are precisely so on logical atomism but otherwise only roughly and perhaps also metaphorically

Sentences are not pictures of the real—vs—they are precisely so on logical atomism but otherwise only roughly and perhaps also metaphorically.

Logical atomism does not obtain and has no usefulness—vs—it is true for some abstract objects but otherwise at most approximate

Logical atomism does not obtain—vs—it is true for some abstract objects but otherwise at most approximate—vs—it has some pragmatic use—and—[is true but remote—vs—achievable to some extent only in process].

Reason

Source the essential concepts under ‘Reason’ and ‘Argument’.

Integrate / combine reason, logic, psyche, psychology, mind…

Introduction

Reason is a process and by seeing it as a process of experience we embed it and so eliminate the a priori—at least in principle but, also in practice to a significant extent.

Reason is limited, one sided, of limited application, sterile, ill understood, and its sources hidden and unknown—vs—reason is expansive and includes imagination and criticism, action and experience, process and accumulated knowledge

Reason is limited, one sided, of limited application, sterile, ill understood, and its sources hidden and unknown—vs—reason is expansive and includes imagination and criticism, action and experience, process and accumulated knowledge—and—therefore not at all sterile—and—while its sources also lie in the body-psyche and adaptation, it is reflexive and therefore no part of the universe, knowledge, or reason itself a priori cut off from its scope—and—potentially limitless in application—and—all this is developed in the essential concepts.

Reason is not inclusive of imagination or content—vs—reason is content and overlaps direct content*

Reason is not inclusive of imagination or content—vs—as we have seen it is without limit as to what it may harbor (above)—and—it is neither superior nor inferior to all the rest (above) for it includes all that.

Reason must remain a priori—vs—knowledge and reason are parts of the world*

Reason is outside knowledge of the world and reason, especially, is significantly a priori—vs—knowledge and reason are parts of the world, as is experience, and there is no part of reason that is strictly off limits to investigation—vs—as will be seen there are vast regions of abstract reason that are transparent to being known.

There is no criterion of truth—vs—perfect correspondence obtains with sufficient abstraction and otherwise it cannot obtain but a pragmatic criterion is adequate*

There is no criterion of truth—vs—as seen in considering experience, there is a perfect criterion of truth in the ultimate and good enough but in process criterion for truth in the local concrete world.

There is no absolute method to reason—vs—this depends on what we mean by method*

There is no absolute method to reason—vs—this depends on what we mean by method: here it will include both criticism and imagination but not be algorithmic—and—there is no part of reason that is necessarily a priori to reflexive reason.

Reason and psychology are distinct—vs—this incantation depends on slanted meanings of both reason and psychology

Reason and psychology are distinct—and—the psychology of how people think and feel is not a guide to argument and the a priori (establishment of truth) or reason (clear thinking and feeling or how people should think)—vs—if how and what people think is taken broadly enough and includes the thinking of the ‘expert’, psychology must include reason—and—and the thinking that would set psychology and reason as essentially distinct is based in the mistake of the ‘expert’ in thinking that the only thinking is relevant is ‘ordinary’ thinking which is self serving and reductive.

Reason, knowledge, and action are distinct—vs—there is distinction; but essential continuity as well

Reason, knowledge, and action are distinct—vs—there are areas and approximations in which they are distinct—but—essentially and ultimately they are constitutionally interwoven, of course with areas and degrees of separation—and—while we may label these separations as approximate, approximation itself, as seen in considering experience and the universal metaphysics is of limited (but not unimportant) local relevance unless it includes the pragmatic metaphysics.

Reason has no beginning or foundation—vs—reason must begin in the present and then moves toward foundation which is altogether excluded only on limited analysis*

Reason has no beginning or foundation—vs—reason must begin in the present from which it proceeds (a) upward and laterally in development,  downward in foundation, and (b) outward in application—and—there is foundation in itself.

Reflexivity in reason is circular—vs—it is possible that it is unending—but—there are ends in the sufficiently abstract case*

Reflexivity in reason is circular—vs—in beginning in the present, there is a non circular start—and—in inheriting previous reason, experimenting with new forms and applications, and self-critique lie the beginnings of reflexivity—and—as found in, there is an abstract realm of perfection which frames and meshes with a concrete realm of pragmatic perfection in the mesh but in process adequacy and trial and error in the strictly local.

The form of experience is outside experience—vs—it is al least open to conception*

The form of experience is essentially outside experience—vs—it is at least open to conception as is the entire world.

Reason and meaning have been dominated by either / or dichotomies—vs—this is an artifact of limited thought*

Reason is dominated by either / or dichotomies—vs—much of what passed and passes for reason has been dominated by either / or—and—while this may be useful it may also be stunting—and—this entire document is a catalogue of such dichotomies, many of which are not true either / or but both, which sometimes requires interpretation—and—of these the either criticism or imagination and intuition vs reason are examples, for criticism, imagination, and intuition all fall under reason.

Knowledge is superior to reason—vs—as seen they are not essentially distinct

Knowledge is superior to reason or imagination and criticism—vs—they are not essentially distinct and just as knowledge of patterns is as essential as knowledge of fact, so reason is at least as essential as knowledge of patters—and—the process perspective favors reason over knowledge of pattern over fact.

Topics in reason—for development

Source

Discussion of reason and argument in the essential concepts.

Paradox as a source of reason: tentative section on logic and set theory

The Russell Paradox is a source of 20th century advances in logic and set theory—and—here is a perspective on it:

1.     The set of all sets is a paradoxical or self-contradictory notion. Consider, for example, the set of sets that contain themselves. An example of such a set is a set that contains itself. If A is such a set, then A = {A} = {{A}} = … = {{{…}}}, which seems ill defined.

However, Russell considered the set of sets that do not contain themselves—which does not seem to have the problem of self-containment, above. Yet it leads to a paradox—it contains itself if and only if it does not.

This led to Russell’s theory of types and to the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms for set theory—ZF and ZFC or ZF with the axiom of choice, and other systems. ZF / ZFC are considered adequate to mathematics. To think about the source of ZF more carefully, it will be helpful to consider the simpler Barber paradox.

2.     The Barber Paradox. A village has a barber who shaves all except those who shave themselves. The paradox is that the barber shaves himself if and only if he does not. One thing we take away from the barber and similar paradoxes is that arbitrary grammatically correct constructions may be self-contradictory.

For a more subtle analysis consider two disjoint sets: A = {those who shave themselves} and B = {those who do not shave themselves}. These two sets seem definite even though they are not specified.

However, the defining feature of the Barber is implies that if he belongs to one of A and B, he belongs to the other.

3.     Now let us return to Russell’s paradox. There are two sets, A = {all sets that do not contain themselves} and B = {all other sets}. The paradox is that the definition of A implies that if a set belongs to one of A and B, it belongs to the other. That is, in addition to the linguistic issue regarding arbitrary grammatical constructs, the existence of A, though superficially non-contradictory, would entail that it does contain itself and so belongs both to itself, A, and its complement B.

4.     Therefore the problem facing the logician is the linguistic problem and the problem of axiomatizing set theory to be as rich as possible or at least sufficiently rich for a wide range of purposes including the development of an abstract set theory but also excluding paradoxes associated with arbitrary sets. Examine how the theory of types and ZF variously deal with the purely linguistic vs. the class issue. Seek relations to the concept of ‘possibility’.

5.     The set of all things or all objects is paradoxical. Seek relations to the concept of ‘universe’.

Formation

Set theory, structures, interpretation as creation, creation operators from quantum theory

Self-modeling systems

The aim is to build up an axiomatic system that, with interpretation as to place and time, will model formation between the void and a formed cosmos such as ours.

A system that models itself, e.g. a Gödel type system. We begin with the liar paradox which is not a Gödel sentence but provides motive.

This sentence is true / false—is meaningless / contradictory

Arithmetic is true / false—is meaningless / contradictory. Note that Gödel modeling cannot build up a sentence “This statement is false”, and indeed it would devastate arithmetic if it could

Versus a system that models its proofs

This statement is provable / unprovable—says nothing / is a true unprovable statement

If consistent, arithmetic has true provable statements / has true unprovable statements

And

Since it has unprovable statements it cannot model its proofs and therefore cannot prove itself consistent. In detail:

Let F be a consistent formalized system that contains elementary arithmetic and Cons(F) be a canonically defined formula expressing the consistency of F.

Then F ~Þ Cons(F). I.e. any system that contains elementary arithmetic cannot prove its own consistency.

Classical causation, mechanism, and determinism fall under universal reason

Classical causation, mechanism, and determinism fall under universal reason—vs—causation as much broader than classical, in the universal there are both mechanism and teleology, and in the universal there is both determinism and indeterminism and the presence of both yields a creative process at the boundary that is not present in determinism or a less than absolute indeterminism.

Some tentative aspects of reason

Reason as process—vs—inclusive of Human Knowledge (where else is it in this document)—and—physics—and—first order logic—and—ZF / ZFC—and—Gödel—and—the nature of theory. The interest in Gödel’s work is that it is formally self-referential.

Why should there be statements that are true but unprovable? One possibility, perhaps the one, is if the proof system is insufficiently powerful

Dreams and reason—dreams have no meaning

Dreams have no meaning—vs—dreams have no meaning is a theory of meaning—vs—the (symbolic) meaning of dreams and its existence is one generic theory of dreams—but—dreams can have other functions: imperative, revelatory, projected, to show us powers that we otherwise might not know that we have—visual, auditory-musical, poetic, conceptual, literary, critical, world and metaphysics building—e.g. by repeated themes, as part of the subconscious-conscious critical-creative process of explicit-diffuse-world communication—and—w can study these other potential functions—and, also relevant—what are the origins of dreams in evolution and the individual—and—whether dreams are a byproduct of another process, e.g. the boundary between wake and sleep; but note that even if they are this does not mean they cannot be used for other purposes which may also enter evolution—and further, the evolved function of dreams may be arrived at by mutual adaptation of form and function—and—use of a dream catalog as a ‘database’… repeated themes and scenes, night long dream themes, continuity of dream and wake states, dreams that build up a universe, dreams that may set a theme for an event or a life, chaos dreams, dreams of creativity and beauty suggesting internal powers—and—continue to catalog.

Being

Being-experience, existence. universe, beings, power, the void

Introduction

Understanding Being (existence or, precisely, the quality of experience) has begun with experience. Had the development begun with Being, we could question whether anything exists or has Being. However, we have already seen that there is experience.

Nothing exists—vs—experiencer-experience-experienced has been established

Nothing exists—vs—there is experience—but—but a source of the idea that nothing exists is that on substance there is no real criterion of existence—however—as we will see, on the notion of Being there is a simple and direct one.

Nothing is known—vs—perfect and pragmatic knowledge have been seen

Nothing is known—vs—on abstraction we know Being in a correspondence sense—and—for concrete objects, we will find that there is coherence-correspondence-pragmatic knowledge.

To be is to be known—vs—that which has no effect on experience may be regarded non-existent*

To be is to be known and this suggests that knowing is the source of Being—but—as is trivial knowledge of Being requires being known—and—it is meaningless and paradoxical to think things that exist without being capable of being known at least indirectly have significance—and—and will be seen abstraction though known through knowing is independent of knowing—and—on the other hand, also as will be seen, concrete Objects are immersed in the world as objects-as-known which can be seen as a pragmatic object.

Being is not a being—vs—with sufficient abstraction such distinctions are empty

The correct and only use of the term ‘Being’ is as in ‘an object has Being’ and not as in ‘there is Being’, i.e. Being is not a being—vs—at an appropriate level of abstraction these distinctions break down—and—Being as a being can also be used metaphorically.

The problem of negative existentials shows Being and existence to be paradoxical—vs—in recognizing that non existence is non realization of a concept the paradox disappears*

The concepts of Being and existence are paradoxical in talking of non-existent objects because, if something does not exist then the question arises ‘What is it that does not exist?’—vs—the problem of ‘negative existentials’ requires the notion of second order concepts or concepts that refer to concepts—vs—both the problem of negative existentials and the idea of distinguishing orders of concept are unnecessary confusions that result from a word-object notion of meaning rather than the necessary and mostly sufficient symbol-concept-object meaning.

As used here, Being is ontologically primitive and therefore cannot capture the depth of beings—vs—as used here, Being gains power by avoiding depth and particularly—and—precisely for that reason it is an effective container for depth*

‘Being’ as used here is primitive compared to its use in existentialism—vs—this ‘objection’ is empty for ‘Being’ can do multiple duty and there need be no confusion—and—it is precisely this abstract, generic, and primitive character that allows the greatest capture—and—the existential meaning can be added on to the present meaning—and the present meaning though primitive and apparently trivial is also part of the basis of a profound understanding—which is consequent to its careful choice—and—which development is the process of agency and psychology.

Metaphor is necessary to a deep meaning of Being and the question of what has Being—vs—this is true only where literal meaning has not been achieved*

Metaphor is necessary to any adequate meaning—vs—metaphor is a stand in for incompleteness of literal meaning—and literal meaning is ultimately powerful and deep while metaphorical meaning can add richness or be a useful add on where we have not achieved literal meaning.

The question “What has Being?” must remain intensionally open—vs—received epistemology provides pragmatic interpretations—vs—the dual epistemology of the perfect metaphysics provides perfect interpretation according to intrinsic criteria

Is it better to refer this question to the metaphysics?

While we have seen from experience that there is Being, the question of what has Being is open—not just in fact or extension but in principle or intension and this follows from the question of the faithfulness of experience (of various types—illusion, distortion, and incompleteness relative to the non experienced)—vs—via the abstract and the concrete as well as the faithfully known and the pragmatically known and their integrations we can and do have a definite approach to the question of what has Being and in this regard the metaphysics to be developed addresses the range of the abstract while tradition as the valid in the cultures (content and process or reason) from origins to the present addresses adequately as ultimate instrument and local in process instrument over the range of the pragmatic.

And it must also remain essentially open extensionally—vs—there is in process closure—but—fortunately for freshness of Being the closure is primarily and eternally in process*

Because our knowledge is essentially incomplete, the question of what has Being must remain essentially open—vs—from the concept of abstraction, the pure or abstract side of the metaphysics has significant closure and concrete knowledge has significant in-process closure—but—fortunately for freshness of Being the closure is primarily and eternally in process.

Science informs and limits philosophy and metaphysics—vs—philosophy and metaphysics remain open and the actual status of ‘informing’ is mosaic*

Science informs and limits philosophy—vs—there is mutual suggestion—and—in some cases, e.g. rational metaphysics, philosophy informs science—and—in fact the very distinction between science and philosophy is artificial and conventional, defined by academic divisions rather than reason, and philosophy is the encompassing analytic discipline which includes the abstract sciences (metaphysics with epistemology, mathematics, logic, computer science, statistics) the concrete sciences (physics, biology, psychology)—and—of course philosophy is not limited to the analytic or the sciences and includes axiology and some ‘subjective’ endeavors.

Being must be founded in substance—vs—any sense of necessity to this is an epistemic short circuit and foundation in knowing is in fact perfect self-foundation*

From certainty, definiteness, and simplicity there must be one ultimate substance that is immutable, indivisible, uniform, and eternal that is the foundation for Being—vs—such a substance gives no clue as to how change, difference, form and variety arise—and—is ultimately based in an external measure of the real—vs—Being is founded in knowledge which as we have seen can be perfect and has abstract and concrete sides.

But to found Being in knowledge is to make existence dependent on being known—vs—it founds the known in knowledge—and—since we negotiate only the known this is adequate to our Being*

To found Being in knowledge is to say existence is dependent on being known—vs—what is being said is that that knowledge of Being requires being known—and—that the Being of abstract objects is independent of knowing even though known in knowledge—and—for pragmatic objects the real object can be seen (a) as the pragmatic object whose form is in knowledge but whose existence is not dependent on knowing or (b) as an abstract composite of knower and known.

But this does not allow for unknown objects—vs—what it does not allow is the unknowable*

But this does not allow for unknown objects—vs—it does because there the criterion is not that they be known but that they be knowable or experience-able—and—anything that never affects some experience is as good as not existing—and—from the universal metaphysics to be developed we will see that all existing objects must be capable of and do affect some experience.

Knowledge still seems to be too special a criterion of existence—vs—the criterion of knowability is the criterion of power*

Knowledge is a special criterion of existence—vs—the true criterion here is power, the ability to have an effect, and power and knowability are ultimately equivalent.

The concept of object may lead to paradox—vs—true but the concept-object does not (unless the concept itself is paradoxical)

Because it is indefinite the concept of object may lead to paradox—vs—the object exists independently of experience but always occurs in conjunction with the concept (and the simple, complex, and or compound symbol in the case of linguistic referential meaning)—and—this eliminates the problem of the indefinite use—but—it still allows paradoxes of logic and semantics which must be treated in the classical or new ways.

The concept of the universe is unclear—vs—true but only in common uses*

The concept of universe is unclear in its common and scientific uses—vs—it becomes perfectly clear if we define the universe as all that there is over all sameness, difference, and their absence and use different words (or the same symbol with a reminder to not confuse the different uses) for notions such as ‘cosmos’, ‘our cosmos’, ‘empirical universe’, ‘parallel universe’, ‘multiple universes’.

The concept of object or ‘a being’ or ‘beings’ is undefined—vs—a being is a part of the universe*

The concept of object or a being or beings is undefined—vs—a being is a part of the universe.

What is the universe?

What is an appropriate concept or definition of the term ‘universe’?

What is the universe? I.e. what is the object of the concept above? Is there an object?

There is one universe—All Being—but why?

What is the greatest possible extension of the universe as All Being? Why is it and what does it mean to say that it is all possibility?

What is the conceptual extension of the universe as All Being in relation to the greatest possible extension.

Why is there a universe?

What are the parameters of description for the universe as a whole?

Is change essential? Is separation essential? Does the universe exist in time? Or is it eternal in a timeless sense? Does it exist in space or is it Positionless?

Significant meaning, purpose, Identity?

Being, the number of universes?

Why Being over substance such as mind and matter, interaction or relationship, and process?

What are the parameters of description for the parts of the universe?

Sameness, difference, time, space, identity, power, causation

Matter, mind, origins, creation, sustenance?

This is too non-specific a definition of ‘a being’ or ‘beings’—vs—it is indeed almost ultimate in non-specificity but this is its source of power—and—allows for the greatest degree of specificity*

This is too non-specific a definition of ‘a being’ or ‘beings’—vs—it is indeed non-specific but it is neither indefinite nor vague and can, and will often need to be, supplemented in specific situations.

The concept of the void is questionable with regard to existence—vs—existence will be demonstrated

The concept of the void, which we intend to use, is questionable with regard to existence—vs—it is indeed questionable—but—the heuristic that ‘existence of the void is equivalent to non-existence and therefore existence may be assumed’ is suggestive—and—we will prove existence.

The number of voids is indefinite—vs—it is and this is not objectionable; and is a small part of the usefulness of the concept*

The number of voids is indefinite—vs—it is indeed indefinite; a void may be associated with every being; and we will show that there is effectively one void.

But the quantum vacuum is far from being the void or nothingness—vs—true but quantum theory is far from even possibly being a theory of the universe*

But the quantum vacuum is far from being the void or nothingness and is indeed seething happening-ness—vs—this is indeed true—and—the void underlies and is far more basic than the quantum vacuum—and—while it does not seem to be seething anything it is effectively so—and this requires that regarding the void, normal causation not obtain and this will be found to be the case.

This suggestion of the void as a source of power is contradictory—vs—this is true only on classical concepts of causation—but—not on a maximal concept of causation that will be seen to obtain on the perfect metaphysics to be developed*

This suggestion of the void as a source of power is contradictory—vs—the void is indeed a source of power and indeed of essentially all power, as will be seen—and—is associated with the observation about non cause just above.

But surely beings are more powerful than the void—vs—again, this is true only on classical causation*

But surely beings—the universe—are more powerful than the void—vs—as will be seen and as suggested by the suspension of universal causation, all beings including the universe and the void are ultimately equivalent—and—the apparent paradoxes and contradiction of our normal causal reality will be resolved.

Possibility

Possibility, natural law, natural possibility, cosmological possibility, universal possibility, the greatest possibility, logical possibility, Logic and fact

Introduction

Analysis of possibility is important because

1.     It is the analysis of limits, and

2.     Lack of clear definition and distinction of kinds of possibility in both common and formal use.

There is no clear notion of possibility—vs—clarity is possible on present notion of meaning

Because possibility talks of what may be and not (just) the precise what is or was it is an indefinite concept (and in this there is analogy to the issue of negative existentials)—vs—the possible refers to a concept that is realizable in contrast to one that is not—and—here we see again the power of the tripartite concept of meaning.

Possibility is not consistently definable—vs—the consistencies that arise only on absence of clarity of meaning*

Possibility is not consistently definable—e.g.,

1.     “It is possible that the possible is impossible… or that the impossible”—vs—this should obviously ruled out by any careful conception of possibility.

2.     “It is possible that the possible never happens”—obviously this is not true relative to the universe for which, as clarified later, the actual and the possible are identical. On the other hand, for a delimited world, events that happen in another world may be impossible.

3.     There are possible events (and so on) that do not occur. For the universe, if it never occurs it is not possible—i.e., for the universe the actual and the possible are identical. For a cosmos, however, there are definable possibilities that do and may not occur.

There is no clear measure of possibility—vs—it is quite clear on any consistent theory of the real*

There is no clear measure of possibility—vs—the actual is possible—but—this is not clear because unless abstracted, the actual is a one time occurrence—vs—the possible is meaningful only on some consistent concept or pattern or notion or theory of the real.

The concept of the possible is very rigid received or a priori—vs—this is true only on, e.g., projection of patterns of our cosmos to the universe

The concept of the possible is very rigid received or a priori because only what is consistent with natural law is possible—vs—while this violates our earlier definition of possibility it should be considered for the definition may be deficient—but—natural law is empirical and not known to be rationally necessary, either in our cosmos or the entire universe—and—therefore the concept of possibility is open as suggested by the definition.

There is one true kind of possibility—vs—every cosmos defines its actual possibility—and—behind this there will be seen to be logical possibility as container for all other*

There is one true kind of possibility, e.g. physical possibility—vs—as suggested above, physical possibility is but one kind of possibility—and—while it may be true that the physical is the one natural kind, this is not known and therefore the physical may need supplement by the biological and perhaps other kinds—and—definitely is complemented by the mental or psychological—and—a generalization form of possibility for our cosmos is natural possibility which may not be of a single kind and must remain further open to revision due to new information as well as infusion from the universe.

Universal possibility and natural possibility for the empirical cosmos are the same—vs—this is projection and will be seen untrue*

Universal possibility and natural possibility for the empirical cosmos are the same—vs—physical possibility is an approximate sub-case of the universal—and—will be seen to be an infinitesimal sub-case.

The limit of universal possibility is not known—vs—the limit of realizability of concepts is one measure which, when adequately understood, will be seen to be the limit*

The limit of universal possibility is not known—vs—the limit of universal possibility is the limit of realizability inherent in concepts—e.g.—(a) a known fact cannot be untrue and (b) and an inconsistent concept cannot be realized—and—item b shows that logic is a part of the limit of universal possibility while item a can be incorporated in logic as Logic—and—therefore Logic as conceptual and empirical or perceptual consistency is the outer limit of universal possibility.

There is no instrumental realization of Logic—vs—traditional and modern logics are on the way to Logic

There is no instrumental realization of Logic—vs—traditional logic as necessary inference or deduction renders the conceptual aspect instrumental and methods of observation render the empirical part instrumental—but—these may be both approximate and incomplete—however—there are significant precise aspects such as propositional and first order logic and observation on finite spaces or where precision is not essential.

Possibility as logical possibility is inconsistent with experience and physical law—vs—in fact Logic requires our experience and our cosmos—but—only as an infinitesimal part of universal experience*

Possibility as logical possibility is inconsistent with experience and physical law—vs—in fact Logic requires our cosmos and its facts and natural laws.

Real or universal possibility is far exceeded by Logical possibility—vs—this is not known to be true and in the metaphysics the two kinds will be seen identical*

Real or universal possibility is far exceeded by Logical possibility—and—this is a limit on the usefulness of Logical possibility—vs—as we will see in Metaphysics, universal and Logical possibility are identical.

Natural and universal possibility exhaust the kinds of possibility—vs—they are the main real or experienced kinds—and—are complemented by the limit of the experiential that is Logic*

Natural and universal possibility exhaust the kinds of possibility—vs—universal possibility is real possibility is Logical possibility—and—there is no one kind of natural possibility—and—there are practical sub-cases of possibility, e.g. possibility in terms of Earth’s energy supply, human possibility in terms of current human form, and economic and political possibilities given certain conditions on resources and human and social nature.

Determinism in the Universe implies that Logical possibility is not as extensive as it might seem—vs—the universe is not known to be deterministic and in the metaphysics the universe is found to be absolutely indeterministic

Determinism in the Universe implies that Logical possibility is not as extensive as it might seem—vs—even our own cosmos need not be temporally or otherwise deterministic—and—the universe as a whole may be divided into causal epochs that are at least at some ‘times’ causally isolated from one another while the universe is a causal unity at other ‘times’—and—this will be seen to be true in metaphysics.

Metaphysics

Metaphysics, limits, contingency, necessity, the void, empirical cosmos, mind, matter, attribute, ethics

Introduction

We will justify the notion of metaphysics as knowledge and study of the real; other notions such as the study of first principles flow from this concept.

Still other notions are alternatives that have arisen in the literature in response to criticisms of knowledge of the real and in the historical way that important ideas have changes. We will not pay significant attention to these—some are already implicit above, e.g. metaphysics as the metaphysics or study of experience in a conceptual sense—not because they are unimportant but because they are not particularly pertinent to the interest in this narrative.

In analyzing experience through possibility we have already begun to do metaphysics without stating the fact that that is what was being done.

This section is devoted, first to metaphysics generally, and second to developing the ‘perfect metaphysics’.

Metaphysics is ill defined—vs—there are multiple threads of metaphysics—and—here we choose metaphysics to be knowledge of the real

Metaphysics is ill defined—vs—of course it is in the sense that it has a long history with various threads of which some are now seen unsatisfactory by some—but—it is up to the writer on metaphysics to define their use and provided it is significant and used consistently, that is all that is needed—but further—since we would be reasonably consistent with received meaning we now face various possibilities of ancient and modern metaphysics—still—we will find that metaphysics as knowledge of the real is sufficiently encompassing—for—even the question whether it is possible falls under it—and—metaphysics as knowledge of first principles or knowledge of the world as a whole as whole or whole as parts or the modern concern with mind and matter and space and time and modality will also be seen to flow from it—as will—issues of significance, usefulness, and so on—of which some are addressed below.

Metaphysics as knowledge or the real is not possible—vs—as we have seen and will continue to see, knowledge of the real is not only possible but can be secured as in the perfect metaphysics with dual epistemology*

Metaphysics as knowledge of the real is not possible—vs—we have already seen, above, object-faithful knowledge of the abstract-real as well as knowledge of the concrete real—and—have already mentioned that the two mesh—and—we will develop what we already noted have into an ultimate and powerful metaphysics with ultimate mesh.

Metaphysics as knowledge of the real omits the other threads of metaphysics—vs—it entails all valid threads and more, including the theories of Being, Logic, possibility, cosmology, and agency*

Metaphysics as knowledge of the real omits the other threads of metaphysics—vs—it entails all valid threads and more, including the theories of Being, Logic, possibility, cosmology, and agency

Concrete knowledge is not possible—vs—as we have seen and continue to see, when appropriately understood concrete knowledge is realized as pragmatic knowledge—and—even abstract knowledge may be seen as concrete*

Concrete knowledge as knowledge of the real is not possible—vs—we have seen how this calls into question the concept of knowledge and leads to a dual epistemology that encompasses both the concrete and the abstract—but does not eliminate the need for local analysis and improvement of our concrete knowledge and our conception of what it is—and pragmatic knowledge perfect from the appropriate metaphysical perspective developed in this section.

Concrete knowledge cannot be meshed with the abstract—vs—we have seen that there is a powerful mesh in what is to be developed as the perfect metaphysics*

Concrete knowledge cannot be meshed with the abstract—vs—we have seen that there is a powerful mesh in what is to be developed as the perfect metaphysics.

Abstract metaphysics is not possible—vs—as we have seen, is clearly possible—and—we have already begun a universal abstract metaphysics—and—continue to do so*

Abstract metaphysics is not possible—vs—as we have seen, is clearly possible—and—we have already begun a universal abstract metaphysics—and—continue to do so.

Abstract metaphysics is not useful—vs—even without a concrete complement it is intrinsically and instrumentally useful*

Abstract metaphysics is not useful—vs—even without a concrete complement it is intrinsically and instrumentally useful.

The abstract is intangible—vs—the abstract is not concrete in the sense of abstraction but not of apprehensibility*

The abstract is intangible—and this is part of the concept of the abstract—vs—it is part of a common concept of the abstract which starts with the concrete as the one and only sensible—vs—this is not the present concept of the abstract which was chosen with the universal metaphysics in view and which will show the abstract to be tangible and inhabitable.

Metaphysics of the abstract is diversionary—vs—not at all: it is true knowledge, empowering, instrumental and a framework for the concrete*

Metaphysics of the abstract is diversionary for it avoids the search for better science and philosophy for our world—vs—not at all. It alters our knowledge of its significance in that what it encourages is a dual search for knowledge of world in its mesh with knowledge of the ultimate—and as noted, each enhances the other

Metaphysics of the abstract is diversionary—for it is nothing but theoretical—vs—this is an old misconception of the nature of the theoretical—and—not at all; we have seen that the abstract is not opposed to the concrete—but in fact—they mesh—and—it shows the essential character of action and knowledge as fundamentally incomplete without one another—and—it shows immediate knowledge to be not only an instrument in our world but a stepping stone on the way to the ultimate.

The classical systems of metaphysics do not fit neatly together under the present umbrella—vs—the classical systems can be seen as rough points on the present map

The classical systems of metaphysics do not fit neatly together under the present umbrella—vs—indeed Platonism of Idealist and Realist varieties, Aristotelianism, Thomism, Cartesianism, Idealism, Materialism—may be seen as connected ‘rough points’ on a map of Being-experience.

Follow up on the idea that the foregoing systems can be systematized, e.g. via experiencer-experience-experienced and parameterized.

The epistemology of abstract-concrete perfect metaphysics is not definite—vs—it is a definite and coherent dual epistemology

The epistemology of abstract-concrete perfect metaphysics is not definite—vs—it is a dual epistemology, also meshing, but it is definite and definitive—and it leaves room for the epistemology of local knowledge that has been the focus of Western Philosophy and Science.

The universe as ultimate is paradoxical and absurd; the universe must have contingent limits—vs—there is no absurdity, contingency is projection, limitlessness is required by the nature of Being (as containing the void)

The universe as ultimate is paradoxical and absurd; the universe must have contingent limits—vs—as already seen there is no contradiction of reason, experience, science, or educated common sense—and—as noted earlier ultimacy means realization of all Logical possibility and so requires our empirical cosmos.

The existence of the universe is contingent—vs—it seems that way from experience with the world—but—proof of necessity will be given*

The existence of the universe in a manifest state is contingent—vs—existence is necessary in that it cannot be eternally void or non manifest—i.e.—existence is necessary in the sense of at least eternal alternation between the void and manifestation—and—proof will be given:

Proof that the universe must exist

In the void there are no objects—and since a natural law is an object there are no natural laws.

If the universe is or enters a void state, eternal non manifestation would be a natural law.

Therefore the universe cannot be eternally void state—it is eternally manifest or eternally in alternation between void and manifest.

Surely proof of existence must refer to a founding entity—vs—here is a strong exception to this classical aspect of foundationalism*

Surely, from causation in Being or premise in reason, proof of existence must refer to a founding entity—vs—to think of this as necessary is an error of ‘classical reason’ and in any case we have demonstrated this strong exception to projection of classical reason

The universe is not and cannot be ultimate—vs—this is projection and a proof of ultimacy is given*

The universe is not and cannot be ultimate in the sense that all Logical possibility is realized—vs—it is ultimate—and—a proof will be given:

Preliminary comments to proof

It is tempting to use the proof just above as proof that the void exists. However, all that was shown was that if the universe enters the void state it must also then leave it. But we can show that if a satisfactory foundation to the universe should be given it must be ultimate: it cannot be in some other special state for that too would require foundation; it must therefore be in no manifest state at all; but from symmetry the void cannot found any specific state; therefore a satisfactory foundation must be a necessary foundation for all possible states. Now for the proof that the universe is ultimate.

Proof that the universe is ultimate—i.e. the realization of all Logical Possibility.

The void exists for it is the complement of the universe (or any state) relative to itself. An alternative proof candidate is that non existence of the void is equivalent to existence.

From the void every Logically possible state must emerge—even the annihilators of existing states.

Therefore the universe alternates eternally between the void and manifest form; and the manifest forms must contain all Logical possibilities; and among these are eternal repetitions in so far as Logic is satisfied.

Knowledge of the universe can have no foundation—vs—foundation has just been seen*

Knowledge of the universe can have no foundation—vs—a foundation has just been seen—and it requires all abstract and concrete states to exist; as well as their mesh or meshes as described earlier.

There is no ultimate metaphysical principle—vs—the occurrence of all Logical possibility has been demonstrated

There is no ultimate metaphysical principle—vs—the occurrence of all Logical possibility as described above is an ultimate metaphysical principle—and—we name this the fundamental principle of metaphysics. Some alternate statements follow

Alternate statements of the fundamental principle

1.     The universe is the greatest possible.

2.     The universe has no contingent limits (e.g., extension, variety, peak realization, and dissolution of Being; cosmological states—such as an infinity of cosmoses and infinitely many systems of physical law, life forms; the universe has identity, whose non-limitations are as just stated without reference to identity; the universe confers this identity on the individual who, if they do not see this are in a state of non-knowing or ignorance or ‘avidya’). Further, (i) given any state there is a greater sentient / sapient state—and enjoyment follows upon engaging in realization and in understanding and working through the necessity of sometimes pain, (ii) there are no substances or atoms—every atom is a cosmos… and every cosmos an atom.

Some further comments

1.     The consequent metaphysics is named the universal or ultimate metaphysics. It is abstract in its formulation. However, its implications are also concrete. When our empirical knowledge is adjoined to it, the abstract illuminates and necessitates the empirical, the empirical illustrates the abstract (and per foregoing reasoning also necessitates the abstract universal), the mesh of the two are found perfect in a necessary dual epistemology of perfect faithfulness of the abstract and pragmatism or ‘good enough’ character of the concrete side which is the perfect instrument for realization of the abstract-concrete ultimate. This perfect metaphysics is called the perfect metaphysics, for in it we are able to move from cosmos to cosmos on the way to the ultimate (but it does not remove the relevance of precision in local science).

2.     The foregoing provides an alternate, fundamental conception of logic which we label Logic and which must include fact.

Comments continued—comments on the universal metaphysics

The universal metaphysics is:

3.     Consonant with spacetime as the only logical coordinates of extension but not extending to the entire universe (see discussion of space and time below)

4.     Consonant with quantum theory but does not limit the universe to it—and it is consonant with structure and indeterminism in quantum theory, and the quantum vacuum which, however, is not the void; it is consonant with the indeterminism of quantum theory or any future local physics as the residue of prior formation and ultimately, formation from the void (or, therefore, any state of Being—i.e. any being)

5.     Consonant with an occasional pantheistic god; and an approach to an ultimate God in which we participate and are—and dissolution there-from; it is dissonant with Spinoza’s infinitely many attributes of God beyond extension and thought, i.e. space-time and experience, but it allows (and the universal metaphysics requires) infinitely many properties such as color, the properties of sound, and so on; but, more, it allows and requires infinitely many physics, each with its own range of properties (development of the ultimate metaphysics as of this writing, 12.6.2017, has not determined limits or further necessities on such properties and physics)

6.     Consonant with and shows that the unity of the attributes stated as fiat by Spinoza and arbitrarily elevated to profundity by empty intellectualism, is in fact necessary

7.     It supplies a Kantian framework, not from classical or modern science, but from the essential abstract concepts of sameness, difference, universe, Being-experience, beings, power, the void, possibility, and reason (argument); and it provides a realist interpretation of logic and the alleged a priori; it eliminates universal interest in the special metaphysics, relegating them to at most local occurrence and interest.

What has been proven is an abstract metaphysics—vs—we have just proven a mesh of the abstract ultimate and pragmatic and shown it perfect relative to ultimate criteria

What has been proven is an abstract metaphysics—vs—we have just proven a mesh of the abstract ultimate and pragmatic and shown it perfect relative to ultimate criteria

A perfect metaphysics of the universe as ultimate is not possible and certainly not provable—vs—proof of the perfect dual metaphysics has just been given*

A perfect metaphysics of the universe as ultimate is not possible and certainly not provable—vs—the perfect dual metaphysics and epistemology just seen.

The perfect metaphysics is not meaningful—vs—we have seen its meaning and continue to provide further instances of meaning*

The perfect metaphysics is not meaningful—vs—the intrinsic or intensive meaning of universe as ultimate, as Logic, as the understanding in the following of mind and matter as the two essential attributes and impossibility of an Spinoza’s infinite number of attributes (discussed better under and to be combined with mind and matter are but two…) though of course it allows an infinite number of modes of form and quality, and identity-space-time-absence as the only extensional form of sameness-difference-absence-of-experience, and sapient-agent form as exceeding any given form—and—of explicit or extensional meaning as in Cosmology—and of human meaning in realization as enhanced by agency.

Further conclusions for intrinsic meaning of the perfect metaphysics

Under the naturalism of our world, mind and matter appear as one, the situation in the universal metaphysics is different.

There may be many different modes of mind and matter in the universe (as we have seen there can be no further attributes matter, mind…) and this is analogous to space and time being the modes of difference.

Thus a mind-matter mode from another cosmos may enter ours.

But a pure mind mode does not exist. Why? Mind must have form and that form would be matter.

A god may be a mode. Especially a pantheistic god.

But an omnipotent, creator god of all Being is contradictory; and a creator god for material being is no true explanation.

From the naturalism of our world there is one mode of mind and matter and they are one.

However, from the universal metaphysics there are many modes.

There might seem to be pure mind. However, mind has form. That form is a kind of matter.

Gods would be higher but still imperfect beings. We in Brahman are on the way to being gods.

There is pain but joy exceeds it.

‘Achievement’ is given but trying makes it worthwhile.

The abstraction and generality of the perfect metaphysics disallows layers of form—vs—the Logic requires it*

The abstraction and generality of the perfect metaphysics disallows layers of form—vs—such layers of form, e.g. corresponding to growth and maturing of organisms can be laid out from elements suggest by scientific paradigm—for example—elementary nature – groups of organisms, society – higher nature formed in organisms or psyche-mind – the peaking and the universal—further—these levels have clear relation to the hierarchy of Maslow.

Mind and matter are but our limited two of infinitely many attributes of an unlimited intellectually apprehended remote Dios—vs—the nature of mind and matter as experiencer-experience-experienced implies that further such attributes are logically disallowed—but—there may be infinitely may properties or attributes of Being

Mind and matter are but our limited two of infinitely many attributes of an unlimited intellectually apprehended remote Dios—vs:

We’ve seen that locally nature is experiencer-experience-experienced and this has levels at which it occurs:

1.     The level of individuals where the experiencer is the individual self with conscious to subconscious experience and the experienced is the material nature which ranges from the material to experience itself, which is a first reason to see experience and matter as part of nature.

2.     An elementary level, which includes the above, and experience is ‘interiority’ the experienced is exteriority, and the self is the particular case defined in part by a localized locus of experience. At this level experience is far more inclusive and while not everything it is co-extensive with everything-as-the-three-e’s.

And now in going to the universal case we find

1.     There can be many natural modes but these do not define substances,

2.     Wherever there is mind (experience), it has form and therefore there is matter,

3.     The case of mentally inert matter obtains at least temporally or part time, but even here mind can be regarded equivalently as absent or present-but-zero.

4.     There can be creations of one cosmos by another; infusions of matter and mind—after the creation but it seems probable that most infusion occurs at creation,

5.     Because the series ‘exterior’, ‘interior’ has no continuation for any seeming continuation reduces to one of the elements, it follows that there is mind / matter or experience / experienced (of which self / experience is a part) and therefore no further substance-line kind along these lines.

6.     This means that Spinoza’s infinite number of attributes stops at two; and we have a formal as well as natural explanation for the attributes and why they stop at two; there may of course be infinitely many forms and qualities including sensory modes.

7.     Finally, God / Brahman can be interpreted as experience-experiencer-experienced peaks which are greater without limit than our level of peak but the classical Abrahamic ideas of perfection, Lord, omniscience, omnipotence, demands of worship, priest class, do not obtain but intervention might obtain in any stable sense, except perhaps that the transient cases have limited real value but significant symbolic meaning.

8.     The Eastern ideas of Brahman and Nirvana (Brahman on Earth…) have interpretation of the highest forms which are not essentially remote but in which we participate and which the individual ultimately is.

9.     Observe that while there is similarity with Spinoza’s God, this concept is far broader and more inclusive—we are part of it and approach it—and is natural-organic-and-dynamic rather than God-by-fiat-from-axioms.

Mind and matter are the two attributes—vs—there is essentially one kind – attribute or non-kind, i.e. nature or Being, from which all attributions stem*

Mind and matter are the two attributes—vs—there is essentially one kind – attribute or non-kind, i.e. nature or Being, from which all attributions stem

Theology: God lies outside metaphysics—vs—this is special pleading

God lies outside metaphysics—vs—god is entirely a part of the universe and the subject of metaphysics—and—the idea that god lies outside is false, leads to false conclusions, involves spurious reasoning, and is special pleading.

Theology: the arguments for god are valid—vs—this is more special pleading likely born of desire over reason*

The classical arguments for god, i.e. from teleology or design, ontology, cosmology, exquisiteness and beauty, awe, the sense of god… are valid—vs—the perfect metaphysics allows organic and Brahmanic gods as stable, powerful but non-organic gods as not so stable if symbolic, but excludes all absolute gods—omniscient, omnipotent and omni-creative, omnibenevolent, extra-universal—as illogical.

The metaphysics contradicts reason, science, and experience—vs—not at all; it requires them; but it may contradict projections

The metaphysics contradicts reason, science, and experience—vs—it does not and in fact as seen necessitates reason, science, and experience.

Our empirical cosmos cannot be located in the perfect metaphysics—vs—the concrete is located in the abstract, the normal in the Logical*

Our empirical cosmos cannot be located in the perfect metaphysics—vs—the concrete is located in the abstract, the normal in the Logical.

Objective ethics is impossible—vs—from the theory of Being, ethics and ethical judgments are objects

Objective ethics is impossible because it is not substantial—vs—from the theory of Being, ethics and ethical judgments are objects—vs—however, particular and special judgments may be relative to contexts but objective when the contexts are appropriately specific—and—note that this is an instance of ‘either / or’.

The true explanations of the real are the standard paradigms of our world—vs—the standard paradigms are approximate and very incomplete—and—for validity they require a complement—and—the perfect metaphysics contains an ultimate valid complement

The true explanations of the real are the standard paradigms of our world—vs—the standard paradigms are not necessarily the truth in our world—except where—the range of paradigms is exhaustive and incompatible—but otherwise—the range of possible paradigms generally provide useful alternative interpretations—as described in what follows—and / or alternate models for alternate worlds that are real under the universal metaphysics or otherwise ‘possible worlds’.

Alternate explanations for our world—a host of ‘realities’

Begin with some that have already been noted:

1.     World as illusion,

2.     We have no free will but only the illusion of free will,

3.     World as not real unless there is substance,

4.     The world is a field of experience with form,

5.     Die Welt Als Wille und Vorstellung—and other idealisms,

6.     World as matter in the strict sense.

7.     Dogmatic non organic religious metaphysics. Other fables of religion and myth.

Now for some other explanations of the world

8.     The cosmos began five minutes ago and we were made complete with memories and data that indicated the past as we ‘know’ it,

9.     Our real is in a constant flux of creation from and dissolution to a substrate, e.g. the void, and we are the epiphenomenon,

10. We are brains in vats and so on,

11. We are simulations; or simulations of simulations of simulations…

The status of the explanations

1.     They are selected so as to be interpretations that are consistent with normal reality.

2.     The do not imply that we are not real.

3.     Where indistinguishable from normal reality we would behave normally which already includes possibility of a strange reality. I.e. normal reality includes the possibility of the strange, and so the latter require no special behavior.

4.     A strange reality is possible for a cosmos, under universal metaphysics necessary for some cosmoses but unstable in the sense that normal reality is—usually—most probable under the most probable Adaptational paradigm.

We now look at one recently much argued ‘strange reality’.

The value of the strange realities

1.     As explanations that obtain as alternatives or complements to the standard, especially as interpretations

2.     If / where the strange realities are or seem absurd, they are at least logically indistinguishable from the standard reality and attempting to resolve what is true leads to insight as to the nature of the real. For example in thinking that there is no experience we learn about the nature of experience; in seeing the world as a field of experience with centers of experiential focus, we learn that this is not incompatible with the standard interpretation, includes the standard as a special case, and may be the better or true explanation in the universal case.

3.     Further, we learn not only about reality but also how to conceptualize it—and that it there is always conceptualization / interpretation—and reason (about it).

The dilemma of non-standard explanations of the real has no resolution—vs—we have given such resolutions—which—are sometimes unique and sometimes that alternative interpretations are alternatively appropriate without prejudice to reality

The dilemma of non-standard explanations of the real has no resolution—vs—a general resolution begins with the observation that the alternatives are—either—incompatible in which case all but one of them may be eliminated universally in logical terms or locally in terms that also include local standard paradigm—or—compatible in which case there may be a useful universal compatibility of alternative interpretations each of which is appropriate to some context, some more inclusive than others—while—some alternatives may be eliminated if we accept a local paradigm—a ‘standard’ paradigm—by convention and / or from reason.

We are digital computer simulations—vs—even if so we are nonetheless real—and—it is impossible that we should be the non conscious and non living simulations as in our modern digital technology of 2018*

We are digital computer simulations of some order, possibly a high order—i.e. we are simulations of simulations of simulations… An argument for this being that since our digital technology is so good at simulation it seems highly improbable that we are not simulations—vs—this no way means that we are not real or that we are ever cut off from climbing the ladder of reality, e.g. breaking out of ‘the computer screen’ and communicating with ‘the creator of the creator of the creator….

Analysis of simulation

1.     Are we a simulation?

2.     Consider that under the perfect metaphysics, one cosmos can ‘simulate’ another. That is however not necessarily a digital simulation.

3.     It has been claimed that a digital simulation might have a digital signature. But why would that be necessary? The fineness of the digitization might be very small compared to, say, the Planck length.

4.     Think of computers. They simulate. Are the simulations alive or conscious? For that we must refer to our understanding of consciousness as built from elementary level matter which has the elements of awareness but is in no way aware in the way we are. Does that happen in a computer? No. The computer figures do not directly model their environments. They are simulations, not emulations. Of course there is the material-mental level but it is not implicated in the simulations. This may well be possible in the future, digital or otherwise.

5.     We may after all be simulation-emulations. But all the standard arguments regarding non-standard artificial realities apply. Until we have a way of knowing, it makes no difference except of course that imagination and openness are a good thing. That we may be artificial or are but do not know it, does not mean we are not real. Is the cosmos a simulation by the big-bang? It could be interpreted that way but—in this case—the distinction has no meaning.

Cosmology

Universe, cosmology, mind, matter, attribute, identity, space, time, spacetime, extension, process, origins, dissolution, eternal manifestation, dynamics, cause, mechanism, determinism, teleology, explanation of the real – standard and non-standard.

Introduction

Cosmology and metaphysics are the same subject.

While metaphysics emphasizes Being, cosmology emphasizes the categories—i.e. metaphysical concepts that concern aspects of Being (and normally regarded as those concepts that are just under Being in generality—however, while making for useful study, to insist on this distinction is restrictive).

The universe is mechanistic, deterministic, and classically causal—vs—these are adequate for science so far but not known to be true—and—the universe is and must be a mix

The universe is mechanistic, deterministic, and classically causal—vs—these items are adequate for scientific explanation but not known to be true—and—the universe is and must be a mix of mechanism / teleology, determinism / indeterminism and creative novelty at the intersection, classical causation / non contiguous and non temporal causation (with a question mark against non antecedence) and universal causation only in the most general sense of causation which includes that the void is causative

The finitude of the universe cannot change—vs—this is not at all clear even on scientific and rational grounds—but—is metaphysically untrue*

The finitude of the universe is 0 (zero), 1 (finite), or some cardinality.

The finitude of the universe cannot change—vs—whereas there may be limits for special cases, e.g. a conservative cosmos, from the universal metaphysics the universe itself has no such limits.

The universe is essentially non-sentient, non-sapient, non-agentive, non-endeavor, has no purpose or meaning or sense of the same—vs—it is all—and—the negations are part of a false materialism*

The universe is essentially non-sentient, non-sapient, non-agentive, non-endeavor, has no purpose or meaning or sense of the same—vs—it is all these things—vs—the universe has and generates all purpose and meaning—vs—and has states of non manifest purpose and peak purpose

The universe and Being are defined and severely limited by laws of nature, conservation, and stability—vs—there are no ultimate limits and stability is necessary in epochs but not universally*

The universe and Being are defined and limited by laws of nature, conservation, and stability—vs—the universe / Being have no ultimate limits and are the realization of all possibility—and—these include states with laws etc—and—which come from the void / any state.

The universe is ill defined and the number of universes indeterminate—vs—there is precisely one universe*

The universe is ill defined and the number of universes indeterminate—vs—it is well defined by or as Logic and there is exactly one universe.

Mind and matter are but two of infinitely many attributes…*

Now discussed under metaphysics as “Mind and matter are but our limited two of infinitely many attributes of an unlimited intellectually apprehended remote Dios

As noted in the earlier section there is essentially one kind – attribute or non-kind, i.e. nature or Being, from which all attributions stem

The universe has no conscious identity—vs—it does but in phases—and—it is in identity that its greatest peaks and variety are realized

The universe has no conscious identity—vs—it does but in phases—and—it is in identity that its greatest peaks and variety are realized.

Individual identity is but a limited part of universal identity—vs—in the ultimate they are identical*

Individual identity is but a limited part of universal identity—vs—in the ultimate they are identical.

There is no individual purpose—vs—universal purpose is intrinsic—and—individual purpose is derived from the self and the remainder, that is individual purpose is both intrinsic and extrinsic*

There is no individual purpose—vs—there is no individual purpose save what the individual conceives, lives, and constructs—but—this is significant enough—and—the individual is a generator of purpose and meaning, if incrementally—and—this derives from and is part of universal purpose—i.e.—individual purpose is derived from the self and the remainder, that is individual purpose is both intrinsic and extrinsic—vs—individual purpose is universal purpose in the ultimate case

Human Being is severely limited by birth, death, body, and a finite sphere of influence*

This is placed under agency.

Space and time are two absolute and independent coordinates in which matter is located and define the universe—vs—derived from sameness and difference, space-time-matter is a dynamic system*

Space and time are two absolute and independent coordinates in which matter is located and define the universe—vs—from identity, sameness, difference, and their absence we derive space-time and their absence—or—space-time-matter as a dynamic system.

Space and time are the first of any number of measures of extension—vs—from their derivation there are no other measures*

Space and time are the first of any number of external measures of extension—vs—they are intrinsic and from their derivation, there is only space, time, and phases of absence—and—there cannot be other measures of extension—but—of course there is proto space-time-matter and space, and time, and dimensionality in our world are special instances.

The reals model the continuum—vs—the reals are convenient but so far as known not necessary*

The reals model the continuum—vs—from their completeness and other properties, the reals are convenient—vs—the rationals, or rationals up to some number of places of decimal, vs the algebraic numbers, vs the surreal number field (Surreal number - Wikipedia) all have properties to recommend them.

Process in the universe is totally deterministic or merely indeterministic—vs—it is a mix with the interface being a rich source of structure—but—from absolute determinism, structure must occur anyway if otherwise less likely

Process in the universe is totally deterministic or merely indeterministic—vs—it is absolutely indeterministic and this implies also absolute determinism—and—emergence or evolution can and must have at minimum one off as well as most probable incremental with variation and selection at the ‘boundary between determinism and indeterminism’—and—thus general process is not the either / or of deterministic vs merely random.

The general process of origins is natural—vs—the naturalism of selection is apparently the closest there is to a but not necessary naturalistic paradigm*

The general process of origins is natural in the sense of the natural physical processes of our cosmos—vs—while incremental form or evolution due to Darwin and Wallace is essentially a new paradigm of process, the constituents are natural—but—universal process is required to sometimes follow this paradigm in which both form and constitution follow the incremental and / or one off form—which is—a new paradigm of universal process—and—the same paradigm occurs in free will and creative endeavor. And—while Newtonian mechanism and determinism came before this new incremental / adaptive paradigm in the history of science, the adaptive paradigm is ‘below’ mechanism and is likely responsible for its formation—and—the possible indeterminism-determinism of quantum theory may be its residual.

Determinism denies free will—vs—this is true but determinism does not obtain*

Determinism denies free will—and—despite compatibilism this appears to be the case—but—the universe is not temporally deterministic—and—the universe must be block deterministic which allows temporal indeterministic—and—so there are valid deterministic and determinist-indeterminist perspectives

Determinism and indeterminism are not well defined—vs—usage is ambiguous but clear definition may be introduced*

Determinism and indeterminism are not well defined—vs—determinism obtains when a part determines the whole—and—thus there are kinds of determinism and indeterminism—e.g.—in the temporal case the dichotomy between determinism and indeterminism depends on whether past to present determine future—and—the block universe with bifurcating histories is block deterministic but temporally indeterministic.

The universe is an one off occurrence without reason—vs—it is eternal and its reason is necessary rather than classical*

The universe is a one off occurrence without reason and so without explanation—vs—the universe is eternal in its phases of manifestation and non manifestation—and—the manifest phases are limitless in their variety—with—our cosmos as an element of the manifest—and—mechanisms of manifestation as seen include the one off and the incremental as more probable.

There is no explanation of our modes of dynamics and cause—vs—the adaptive or Darwinian paradigm is a necessary and efficient though not universal ‘mechanism’ and explanation*

There is no explanation of our modes of dynamics and cause—vs—they emerge, according to the universal metaphysics—as seen—in the identity theory of process-relationship-being.

The universe is mechanistic, causal, deterministic, and non teleological—vs—these obtain in phases but not universally—and—each is sufficient to some limited phase of Being*

The universe is mechanistic, causal, deterministic, and non teleological—vs—these are more false either / ors—i.e., the continuum or multi-polarity of alternatives is possible and necessary on the perfect metaphysics—the universe can have mechanism, teleology, and their combination, classical as well as insubstantial / non-local or non-contiguous causation with cases of both temporally antecedent as well as non-antecedent causation, e.g. in cyclic and sapient phases—that is—in the large there is indeterminism that may evolve to cause etc, but also promotes phases of teleology; causation is universal only on a far more general interpretation; mechanism and determinism cannot be universal; emergence from the void begins as indeterministic—and—the general position on these issues, as universal, ought to be agnostic—and further—local science shows only at most that local mechanism, causality, determinism, and non teleology are sufficient for local explanation—except note—that some indeterminism may be present per quantum theory, but qt is not known to be final; and must be present in any final universal physics.

The universe is essentially temporal—vs—the block universe description is an alternative—but—this does not mean that time is not real

The universe is essentially temporal—vs—time is ‘real’ but the temporal description is not the only possible one for an alternative is the block universe—and—that in determinism is a collection of separate world lines, tubes, and so on—but—in the indeterminist and real case is a collection of meeting and bifurcating world lines etc—within which lie—individuals and peaks and the absolute—that is perhaps—real, process, or metaphor.

Agency

Psychology, function, dynamics-with-foresight, depth of function, personality-growth-adaptation-learning, ways and catalysts (reason, religion, and experience), human culture – knowledge – traditions—intrinsic and instrumental, politics, economics and technology, immersion

Introduction

Agency is concerned with individuals, groups, civilization, civilizations, and Universal Civilization ‘taking their destiny into their own hands’

Life ends with death—vs—locally, death is ‘the’ existential reckoner—and—ultimately death is gateway to the ultimate

Except as the end, death has no significance—vs—life begins with death which means that understanding death and its existential implication is crucial to life—and—ultimately death is gateway to the ultimate.

Human Being is just another animal—vs—’just animal’ is to the base from which all animality grows—and—it is in the nature of human being that limits are key to growth in life and the ultimate*

The issue

Human Being is just another animal—vs—human being is unique and its differences from the other animals is fundamental which makes human being superior, if not the greatest, and special—vs—the animal kingdom on Earth is marked by a number of kinds and abilities or dimensions, each of which is a continuum, and sapiens is one extreme on Earth on one of these dimensions marked, e.g., by language, tools, thumb opposition, upright posture, and perhaps analytic-symbolic-iconic ability

But—the question arises, rather than to compare—instead to be intrinsic—What is the Being of human being?

An essential characteristic of Human Being

Human beings have apparent or seeming limits and, so, every typical developed person has a choice—to accept the limits or to try to transcend them, at least in some aspects of their Being. ‘At least in some aspects’ will be common in that there will be a mix of acceptance and attempt to transcend even if only to some extent.

How to do that well, even maximally and or optimally, which includes identifying barriers or limits, deciding which and in what way to transcend, and finding means to transcend, is the essence of Human Being – Becoming – Being-as-we-understand-it – The Way of Being (here Being is doing double duty and is referring to Being over and above ground Being or existing.

It can be objected that Human Being is not the essence of Being even as we understand it but the perfect metaphysics shows that Human Being and Ultimate Being are essentially identical.

The point about becoming accepts as ultimate neither the Thomist giving over to deity—literal or symbolic, nor Buddhist nirvana in this life or beyond, nor the putative qualities and limits of modern scientific secular (humanist) views.

Yes, many a great Journey in Being has taken place and may yet occur within those paradigmatic boundaries or confines.

However, the Journey of the Essence of Becoming conceived here under the real that derives from the perfect metaphysics is a journey that accepts science and secular inspiration (art, ethics, secular knowledge and culture) in its domain, and the symbols of religion and its art – ritual – morals as suggestive in another perhaps overlapping domain or phase but would emphasize the transcendent phase of the revealed in the perfect metaphysics and its cosmology as ultimate.

Human Being is severely limited by birth, death, body, and a finite sphere of influence, all in a limited universe

The individual is severely limited, especially by birth, death and a finite body and is a small fixed part of a limited universe—vs—the individual has canonical limits—but—does not know what the limits are—vs—the individual is essentially the universe which is limitless.

What is the nature of human being and the relationship of human beings to one another and the universe?

What is the nature of consciousness for human being?

How, why is consciousness grounded in Being? What are the related issues of mind and matter?

Why and how are we here? What is our purpose? What is the meaning of purpose and meaning?

The limit of death is absolute

The limit of death is absolute—but—it is a motive to realization and completion in this life—vs—death is motive and gateway to the ultimate.

Since psyche and Being are fundamentally limited, escape is a dreary dream

Since psyche and Being are fundamentally limited, escape is a dreary dream—vs—

1.     The challenges of this life are not removed but reinterpreted

2.     The universal peak is not a definite given but ever changing in quality and height

3.     The journey through the valleys and the peaks is eternal and infinitely varied

4.     Pain and ennui are unavoidable but limited in relation to enjoyment and ever-freshness of being.

5.     Taking on the challenge is not merely discovery and experience of the peaks and journeys but is creation of the highest possible for that takes intelligence and endeavor; and pain and ennui if crushing at times, are ultimately also spurs to the ultimate.

There is and can be no psychology as a science of agency and mind—vs—psychology is a science of given and repeatable phenomena

There is and can be no psychology as a science of agency and mind—for—‘knowledge’ of agency and mind is subjective and private—vs—such knowledge is the most immediate and the medium of all other knowing—and—as such it has a given quality that external observation lacks—and—therefore a science of psychology and agency as the science of experience is a science of immensely repeatable reports of the given.

No fundamental psychology is possible on the score of non observability and the primacy of the natural sciences—vs—there is a clear science of this psychology of the phenomenal as noted in this document*

No fundamental psychology is possible on the score of non observability and the primacy of the natural sciences—vs—there is a clear science of this psychology of the phenomenal as noted in this document—but—this of course does not negate academic and behavioral psychology except for their excess reductions—and—psychology is a natural science—and—psychology may inform the other natural sciences for it is ultimate in some ways where the physical and life sciences are incomplete—but—of course there may be cases of the lower level informing psychology—however—the sciences and metaphysics and philosophy are mutually suggestive; a science is informing only when it is a complete account of the world.

No fundamental psychology is possible since the ‘functions’ and so on are posited ad hoc—vs—a fundamental psychology of organism in environment may be laid out*

No fundamental psychology is possible since the ‘functions’ and so on are posited ad hoc—vs—of course they are not entirely ad hoc—and—a fundamental psychology of organism in environment may be laid out—and—and enhanced according to the perfect metaphysics as detailed below.

The older faculties and the modern functions are ad hoc—vs—a systematic psychology can be built up from fundamentals*

The older faculties and the modern functions are ad hoc—and—indeed they do have a somewhat ad hoc character—but—a systematic psychology can be built up from fundamentals from the field of experience or experiencer-experience-experienced view as in any accounting of the dimensions of psyche is ad hoc and limited as to ordinary and metaphysical use and meaning.

The human psyche is fundamentally limited—vs—this is generally untrue and experienced limits are temporal rather than absolute*

Psyche is not significantly instrumental local and not at all significantly instrumental in the ultimate; it has not one of form-body-dynamics for function, principle of form and dynamics, formed and structural pattern or personality and growth, principle of personality and growth, adaptivity and learning and change regarding personality, identity with phases of the universal including Brahman—and—there could be no program of realization even if there were such identity—vs—as in the essential concepts, all this is generally untrue and experienced limits are temporal (‘normal’) rather than absolute—and—psyche as form of experience is tied into body and environment—and—the principle of form derives from the dynamics of identity as process-relation / interaction-Being and includes foundation of foresight and agency—and—the principle of personality includes functional emphasis which has genetic and environmental features but has degrees of self-modifiability by reason, selection of experience, learning, ways, catalysis, and dedication—and—while a program should be serendipitous and learning, flexible templates-instruction-ways-personality change in balance with achieving in the immediate and the ultimate is also efficient.

Human personality is ad hoc in nature and limited and fixed—vs—personality has even a local dynamics, malleability, and growth—and—is unlimited in the ultimate*

Human personality is ad hoc in nature and limited and fixed—vs—personality is capable of analysis based in identity, psyche, and their dynamics and growth—and—in being formed, there is of course some necessary definiteness to personality and therefore change in any desired direction must be challenging due to the formed self preserving adaptation—and—there is dynamics of change and changeability—and—the preliminary tasks are to understand personality, its dimensions, and its dynamics, and consequent and other ways and degrees of change—however—there needs to be a balance between accomplishment and improvement of self for purposes of (a) enjoyment and (b) efficiency—and—in the ultimate, when properly identified (defined), efficiency and enjoyment are one.

Any accounting of the dimensions of psyche is ad hoc and limited as to ordinary use and meaning—vs—it may be accounted by analysis of the identity and its processes and relations

Any accounting of the dimensions of psyche is ad hoc and limited as to ordinary use and meaning—vs—it may be accounted by analysis of the identity and its processes and relations—i.e., the point of view of inner-outer, free-bound, quality-form, intense-centering, focused-diffuse andor foreground-background, experience-attitude-action, experiencer-experience-experienced, diffuse and distributed-sharp and discrete, and local as well as extended temporality…

The emergent real

Experience is the core of Being—of Atman – Brahman – World.

The world is a field of experiencers-experience-experienced, loci of experience-experience-object of experience, selves-experience-objects, self-experience-world, Brahman.

Meaning is the tripartite unity of symbol-experience-experienced or language-concept-object.

A person is psyche and body.

Reason is reflexive use of person and culture to conceive and realize the identities, especially and up to the greatest.

Possibilities are the limits of Being. Natural possibility is experienced possibility or the contingent real. The limit of possibility is the essential, ultimate, necessary, or logical.

The perfect metaphysics is one of the contingent real meshed with the necessary real.

Universal identity which is the limit of individual identity is limitless, particularly with regard to extension, variety, experiential identity, and peak of Being.

Agency is the power of the contingent or limited person to realize the essential.

In agency, which is repose and trial and repose in trial, Atman is Brahman.

Resources

Some resources are templates for immediate and universal process may be developed. It is good if these are flexible and adaptable a generic variety aims and contexts. Here are some resources for the journey—the essential concepts, templates, and further resources.