Journey in Being

Essence of being-experience: why is there being-experience rather than nothing? Or something rather than nothing and being-experience rather than just something.

Place in and revert to the plan of conceptual outline-essential.

Key terms

Comment. This needs editing.

The terms are in the order in which they occur in the text.

METAPHYSICS, FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF METAPHYSICS, FP, EQUIVALENT, ~~SUBSTANCE~~, PURE METAPHYSICS, PURE KNOWLEDGE, ~~TRADITION~~, COHERENCE CRITERIA, GOOD ENOUGH, PRAGMATIC KNOWLEDGE, PRAGMATICS, PERFECT METAPHYSICS, PERFECT UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS OF THE ULTIMATE, UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS, THE METAPHYSICS, PERFECT DUAL EPISTEMOLOGY, PERFECTLY ADAPTED, PRAGMATIC CRITERIA, ULTIMATE CRITERIA, IDENTITY, KARMA, MARTIN HEIDEGGER, JIM HOLT, TROPES, ~~PERFECT DUAL EPISTEMOLOGY~~, FP, SELF-CONSISTENT, EXTERNALLY CONSISTENT, FP, NORMAL, HIGH PROBABILITY, ALMOST CERTAIN, NORMAL NECESSITY, NORMAL IMPOSSIBILITY, NORMAL LAW, NORMAL FORM, NORMAL WORLD, EXISTENTIAL ATTITUDE, FP, FP, ~~CONCRETE~~, ~~ABSTRACT~~, MATHEMATICAL, SCIENTIFIC, FP, DEATH, RECEPTACLE, DISPOSITION, ~~THE WAY OF BEING~~, UNITARY METAPHYSICS, ~~FUNCTION~~, CRITERIA, ~~CONCRETE~~, ~~ABSTRACT~~, ABSTRACT-CONCRETE CONTINUUM, ~~SCIENCE~~, RELIGION, FP, LOGIC, MATHEMATICS, ~~SCIENCE~~, ~~FACT~~, PERCEPTION, STATE OF BEING, ~~OBJECT~~, COMPOUND FACTS, SCIENTIFIC METHOD, UNIVERSAL ~~HYPOTHESIS~~, ~~INFERENCE~~, ~~INDUCTION~~, ~~ABDUCTION~~, POTENCY, ~~PRAGMATIC~~, FOUNDATION, CATEGORIES

What is metaphysics?

Among philosophers today, concerns about metaphysics include (1) problems concerning the meaning and historical use of the term, (2) that concern with epistemology, especially since Kant, seems to vitiate some historical uses, (3) that neither historical nor modern meanings are agreed upon, and (4) that there are multiple meanings of term in historical and modern use.

Thus ‘what metaphysics is’ is complex. However, I shall use this meaning:

METAPHYSICS is the study of Being—the world, the universe—as it is.

Why and with what justification? It is consistent with the earlier comments on narrative and extra-narrative meaning—i.e., it is potent and while it does not artificially impose upon the extra-narrative, it’s force, if my claims of potency and universal capture are correct, naturally has an imposing and displacing consequence for extra-narrative meanings of metaphysics as knowledge of the world, both concrete and abstract. Of course, this is to be shown; and what will be shown is that these claims are claims of reason. Metaphysics need not be primarily a some somewhat vague search for an historical idea.

But the main justification is post-justification—a metaphysics that perfect for ultimate knowledge and realization that while necessarily incomplete as a static achievement and therefore not in need of completion, shows itself to be process complete-able.

It is important to see that while the idea of ‘given meaning’ is practically needed for communication, there is a contrary need for open and fluid meaning when going beyond given contexts. Discussions such as ‘What is metaphysics?” depend crucially on an adequate meaning of concept and linguistic meaning.

The methods of metaphysics

The main method is reason. Language is means of expression, communication, and part of the method. Note that appeal to content, experience, experiment, and action are part of reason; and that what is valid in tradition is part of this and so on.

We develop a sense in which metaphysics and reason are identical.

That is, ultimately, method and reason are not gods while content is the universe. The universe is its content and process and all that may lie in between (such as relationship, quality, dynamics, agency and so on).

The void and the fundamental principle of metaphysics

A fundamental principle of metaphysics

If the universe is in a void state, i.e. non manifest, there are no laws. Therefore, all logically possible states emerge from that void state for the contrary would be a law (this proof is also plausible).

But a being and the void are just the being, so a void is present with all beings—i.e., voids exist. But there is no difference between voids existing and there being precisely one eternal void—the void.

That is—The universe is the realization of all logical possibility. This is the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF METAPHYSICS (also, fundamental principle or FP). From earlier discussion this is equivalent to saying that the universe is the greatest possible universe.

The fundamental principle is the pivotal result of the ideas.

The chapter on metaphysics explores and develops the meaning, significance, and consequences of the principle and the metaphysics that it entails.

From the fundamental principle, while the limits are set by the logic of necessity (deductive logic and necessary fact), filling out the interior is the task of reason as set out earlier. That is, since the strict logic is part of reason the task is that of reason. But the exploration of reason is part of the undertaking since we have so far explored only its generalities—recall also that reason is part of content.

Substance and the properties of the void

The void exists—and as noted, an infinity of voids is equivalent to a single void. It is EQUIVALENT—may be thought to generate—to every possible and actual state of every being, including that of the universe.

In its definition the void is ultimately simple; yet it is ultimately varied in its potency.

Therefore every state is equivalent to every other state.

There is no substance in the traditional sense because, clearly, every being is equally foundational. However, because of its generative role the void may be thought of as the ~~SUBSTANCE~~ of Being and the universe. But every being can assume that role.

The number of voids is irrelevant except that there is at least one.

The universe is absolutely indeterministic in that every state may emerge from any state. It is absolutely deterministic in that every state is already given and will emerge from any state.

All states, including the void, may be seen as the cause of the universe and all its states. This is quite different from the common and physical causation.

The void has power.

Any state has the potential of all Being.

The void is not the quantum vacuum but has similarities to it. The void generates this cosmos and its vacuum state.

A universal metaphysics

Pure metaphysics

The PURE METAPHYSICS is the metaphysical framework consequent on the fundamental principle that the universe is the realization of all possibility. Details of it are in the previous and subsequent sections—e.g., some consequences and cosmology.

Because the fundamental principle was derived from abstract versions of Being and universe perfectly known according to correspondence criteria, the pure metaphysics is perfect according to those criteria.

Pure metaphysics is an example of PURE KNOWLEDGE—knowledge that is perfect by correspondence criteria. It is possible when the concepts are sufficiently abstract or elementary and perhaps otherwise. It has been an ideal of all knowledge. Here we will employ powerful abstract case for it is powerful. Supplemented by pragmatic knowledge it is a perfect instrument of realization; this will be seen below.

The explicit meaning of the metaphysics is that the universe of logical concepts has an object. While this entails the freedoms we are discussing, it also entails limits which—even if relative—may be experienced as rather absolute. The implicit meaning is the filling out of detail which has already underway and is taken up in detail in the chapter on cosmology.

The universal metaphysics may be defined as what logic allows. A first observation is that this is a permissive rather than restrictive point of view. Importantly, noting that our logics are not complete, this is an alternate definition of logic. When enhanced by earlier observations regarding the idea of logic we find an equivalence of metaphysics and Logic.

Tradition and pragmatics

We understand ~~TRADITION~~ to be what is valid knowledge in the history of human culture including reason.

The fundamental principle implies the experience of limits as we see them, e.g. in our lives and cosmos.

Whatever the limits of our knowledge, there is no immediate breaking out of them—even though that is ultimately given.

Therefore ‘our’ tradition, i.e. the tradition of whatever civilization we find ourselves part, is the only and ideal instrument in negotiating the ultimate.

But further as we move from civilization to civilization, cosmos to cosmos, it is the perfect instrument (even though imprecise and even though imperfect for local purposes).

Our tradition is the first in an unending sequence of ‘pragmatic metaphysics’. It is at least pragmatic in an ordinary sense. In itself its criteria are pragmatic which subsumes approximate correspondence and elements of COHERENCE CRITERIA. In and of its own criteria, the pragmatic criterion is just GOOD ENOUGH (here)—it is not ‘being functional in all contexts’ and does not entail correspondence or coherence; this criterion of PRAGMATIC KNOWLEDGE will be seen perfect for the purpose or the realization revealed by the pure metaphysics. However it is pragmatic and perfect relative to realization of the pure metaphysics—there is no better general instrument and no general need for one. Instead of calling it pragmatic metaphysics we call it PRAGMATICS.

Perfect metaphysics and epistemology

The join of the universal metaphysics and tradition provide a PERFECT METAPHYSICS (PERFECT UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS OF THE ULTIMATE) of realization; and within that perfection, the pure metaphysics and tradition each plays a perfect role—the pure according to correspondence criteria and tradition according to pragmatic criteria. This perfect metaphysics is also called the UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS or simply THE METAPHYSICS.

This also defines a PERFECT DUAL EPISTEMOLOGY. Note again, that the normal problems of epistemology remain for local purposes. The value of pragmatic knowledge remains. However, the pure alters the significance of tradition. The latter is no longer our final instrument for our final knowledge. It is a drop in the universe. Of course it is, for us, a very large drop—our local and temporary ‘universe’.

The pure and the pragmatic form a joint system: the pure will frame, clarify, extend, and be fleshed by the pragmatic; their criteria are PERFECTLY ADAPTED: each to its ends and both jointly to the metaphysics and The Way.

The pure part of the metaphysics is perfect according to correspondence criteria and the pragmatic according to PRAGMATIC CRITERIA. Since the join is perfect in ultimate realization the perfect metaphysics is perfect according to ULTIMATE CRITERIA.

Here, then, we find the metaphysics as (1) Identity of universal actuality and Logical possibility, (2) In process, (3) A join of logic and science. In abstract objects the metaphysics is seen to include systems of mathematics as abstract sciences.

The earlier identification of metaphysics is now an identification of metaphysics and reason.

Relationship to history of ideas

Here ‘history of ideas’ is study up to the present, emphasizing philosophy, science, and the study of religion.

In philosophy it includes metaphysics and epistemology. It is especially concerned with the nature of knowledge and its possibility for precision and meaning.

In science, it is concerned with issues of precision and predictability and with the significance of science for worldviews. It is also concerned with the empirical boundary—which it regards as the boundary of what has been seen and not the boundary of the universe which may, even according to science, stretch infinitely beyond.

The concern for religion is (a) the meaning of the seen world, (b) reason applied to what might lie beyond, and (c) the significance, symbolism, and any rational content of scripture, practice, and dogma, (d) the secular expression of such concerns in art, literature, music, psychological studies and more.

The main positions here are two—(1) the world and the destiny of (human) Being is far greater than generally seen in the history of ideas, but (2) while occasions great enhancements to the history of ideas, it modifies rather than vitiates their significance.

Some consequences

It will be useful to state some consequences immediately. A first set of consequences is in the section Substance and the properties of the void. Some of the consequences anticipate Cosmology.

The principle is that from the nature of logical possibility, many consequences are trivial. Of course, buried in the heart of logic, which exceeds what we know of our cosmos, there are many consequences that are non trivial in the sense of ‘difficult’.

The universe has IDENTITY. Individual identity shares in universal identity. The individual is an expression of potential or disposition, comes from and returns to the universal; has access to this knowledge which is entire in abstract principle if limited in detail; has ultimate realization as an inevitable imperative; and while eternal rebirth has validity—that is not karma: KARMA is participation in ultimate universal process in the present and toward the ultimate.

The universe and its identity go through manifest and void phases. The whole is limitless with regard to variety and extension (sameness and difference and their absence—to be identified as time, space, and their absence). It is limitless with regard to peak and dissolution. Ours is one cosmos; there is a limitless of cosmoses of limitless variety, all in transient communication with the void, sometimes via a transient background. Every cosmos has its ‘laws of nature’; while they may be the same among some cosmoses, there is limitless variety of the laws, from slight to great differences; thus there is no universal law (Logic is universal but not law); thus the correct view of laws is that they are compound facts on particular domains.. A question to be addressed is not whether this obtains but what is its significance, what are the kinds and frequencies of the various kinds of cosmoses—and a related question of mechanisms of formation-sustenance-dissolution, and the place of sentient Being amid this eternity.

Sentient Being is the place of significance. And as we have seen, given any being or cosmos, there is a greater sentient being and creation by a sentient being. If you wish you may think ‘God’ but the truth is that we participate in and are the ultimate.

Regarding the issue of all possibilities, how can apparently contradictory possibilities be realized? True contradictions of course are not realized. However, amid the array of cosmoses there are limitless earths and near earths and in the latter there are alternate histories that were they but one history would be contradictory.

Metaphysics, often said impossible, is possible.

The metaphysics under development, is an ultimate capture of the ultimate universe—i.e. of the universe as ultimate.

Next let us consider the consequence for a well known problem of metaphysics.

The fundamental question of metaphysics

The question

The question of why there is something at all rather than just nothingness has been seen as intractable.

Certainly none of science, common experience, and metaphysics so far provides an answer. This question has been called the fundamental question—or problem—of metaphysics (MARTIN HEIDEGGER, Introduction to Metaphysics, based on a 1935 lecture course, in an English translation, © 2000, Gregory Fried and Richard Polt).

Clearly, this is a fundamental problem for metaphysics. After all, if our interest is Being, one of our concerns will be why there is or should be Being? We just want to know, e.g. because we want to know why we are here, because the answer might be a source of meaning, because the answering might illuminate many other problems, because if proved the proof might be a source of method in metaphysics. Above all, however, not knowing why there is Being means that our knowledge of Being—our metaphysics is incomplete. And we see that all of these reasons are addressed here.

It is also a fundamental problem for science. Consider the equations of any fundamental branch of physics. They may refer to space and time, have representations of matter-radiation, e.g. particles and fields. What is the source of these entities? What is the source of the laws? As physics digs deeper, some of these questions for some entities may be answered. But they are answered, invariably it seems, in terms of other posited entities (observed or hypothesized to explain what is observed). In the end, though we see or infer the lowest level entities we do not know their why? Perhaps physics does not need to know the why? But it does for the why is not idle but would take physics deeper. And in any case we are curious about our world which is one of the sources of science. Thus the fundamental question of metaphysics is fundamental for science and so the recent interest in it, e.g. as in Why Does the World Exist? (2013) by JIM HOLT.

The fundamental principle resolves the fundamental question

Clearly the fundamental principle resolves the problem. It shows that given the universe in a void or non-manifest state, manifest Being must emerge. But let us think about why the problem has been considered a problem.

Further reflections on the question

Why should the problem have been considered intractable? Suppose we were to show that either modern physics or some particular metaphysics entails the existence of something. We would then have to show how the physics or metaphysics obtained. I.e. a relative answer is inadequate.

On the other hand we might argue that our experience shows that we exist and therefore manifest Being is a necessary. But the argument is contingent on observation.

A satisfactory answer must be a necessary answer that shows the existence of all possibilities

A satisfactory answer must be a necessary answer (and of course non-relative).

But how could we have a necessary answer? It would have to be that the manifest and the non-manifest are necessarily equivalent—given one the other must also exist.

We now ask—But why should the ‘something’ be any particular something, e.g. just our observed cosmos? If nothingness, the void, were just slightly other than nothingness we can see how it might give rise to this cosmos but not another. But that is not what is in question. To be something from nothing the nothing must be perfect—i.e. symmetric in any sense. Thus if it gave rise to our cosmos, i.e. one possibility, of necessity it would have to give rise to every possibility.

That is, an adequate proof would prove the necessity of the existence of all possibilities.

And that is precisely what the fundamental principle / universal metaphysics does but science and metaphysics so far do not do.

Thus the problem of something from nothing can no longer be considered a problem.

Can we extract a proof of the fundamental principle from the argument concerning a satisfactory answer?

Well it exhibits a symmetry between Being and non Being. It is an ultimate unifier. It sets all Being on an equal footing.

If we are ever to know why we are here it must be the fundamental principle and its equivalents.

A new fundamental problem—What has Being?

Is there another candidate for the fundamental problem of metaphysics?

A new fundamental problem of metaphysics is—What has Being?

Here ‘has’ is atemporal.

Why is this a or the fundamental problem? This is because an answer tells us not only whether substance or relation or process or entity or sentences or tropes have Being, it also tells us which parts of Reason have Being.

What has Being? Is an open and fundamental problem. Here we provide a significant but very partial answer.

An approach to the question is not to enquire of substance but of power. What things in the universe affect us or me? Only if there is an effect (atemporal, neutral ‘is’) is there Being. Another speculation would lead us outside the universe and so outside Being. We know from Logic that such a speculation would have to be irrational, i.e. non-Logical.

So then, What has Being? Much of what is said here, above and below, is an implicit answer.

Clearly power is a measure: without power existence is without meaning. I.e., while there are local substances, substance does not determine Being. Or, every Being is its own substance and the substance of the universe. Do ideas have Being? The pragmatic object of the concept of an electron? Sentences? TROPES (“ontologically unstructured, i.e. simple, abstract particulars”—Tropes—Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)? Power establishes Being for all such as may affect us even by existing in or entering into our minds. There are no grades of the real.

Some objections and responses

But metaphysics is not possible—in the first place because we do not have knowledge of the object and in the second place because of the speculative nature of metaphysics, especially what Kant called ‘special metaphysics’. Response. We have seen that we do have pure correspondence knowledge of what now emerges of an abstract core to the metaphysics. We will further show that while knowledge of the interior of the abstract framework is pragmatic, pragmatism is all that is possible there but also precisely what is needed in filling out and realizing the ultimate—it is perfect in its own way. That is, the pure and the pragmatic together will constitute a perfect dual but unified ultimate metaphysics of knowledge and for realization—and that is associated with a ~~PERFECT DUAL EPISTEMOLOGY~~ (which does not eliminate the local need for normal epistemology). Finally, note that where not contradictory all special metaphysics is realized per FP; the question that emerges concerns its significance. This is addressed below, especially under cosmology and agency.

‘All possibilities’ is a self-contradictory notion. Response. The burden of consistency was earlier shifted to logic. Modern logic addresses contradictions inherent in careless use of language. Probably not all problems of language are yet uncovered. The burden of explicit consistency is an in process endeavor. The universal metaphysics is SELF-CONSISTENT and EXTERNALLY CONSISTENT.

It is possible that Earth should not have existed—therefore its existence is contradictory (this is a trivial example of how all possibilities may be contradictory). Response. Since this Earth exists, it is not possible. There is no contradiction. In fact, from FP it is necessary that Earth, its inhabitants, their experience should have existed and shall exist over and over.

But is not multiple earths just repetitious? Response. Yes but it is repetitious as part of a limitlessly greater variety and adventure.

Does not all possibilities include immense pain and suffering? Response. Yes, but that is not an objection. Whereas pain might be a criticism of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God, it is not a criticism of the fundamental principle. In the ‘significant universe’ pleasure and pain are commingled in proportion and pain has some meaning and can be employed to positive purpose.

If all is possible why is the Earth the way it is? Response. See the earlier discussion of necessary fact. Further, it is necessary that some place be the way Earth is. We call this a NORMAL occurrence. What, in the normal, is not universally necessary but seems locally necessary is but HIGH PROBABILITY (ALMOST CERTAIN) in the local; this could be called NORMAL NECESSITY; NORMAL IMPOSSIBILITY may be defined similarly. For example, a natural law of our cosmos is a NORMAL LAW; our form is a NORMAL FORM. Similarly our experience of our world is a NORMAL WORLD.

The universal metaphysics and its implications contradict science, experience, and common sense. Response. We have just seen examples of how apparent contradiction of expectation is not a true contradiction. A full response, however, is to observe (a) that the metaphysics requires our world as a normal world and therefore is not merely consistent with but requires our science, experience, and common sense where valid, and (b) it provides a reinterpretation of the normal world placing it in a larger context.

There is and should be doubt about the proof of the fundamental principle. Response. This is addressed in the next section.

The concern with the ultimate denies the significance of the immediate. To ignore limits is to ignore the concerns of everyday life. It is grandiose and narcissistic. Response. It is true that in thinking of the ideas in this essay, I have been very much concerned with the ultimate. However (a) it is in part because the universal metaphysics provides a new vision of the ultimate, (b) a personal motivation was to find what the individual and society may achieve, (c) the concern here is very much with the immediate-in-itself as well as how appreciation of the immediate and the ultimate are both enhanced by the mutual concern, and (d) a practical concern is living well in this life as being on the way to ultimate realization, and (e) the very real difficulties of living well and so on are recognized as an essential part of becoming.

Proof—role and issues

Doubts about the proof of the universal metaphysics

The essence of the proof is the proof of the fundamental principle. It is principled to doubt the proof from the nature of the proof, the magnitude of the implications, and the apparent contradiction of experience. The latter concern is addressed above; it remains to address the first two. The magnitude of the implications are not an actual doubt but reasons that doubt should be taken seriously. What remains is the nature of the proof. What kind of doubt may be had regarding the proof?

Triviality of the proof in fact and in non originality

The proof seems trivial. Response. Well, it is not trivial for its recognition is absent in the literature or at least rare enough that I have not seen it in extensive reading.

In Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein comes tangentially close to the idea of the proof in equating metaphysics and logic. That would perhaps make the proof trivial and non-original. However, Wittgenstein neither claims nor demonstrates the fundamental principle, i.e. the universal metaphysics. What he says is that given the universe as a collection of atomic facts, all the facts—metaphysics—are just the compound facts and to determine the truth of any asserted fact is a matter of logic. The present metaphysics is not a metaphysics of atomic fact and is neutral to the issue of whether facts are ultimately atomic. It does give priority to logic as and in determining the boundary of what obtains—it says that logic is the only limit on conception for realization (this is not a limit on the universe).

The principle of plenitude, in one of its forms, is that anything that is possible it will occur. This is an ancient idea that has recurred in many forms; were it to be the fundamental principle and were it to have been proven it would show the fundamental principle proven and non-original. However, it is not the fundamental principle. It’s deficiencies relative to that principle are (a) it is stated without proof as perhaps reasonable, (b) perhaps because stated without proof it is not taken seriously or well understood for its usual applications have been trivial and taken from normal cosmology or to support traditional religion, and (c) where there arguments they are deficient. Immanuel Kant asserted that given an infinite amount of time, whatever is possible will occur. In the first place this is not true. A possible event may have zero probability. What Kant might have said is that given limitless realization all possibilities will occur. But the reason that we see the need for limitless realization is precisely because of the proof. Also, there is no hint that possibility itself needs to be explored. Here, the earlier exploration of the nature of possibility was occasioned by the proof, and in turn, this led to the present exploration of the possibilities. In summary, the principle of plenitude is an idea and not a rational metaphysics.

Returning to the question of triviality, it is only after the proof is given that it becomes manifestly trivial. Triviality however is not an argument.

The proof is not founded in fact

Another argument is that the proof is not founded in fact; and that every proof ultimately rests on assumption or axiom. Response. However, we have already seen that the Being of the universe, beings, Being itself and so on are given as necessary-facts-from-observation-by-abstraction. Therefore they are empirical and precise. This is a remarkable exception to the traditional notion that all philosophy—and science—must be either relative in being non-terminating or non-relative but founded in axiom-assumption. It is worth emphasizing that this reiterates a interpretation of logic (Logic) in its traditional sense enhanced by necessary fact (or reason in its traditional sense enhanced by fact). But note that while the necessary facts begin as facts-necessary-after-establishment, this restriction is no longer metaphysically necessary once the proof of the metaphysics is accepted.

The proof is a kind of ontological argument

Yet another argument is that the proof is that, like the ontological argument for the existence of God, it is a proof by appeal to pure logic and so, by analogy with the ontological proof, it must fail. However, this rather repeats the previous objection where we saw a necessary empirical foundation from which logic was able to build. Note, also, that this shows that while some ontological arguments may fail, others may succeed.

Still we have an obligation to support the proof. We may do this by providing alternate lines of proof and heuristic arguments to appeal to intuition.

Alternate proofs, heuristics, and other arguments

The purpose to heuristic arguments is to assuage doubt from intuition; heuristics are not presented as alternate proofs.

Existence of the void is equivalent to non-existence.

Any system of laws of nature apply only to the manifest.

Ockham’s razor applied to what does not exist.

The principle of plenitude—as discussed above.

Also see can we extract a proof of the fundamental principle from the argument concerning a satisfactory answer?

Proofs in this essay

From this point on, proofs are given only where not obvious.

The limited role of proof

While proof is critical we also need:

1. Significant meaning—occurs in sentience, sentient organism can exceed knowledge and creation of any ‘inert’ possibility, perhaps the highest significance as in the aim of the way is living-well-in-this-world-on-the-way-to-and-from-the-ultimate.

2. What is worthwhile—what is value and what particulars are of value.

3. Mechanism and likelihood—to make distinctions of feasibility and means in the region of limitless possibility.

4. Practice, action, and reason—as supplement to knowledge… on the way to the ultimate. Note that action is already a part of reason as seen earlier.

Attitude

The problem of doubt

What shall we do if we do not accept the proof of the fundamental principle?

We should of course continue to seek proof. In addition to symbolic proof, there is proof in action—as follows in discussing ‘existential attitude’.

Consistency of the metaphysics

It is important that the fundamental principle is consistent with all we know and—as we have seen—it must be. Therefore, to assume it would not be absurd in the way that so much of traditional mythology and religion is absurd when taken literally.

Existential attitude

We can adopt an EXISTENTIAL ATTITUDE—that the implications of the principle are so great in value and magnitude that there is value in adopting it as a stance and in devoting energies to it in parallel with other traditional pursuits, secular and mundane and more.

Existential and optimal stance

If we assign the infinite value to the limitless potential under the universal metaphysics, then an optimal approach to ‘this life’ is to devote sufficient energies to the immediate while reserving energy also for the infinite potential.

Abstract and concrete objects

Object is interpreted generally to include fact, thing, process, relation, quality or property, fiction.

If the universe is the universe of logic then all concepts, free and bound, are realized:

Obviously all concepts, free and bound, consistent and otherwise are in the universe.

The inconsistent do not define objects, except perhaps the null object.

All other concepts have objects

Relative to human Being, the concrete objects are roughly the perceived and the abstract are conceived for which a degree of concreteness, e.g. spatiotemporality—defined later, is not included in the abstract.

I.e. all objects, abstract and concrete, are in the one universe.

This constitutes a unification of the abstract and concrete; they are not essentially different. The difference is one of filtering rather one of nature. The distinction is conventional. The abstract can be causal unless causation is filtered out. The abstract and the concrete lie on a continuum.

The abstract lend themselves to conceptual or rational study and symbolic representation. The concrete to perceptual or empirical study and iconic representation. Language straddles the iconic-symbolic divide.

Logic, potential, reason, concepts, mind-and-matter-in-so-far-as-they-exist, are in the universe—are real.

FP resolves issues of the concrete and the abstract. FP: every Logical concept has an object. Consequences: no essential difference between ~~CONCRETE~~ and ~~ABSTRACT~~ objects or beings (abstraction omits concreteness, e.g. cause and space); Being is a being; realisms—Logical, MATHEMATICAL, and SCIENTIFIC—on par: from FP, mathematical systems are abstract sciences of forms which are real (and in Platonic worlds as parts of the one universe); all content—perhaps neither literal nor explicit, e.g. art—that has possible objects has real objects; DEATH, real but not absolute, is reminder that this life is no less significant than the ultimate and so to live well; the ultimate abstract is a RECEPTACLE of DISPOSITION to emerging-merging-reemerging identity of substantial beings; local science as locally valid but otherwise shed like snakeskin in transcending a cosmos; religions as allegorically real and socially significant but premature if taken literally; which suggests ~~THE WAY OF BEING~~, the aim of wholeness, of real religion, as discovery-realization of immediate-ultimate Being by limited beings using all Elements and Dimensions of identity and the world.

Reason in light of the metaphysics

Metaphysics is Logic interpreted as reason

As reason, Logic has the following extensions to logic-as-necessary-inference:

1. Inclusion of hypothetical or inductive inference that is less or other than necessary,

2. Inclusion of fact or premise and determination of fact,

3. Extension of necessary inference and definite fact to the pure metaphysics.

A final extension is to the perfect metaphysics of the world:

4. Extension of the foregoing to the perfect metaphysics which though a UNITARY METAPHYSICS, is dual—the pure and the pragmatic—with regard to ~~FUNCTION~~ and CRITERIA.

The full metaphysics and its rationale

Under the universal metaphysics, there is no essential distinction between the ~~CONCRETE~~ and the ~~ABSTRACT~~; they form a continuum—the ABSTRACT-CONCRETE CONTINUUM; and ‘all objects’ exist is the fundamental principle. The abstract and the concrete exist in the one universe; in the abstract the concrete is suppressed rather than essentially absent.

Here, ~~SCIENCE~~ is interpreted broadly to include the concrete and the abstract; and non-dogmatic RELIGION as addressing inner Being in light of both truth and rational imagination beyond the empirical.

Metaphysics, Logic, and Reason

In this and the next sections on logic, mathematics, science, and religion, each topic establishes the general case and then its enhancement or restriction under FP; this practice is continued in discussing cosmology and agency.

Logic, mathematics and science

The valid comparison of LOGIC, MATHEMATICS and ~~SCIENCE~~, is (a) discovery and creation of the systems which is not intrinsically necessary and (b) inference under those systems which is frequently necessary inference. Specifically, the comparison of deduction under logic with inference to scientific theories from data etc. is not a proper comparison.

Logic

We have seen various interpretations of logic beginning with necessary inference that occurs because the conclusion is implicit in the premise.

Mathematics

In its beginnings mathematics is empirical and interwoven with what passes for early science.

However, we learn over history that some patterns are general and can be seen to have a formal character. They can be expressed in abstract or symbolic terms as axiomatic systems. If the universe is the greatest possible, then any mathematical system that is logically consistent has objects in the universe which may be seen as abstract.

Today, mathematics does not use the empirical approach even though it has objects—for locating those objects would be difficult; and what is more the symbolic approach gives mathematics a necessity that it would not have if empirical. This necessity is not at all obvious over history—i.e., its necessity is after the fact; and there is an entire study of that necessity. It begins with the idea of definite proof but we know from experience that that is not enough and so we have the metamathematical disciplines of proof theory and model theory.

Science

Comment. The following is repetitive.

But beings have constitutions and perhaps other facts—or states of affairs.

More precisely: a ~~FACT~~ is correct PERCEPTION of a STATE OF BEING or ~~OBJECT~~.

We say facts can be correct because claimed facts can be incorrect (usually, fact will mean ‘correct fact’). How is a fact validated? Observation, measurement, corroboration, and argument (below) are among the means.

There are also COMPOUND FACTS, e.g. the natural laws. The laws of nature are usually regarded as tentatively universal; but they may also be seen as local facts; which view is less problematic. But then: the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is available for validation: the law is hypothesized and as local may be validated (e.g. a very limited epoch); which does not rule out law as UNIVERSAL ~~HYPOTHESIS~~. Unlike the necessity of logic, science as universal hypothesis is not necessary and goes under the names of scientific method or ~~INFERENCE~~, ~~INDUCTION~~, or ~~ABDUCTION~~.

Metaphysical logic

Metaphysical language, logic, mathematics, and science will be the study of the variety implied by the fundamental principle and harbored in the universal metaphysics.

While we have already begun this, the concern here is the difficult, the detailed, and the esoteric but not to the exclusion of the exoteric.

Tradition as understood in this essay is important. It may be enhanced in interaction with the present developments.

Regarding religion

Our naïve idea of religion is informed by naïve religion.

What shall we do regarding the limitlessness beyond the empirical? A common pragmatic and secular default is that there is no such realm.

However, we have seen that there is and it is very worthwhile contemplating, attempting to map, and travel. We are giving tools.

Among our tools are what might be called philosophical religion, symbolic religion, reason, and the pure metaphysics.

Intuition and imagination are essential but are part of logic in its extended sense of reason.

Potency of the idea of Being

The POTENCY of the idea of Being so far includes avoiding paradigmatic prejudice. As the pure and the ~~PRAGMATIC~~, each on its criteria, are perfect, the FOUNDATION is perfect (this reflects an idea—perfection does not pertain to the world as whole). Contrary to a long tradition of post-enlightenment criticism, there is potent metaphysics as knowledge of Being. Its source: perfect CATEGORIES—beings, universe, Being, void, possibility, and pragmatism. This contrasts with the imperfect if useful categories of Kant and Schopenhauer.