© ANIL MITRA 1985—2014             Website since 1999

Map    |    Essentials    |    Details

The aim of the realizations, so far as it is good, is to know and realize all being. See an introduction below.
The origin of the site is in my life, experience, and thought.
The motive is engagement with civilization and the world, and sharing with humankind.
Read an overview in a separate essentials page.

Sources. The essential process is direct learning in thought, experience and action and indirect learning from the words and dramatizations of others. Some sources are listed in an in process document of details.

Navigation. Here is link to a map of the site.

 

INTRODUCTION TO THE REALIZATIONS

Preliminary comments

Plan

Brief introduction

Aim

Principles

Realization

Extended introduction

Ideas

Realization

Remarks on psyche and psychology

Preliminary comments

The introduction is an orientation to the aim and content of the site. Refer to the linked pages above for a complete development (arguments, objections and responses, interpretation, consequences, implications for action and so on).

The introduction is presented in two stages, first a very brief one and then a longer one with remarks and elaboration.

The short introduction presents the aim and a general description of the approach or means. The longer version contains some demonstrations, elaborations, and material of academic interest.

Plan

This section is temporary and will not appear in the html version.

Here are changes to make:

1.     

Simple; first appeal general; links of general, transformational, and academic interest

2.     

About. Roadmap. New. Site-map.

3.     

Blog?

Brief introduction

Aim

The AIM of the realizations, so far as it is GOOD, is to know and realize all being, immediate and ultimate.

A practical rendering of the aim: to be on the way to knowing and realizing what is good in all immediate and ultimate being.

An apparent deficiency in the aim is that it says nothing about possibility or feasibility. However, something that is impossible or really infeasible may seem good but cannot be so. That said, remember that an assessment of possibility is relative to what we know and so knowledge of the universe is an essential component of the aim.

Principles

The first principle that that the universe is the realization of the possible—i.e., only constraints on the realizations of the universe are fact and ‘reason’.

An outline of proof is as follows. Since natural law pertains to existing things it does not pertain to the void (nothing). There are therefore no laws of the void. Consequently the void is equivalent to every possible state for the contrary would be a law. All states emerge from the void. Since the void is equivalent to every state (e.g. a physical object or a person) every such state is equivalent to every other.

Consequences of the first principle include (1) The universe is limitlessly greater than it is seen to be in our common modern secular and trans-secular conceptions of it; (2) The manifestation of form and identity of being in the universe are without limit to their extension, duration, power, and variety. (3) Individuals inherit this limitlessness (the contrary would be a limit to the power of the universe; that two individuals cannot both be simultaneously limitless is resolved in that in becoming limitless they become identical to one another and to the universe)).

Further proof, meaning, and consequences of the first and the following principles are given in the essentials.

The second principle is a consequence for individuals while their form is limited: while the form of the individual is limited realization is endless process (even when limits are lifted it turns out that the greatest peaks of realization cannot be eternal but that every peak is followed by dissolution and then greater—and lesser—peaks).

The cosmology and identity of the universe are without limit (from the identity of the void to every possible state). The form and identity of the universe recurs endlessly in manifest and non-manifest states (‘something from nothing’). The variety and recurrence of cosmological systems and variety of physical laws is without limit. These are in eternal give and take with the void-transient background. We normally experience limits; yet limitlessness is latent in this ‘normal’ experience.

The third set of principles concerns means of effective realization. The first principle concerning limitlessness of the universe is developed in the essentials into a universal metaphysics for which the following emerge as true:

1.      

This metaphysics shows what can be achieved but not means of achievement.

2.      

This system—the metaphysics—can be merged with what is valid in the ancient and modern traditions of human culture and this merged system shows how to approach the process of realization.

3.      

While large steps of transformation are not impossible, it is very probable that transformations via incremental steps are most commonly effective. A mechanics and system of elements of transformation are developed in the essentials. The elements are suggested by the traditions as enhanced by the metaphysics; however, the mechanics is significantly dependent on the metaphysics and reasoning with it. The mechanics must be both conceptual and experimental—it involves ‘analysis and synthesis of being’.

4.      

The ideas (the metaphysics) are critical to realization but in them selves are not sufficient. In addition to the ideas, transformation must be inner (as recognized in a variety of traditions), and of the entire being beyond (human) form (for which the possibility, necessity, and mechanics are revealed by the metaphysics).

5.      

Realization is more than inhabiting the ultimate; it is a merging of immediate and ultimate ‘worlds’.

Realization

The essential way of realization is and cannot be beyond our limited form. We do not realize the ultimate in our limited form; realization then must be by exceptional process in ‘this life’ or in ‘normal process’ beyond.

Realization of the ultimate is given. Since the void is equivalent to the universe a permanent ultimate would be a contradiction of the absence of laws of the void. Therefore realization is ever in process; peaks are followed by dissolutions which are followed by still greater (and lesser) peaks. Paths of realization therefore do and must mediate the immediate and the ultimate.

The way of realization is analysis and synthesis of being.

Knowledge and internalization of the nature of the universe is on the way but is not ultimate realization.

Extended introduction

In the following D indicates a significant term or definition, SMALL CAPITALS identify the term, C marks a conclusion, and R a remark.

Ideas

D 1.         

The AIM of the realizations, so far as it is GOOD, is to know and realize all being, immediate and ultimate.

R 1.         

The idea of the good includes the idea of POSSIBILITY for if an objective is impossible to achieve, there is no meaning to calling it ‘good’.

R 2.         

The general MOTIVE to the realizations is implicit in the aim. It is that, as long as we are individuated, the aim is SHARED realization. My ‘personal’ motives are tied in to my early experience of beauty and wonder in the world—in nature, people, and ideas. The power of the experience led to a commitment to cultivate it. Ideas are essential to understanding and, for me, they led to the conclusion that they are insufficient in themselves: realization is a fact and is essential in two stages: embodiment of the ideals and, as long as we remain in limited form, endless realization. It is implicit that the vehicles of endless realization are INDIVIDUAL and CIVILIZATION; and it is clear that the means are EXPERIENCE and IDEAS, and ACTION toward overcoming limits.

D 2.         

BEING is (the quality of) whatever EXISTS.

R 3.         

This is the core of many conceptions of being. However, many of these have further connotations. Being is sometimes used to talk of the essence of a person or the divine. Here, ‘being’ has no such connotation. It does not refer to essence. It does not refer to the divine; use of the term ‘being’ implies neither existence nor non-existence of the divine. However, if there is divinity then it has being.

Adhering to the stated meanings is essential to the consistency and integrity of the development—and to understanding it. That one system of meaning is presented here does not entail that other systems do not have merit or that the present meanings are present meanings are privileged. Rather, the merit of any system, especially the present one, is to be found in its conceptual consistency, its agreement and comprehensiveness regarding experience, and its potency in enhancing our relations with one another and the world. Thus comparison of ‘competing’ systems will be a non-trivial task. It is therefore important to note, as will be seen, that the present system is shown comprehensive with over to the entire universe in framework and therefore while alternatives may equal it in this regard they cannot exceed it (and a number of logically equivalent alternatives may easily be given).

There is some similarity between the use of ‘good’ being here and the use of ‘unknown variables’ in mathematics. The symbol for the variable may have different meanings in different contexts but must have the same meaning in a given context.

R 4.         

Existence is a fundamental concept. It sufficiently fundamental that it is difficult to be given verbal definition except in terms of synonyms. However, it is perhaps sufficiently basic that it does not need verbal definition but, rather, by pointing out a family of similar terms. Thus ‘existence refers to whatever is there’. We may have difficulty identifying what exists but this does mean that existence is a difficult concept.

Yet, existence has been regarded as a problematic concept. Since ‘everything exists’ existence is trivial and some thinkers argue that it is no significance or even that it is not a concept at all. However, we will see below that being and so existence are powerful concepts—existence is simple but far from trivial; its power derives from its transparency. Additionally, there are paradoxes or problems—e.g. if something, e.g. a unicorn, does not exist then what is it that does not exist? This is the problem of ‘negative existentials’. Perhaps the best resolution, as for much conceptual analysis, is to be clear about the nature of ‘concept meaning’. This analysis and the clarifications that it affords are discussed in the essentials.

C 1.         

There is being.

Proof.                     

If nothing existed there would be neither things nor the appearance or illusion of things. That is, clearly something exists.

R 5.         

A similar proof that there is matter is not possible for appearances and illusions are not clearly material. While the existence of matter seems reasonable (if not obvious) it is not clear that there is anything that corresponds precisely to our physical definitions of matter and while imprecision is tolerable for ‘practical’ purposes, as ultimate conceptions no imprecision is tolerable (over an infinite time, any imprecision may lead to gross discrepancies of quantity and concept). The comprehensive conception of being makes its existence trivial and this certainty is essential to development of any well founded universal system of understanding. This begins to show the power of the idea of being.

Perhaps, however, being so defined is a trivial concept. This is not so for we will see below that it is central to a powerful and well founded system. The notions of triviality and power or depth are not exclusive. One way of understanding is to consider meaning: meaning is comprised of sign, concept, and object. That the concept is trivial does not imply that its application—its range of objects—is shallow (depth) or narrow (breadth).

R 6.         

The proof above shows that its conclusion follows from awareness or EXPERIENCE but allows that experience may be all that there is. The nature of experience, that there is experience and that there is a real world that includes experience, are not difficult to show but so as to keep this discussion brief they are deferred to the essentials. These issues of experience (of mind and matter) are generally regarded as difficult problems of modern philosophy but it is seen in the extended discussion that the difficulty is not refractory to careful analysis guided by a clear understanding of being.

R 7.         

Since experience is so central to ‘our being’ one wonders why its existence has been doubted in modern and recent western thought. Perhaps the main reason is that it does not appear to be material in nature and modern thought tends to materialism. However, this assumes that ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ are exclusive concepts and once we state this otherwise tacit premise it is clear that there is no basis for taking it to be true. Many materialists who would accept their own experience tend to explain it away, saying it is nothing but something else (e.g. matter in interaction). Even if this is true that does not mean it does not exist. There are many concepts, especially ones that are local or are seen as such, that are explained in more universal terms; it is often then concluded that those concepts do not truly define some real thing. Such thinking is clouded but the DOUBT behind it is not. Those who ‘reify’ doubt are as much naïve anti-realists as those who reify positive concepts without reflection are naïve realists.

What then is the function of doubt? In general reflecting on doubt leads to clarity and what certainty or confidence may realistically obtain. In this discussion I will not focus on doubt but refer readers to the linked documents at the top of this page, especially the essentials.

D 3.         

The UNIVERSE is all being.

R 8.         

On a materialist or other substance account the conception of ‘universe’ is vague.

On an empirical account the extent of the ‘universe’ is indefinite. The present account is empirical and conceptual. This suggests that neither empiricism nor rationalism (ideas and reason alone) are adequate but that for universal understanding percepts and concepts are interactively essential. This is seen in the more extended accounts where ‘percept’ and ‘concept’ are grouped together in a more general notion of ‘concept’ which renders percepts as bound concepts and the lesser meaning of concept as free concept.

C 2.         

There is exactly one universe (proof is trivial).

D 4.         

A LAW is a reading of a pattern.

R 9.         

The patterns are typically though not necessarily abstract.

D 5.         

The LAW is the pattern that is read.

C 3.         

All Laws have being.

Proof.                     

A Law satisfies the conception (definition) of being.

C 4.         

All Laws are in the universe.

Proof.                     

Every Law has being and the universe is all being.

R 10.     

The power of the concept of being continues to emerge. On a materialistic account the true (‘ontological’) nature of Laws is not clear; the question ‘where are the Laws?’ would not even have clear meaning.

The power of the system of ideas that is emerging lies not only in being but in the careful selection of the other ideas or concepts as well. This pattern continues below. Still, being is crucial in being part of what suggests the other concepts and helps enable clarity and definiteness of those concepts.

D 6.         

‘Part’ is often used to mean something that is less than the whole. It is indifferent to many situations including the present development whole is not or is a part (but once a choice has been made it should not be confused with the alternate). For definiteness we choose the notion of PART such that the part is the whole or less than the whole.

D 7.         

A DOMAIN is a part of the universe.

R 11.     

The universe is a domain.

D 8.         

The VOID is the null domain.

R 12.     

Thus the void does not contain any being.

It is important to note that this does not imply that the void does not exist—i.e., that it does not contain being does not imply that it does not have being.

This point is not clear in my earlier definition (in other documents) of the void as the ‘absence of being’.

C 5.         

The void exists and contains no Laws.

Proof.                     

Proof of existence. The void is there as adjunct to every part of the universe.

Proof that the void contains no Laws. Every Law has being but the void contains no being.

R 13.     

The existence of the void is subject to DOUBT. This doubt is of a different kind than earlier douibts about existence and experience; the earlier doubts, though real enough, are seen in the end to have a clarificatory role. The present doubt is substantial. The magnitude of the consequences that follow do not add to or subtract from this doubt but heighten its significance.

Other proofs and heuristic arguments may be given. However, while these increase confidence, doubt remains. It is important that there is no doubt about the existence of the void and its consequences result in no inconsistency with science or reason (logic). Details may be found in the essentials.

This is similar to the situation regarding many principles in science and mathematics where we have reasonable but not absolute confidence. We regard the principles as basis for thought or action and our decision to do so is based on our reasonable confidence and the value of the potential reward. This is the situation for almost any endeavor of significance. Doubt is important because it forces us to take our knowledge to the limit of confidence but to stop there would be neurotic; the greatness of any time is built on risks of the past.

C 6.         

From the void every possible state of being emerges.

Proof.                     

The contrary would be a law of the void.

R 14.     

The assertion regarding emergence of all states from the void is called the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF METAPHYSICS (simply, the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE). Its equivalent forms (below) are also called by the same name.

C 7.         

Every possible state of being is equivalent (emerges from and goes to) every other. There must be both states of manifest and non manifest (void) being: this is a trivial proof that there must be limitlessly recurring states of manifest being—i.e. of something rather than nothing.

Proof.                     

The foregoing follows from clear givens without a priori elements of reason.

R 15.     

From these considerations, proofs of the following, i.e. through discussion of the ‘practical metaphysics’, are trivial.

R 16.     

The meaning of ‘possibility’ will be clarified below.

C 8.         

The universe is limitless with regard to variety, extension, and duration of being (i.e. the cosmology of the universe is limitless in the same sense; our cosmos is infinitesimal and its limitless recurrence is infinitesimal).

R 17.     

From the comments on limitlessly recurring states of manifestation there is no absolute origin (or end) of the universe. There are however ‘relative’ origins that stem from local or globally non-manifest states.

R 18.     

Similarly there is no absolute (universal) mechanism of origins of manifest states. There are origins—of course—but these may occur in a single step (an occurrence that would seem to be of low probability but one that must occur).

Reflection on evolutionary thought and mechanisms suggests the following. Given a void state some elementary form emerges and is built upon by random variation and relative survival of those forms that are more or less stable and symmetric. This process continues until the universe or local world arrives at a highly structured state, e.g. our cosmos. Now this is no violation of logic and so the fundamental principle implies its occurrence just as the principle also implies one step origins. A picture of the universe, then, is a void or non manifest state in give and take ‘equilibrium’ with structure (which however has no universal mechanism of origin). Now, however, it is reasonable to expect that the incremental origins are far more frequent in resulting in structure. To prove this we would have to use some form of counting possibilities and no such definite form seems to be available.

But we can assert the following. If an intelligent from and civilization of such forms wished to use this mechanism to become involved with the evolution of the universe / local world and so with ‘self-evolution’ it improve its engagement and enjoyment of the process by entering intelligently into involvement with the incremental process (our sciences are examples). It seems that the ‘highest evolution’ of the universe may not be blind after; but nor is it given, as in some world views, as pure consciousness (etc.), but ‘becomes’ intelligent; and the process then effectively guarantees that the significant evolution and highest being of the universe is one of conscious intelligence (see the essentials for an explanation of why it is necessarily conscious); which state, by the fundamental principle, is equivalent to the entire universe.

R 19.     

Since every possible state occurs there is no avoiding the ‘negative’, e.g. pain. However, pain acquires meaning since its existence is dual to the existence of exquisite experience. In this way the term ‘negative’ is not absolutely meaningful description of pain.

D 9.         

IDENTITY of object or person is a sense of continuity through time.

R 20.     

Earlier I referred readers to the essentials for a discussion of ‘experience’—i.e., of consciousness. Introduction of identity is introduction of experience. Do we need any other introduction to identity, e.g. via experience? The fundamental principle implies the being and continuities of identity and thus there is no logical necessity to any further introduction. However, the discussion in the essentials gives flesh and significance to the nature of experience and identity.

C 9.         

The universe has identity and manifestation in acute, diffuse, and absent phases. Individual identity has these powers of universal identity (that two individuals have the same power is not a contradiction for in assuming such power simultaneously the individuals merge). That is, the cosmology is not merely one of limitless ‘physical’ form but extends also to experiential forms. The experiential and the physical are not distinct but interwoven. They occupy the same existential habitat.

R 21.     

While in limited form realization of the ultimate just revealed is eternal process that may be named a JOURNEY IN BEING.

C 10.     

The only constraints on our concepts regarding what obtains are those of mutual concepts (i.e. logic) and concept and percept (i.e. fact).

D 10.     

This redefines logic (which we should therefore rename, e.g. using capitalization, as LOGIC) and clarifies FACT.

R 22.     

The constraints of Logic and Fact are not limits on the universe. What kinds of constraint are they? They are constraints for realism on our freedom of concept formation.

D 11.     

These constraints merge in what will be called REALISM.

R 23.     

That content of the universe is specified by realism is another form of the fundamental principle.

R 24.     

There is no distinction between ‘possible’ and ‘actually obtaining’. Why is this? First, it is necessary to observe that here the nature of possibility is (very close to) that of logical possibility. But how is the idea of possibility used and understood? In a limited context the possible is that which either does obtain or does not but could (e.g. does not obtain in this laboratory or earth or at this time but could obtain on another laboratory or on Jupiter or at another time and so on). Relative to the universe, however, there is no other place or time. Something that does not occur in the entire history of the entire universe is not possible because there is no other universe. This is of course a pragmatic conception but the fundamental principle implies that there is no distinction between this and an ideal conception of possibility.

R 25.     

Recognize that from the fundamental principle our natural science for our cosmos is one of an unlimited variety of forms. Thus the hope of universalizing our natural science is impossible (at least while we are in limited form). An alternate view of the great theories of natural science is that they are factual on some limited domain. There is a traditional distinction between science and logic: science is inductive, logic deductive. But observe that the assertion is based on a comparison of induction of scientific theory and deduction under logical theory. Proper comparisons of logic and science would be that inference under both is deductive, while inference of both follows an inductive pattern. Thus science and logic join in realism.

R 26.     

This Realism is the core of a metaphysics named the UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS or, simply, THE METAPHYSICS. See the essentials for further detail which includes a synthesis of the metaphysics and what is valid in the remainder of knowledge. This synthesis is named PRACTICAL METAPHYSICS.

The practical metaphysics is a synthesis in the following ways. The universal metaphysics shows the ultimate contours of the universe: of what may and will be realized by any being and what will be known to be realized by beings with adequate imagination. Traditional knowledge and technology provide practical means. Any given system of detailed knowledge has limits relative to perfection and completeness but for limited form no such knowledge can approach this kind of perfection and therefore relative to the function of realization such knowledge is perfect in each incremental stage along the way.

Additionally our traditional knowledge is found via the metaphysics to have perfection in the traditional sense of faithfulness for generalities for a range of contexts. We have already seen something of the nature of our limits: they are real but not absolute. This implies that we must have SOUL that transcends both individual and cosmological death.

I give one further example—there are many others in the essentials: spacetime is immanent in being, i.e. it is not and cannot be an absolute scaffold but is and must be an immanent framework; however, in local contexts spacetime may be as-if absolute.

Realization

Introduction.

I had thought to have separate sections on ‘being’ and ‘becoming’; the former would focus on what is accessible to (our) form while limited and the latter would lift the restriction of limited form. However, the two merge sufficiently that the separation would be cumbersome.

The following is a brief abstract of chapters Realization through Path of the essentials.

R 27.     

The WAY is engagement of the whole being (‘mind-heart-body’ and community) in knowledge and realization of higher form in this world and in ultimate process.

R 28.     

Here there is a manner in which we are each on our own; in which we enjoy and reflect; take risks—perform experiments in being; learn and consolidate or reject increments and other measures of process. We develop our own ways and catalysts of change.

CATALYSTS shake our sense of the real at all levels of ‘mind-heart-body’—they open us to the voice of our unconscious, to casting off limits of traditional thought and views of the world, and to perception. The action of a strong or deep enough catalyst may bring the individual temporarily close or even to death. An example: the vision quest with its days of fast, isolation, and exposure to the elements and other danger is highly catalytic.

The WAYS are ways of life that are conducive to and embody the ultimate and its realization.

R 29.     

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

At a more inclusive level the process involves civilization. OUR CIVILIZATION is the web of communities and societies over time and continents (as human, I emphasize the human but do not intend to exclude the animal). UNIVERSAL CIVILIZATION is the matrix of civilizations across the universe. Civilization nurtures the individual, individuals foster civilization. The metaphysics requires and suggests that Civilization forges its way to becoming an individual.

R 30.     

The WAYS are grounded in a MECHANICS OF TRANSFORMATION and being which employ the RISK of EXPERIMENT, REFLECTION on outcomes, and re-experiment in the INCREMENTAL and SINGULAR process of realization (at root the process is not a priori and therefore A-RATIONAL—neither rational nor irrational—which is empowering because there is no dependence on some more fundamental principle). The ways included ESTABLISHED WAYS which in turn include DISCIPLINES and CATALYSTS. Simultaneous to—as part of—process, the mechanics initiates, establishes and enhances the disciplines, ways, and catalysts: the mechanics is simultaneously a discipline of action-practice and a DISCIPLINE OF DISCIPLINES.

R 31.     

Is there a final mechanics that can be simply described?

To reflect on this first let us reflect on the origin of knowledge. Some thinkers have argued that essential knowledge can be acquired by analysis of meaning. Reflection shows that analysis of meaning reveals knowledge that is already acquired but that may be implicit or unclear at the explicit conscious or symbolic level. Analysis does not result in new knowledge. Now reflect on the metaphysical system above. It involved analysis but not only analysis of meaning; also essential to its ‘discovery’ was synthesis of meaning (of individual terms and of relations among terms). Thus analysis and synthesis of meaning is a source of new knowledge. Are there other sources? Science can be seen as analysis and synthesis of meaning as can philosophy. But what of the capacity for meaning that is acquired in evolution? Variation and selection can be seen as synthesis-analysis of form and meaning is a form of form.

In the essentials it is argued that the essential ‘method’ of the universe, even in one step transformation, is ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF BEING.

R 32.     

The established ways are (a) INTRINSIC (of the individual—of mind-heart-body, e.g. yoga, often mediated by a teacher or ‘guru’ via ideas and ‘RITUAL’ aimed at reaching depth of the individual, often enhanced in a spiritual community or band) which are not distinct from (b) the INSTRUMENTAL (e.g., modern science and technology). The distinction of the intrinsic and the instrumental is roughly that of PSYCHE (‘mind-heart’) versus the PHYSICAL (body-environment) but there is obvious overlap and meshing of psyche and the physical and so of the intrinsic and the instrumental. The mechanics of transformation is: action and risk based in reflexive rationality of values and means, aims (i) at two levels—the entire being but also at the ways and disciplines and (ii) and incremental consolidation in being and knowledge—especially of PSYCHE-IDENTITY-NATURE (‘science’) in light of the metaphysics and the traditions (not to be limited to current western academic foci and method—generally but especially for PSYCHOLOGY; shall include focus on use and usefulness in transformation and realization).

The ELEMENTS of transformation include: VEHICLES (individual and civilization), MEANS (ideas and action), MODES (intrinsic and external to identity—e.g., the focus of YOGA and the focus of most western science), DISCIPLINES (accumulated-formal and oral-mythic—and their mechanics; also classed as conceptual and active which includes technology and ritual), and PLACES (intrinsic: psyche, and external: nature and civilization—i.e., society). These suggest phases of transformation described below.

R 33.     

The suggested PHASES of TRANSFORMATION are: transformation via IDEAS, transformation of IDENTITY and BEING—i.e.,  INDIVIDUAL-CIVILIZATION, and transformation via ARTIFACT-TECHNOLOGY

R 34.     

One PATHWAY is interaction among BEING (SUSTAINING) and BECOMING (discovery and transformation) mediated by PURE BEING. Sustaining (be-ing) emphasizes shared spiritual practice and life of ways and catalysts. Becoming emphasizes transformations in ideas—and ideas toward transformation, individual identity, shared identity in civilization, and artifact. Because process is eternal, relative to it we are always at the beginning. However, there is a parallel state of being and attitude: pure being is an ideal state informed by transience and the real, always being-in-two-worlds as one.

The universe is eternal; we are ultimately the universe; there is no distinction between ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ and ‘in process’; the thought that I am at the beginning enhances process but may also detract from realization. Thus while I have emphasized beginnings I should also emphasize realizations.

R 35.     

See the essentials for a template for phases and (currently) eight phases of a possible path which should be edited in the source document (essentials) for better and more comprehensive and more economic design in accordance with general principles (review the above and the essentials).

Remarks on psyche and psychology

Introduction.

I am more concerned here with the goal than with the form of psychology. That there are many forms of psychology—Eastern and Western and, within the west, the variety which includes structural, functional, psychoanalytic, behavioral, humanistic, modern academic and cognitive, and eclectic—suggests that we are far from a mature ‘science of mind’.

If the universe is ultimate and its realization while we are limited is eternal process then surely one goal of psychology is ‘living in the many worlds as one’.

R 36.     

The goal of a PSYCHOLOGY for realization that of living in many worlds as one.

R 37.     

The many worlds refers to our different conceptions, representations, and perceptions of the real including what is real in our illusions and omissions. Particularly this refers to fusion of the immediate and the ultimate.