A NEW OUTLINE FOR JOURNEY IN BEING:
THIS LIFE IS ENOUGHT

THIS DOCUMENT IS IN PROCESS: THE CONTENT IS IN ROUGH FORM...
AND IS SUPPLEMENTED BY TEMPORARY NOTATIONS AND PLANS THAT WILL NOT APPEAR IN THE FINAL DOCUMENT

ANIL MITRA, NOVEMBER 2013—December 2013

Home

CONTENTS

GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION 7

Changes from the previous edition 10

Specific topics 10

The fit of logical realism 10

Leveraging the neutrality of being 11

Deciding the kinds of section 11

OUTLINE WITH COMMENTS 15

Preface 15

Functions of the preface 15

Prerequisite to reading the narrative 16

Overview 16

The narrative center 16

Significance of the metaphysics 17

Process of discovery 17

A journey in being 18

The role of being 19

The pictures of nature 20

Significance 20

Arrangement 21

Three narrative foci 22

First focus—destiny and civilization 22

Second focus—a new universal metaphysics 22

Third focus—journey of realization 22

The main divisions 23

Reading the narrative 24

Introduction 26

Origin and significance 26

Inspiration 26

Outline 26

Prologue 27

Significance of a worldview or cosmology 27

The standard cosmologies and their limits 27

Two kinds of world view 27

Secular views 27

Trans-secular views 29

Bridging the divide 29

Metaphysics as bridge 30

Criticisms of metaphysics so far and their refutation 30

Metaphysics and experience 31

Possibility and givenness of metaphysics 31

Foundation 32

Being 33

Definition and fact of being 33

Being and the verb to be 33

Existence 34

Power of the idea of being 34

Power of the idea of being—some details 35

Possibility. Actual, possible, and impossible being 35

Anticipation of the outcome regarding possibility 38

Preliminary on space and time 38

On other analyses of Being 39

Comments on substance 40

Experiential being 41

Experience 44

Definition and existence of experience 44

Objections 45

Another meaning of ‘experience’ 47

The nature of experience 47

The real world 48

The real world—Wittgenstein’s arguments 49

On doubt 49

Depth of the concept of experience is far from plumbed so far 50

On clarification of experience 51

Experience on its own terms 51

Being and experience 52

First comments on mind 54

Meaning 56

Sense and reference 57

Concept and object 57

Meaning, signs, language, and grammar 58

Foundation of meaning 59

Metaphysics 59

Universe 61

Laws 61

The Void 61

The Universal Metaphysics 62

Doubt 63

Meaning of the metaphysics 63

Realism and Logic 64

Knowledge and freedom 64

Science and the sciences 68

Individual and identity 68

Being, space, and time 71

Descriptive cosmology 71

Physical cosmology 71

Life 72

Mind 72

Creation 72

A Perfect, Unique, and Ultimate Metaphysics 72

Metaphysics and action 72

Critical evaluation 73

Journey 73

Nature of the journey 73

Engagement 73

Civilization and realization 74

A way of realization 74

The world 74

The essence of being in the world 75

Some practical dimensions 75

Challenges and opportunities 75

Politics and economics 75

Universe: a system of experiments 76

Transience and arrival 76

GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Plans

Immediate

Write the outline

Hierarchy of detail beginning with terse axiomatic formulation (distinguish axioms, postulates in plain language, and hypotheses)

Secondary documents?

Intermediate

See Goals and Content and book.

Some planning is distributed in the text in the form of comments in red font

Long term

Write over an extended period.

Find an editor and or co-writer

Write in interaction with experiment

Over time; thus far whenever I write a fundamental essay I have felt this compulsion to write—comprehensively, fundamentally, perfectly, and inexorably till complete. Now the approach must be new: I will write as the occasion arises; add and chisel; force and flow; naturally; anywhere; with others—a coauthor, an editor, a publisher, informal and formal audiences…

Chisel at improving; criteria: essentiality, consistency, significance, validity, meaning, and presentation (except essentiality, these points are already in Doubt

Enter this point to Priorities (../information and sequence.html)

Goals

The text

Combine with Content and book

1. Significance and validity of the system(s)—develop, show, present

Significance: (1) Ideas—concepts (‘academic’) and (2) Being esp. human—proximate (practical, human) and ultimate (realization)

Validity: (1) Ideas (pure)—elementary metaphysics: up to existence of the void; existence of the Void—consistency, strength of proof, doubt and existential attitude (2) The metaphysics (FP, formulations) as a knowledge and action principle. Relations between the (pure) ultimate and normal realms—in knowledge and action—the normal within the pure and in interaction with the pure: examples and generalizations.

Presentation: see Arrangement of the divisions

2. Reach-influence a wide audience range represented by the emphases above

This document

Organize and minimize all topics and comments

Content and book

The material

Think through the logics of validity, significance, and arrangement. Axiomatic or semi-axiomatic?

Aim—facilitate reading ® comprehension ® use, linear and multi-thread (web) versions

Distribution—think through the rationale—to enhance aims: local-chapter-part

Changes from the previous edition

New structure: the divisions are Preface, Introduction, Prologue, Foundation, Metaphysics, Journey (or A Journey in Being), Epilogue, Index, and Author. Of these, Epilogue and Author are optional. The purposes here are distinct and so it is important that the preface and the introduction are separate.

Interchange sections on experience and being as—add essence of following as comment—the new arrangement is more effective but no less fundamental; being and experience are intertwined, equally fundamental

Eliminates the section on existence from the main development—the idea is important (a) in itself as a fundamental given but its meaning is already covered by analysis of ‘is’ and of ‘being’ and (b) to clear up issues regarding existence—the charge of triviality, the paradox of the non-existent object (note though that if we accept this paradox then there is also a paradox of the existent object).

Omit “A ‘universe’ of narrative would have no definite beginning”

Specific topics

Reflect, collect

The fit of logical realism

How does realism fit? I suspect in patches. How do these mesh? a) fit the patches together b) realize…

There is a need for proof over and above interpretation and this is one example

Leveraging the neutrality of being

Being: it is important to leverage this neutrality and not simply pay lip service (have I already written this in the preface). This is the plan and though remarkably successful there is probably much room for more.

Deciding the kinds of section

This is done in Arrangement of the divisions

Secondary pages will be placed in a separate folder

On limitlessness

The ways this can be confused (rethink this list)

When context is tacit, non-contradictory statements may seem contradictory
Logic (Realism) applies to relations between concepts and objects but not to objects per se
That at any moment the universe is in some state implies that it is not in others; this appears to be a limit; explain why it is not (that the universe is not universally extensive with regard to space and time is not the reason that it is not a limit); and not that, with regard to limited portions of the universe, the original statement ‘That at any moment…’ is at most partially true when predicated of the parts

A new approach

Develop the metaphysics (worldview) and topics from normal (naïve) experience then improve treatment of topics from and mesh with the metaphysics

Benefit—may be obtained by doing select topics this way—streamlines development; shows how the universal metaphysics makes improvement; it helps identify and develop the proper normal approach.

Note—the benefit may be obtained by doing just a few topics this way

Plan. Do this for some select topics (so far: metaphysics, experience-mind, space-time); search for, reflect on others—e.g., origins, (abstract) objects

The book

Pictures—comments at specific pictures on connection with specific inspiration

Tables of contents—one or more. If more then multiple according to emphasis andor level of detail.

Covers—appeal, inform, and sell—review this, other texts: academic and general

Preliminary pages—careful design for appearance and content. Review this, other texts: academic and general

Words

Coin words—for meaning and power

Collect a set of basic words—so that capitalization is not needed, confusion with common technical and everyday use avoided. Enhance this by coinage

An initial set:

Being, Metaphysics, Existence, Experience, Meaning, Laws, Universe, Possibility, Creation; Void, Limit, Logic, Science and Realism; Object, Identity

Space and time words…

Replace academic / intellectual disciplines by conceptual disciplines. Then, the disciplines are: conceptual, practical, and human

Being. When used in the sense of that which marks existence—being. ( colloquial use, e.g. ‘this being the case’ need not be remarked. For particular beings—entity (or process, interaction, quality…) regardless whether concrete or abstract.

Existence. This word will be unremarkable except (1) The given that there is existence (2) differentiated from Being as follows: Being will be neutral to marking substance or non-substance, the being of or in space and time (especially universality of space and time), being as entity vs. process vs. quality vs. interaction) and (3) The problem of the non-existent object will be shown trivial.

Experience. This word will be reserved for the range of meanings captured by ‘subjective awareness’ (seen as relation). For cumulative experience I will use ‘cumulative experience’. Alternate. Use awareness instead of experience (and point out that at root there is no awareness without elementary consciousness)—in this use ‘awareness’ will mean ‘content or feeling of awareness’ whether elementary or compound, perceptual or free concept and or symbolic; use experience for cumulative experience.

Meaning. Among the common meanings of ‘meaning’ are (1) conceptual and linguistic meaning and (2) significance as in ‘the meaning of life’. The former is the conceptual use of meaning in this text. The latter use will be important but informal. Where it is necessary to make the distinction I will do so.

Concept. Use concept for mental content—which will include free concept and percept; use higher concept for higher concept; use representation for purportedly referential concept (actually referring or not).

Extension. Use extension to refer to proto-space (extension as the range of reference of a concept will be a secondary use restricted mainly to its mention). Use duration for proto-time. Use extensive variable to refer to markers of identity and, perhaps, quality to refer (tentatively) to distinctions that may mark either the same or different identities. Regarding the intension and extension (sense and reference) of an object, use conceptual intension and conceptual extension (or, simply, sense and reference)

Logic. Use realism or logical realism. Mention Logic.

Web Format

TOC’S—academic, explanation, accessible, realization… for sequential and ‘random’ access to the content window

Content files—a sequence of files according to the TOC categories

OUTLINE WITH COMMENTS

Preface

Functions of the preface

The preface shows briefly what the text develops in detail. It is an overview of the main developments and their significance. It gives reasons for the organization of the narrative.

The preface makes suggestions on how to approach the text. The motive for these suggestions is as follows. The narrative introduces a new worldview—a system that provides understanding of the universe as a whole. It will unfamiliar to most readers. It asks of the general reader that they be open to seeing the world in a new way. It asks of readers acquainted with the philosophical ideas that they be open to revising their understanding.

It is not the function of this preface to introduce Journey in Being and carefully develop its ideas. That is left to the main narrative.

Prerequisite to reading the narrative

The ideas are developed starting from ordinary language. All precise developments—science, philosophy, and other—must begin that way. ‘Ordinary language’ as used here, however, is not a minimal vocabulary and grammar. Our languages are always changing as a result of creativity and in response to changing circumstances and contexts. This is part of ordinary language. In a sense, therefore, the technical disciplines do not get out of the realm of the ordinary. But in using the phrase ‘ordinary’ I emphasize what is non-technical.

There is, therefore, no special prerequisite. However maturity and openness will be helpful

Overview

The narrative center

At the center of the narrative is a demonstrated discovery, the fundamental principle of metaphysics, that the universe is the realization of all possibility that enables a powerful and ultimate worldview or metaphysics. The meaning of the principle includes that there is no limit to what is realized or, in conceptual terms, subject to realism all ideas are realized. Particularly, individual identity is ultimately universal identity. What is ‘realism’? In the sense used here it is that the only ideas that are not realized are those that are impossible to realize—i.e., perhaps roughly, ideas that are factually and / or mutually inconsistent (this consistency criterion is not a limit). This is the world view that is greatest in the sense that all possibly real world views are contained in it. It is crucial that is demonstrated—given proof, its meaning given precise form (in this sense meaning will be precise when the principle is given a formulation that enables its use as an instrument to develop its consequences and, at least in principle, understand the ranges of consequences; the formulation may be called the explicit meaning and the consequences the implicit meaning), and apparent violations of experience, science, reason are resolved. The resolution is a start to development of a mutually empowering integration and—sometimes—reconceptualization of metaphysics, experience, science, logic and other disciplines and human endeavors. and beginning with this resolution an integration of experience, science, logic with the new metaphysics

Significance of the metaphysics

The significance of the discovery includes provision of an amazing and new vision of the universe as ultimate power and realization—via a demonstrates system of immense power and manifold consequence.

Process of discovery

The process of discovery included guesses at conceptual systems and subsequent criticism: external by comparison with the reality and internal—e.g., coherence and consistency. As long as our knowledge is incomplete this must be the way for it is in the nature of essentially new knowledge that we cannot know it to be developed ‘algorithmically’. Although there are differences among logic, mathematics, science, and metaphysics they do and must have the process just mentioned in common. Hypothesis and test—in some form—will remain the way until there is no essentially new knowledge to be had. You may object, for example, by saying that logic is not empirical. True, it is not empirical in the way science is but it cannot be for while science refers to the world, logic concerns the of concepts (declarative sentences) that refer to the world.

A journey in being

The particular path to the fundamental principle traversed many hypothesized systems. I began with the standard systems—materialism, evolutionism as an organizing principle for the world and knowledge of it, idealism, and others. I discarded all these but learned much in the process. Particularly, I learned that of course naïve materialism and idealism are different but that if we follow realism and push each ‘ism’ to its limit then the only difference between the isms is that they constitute alternate labelings. I experienced this process as a journey and began to think of it as such. My life too was a journey—my path led through many endeavors. The ‘principle’ was the same—that of seeking some fit of my life to the world. Two threads interwove the path—ideas and travel and hiking in nature; and nature was place and model for inspiration for the ideas.

A journey in being—my experience of discovery and its development over years, in the worlds of culture and nature, suggested the idea of a journey. My first experience of the discovery of the fundamental principle was that of entering breathtaking panorama of the universe—a universe of being and knowing. The fundamental principle stated above implies that individual and civilization realize the ultimate in a journey without limit to variety, peak and dissolution of realization, extent, or duration.

The idea of a journey is one of travel among nature and cultures. So it is with this journey: ideas and ground—culture and nature—are among its essential elements.

The force of the ideas suggested revelation more than discovery or creation but the ideas themselves show that the emergence of reason and means of realization is eternally experiential and experimental—that is there is no ultimate a priori. While being has been pivotal its explicit meaning will continue to emerge with reflection and experience.

The role of being

The concept of ‘being’ has been critical to the fundamental principle and related discovery; and I expect it to remain pivotal to discovery and realization. Its significance its neutrality—to be explained later—but it is insufficient to merely mention this point: it is essential to deploy it. The present deployment of being has, I think, gone beyond that of others but I anticipate that there is much more that can be done.

The pictures of nature

The pictures—in the narrative show places where I have had great and perhaps even critical inspiration for these developments.

Note—the concept of meaning is now discussed in later section on meaning

Significance

The following outlines some achievements—what is new—and implications for ideas and destiny.

Conceptual—FP, forms: esp. limitlessness and Realism; metaphysics; consequences—all disciplines and endeavors; mechanics-method for knowledge and realization: container, increment, and interaction; engagement enhances enjoyment and effectiveness.

The ideas of the narrative are grounded in the history of human thought. Being is significant in the thought from Plato to Heidegger. The relation of metaphysics and logic is a theme in thought—recently, for example, in the thought of Wittgenstein. The idea of individual as universe occurs in the Upanishads of ancient India. However, relative to the present developments these occurrences are fragmentary. It is critical that while there have been intuitions of the fundamental principle, the proof here is its first proof—and this suggests, integrates, and gives power to the system of ideas. Thus ‘being’ is potent in the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and Heidegger but they cannot realize its full power because they have no proof of that power. Similarly, Wittgenstein equates logic and metaphysics but does not raise metaphysics to the height of logical permissiveness (it is critical that we here recognize that logic is maximal in what it allows because it is minimal in what it requires). Finally, the Upanishads glimpse the identity, some of its immensity, and some approaches to realization but they do not know anything near the scope of these things as seen here.

Individual, civilization and destiny—realization of ultimate is given; individual engagement fosters civilization, civilization nurtures the individual; Civilization is the matrix of civilizations across the universe. Civilization engulfs the universe as an individual. The ultimate is an Individual in which individuals participate: endless variety, freshness, summits without limit to elevation, dissolutions: recurrences are of limited and unlimited duration (in a limitless universe, infinity is actual and not just potential or idealizations or limits of the finite). Uncertainty and doubt are existentially essential as in all significant endeavor. Engagement is openness to opportunity-challenge-non avoidance of pain (pain, suffering not sought but not eliminated—rather to be dealt with effectively, given meaning). Action based in the metaphysics is container for all aspiration without distinction (realization, being-in-the-world, knowledge, art, religion…)

Arrangement

The arrangement is (a) natural with respect to development of the ideas and (b) designed to facilitate, in sequence, reading, comprehension, facility with use

Three narrative foci

The narrative is organized around three foci (1) motivation and grounding: destiny (2) knowledge or metaphysics and method (3) action and realization: journey. Some details follow

First focus—destiny and civilization

1. Destiny as we understand it—meaning, extension, cultivation: disciplines, institutions, integration with this world.

This requires an adequate picture of the universe and our place in it: a worldview or cosmology. As background I will outline and assess our standard or inherited worldviews (1) Secular and (2) Trans-secular.

Second focus—a new universal metaphysics

2. A new universal metaphysics: FP—being is limitless, expression as Realism. Issues: origins and proof of FP; doubt, consistency, strength of proof, faith, existential significance, knowledge-action principle… Development. Implications for ideas and being, disciplines and endeavors (details above…)

Significance for destiny. Destiny for finite forms as a journey without ends or borders or limit to variety and freshness of being and experience.

Third focus—journey of realization

3. Journey of realization: description—endless variety, extension, freshness, recurrences of limited and limitless duration; significance (freshness, pain and suffering, engagement…); means-vehicles-places-modes-disciplines and mechanics—essentially experimental within which intrinsic-instrumental sciences play—catalysis or catharsis of being and psyche, buildup as in healing and reason; permanence vs. transience: permanence is realized in and via transience…

The main divisions

Prologue

A prologue provides context in civilization.

Foundation

The foundation introduces pivotal ideas of being, experience, and meaning. It founds development in showing a basic sense of being in which knowledge of being is perfect; it introduces experience the theater of being; and meaning is crucial to analysis of the world. The development of being and aspects of experience in foundation is metaphysics-as-perfect-knowledge as far as it goes.

Metaphysics

Metaphysics continues this development with proof of the fundamental principle. It is shown that the principle is consistent with science and reason. The arguments for the principle are strong but it is attended by that minimal doubt which attends all significant endeavors. If we regard the principle as basis for a program of discovery and realization then doubt is removed. Doubt is pertinent to illusions of absolute knowledge of the world. Metaphysics develops and applies the system of ideas.

Journey

Journey is the final part. Here the nature of the journey of realization is elaborated, a mechanics of approach—experimental in nature—is demonstrated and illustrated, and the significance of the journey for civilization and culture further developed.

Reading the narrative

Reading, comprehension, and use will be facilitated by the arrangement just described and by the following features.

Arrangement of the divisions and other parts is according to essentials, explanations aimed at the general reader, and details aimed at those interested in careful development of the ideas. The essentials will include definitions, brief statements of basic truths (‘axioms’ in the classical sense), and proofs. Explanations will provide motives, meanings, criticisms or doubts and resolutions, and other material designed to illustrate and provide understanding and context. Details will include such items as alternate proofs, development of concepts, how to use the ideas, and application.

Modern readers—i.e., post-classical logic—may balk at axioms equated to truth and so I give an example—something exists. This may be challenged on the ground that all experience may be illusory; but if that is true then there is the world of illusion; if not true then there is experience, some illusory, and some not which has a real object ‘the world’.

The arrangement described above will facilitate absorption of meanings and meaning. Meanings are carefully specified and the net meaning of the system is brought into relief.

Discussion of meanings—it is crucial to understanding that (1) While main concept-words have many common technical and everyday uses, their meanings here are carefully selected and specified (2) The system of concepts is selected-evolved to have net meaning greater than the ‘sum’ of individual meanings. This ‘sum’, as explained earlier, is an ‘ultimate’ metaphysics that goes beyond our common modern intuition of the world. Understanding will require familiarization with and immersion in the system rather technical facility alone. Awareness of these points explains to readers why they may need patience for explicit and intuitive absorption. The arrangement into essentials and explanations will facilitate absorption of the system of ideas to intuition.

The following may be omitted if I eliminate capitalization—e.g., by coining terms and or uses.

Capitalization—some words will be capitalized to denote the meaning in the text; non-capitalized versions may also be assigned meanings (common uses may be useful here). I will avoid the possible confusion that may result from the convention in English that sentences begin with a capital

Introduction

May eliminate some material (primarily) from the preface and the prologue and place its essence here. May leave minimal comment at the original location

Origin and significance

Journey in Being—origin, and nature of journey. Significance of Being as container for ideas and realization. Through experience, exposure, reflection I arrived at a universal metaphysics and implications for destiny—for a journey in being.

Inspiration

Inspiration—comment at first picture; add comments to specific places of inspiration—nature and culture have been inspiration. We tend to emphasize cultural inspiration for ideas. However, I’ve found crucial inspiration from and in nature.

Outline

Outline follows the narrative foci above—(1) ground, worldviews (2) metaphysics, development (3) journey, realization

Prologue

Significance of a worldview or cosmology

Discussion will be brief.

The standard cosmologies and their limits

Two kinds of world view

The modern standard and inherited worldviews are (1) Secular which emphasize science and common experience (reduction to materialism obtains only in some ‘positivist’ versions) (2) Trans-secular, e.g., myth and religion.

Secular views

Secular cosmologies are rooted in common experience, especially science. A typical cosmology is the inflationary model with fixed light speed and so limit to known size and age; less restricted models—e.g., bubble universes—are still materialist and obey similar physical laws. Only some positivisms reduce all understanding to matter, so even material secularism may allow considerable freedom of being and experience.

Secularism is widely accepted. What is its validity? Theories of science can be seen as valid for limited domains and precision or as universal projection. It is a common default to see science as essentially complete. But this is circular—the result of vision that sees in terms of scientific cosmology; it tacitly assumes its conclusion. So, on its own ground, secularism is incomplete.

How incomplete? Knowledge of the universe is expressed in concepts that fit facts. The only necessary requirements on concepts, therefore, are agreement with one another and with fact—i.e., logical and scientific. The realm of fact has large and small scale boundaries; there are also discontinuous boundaries—e.g., a ghost cosmos not currently interacting with ours. If our concepts are logical and locally factual, they have no conflict with experience or reason. That is, experience and reason—science and logic—allow that the secular worldview may be massively incomplete. This incompleteness allows a metaphysics whose only conceptual limits are agreement with science and logic in their valid domains.

Later fact and concept—science and logic—will be unified under a single notion named Realism or Logic. The universe will be shown in the sense stated above and we will consequently establish new conceptions in which the Real is the object of Logic. This is the greatest possible metaphysics: the most liberal yet realistic—the greatest freedom consistent with non-reductionist secularism.

Later, we find that in this greatest universe, discovery must be ever open to a limited form. This will imply that Logic has no a priori—that it is an outcome of process, a reflection of the one universe, that it is ever in a process of experimental discovery.

Trans-secular views

The religious and mythic cosmologies are best understood (a) as pointing beyond experience—as standing against the tyranny of common experience (b) as semi-literal or metaphorical rather than strictly empirical descriptions (c) in terms of psychological, social, and moral implications. As metaphysics they are deficient in ultimate character and or proof.

The Upanishads give a partial intimation of the ultimate formulation but no proof. In absence of proof full formulation, meaning, and reliable cosmology and use are impossible.

Bridging the divide

Although we have separated the secular and the trans-secular, this separation is significantly a product of modern ways of seeing, Particularly, it is secularism in its positivist form that insists that religion should be marked of into a special region labeled ‘trans-secular’ and so lacking validity or, at least, suspect. However, while particular religious cosmologies deserve to be so marked off, we have seen that secularism is unable to assert that there is nothing beyond its borders with regard to both content and method. And it is secularism in its political form that insists that the two worlds should be separate. There were and are good reasons for this separation. However, the reasons are not absolute. And it is possible to integrate the secular and the trans-secular without introducing religions into the secular realm including politics.

Metaphysics as bridge

The metaphysical but not specifically religious cosmologies have a long history that terminated in the grand idealist systems of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. With few exceptions, that kind of cosmology has fallen into disfavor. Metaphysics has been revived but only by reinterpreting it as, e.g., the science of abstract objects—by contrast to physics as the science of concrete objects. The reasons for failure can be classed broadly (1) the metaphysical systems were speculative, i.e. not based in experience and (2) ideologies, e.g. Marxism, based in systems such as the idealism of Hegel, are regarded as failed (these are, briefly, the analytic and ‘continental’ criticisms; in putting them together they are strengthened and it is the fortified criticism that is addressed here). However, that a train of systems are not based in experience or that they are failed, does not mean no system can be based in experience or that all such systems must fail. The generalization is rather like what it intends to criticize. If we regard the old style of metaphysics as knowledge of the world as it is the essential criticism is that knowledge distinct from the known

Criticisms of metaphysics so far and their refutation

Let us draw out and analyze this criticism. On a concept-object (‘re-presentation’) model all knowledge is projection. So, faithfulness has meaning only to the extent that we can show or get outside projection—e.g., (a) show faithfulness to be given or (b) use criteria alternate to faithfulness (use the term ‘representation’?), e.g. adaptation which neither needs nor implies clear meaning or realization of faithfulness. Since there is some error relative to faithfulness, there cannot be metaphysical knowledge of all things. But we do not need such knowledge even though it is often a tacit requirement. Here, we will show perfect faithfulness for a set of ‘objects’ that will, perhaps surprisingly, turn out to be ultimately broad and powerful. There will be a price—application will need interpretation and squaring with experience and science. There will also be rewards—the resulting metaphysics will ultimate as described above; it will be container and boundary for all science and experience; and it will show a meaning of identity in which all beings are identical to the universe. There is an apparent contradiction of limits seen in science and common experience; this contradiction has already been resolved above but it does need to and will be shown how to mesh science and experience with metaphysics.

Metaphysics and experience

All metaphysics must be found—as in seek and find—in experience (comment on pertinent uses of experience; remark—‘experience’ will be clarified)

Possibility and givenness of metaphysics

It will be useful to discuss the possibility and givenness of metaphysics in a separate summary section.

Let us define metaphysics as knowledge of the world as it is. The point to be made, then, is not that metaphysical knowledge of every detail of the world is possible for human being (the crucial characteristic of human being is its limited form; later, after, development of the universal metaphysics we will contemplate and decide upon the possibility and facts of complete knowledge had by ‘ultimate being’). It is rather, that some metaphysical knowledge is possible. This has already been demonstrate by example, i.e. not just in principle. What is surprising, interesting, and empowering is that, as already noted, a metaphysics of immense power will be developed from apparently trivial beginnings

We have dismantled the standard arguments against metaphysics. We have shown that there is a simple sense in which metaphysics is possible and given. And we will later develop the powerful universal metaphysics. We will find that there is a significant portion of it that is beyond all doubt (not by denying doubt but by raising all possible doubt and refuting it). We will find, however, that there is associated with the powerful developments that there powerful argument but a degree of doubt that attends (almost) all significant endeavor. We attempt to minimize this doubt but do not succeed in removing it entirely. That this gives us something to anticipate, that it provides a challenge and not a guarantee is validly viewed as ‘good’ for a guarantee might encourage us to stand down and retreat into inaction. Thus there is an ‘existential’ component to the program of journey in being. The fundamental principle of metaphysics may be regarded as an (existential) action and knowledge principle.

Foundation

Check—this is foundational but not complete foundation for there is more in the division on Metaphysics

Being

Definition and fact of being

Being is that which is.

There is Being.

Proof. Perhaps all is illusion. Without Being there would not even be illusion. Therefore the conclusion that there is Being.

Commentary. Almost everything might be illusion but it is impossible that all is illusion. But, even on an account that almost all is illusion, there is more—there is the vast world of experience of which some we label illusion but much we label real and we live in that part with much enjoyment and effectiveness. There is still more—we will the fact of a real world (and, later, even more: limitlessness of the real world).

Being and the verb to be

Uses of ‘is’. On robustness. ‘Ordinary language and experience’ have a net of perfect precision. We begin with but need not remain in ‘ordinary language’ (by ordinary language I do not mean some minimal common language but language that is open because the world is open and therefore cannot receive the definiteness that is possible for specific contexts—common, scientific, or esoteric).

I.e., being is that which exists (existence will be clarified later).

Existence

Bring discussion of being and existence here—concept of existence; meanings and differences; in itself and in-relation; paradoxes of existence

Power of the idea of being

This begins to show the power of the idea of Being. If we say—but we have experience of matter what we mean is that there is something that corresponds to our experience. However, not all experience is precise. Therefore the experience of matter may be imprecise—and indeed the most precise of our definitions of matter as in physical science are subject to imprecision. Being is not subject to this imprecision. Use of Being allows the fundamental kinds to emerge.

We will find Being and concepts built on it to provide a precise container within which imprecise but instrumental kinds find great (greater) effectiveness.

As noted in the preface: it is the neutrality of the concept of being that is an essential source of its power. Here, I believe I have pushed this power significantly further than before. Development is distributed throughout the narrative and has peaks of leverage of conceptual power here and in the divisions on Metaphysics and Journey. I believe that the process of leverage of the neutrality of being is still open to further development.

Power of the idea of being—some details

Goes to explanatory module for being?

The power of the concept of being is that it differentiates only existence from non-existence and it is therefore not charged with prejudice at outset (as are commitment to—or against—such kinds as matter and paradigms based on such commitment).

Being will be used as indifferent to matter vs. non-matter, mind vs. non mind… substance vs. non-substance; to the distinctions of thing vs. process vs. interaction vs. quality; and, whereas, ‘existence’ is often used to signify being in space and time or being-in-relation, being will be used as indifferent to being in or the being of space-time and in-itself vs. in-relation. Being will include all extensive variables and being in our not in those variables.

Being will refer to what is discrete or not; singular or not

Being is not a being or all beings but it is what is common to all beings and to nothing else. It is indifferent whether we say of some existent that it is being or that it has being (with reference to the concept-object understanding the latter implies also has only being).

Possibility. Actual, possible, and impossible being

Goes to explanatory module for being?

What of ‘possible existence’? What is a non existent but possibly existent object? In order to talk meaningfully of things—this will be brought out more clearly in Meaning—we must have a concept that purports to refer to the thing (even in the presence of a tiger we have a percept and it is the fact that others will have essentially the same percept that gives meaning to the directive ‘Look at the tiger!’). A non existent object is one for which we have a concept (e.g. the concept unicorn is that of a horse-like creature with a horn) for which there is no object (note that talking in these terms in which we distinguish the normally conflated concept and object is practically cumbersome in a common shared context but confusing and sometimes leading to apparent paradox in general and in new contexts; thus the ‘cumbersome’ way of talking trivially clears up the paradox of the non-existent object).

An impossible object is defined by a concept for which there can be no object according to any criteria. That is the impossible object must violate fact or reason (i.e. known facts or logic, i.e. what we will call realism or Logic). A possible object is one for which the concept satisfies realism (it may or may not actually exist; in a maximal universe all possible objects will exist). Thus ‘possibility’ and ‘impossibility’ in this paragraph are those of ‘logical realism’ which is most permissive with regard to possibility and most restrictive for impossibility.

What is the source of the conception of objects that are impossible? Percepts –perceptual concepts—correspond to the world. Free concept formation—probably absent for lower organisms—is the ability to form an iconic and or symbolic concept to which the world potentially corresponds. Its weakness is that it is possible to form concepts that violate fact and / to reason. This is of course not a true weakness but an essential aspect of the freedom whose positive side is the ability to capture so far unknown aspects of the world. It would be a weakness if we thought that every concept captures the world or if we thought that the world is captured after insufficient comparison with the world (experiment). In an ‘open’ universe comparison may be ever incomplete. However, while it may be incomplete in some directions it may be complete others. In these complete-able directions it is possible to get a complete metaphysics. And what is incomplete vs. complete may depend on the power of mind; our minds are more powerful than some others; but there may be more powerful minds—perhaps there may be minds of ultimate power.

If we regard the universe as being-over-all extensive variables (of which examples are space and time) then the actual and the possible are identical regardless of kind of possibility. In this paragraph the ‘possible’ is whatever possibility obtains in the universe. Physicalism or materialism are the hypothesis that possibility is defined ‘that which satisfies material nature, e.g. physical law’. If our cosmos is the universe and our cosmos satisfies our physics then the actual and the possible are less than the material but only the non-material is absurd.

If being distinguishes only existence from non-existence then the existent are the actual and the non-existent include the possible but non actual as well as the impossible. But since the impossible are never actual we can omit mention of them except for clarification.

Anticipation of the outcome regarding possibility

We will find the universe to be maximal in that the possible of logical realism is actual above (for reasons stated later, we will need to be careful about the meaning of ‘all possible objects’). That is, we will find that while the conceptual intension of being is simply that which exists, the conceptual extension which is obviously the actual will be found to extend to the possible. Thus in the universe the possible and the actual are defined by realism as defined above but which needs further careful clarification.

Preliminary on space and time

Goes to explanatory module? Omit?

It is useful to say something about space and time without trying here to be definitive. There are a number of ways in which the nature of an entity can be described: it may be red, warm, a foot across, have existed for five minutes. The first two are ‘qualities’, the latter are quantities. The distinction is not absolute for, in order to be a foot in size, the entity must have spatiality. Still we may say that some qualities such as space and time are extensive while others are intensive. The intensive qualities do not refer to size and so on. Mass is extensive—depends on size but while space and time are measures of extension, mass is usually seen as a function rather than as a measure of extension. Density (mass / volume) is intensive and this is perhaps the source of the term ‘intensive’; for a continuum density has a value for a point—as does color and this is a source of regarding color as intensive even though color is not a density of any kind (but may be a function of a density such as amount of red-light reflecting molecules per unit surface area). Are space and time (or space-time) universal and are they the only measures of extension? There are perhaps realms that are so limited in structure as to have no such measures; realms in which there are proto-space-time. Are there other true measures of extension? Perhaps. However, later analysis of identity will suggest that there are not.

On other analyses of Being

Goes to explanatory module for being?

For Heidegger, Being is far from neutral. It derives from ‘Dasein’ and never leaves this origin. Here, we begin from generality but—in the considerations of Experience, Identity and more: we should say what—connect up with this realm. Further, for Heidegger Being does not encompass time—for him, Being is a ‘kind’. Heidegger does, of course, (attempt to) transcend the kinds of matter and mind. Sartre’s Being and Nothingness are psychological terms and not metaphysical.

Heidegger claims that traditional ontology has prejudicially overlooked the question of the nature of Being—dismissing it as overly general, undefinable, or obvious. He is right. It is most general but whether overly general is a matter of working its metaphysics; undefinable, if such is the case, is not the same as incapable of specification; and obvious does not mean trivial. Heidegger argues that the totality of Dasein must be grounded in temporality. He enquires of a primordial time that is the ground of experienced time. He asks some questions which are vague—but, for him, necessarily so since he is seeking something yet unrevealed / undiscovered: How is this mode of temporalizing of temporality to be interpreted? Is there a way leading from primordial time to the meaning of being? Does time itself reveal itself as the horizon of being? In the present metaphysics we will find that we do not need to invoke time; time arises out of absence of being… coeval, perhaps, with the atemporal origin of manifest being. And ‘Dasein’ has some access to that primordial situation.

Comments on substance

Goes to explanatory module? Omit. Is it included already? If so, combine.

Substance—what is it? The word has a number of meanings in the history of attempts to understand the world. If, in an attempt to explain and understand the world, I say that the world is made of matter I am regarding matter as a substance. The power of the idea is that I am explaining the world in terms of something simple (the weaknesses are that perhaps our understanding of matter is incomplete and that there may be more to the world than matter. For matter to be truly fundamental it should be the constitution of all things and there should be no ‘stuff’ that is more basic. For ultimate simplicity substance would, perhaps, be eternal, unchanging, uniform and not further reducible (thus, with present understanding, matter is not ultimate substance). Informally, the idea of substance is used to project what we find fundamental in experience to the universe. If our chosen substance is based in limited experience then the projection may be in error. A key to ultimate understanding, therefore, is to find whether there are aspects of experience that project without limit. We will find that there is no ultimate substance but that there are aspects of experience that do project (and aspects that do not) and this leads us to Being which is not a substance. We could regard being as substance but that would be no gain and might be confusing. The present development shows the untenability of substance and does not depend on it and therefore further analysis of substance is not needed. There is another meaning of substance, one in which Aristotle asked ‘What is the substance of any species of thing such as, perhaps, a could or an animal species such as the horse?’ He is asking, in material terms, for an alternate to Plato’s explanation in terms of ideal forms. We will find this to be a good explanation—relevant perhaps to proximate explanation in science and mathematics but not significant for general understanding (metaphysics).

Experiential being

The discussion above shows a connection between Being and experience and reflection suggests that the relation may be fundamental. Thus far, with the ideas of Being and experience hardly developed, this is only a suggestion. When we develop the ideas to the point where they constitute a foundation for universal understanding as far is it may go (metaphysics) we will find Being and experience to be a truly fundamental pair. This will require clarification of ‘Being’ and development-evolution of the meaning of ‘experience’.

We are interested in being in general and human being in particular. Human being is significant as (a) having symbolic formation, concept formation, and thinking (b) as an example of higher being (but we include all animals as higher because, as we will find, there is a truly but non-animal level of primitive experience; and we do not want to exclude exploration of other kinds and possibilities in higher being) (c) as a focus of our interest (since we are human and since it is the human that is our closest point of access).

However, some analyses jeopardize careful, grounded study of significant being by particularizing too soon. This is a mistake frequently made by European thinkers of an existential strain. They mire the study of significant being in not only the particularities of human being but in the particularly European neuroses and negative states of mind.

We are therefore interested in experiential—i.e., sentient being. Clearly, experience as subjective awareness is critical to our being and sense of being. This is one motivation to the study of experience that follows. The analysis that follows will mesh the most general and primitive characteristics of experience with some very general aspects of human being—the general aspects will not focus on the particularly human but on higher forms of experience in general. We can particularize later.

But we are also interested in experience for its own sake—especially as mind; and we are interested in experience as a window on the study of being.

Let us begin with preliminary comments on the relations among being and experience.

What does it mean to say ‘there is being’? This has already been answered—it means that something exists. With what instrument do we know this? (The instruments of ) Awareness. This is not to say that what we are aware of is dependent on our awareness for its existence (we may contribute to the form of the awareness but this is not true in general as we have seen in the case of being itself where we ‘contribute’ only to the fact of the awareness). However, it is in being affected by being that we talk realistically of it. What is the effect in question? Somehow, in order to talk of it, the effect must include subjective awareness or experience. Now in critiquing the content of experience we may think it is a correlate of non-experiential effects that somehow enter into experience or that it refers to fact. Facts, however are direct or indirect experiences. What we think of as non-experiential effects must enter via interaction (causal, common origination…) There is an intimate connection between being and experience. If what we think to be non-experiential effects can be shown to be essentially experiential in some sense and the indirect entry into experience is ultimately experiential at some, perhaps lower, level, then this intimate connection would be essential.

We now turn to analyze experience. The issues just raised will be among those addressed.

A critical element of the analysis will be to simultaneously (a) identify and clarify experience for what it is (b) analyze it in terms of being and (c) relate the analyses (a) and (b).

Experience

The title has been changed from ‘Experience and Foundation’ of the first production. Is it important to put ‘Foundation’ back in? Where?

The following from the first production should come after developing the idea of experience: Experience—awareness—is the place of knowledge of things…

We could proceed without experience but it is our anchor in being, and the present analysis lays foundation for (a) for later improved understanding and clarification of experience and being (b) detailed study of mind, experience, and consciousness.

Definition and existence of experience

‘Existence’?

The first meaning of experience is that of subjective awareness.

The first meaning names experience (subjective awareness is not essentially other than experience). Experience names, for example, our sense of being. Perhaps experience is illusory but without it there would be neither the real nor the illusory sense; the real and the illusory sense are both experience.

Experience is a fundamental given.

That it is a fundamental given means that it requires no proof in other terms.

Thus contrary to objections, e.g. from strict materialists—

There is experience—i.e.,

Experience has being.

Human experience is ‘reflexive’—i.e., we have experience of experience—but not all experience, human or other, is reflexive.

Objections

Some people have objected ‘there is no such thing as experience or consciousness’. This objection has already been refuted above. It is, however, pertinent to reflect on sources of the objection. One objection is from behaviorism. The primary behaviorist objection was that since experience (consciousness) is private—not open to ‘inter-subjective’ study, it is not a proper object of scientific study. Many scientific objects, however, originate as hypotheses and are not open to study—it is their effects that we study (even the most seemingly real things are subject to subject to this concern: a percept, even on inter-subjective agreement, is not the object). Another objection is from materialism. The materialist objection is that (a) everything is made of matter (b) the subjective, experiential aspects of mind are not material; therefore there can be no subjective aspect of mind. This brand of materialism, in which the elements of mind are not present in the elements of matter may be called ‘strict’ materialism and, even on a materialist account, it is not clear that there is no elementary aspect of mind present—known or unknown—in matter. According to the behaviorist and the strict materialist, mental behavior is behavior as if the organism had experience (to which it is pertinent to reply ‘Had what?’… and if the reply is ‘Had an illusion’ the relevant reply begins with ‘But what is illusion?’). While the objections of the behaviorist and materialist are based in putative principle there is also the possible confusion that because experience is unreliable—it is possible to hallucinate—therefore knowledge that there is experience is unreliable. Another possible source of the objection to experience is that there are some people for whom reflexive experience—i.e. experience of experience—is not present or regarded by them as present but irrelevant to their view of what is important. In all cases the answer is that we have shown the existence of experience. To the objection of irrelevance we add that relevance is not determined by fiat but by careful study and therefore we should not close down our philosophy at the beginning of thought. However, we can make a preliminary observation—we have already seen that experience is critical to human being and, further, we may show that it is critically instrumental.

Show this under the material argument and, perhaps, again under ‘mind’

Some thinkers have found a way around these criticisms of arguments against existence and relevance of experience. They argue that there are two kinds of experience (or consciousness). They admit that there is subjective or phenomenal experience. They point to experiments with brain damaged patients that purport to show awareness without subjective awareness. They then argue that there is another kind of experience ‘a-consciousness’ or access-consciousness which is accessible for verbal report or action. They then minimize the instrumental relevance of phenomenal consciousness (or deny it). However, experience comes in varying degrees of reflexivity—i.e. there are degrees to which we are aware that we are having experience (experience of experience). Therefore the fact that a patient is unable to report awareness does not imply absence of awareness. What is going on, then? The matter is subtle and is deferred to later study of mind.

Another meaning of ‘experience’

The meaning above is different from the meaning in ‘cumulative experience’. The first meaning is a factor in forming the latter.

When the sense of experience would not be clear use ‘cumulative experience’ to distinguish it from subjective awareness.

The nature of experience

In this section we begin to study the nature of experience.

Much experience is or seems to be that some experience is of things. Perhaps that is an illusion—perhaps as the solipsist suggests ‘there is only the field of experience’. Perhaps there is nothing else.

However, that we know of experience is experience of experience. Some experience has experience itself—other or perhaps even the same—as an object.

There is a world—and it is, at least, made of experience.

But perhaps there is nothing but experience. Perhaps the idea that experience refers to things—to a real world apart from experience—is an illusion. This ‘solipsist’ claim is not intended seriously but is a challenge to the realist—the person who claims that there is a real (or external) world that may be an object of experience but is not experience and whose existence is not dependent on being experienced.

The real world

We think there is a world that we experience but—except for the existence of experience, established above—that could be illusion. That there is something outside or external to experience could be an illusion.

This purported outside is sometimes called the external world but I prefer the term ‘real world’.

Thee is a real world and experience is part of it.

Proof. I there is only experience then it either does or does not range over its idea of the world. The latter entails contradiction; the former is an alternate labeling of the world which is real and which contains experience.

Analysis of experience shows experience itself and the concept of the real world be non-illusory and significant and this constitutes a certain robustness of the concepts of experience and real world.

The real world—Wittgenstein’s arguments

Now Wittgenstein argues against the solipsist in §§401, 402, 403 of Philosophical Investigations. He is talking of interpreting a new way of seeing things as seeing a new object (this is what the solipsist does). He argues that this is a mistake by giving an example “As if… ‘he has pains’ could be untrue by some other way than that man’s not having pains. As if the form of the proposition asserted something false even when the proposition faute de mieux (for want of something better) asserted something true.’ Wittgenstein asks us to contemplate a situation in which he used the word ‘pain’ for what he had called ‘my pain’ and others had called ‘Wittgenstein’s pain’. He then asks ‘But what should we gain from this new kind of account? Nothing!’ He is saying that the new account is merely relabeling.

On doubt

Doubt, here the doubt of the solipsist, has forced us to clarify our thinking and our understanding of the world. This is a function of doubt—that it leads to clarify thought and understanding. Now we did not take solipsism seriously as a point of view; it arose as an idea—is there a real world—and we entertained that idea seriously only to find that its only serious aspect is clarifying and understanding. Thus we often consider doubt that we find, in the end, has no practical value as a position in itself.

Of course not all doubt carries with it the sense of absurdity of the apparently rational doubt of solipsism. For doubt can lead to a conclusion of non-existence but that would be the same function.

There is another function of doubt. Sometimes we have a proof of some claim. We may be able to show that the claim violates no fact or reason but we may have doubt about the absolute certainty of the proof. In such situations we have strong reasons to think that the claim is true; however, we are not certain. This is the case for all significant ‘truths’; if it is truly significant there is some doubt. What shall we do under this circumstance? Shall we proceed as though the claim is untrue? Because the claim is significant we have even moral responsibility to act on the claim but perhaps to exercise some caution. On the other hand, proceeding as though it is true may enhance efficiency and enjoyment of the process and that we therefore tolerate some risk of failure. The situation may be described as having existential faith or an appropriate existential attitude. This situation characterizes much human activity including science and reason and even logic—and we shall see this to be the case.

Existential faith will be important in what follows.

Depth of the concept of experience is far from plumbed so far

We have considered he nature of experience. Its first meaning is subjective awareness; it is a given; experience—at least some of it—is of things, i.e. of a real world. We would like to probe deeper. How deep does experience go? Is pure experience truly not of things? What is the relation of being and experience. Should their relation be considered essential or contingent. Does experience arise out of the organization of being (matter)—i.e., is it emergent? Or, higher experience—experience as we experience it—a sum of lower, elemental, experience in entities or organs that focus, elaborate, multiply, and give it freedom from its original tight bond to the environment as in stimulus-response and so allow for hallucination and iconic and symbolic imagination including free concept formation?

On clarification of experience

Concepts can be clarified along two lines—on their own terms and in terms of other (fundamental) things.

Experience can be clarified along two lines—seeking depth to its meaning on its own terms and in terms of other something else—other fundamental things such as being, matter, process, and interaction.

The greatest clarification and illumination results from proceeding along and relating these lines of approach.

Experience on its own terms

Some experience is of things. Primitive experience is of an object. It is an aspect of the effect of the perceived on the perceiver.

Primitive experience is (an aspect) of interaction.

Is all experience interaction? Pure experience appears to be an exception.

There are two ways in which pure experience is interaction. Pure experience is stimulation in key centers by—the ‘seat’ of experience—of a trace snapshot-collage of earlier recorded experience some internal or external trigger and is thus (a) delayed and potential interaction of organism and world and, more critically, actual internal interaction. The capacity for pure experience is at the root of concept formation—iconic and symbolic.

So we may argue that all experience is interaction.

Pure experience is ‘in itself’ with regard to one object—the individual—but interaction with regard to others—parts of the organism (e.g. parts of the brain).

Thus experience is an aspect of the interaction among elements of being. Fundamentally, it is in the experiencing element in interaction with the experienced element.

The relation of being and experience is intimate. How intimate is it? Is it in some sense essential?

Being and experience

Is all interaction (associated with) experience? ‘All interaction’ includes interaction of the most elemental parts or aspects of being and, to even give the question meaning, we must think of some very primitive level at which there is nothing like our normal experience but where there may be what in complex systems compounds to our normal experience. What the question we are asking is whether our experience is compound of primitive level ‘experience’ or whether experience is an emergent feature at some level of material organization.

Here we give a tentative answer to the question in terms of substance theory, particularly materialism. We have ruled out strict materialism. I.e., the materialism in question must be that all being is material but not that matter is exclusive of experience (mind).

On substance theory—e.g. materialism—the elements of experience must lie among the elements of material interaction (which may be known or yet unknown).

Proof. If matter is a substance then mind is either conjoint with matter as part of the same substance, present with matter as a second substance, or it emerges with organization of matter. The final possibility is unable to explain experience as experience. The second one is unable to explain the interaction between mind and matter. We are left with the first possibility—matter and mind are coeval.

We have shown that, on materialism, some interaction the primitive level has primitive experience.

Thus we have shown that there is an intimate and essential connection. We have seen that all experience is interaction but not some but not all elemental interaction is experience. Thus the connection has not been shown to be perfect or ‘full’ That all experience is interaction is unconditional. However that some elemental interaction must be experiential is conditional on materialism.

This will be sharpened later after development of the universal metaphysics. We will want to see whether we can eliminate dependence on materialism and whether some or all elemental interaction must be conditional.

Is there Being without experience? On any metaphysics, there is no element that has no interaction at all. We found all experience to be interaction. On materialism—neither proved nor disproved so far—we then found that experience is, at root, among the primitive interactions; i.e., on materialism, being and experience are almost two sides of the same coin. All experience is interaction. On universal metaphysics we will find that all interaction is past, present, or future experience.

First comments on mind

Title?

We now turn to integrating the two approaches to experience (in its own terms and in terms of being)

Experience is a first experience of mind. What is it? Is it all of mind?

The question ‘what is something’ means explanation in terms of something else (another concept) or in its own terms (e.g. the higher concept in terms of the percept; this is usually called ostension or ostensive definition rather than explanation). The question regarding mind means is it a fundamental category or is it a manifestation of another category such as matter. We are not yet in a position to answer these questions because our experience of experience is clearly primal in coming before matter but matter is the dominant modern explanatory paradigm or category. However, we have not yet clarified the being and nature of matter.

1. For the present we take as premise that matter is a fundamental category or substance. We will find this premise to be rather approximate—is matter the sole substance, are there substances at all and if so is matter the sole substance—but analysis of mind in its terms will be illuminating because it provides a first approximation that may be corrected later.

The following paragraph-proof is repeated from above.

If matter is a substance then mind is either conjoint with matter as part of the same substance, present with matter as a second substance, or it emerges with organization of matter. The final possibility is unable to explain experience as experience. The second one is unable to explain the interaction between mind and matter. We are left with the first possibility—matter and mind are coeval.

What then is mind? If we think of matter as substance in itself then, from the considerations on experience, mind is substance in relation. In other words mind is the interaction of matter. If the only interactions of matter are the known kinds (force) then this is what mind is. But surely this is very remote from what we experience as mind. The explanation of this difficulty must be that in the complex cases—animal mind—what emerges is not mind as such but aspects of mind—feeling-emotion-cognition, afference-efference, levels of mind, self-reference, brain autonomy or freedom from environment (thinking, concept formation). The difference between particle interaction and experience is that of degree and not that of kind or category.

While the conclusion seems paradoxical (panpsychism) it follows from the premise of materialism. It follows because the alternate of strict materialism does not allow coeval or emergent mind: it disallows coeval mind in its strict nature and it allows as-if mind (behavior) but not mind-as-such.

Our tentative conclusion, therefore is that experience, fundamentally construed, is the essence of mind.

In the modern literature on philosophy of mind, ‘attitude’ and ‘action’ are putatively two other ‘poles’ of mind—as though there could be, in violation of what we have established, mind without experience. Therefore, attitude and action are not poles in the dimensions of mind. They are of course significant but experience is essential to both and experience plus something else that would not be mental if dissociated from experience.

Later we will loosen the premise of materialism and correct and improve upon the conclusions. The corrections will not fundamentally change the idea that experience is the essence of mind.

Meaning

New section; content implicit in the first production; may import or repeat Preface-Introduction comments on new / system meaning but in a form appropriate to this: ‘newness’ ® contextual; system ® whole context

Discuss (1) Meaning: concept-object-word;; sense, reference (2) Its power (3) Analysis and Synthesis of Being

Sense and reference

Experience refers to part of the world—and object. This reference is actual or potential. This is a source of the sense and reference conception of conceptual meaning due to Frege.

We will formalize experience and reference as concept and object

Concept and object

Here the primary meaning of ‘concept’ will be mental content and not that of ‘higher concept’ or unit of meaning. A percept is a concept (in the present sense). Here ‘concept’ will mean ‘referential concept’—concepts that purport to refer to something in the world.

In this section the focus is the iconic concept (icons are structurally related to their objects; alternatively we may say that icons are parts or wholes of our total experience of objects but not abstractions that relate to objects by convention)

A concept and its object (‘reference’) constitutes meaning. Having a concept does not guarantee reference. Simple concepts with meaning may be combined and the compound concept may have or lack meaning. There is a grammar of combining concepts. Such a grammar would be impossible to elucidate in absence of knowledge of the nature of the world (no perfect grammar without perfect metaphysics); and even with this knowledge its elucidation would be complex. Such combinatorics are acquired in evolution and development.

Meaning, signs, language, and grammar

In language signs such as words are associated with concept-object pairs. In language icon-symbol-object constitute meaning. In pre-linguistic meaning the concept is the icon. In linguistic meaning the concept is the icon-symbol; the association is essential for without it there cannot be convention. In normal language use the icon is implicit. This provides efficiency in representation, communication, and transmission (but also loss of detail which is partly compensated by context). Alphabets improve efficiency of word generation and representation. Word concepts may be combined in sentence concepts according to descriptive grammars. Such grammars presume at least a local knowledge of the world; and reflects in the shape of sentences; further shape factors may be convention / attitude / poetic / power / lack significance / ‘erudition’. They are no doubt discovered by trial and error over combinations. Because of the apparent precision of symbols at least formal languages and their grammars have an appearance of necessity and from their remote origins present as a priori. Are they necessary? Are they a priori? Are they empirical? Traditional answers tend to the necessary and the a priori and away from the empirical. We are not yet in a position to evaluate this strong traditional and perhaps intuitive tendency. We will be able to make an evaluation later after development of metaphysics

Foundation of meaning

What is the foundation of meaning? It must, since we never get outside it, be the organic relation between language and its use. However, while particular ideas may lack identified objects, from the point of view of neutrality of being there may always be implied objects. The metaphysics that flows from the fundamental principle and to which we now turn will be one in which, subject to clarification and refinement, a referential concept that is consistent by factual and logical criteria has an object.

Metaphysics

The order below is not ironclad. Should §§ Universe—Void be in foundation?

Notes and changes: Universe through A Perfect, Unique, and Ultimate Metaphysics. Transfer the following to that new section: Note on Method: method = developing and demonstrating content (how and proof, discovery and justification) which are traditionally distinct. Traditionally proof is emphasized because proof is public and critical. However, careful analysis show that the separation occurs only in isolated problems and static knowledge; in the whole and dynamic case, perfect separation is impossible. Here’s a brief outline of Method revised from previous treatments. (1) Recalling that a percept is a concept, almost all knowledge is projection; therefore if there is to be perfection it does not follow from the concept-object notion no matter how apparently precise. It must follow from some other source and this cannot be universal because we know that there are cases of error (some people conclude that knowledge is inevitably tinged with error but this is erroneous). (2) What is an essential outline of justification? In some cases the concept is a given! These turn out to be non-trivial resulting in metaphysics—including the universal metaphysics. This frames all knowledge. It also shows ultimates but the way to the ultimates is via the proximate for which, therefore, error is not only tolerable but also good. This applies not only to knowledge as such but also to value, particularly ethics and aesthetics (check against first production), and moral codes (and norms and laws)… which leads to a place in which we find that logic and grammar, which we may have thought a priori, are themselves experimental—provided we go far enough back there is no a priori (3) What are some methods of creation? It all has to do with finding concepts to match the object. This is the generating principle. Particulars include trial and error, particularly extended iterative improvement; wide experience and learning; interpenetration of criticism and creativity; respecting tradition without subservience; use of whole being—emotion, cognition, action… Particularly in the arrival at metaphysics care is needed but not more care than fits the situation; which allows and encourages ‘creation’; however, this balance between care and forward movement is not known in advance and itself is part of discovery. There are special situations where local knowledge may be shown to be perfect via analysis of concept-object perhaps in light of the universal metaphysics. . Where to treat Applied Metaphysics; and what shall it be called—‘Applied Metaphysics’ or some alternate?

Universe

Use sources.

Change the first production as follows: The Universe is All Being. Therefore: There is one and only one Universe.

Change the first production as follows: The Universe contains all creation but is not created. Any creator is part of the Universe—The Universe can have no external (consider omitting word ‘creator’ or putting it in after the comment; note that creation implies a creator—self-creation is impossible except once in existence something can participate in its further evolution; ‘creation’ does not apply to something out of nothing which is better described as origination) creator.

Uncreated

No outside

Possibility

Laws

Laws have Being

The Universe contains all Laws

Comment on power of being (in explanatory module)?

The Void

Use sources.

Explanatory module for The Void

The Void deserves its own explanatory module because (1) It requires to be clearly distinguished from other conceptions of it and from related notions—especially conceptions that arise from an incompletely neutral conception of Being and which therefore do not result in a precise conception of the Void (or of the Universe… or of Law). (2) Because of the difficulties attending the question of its existence.

Explanation for existence of the Void. (1) Various proofs. (2) If the Universe were in a Void state ® various consequences including the fundamental principle. This shows the existence of the Void.

Fundamental nature of the Void. (1) Its power. (2) Equivalence to all particles of Being and to all Being. (3) Relation to related conceptions, especially the quantum vacuum, (4) Number of Voids.

The Universal Metaphysics

Development

Proof. Start with ‘if the universe were in a Void state’. (My written sources for this.)

Explanatory module for the metaphysics

This includes explanatory discussion of Law and Universe—all appropriately done together with discussion of the metaphysics.

The explanation. Two things are crucial (1) The concept of Being (2) The system of concepts—Being, Experience, Meaning, Universe, Law, Void. Experience provides connection (relation) and robustness. Meaning provides method of discourse (including Logic). The fundamental metaphysical system is, then, Being, Universe, Law, Void, and Logic. Beginning with Being as neutral and Universe as all Being—it follows that all Laws are in the Universe, therefore the Void has no Laws and therefore can have no limitation and it is this that leverages the fundamental principle and so the system of metaphysics including Logic as realism.

Regarding proof and interpretation. Have a separate section?

Doubt

Mention. This is the one residual doubt. Note—consistent with all valid knowledge and experience. Strong reasons. Knowledge and action principle. Faith and attitude. Optimal resource allocation. Need not mention again. Existential attitude—in this way incomplete certainty is better than certainty.

Other doubts and counterarguments. Mention / list / detail?

Incorporate criticism here or a separate section. Rename this section. Topics under criticism: consistency, validity, meaning, and significance… also see the section On limitlessness

Meaning of the metaphysics

Regarding proof and interpretation. Have a separate section?

I use the word ‘limitless’ to signify actual rather than potential infinity and to emphasize lack of any kind of real limit rather than some particular infinity.

Realism and Logic

Logic (includes fact, science without specific specification because percept = concept)

Relation to many worlds

Word ‘Logic’ to not appear in general text?

Knowledge and freedom

The metaphysics shows the universe as ultimate; we know this

However, our knowledge of detail is limited in extent and precision

We have a concept—fact and pattern—the empirical universe which lies in but does not cover the universe

If we knew the entire universe as fact we would not need knowledge of pattern. Our being would be the being of the universe. We would be ultimate but there would be no further realization but dissolution.

In a sense, therefore, not knowing the whole is a freedom—the possibility of a journey into realms unknown to our being

The ‘greatest’ being does not have this freedom. A lesser being—relative to us—e.g., an elementary particle, has great freedom but lacks explicit knowledge of it (at least on our models). Therefore the effective freedom of the particle—it’s knowledge and experience of freedom—is limited. The ‘least’ being has greatest freedom but no effective freedom

Which being or beings have the greatest effective freedom? That is what being or beings has the greatest experience of freedom?

Ask, first for a characterization of our freedom. It is that our knowledge—fact and pattern or percept and higher concept or, simply, concept—is sufficient to show the nature of our real and given potential it is incomplete relative to the whole. We know and will realize real potential but have not yet realized. We have and know the opportunity

There is a range of being that is sufficient to know ultimate (given) opportunity but is sufficiently incomplete that a challenging and rewarding journey remains

‘Being’ cycles through the primitive, potential, and realized states

Objects

This section is fundamental.

This section and the next are not new to my thought but are new to the essential edition.

Form and its lack of ultimate importance

Mathematics…

Knowledge

Should this be explicit? Should it be here? Combine with Knowledge and freedom above?

In the ideal case every concept in the field of logic has an object and this is profound for attitude and action.

What is the implication for the practical case? Thus far I have been thinking that this means that approximate knowledge is ideal or can be seen as ideal. Now perhaps I see it differently. Given the ideal, there is no need for ‘practical perfection’. Given the ideal framework and existential doubt (is doubt the word I’ve been using?) frankly approximate knowledge is best from the ideal point of view and the practical—the latter being increment and correction within the ideal frame. In other words the imperfect is perfect.

Method

Should this be explicit? Should it be here?

Pure and Applied Metaphysics. These names? Here? This has been simplified immensely (to three phases: pure, container for practical, special).

On rationality

This may be drawn within method

What is rationality? The idea of rationality is that of a way to choose the best path of action—or, at least, good paths. Issues (a) what is the meaning of ‘good’ (b) how to get valid knowledge is a part of rationality

In absence of ability to conceive, choice does not arise. In omnipotence the ‘good’ is given. Rationality is an issue for beings lying in some range between ability to conceive and omnipotence

What is the ‘good’? We do not precisely know. We can say with some reason that it is connected to survival and quality of life. We can talk of best but there may be more than one good path of action and, generally, there will be no single best path. In some situations there will be no known good path (we will then have to experiment)

In other words, though we know what rationality is, we do not know that it is always relevant except in the sense that it includes knowing that sometimes ‘blind’ experiment will be the only known course and that when we know more than just that we may have only guesses as to the good and how to achieve it. That is the realm and practice of rationality are vague and imprecise

The nature of rationality is a question of rationality

All knowing and acting above a certain level of significance is like that. The question ‘What is philosophy?’ is an open question and in particular it is a question of philosophy. Similarly, the question ‘What is mathematics?’ is an open question; it is a question for mathematicians of course but it is not completely answerable within mathematics (Gödel showed it to be partially but incompletely answerable within any formal system of mathematics); it is also a general question of the nature of our understanding and as such it is a question of philosophy.

These conclusions of openness follow from the open nature of the universe and being-knowing in the universe. However, the expression of the metaphysics as Realism and the understanding that that brings shows that the questions ‘What is rationality… philosophy… mathematics?’ and so on have more precise general answers than mere openness or vagueness suggest. Here we are in the process of providing such precise answers.

Science and the sciences

What should the essence of this section be?

Title? Here? Keep?

Individual and identity

Is creative intelligence the apex of Being? Universe?

Addition to the first production after comment ‘Apparent limits are part of the constitution Of the forms of Being: Form and limit are positive and negative aspects of a being.

Identity

Individual

God

Not the purpose to identify ‘God’ with the god or gods of any particular religion or given conception.

Main issues:

1. What is God? Need for analysis of meaning (regardless whether the traditional meanings and objects have significance)

2. Givenness

3. Where in the world do we see signs of ‘God’? The goal is to be empirical, i.e. the signs are to be the best actual signs in the world (e.g. nature, an eagle, humankind, aspiration…) and not evidence as in the argument from design which refers not to god as such but god’s effects.

On evidence vs. signs. The distinction is hard but the words are not (as English words they have overlap). So, to see my meaning, focus on the following use and don’t be distracted by other meanings with which you may be familiar. If I see bear paw prints that is evidence that a bear was there. If I see a the tail end of a bear around a tree, that is a sign. I am particularly interested in those signs that make me suspect ‘large animal’ or ‘bear’ but are not altogether convincing. I think it is most pertinent to look for signs of God. Where do we see signs. God does not reveal him / herself.

4. The limit.

Cosmology

The following concerns arise here. 1. Should I keep just this one subsection to Cosmology? Even if I eliminate the title, I should probably emphasize that it is physical cosmology? 2. Should Individual and Identity be made a subsection of Cosmology? Where should Mind and Life be placed?

Modification from the first production: The Universe has neither beginning nor end. In a sense Of ‘is’ that accords with earlier remarks on the extension of the meaning of ‘exists’—The Universe is.

Modification from the first production: That is, breadth is ever open—particularly, the extension, duration, variety, Summit, and dissolution of manifest Being have no limit. Subject to Realism, systems of physical law are without limit.

Addition to the first production after comment that there are no indivisible particles: There may be undivided particles of limited duration…But there are no particles that remain undivided over all extension.

General cosmology

Being, space, and time

Foundation in identity

That space and time are not universal measures of extensionality; that they are perhaps not the only ones but on analysis they are perhaps the only ones (but ‘space’ and ‘time’ are not necessarily as discrete as ours where they obtain—space need not have dimension and time is perhaps not restricted to one dimension)

Origins of space and time in (a) the void and or (b) formlessness

Matter and mind

Origins of physical cosmology

Descriptive cosmology

The level of realism
The computational level of Logic

Physical cosmology

How to characterize physical cosmology? Is it the cosmology of extension and duration? Of ‘matter’? Of what?

Cosmology and destiny. Destiny of what?

Where / when to discuss multiverse, quantum theory, fungibility, determinism; remember that quantum theory is itself being and does not define the universe; if the cosmos is a multiverse—it is still is a speck; remember the non-universality of the speed of light (and of ‘matter’, space, time…)

Life

Is ‘life’ necessary here? What is life in this context? Is / how can life be an instrumental / central concept? Relate to mind.

Mind

‘Attitude’ and ‘action’ are not poles in the dimensions of mind. Experience is essential to both and each is experience plus something.

Creation

Mathematics and physics of infinity as an approach to measuring relative significance of self-adapting or normal evolution and guided or created evolution

A Perfect, Unique, and Ultimate Metaphysics

Keep this section? Keep its heading level? Keep it here?

Metaphysics and action

Journey

Critical evaluation

Validity and significance

Here? Note its done elsewhere in concentrated form and in bits and pieces

Journey

The order below is not ironclad

Retain sections Civilization and Realization, A Way of Realization, and Transience and Arrival. Add section System of Experiments at end?

Nature of the journey

Keep this? Keep title?

Neither the journey nor its contours were conceived in advance—and, though the statement of the metaphysics may have been conceivable, its fact, proof, and implications and nature of the journey were inconceivable without a journey: having a hope, seeing a glimmer, and following it rather than some definite promise. Further, the living details of realization are inconceivable for a limited being at outset—this is a direct implication of the metaphysics

Engagement

Keep this? Absorb to above? Keep title? Individual and engagement?

Attitude and realization

Civilization and realization

A way of realization

Keep title? Ways?

More on ways and the way (of being); more on catalysts and their experimental nature than in the first production (p 20); more on evolving the way (and how that is, after all, part of the way); and more on an immediate program.

Approaches

Emphasize the intrinsic and the instrumental (which are not distinct) Different societies have had different emphases. It may seem that the instrumental has outstripped the inner today (to the extent that the inner-as-realization is ignored in the mainstream: what the mainstream has is enjoyment-of-a-fixed-inner-capacity). However, the inner is essential to full being. And, the instrumental is also at a beginning

The world

‘The proximate’

Keep this? Place here or after transience and arrival (and if placed after, then comment at last picture at bottom of page?)…or after Civilization and Realization? Keep title—I’d originally wanted to call it ‘The World Today’ but that is too limited? Still I can also discuss ‘The World Today’ for it is important in itself and to the connection of this work to the world today and that connection is (another?) connection to destiny!

A separate section or part of this section? Problems—opportunities. Relation to journey.

The essence of being in the world

Keep? Title?

Some practical dimensions

Keep? Title? Combine with previous

A separate section or part of this section or the previous? Problems—opportunities. Relation to journey.

A story of world takeover by the military-industrial complex via manipulation of the political system… there is no conspiracy but naked power… paradox of Eisenhower… …role of intellectual in American vs. European history

Challenges and opportunities

A separate section or part of this or the previous? Title was: Problems—opportunities

Relation to journey.

Politics and economics

What should the essence of this section be? Separate into two sections? Relate to the section ‘Science and the Sciences’?

Title? Here? Keep?

Universe: a system of experiments

Transience and arrival

Keep title?

Conclusion

Last picture at end, not side, and with comment on pictures. Here if there is no epilogue—otherwise at epilogue.

Epilogue

What would this be? Any combination of: (1) Invitation (2) Ongoing journey (3) Ongoing narrative?

Index

Invitation

Place in epilogue and or combine with Author? If both then just brief mention in Author.

Author

Reconsider! Keep? Title (note the change from the first production)—‘The author’? Incorporate essence to another place, e.g. Intro, Journey… or Engagement (there should be no need to introduce a section ‘Individual’ for that is the role of ‘Engagement’—but I may change from ‘Engagement’ to ‘Individual! Emphasis?