Journey in Being: Introduction module

Anil Mitra PhD © August 2010, IN-PROCESS Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:27:54 AM
August 19, 2010



Purpose of the introduction. 1

What to read. 1   |   Understanding the work. 2

Overview of the introduction. 2

A dual focus. 2

Journey in being. 3

Journey. 5

Being. 5

The narrative. 7

Understanding. 7   |   Appreciation. 9

Outline of the narrative. 9

Overview.. 10   |   Ideas. 10   |   Journey. 10   |   Method. 11   |   Contribution. 14   |   Reference. 14



Purpose of the introduction

The purpose of the Introduction is to tell the reader what to expect of this book—its ambition, the main parts, and what the author thinks its accomplishments are

The Introduction will not explain concepts or conclusions—that is the function of the body of the narrative. In an Introduction to this work, explanations add only to the length of the work

However, it will be useful to explain the significance of the title of the work and of the individual terms ‘journey’ and ‘being.’ The word ‘journey’ suggests that the narrative is that of a process and though this is true, there are also results that have significance in themselves and to the process. It will be useful to say something about the main results

What to read

The Introduction will explain enough about the origins, aims, content and conclusions to permit the potential reader to decide whether the book is for him or her—whether the book is worth possessing and whether to read particular parts or the whole work. The Introduction provides a brief outline that may further assist in such decisions

Understanding the work

Since the book is novel in form and content, the reader may have difficulties of understanding that are purely due to lack of anticipation—i.e. that are not due to intrinsic difficulty of content

Therefore the Introduction will provide information on form, intent, and content that is designed to be adequate to anticipation of the nature of the work

In previous editions, the narrative has provided much explanation. I now think that the ideas and their structure are best shown by keeping in-text explanation, elaboration, and description of source material to an essential minimum (in some versions of this edition, detail is provided in supplementary chapters and footnotes or endnotes.) I will also point out what parts of the narrative are essential to the main line of development. This should assist the reader in seeing the structure of the ideas

Overview of the introduction

Shortest template. The dual focus (1) A system of ideas centered on a world view or metaphysics—ultimate, demonstrated and (2) A Journey—e, ¥ shown necessary by the metaphysics; paths framed by the metaphysics but immensely enhanced experiment and detailed knowledge. Outline. The ideas and their elaboration are developed in Chapters Intuition (perhaps Knowledge,) Metaphysics, Objects, Cosmology, Worlds, Method, and Contribution. The journey in realization is narrated in Chapter Journey (Being may be a separate chapter)

Connotations of journey. (1) Personal realization and discovery—dual focus above: this entails items 2 and 3, next, and it suggests 4 (2) Universal journey Individual = Universe. (3) Participation: a ‘new’ way of discovery. (4) Narrative

Anticipated problems of understanding and appreciation. Newness and magnitude of the view. Appreciation—seeing. Apparent contradiction of science. Old words, new meaning—problematic for general and academic readers. Articulated systems of concepts. A demonstrated coherent system of ideas that is simultaneously Universal and a metaphysics of experience—not in the classic mode of speculative system. Hypothesis and faith. Proof and doubt. Implications for humanities and sciences, wonder, religion-spirituality

A dual focus

The dual themes of the narrative are (1) A collection of ideas centered on a rather new worldview or metaphysics—one that is grounded, ultimate, and demonstrated (imagination is required but what is imagined is demonstrated.) The metaphysics is ultimate in having a having a foundation without substance or form or essence, and in providing implicit description of the variety of being. The metaphysics reveals that there is no limit to the variety of being in the Universe. The consequences of the metaphysics are immense in magnitude and include that every individual will realize identity with the ultimate, with all being, via transformation in identity ( in addition to magnitude, there is a vast range of implications that is briefly enumerated in Section Reading the narrative, below.) The second theme is that of (2) The journey of an individual and / or group  that, through grounding in enjoyment of the present, follows a path in the realization of identity with all being. Although the metaphysics shows the necessity of this realization it only suggests what might be effective approaches. It is a journey because it is immensely unlikely that any actual path will be linear. Though framed by the metaphysics, the way is immensely enhanced in quality and success by experiment and detailed knowledge. The narrative selects and develops such knowledge, approaches to experiment, and narrates the ‘journey so far’

Journey in being

As preface to explanation of ‘Journey in being’ it will be useful to say a little about my self. I have an education in science, mathematics, and engineering. My first passion is living. Understanding humankind—myself, my own nature and destiny—and the Universe has long been a passion and a driving force in my life. It is clear to me that individual destiny and the nature of the Universe are tied together. I enjoy immensely time spent in nature—hiking, backpacking, trails, lakes, peaks, wild creatures, time spent under blue skies and the stars; nature is inspiring for itself and for the inspiration I have received there about ‘self’ and Universe. Philosophy has long been a passion and I think of myself as good enough to have made some significant contributions to thought. However, I do not consider myself to be a philosopher. In the history of philosophy there have been various ideas regarding the nature of world and individual (and of course many other things.) Philosophy is more than that: over the course of its history there is an accumulated body of thought on how to think and how to know (and related issues.) I have found these aspects of philosophy—a toolkit of ideas and a toolkit of method—useful in my own attempts to know. Philosophy is not science and while some philosophers hold them to be distinct I see overlap. I have read and studied widely and I may say that the entire human tradition of culture—which includes the academic disciplines, the professional practices, religion and spiritual practice—constitute an at least partially coherent framework of ideas and methods. In saying this there is no assertion that I have expertise in more than a few areas

‘Journey in being,’ then, began as the travel of an individual—the author—in search of his destiny. It is a personal journey but it may also be seen as a universal individual journey. The destiny of individuals is naturally bound up with the nature and destiny of the Universe. My early view of the nature of the Universe and the individual world was roughly that of Secular Humanism which comes in a number of varieties. At the base, however, Secular Humanism holds that the physical universe is roughly as described in modern science and that spirituality refers, first, to an ‘inner’ world; mystic vision is not denied but, again, refers, first, to an inner world even if the vision is as of an ‘external’ world. Here, two possibilities arise. The Secular Humanist may hold that there is no external spiritual world or, alternatively, hold an agnostic stance regarding such a world. I fell, roughly, into the latter group; I held and still hold that what science reveals to be in the world is in fact there but that science does not or has not so far revealed everything that is in the Universe (in this early discussion I omit consideration of the fact that science does or may not reveal things-in-themselves; I may however point out that the claim regarding the incompleteness of science is founded in a study of the nature of the scientific method as well as certain arguments of David Hume that I will later take up explicitly)

My early thought, therefore, left me agnostic with regard to what lies outside the realm of science-up-to-the-present-time. I held and hold that that is the correct position in relation to what is learned from science. To be truly agnostic is to hold that I do not know what lies beyond science and that the possibilities regarding what lies beyond lie somewhere in the range from zero to infinite variety, duration, and extension. Many and perhaps most modern thinkers who are not fundamentalist with regard to religion hold a contrary position. They see that science has revealed more and more of the Universe (I, too, see that.) They then conclude that since what lies beyond is diminishing and since what lies within pervades every known dimension, what lies beyond must lie in a range from zero to very small (at least in kind if not in extent.) I disagree. A simple reason for disagreement is that the individual who thinks that way is thinking that all dimensions and every known dimension are identical or almost identical. It cannot be concluded that they are because there is no scientific reason (science does not reach beyond its boundary)  or logical reason (logic can only make conclusions from premises e.g. science which does not reach beyond its own boundary). However, the conclusion in question is psychologically natural because we naturally conflate the world with the limit of what we know and the limit of what we know is limited by our natural assumptions regarding the kinds of thing in the world. A strong part of our psychological constitution is to do so: it is adaptive to not be forever questioning common sense or ‘what works.’ However, as already stated, the conclusion is not necessary either on scientific or logical grounds. Thus arguments from science that conclude that there is no God or that it is almost certainly true that there is no God are in error. This of course does not prove that there is a significant world beyond the modern scientific picture or that God exists. It simply shows (proves) that the argument from science (or common sense) that there is no beyond is an incorrect argument and cannot (unless the nature of science should undergo some radical change) be a correct argument

It became clear to me that in order to know anything regarding the extension and the kinds beyond the scientific, common sense, Secular Humanist picture, I would have to turn elsewhere. I turned to metaphysics (there is a long recent tradition against metaphysics and I defer that consideration and my arguments against that tradition.) I will also defer discussion the varieties of metaphysical system—some from the history of thought, some invented, of the process of discovery and, especially, of the demonstration of the final metaphysics (the Universal metaphysics)

I will simply state, here, that the central result of the metaphysics (in one of its forms) is that The variety, extension, and duration of being in the Universe is without limit. Another form is that The Void or absence of being and any element of being including the Universe are equivalent. The equivalence of the Void and the Universe clearly seems as though it might have ‘spiritual’ implications (and this intuition will be borne out.) One of the implications is that, in some sense, the individual and all being are eternal and have identity (these thoughts are not new but the demonstration appears to be entirely new and that demonstration has brought entirely new consequences of immense magnitude)

My development to this point was an individual journey—it was a journey since it went through many metamorphoses and include both mystical insight and proof (insight to see and proof to confirm or disconfirm what was seen.) Though personal, the paradigm of my travel—looking, inspiration, taking non-rigid stands as experiments, and then, finally when vision emerged into impersonal reason (proof) not needing to take a stand because the outcome stands independently—may be a paradigm for others

However, now an entire new journey opened up—one that is individual and Universal. It was the possibility of a journey into ultimate realization. It is universal in that it is necessary and its cultivation is open to all individuals (and is shown to be ultimate destiny of the individual as repetition of ultimate realization and dissolution.) Proofs, approaches, what is realized so far, and the road ahead—these are all taken up later. The Universal journey and its idea are not new; individuals have walked that path perhaps since the beginning of humankind; and it was my journey as well. What may be new includes (1) Its necessity—i.e. that all persons are on this path (2) This necessity includes not only that the path is open to all but than no one has the choice to avoid it regardless of their explicitly chosen choice (however it is argued that to enjoy and have any significant chance of realization, intelligent and experimental application is necessary; and, further, it is readily agreed and insisted, rather un-Biblically, that the explicit choice is not necessary for a good life, a life that is enjoyed and is morally and economically productive) (3) The clarity and definiteness of the view and the elaboration of development (4) Demonstration and (5) The nature of the ultimate revealed


Connotations of ‘journey’ include the following. (1) Personal realization and discovery regarding the dual themes just introduced. This realization has been immensely nonlinear regarding direction of development, promising developments abandoned though perhaps remaining useful in some ways, ambitions and views of the possible that shifted and grew as understanding grew. The dual themes entail the second and third connotations that follow and they suggest the fourth. (2)  The idea of a Universal journey in the realization of the identity of individual and Universe. (3) Participation as a ‘new’ way of discovery: as essential to discovery in the future, certainly, for the social realm but also perhaps in the natural realm. (4) The narrative approach and form of this essay that is a mix of monologue and travelogue over formal monologue alone: as natural to the present emphasis on being and thought rather than thought alone, and participation and analysis over analysis of an isolation of an the Object


The significance of ‘Being’ in the title of the essay will emerge in the narration. However, a preliminary comment is appropriate. (‘Being’ will not be consistently capitalized in the essay)

There is a tradition of thought regarding the idea of Being and the ideas of the narrative derive much from this tradition. However, even though it is a benefit, it is not a reason to regard Being as fundamental in this work. For, in addition to what is positive, an idea from the traditions of thought may carry connotations that block development and / or comprehension. Additionally, relative to metaphysics, we may ask Why being rather than matter of mind or other candidate for fundamental kind? Discussion of the significance of Being must enquire regarding its analytic efficiency

The full title of the essay is Journey in Being: The Universe—an Exploration in Ideas and Identity

In the narrative it is discovered that the traditions of thought from myth, religion, philosophy, secular humanism and the sciences provide a very limited view of the Universe. The limitation concerns not only the extent and duration of the Universe but also the kind and variety of things that it contains. The metaphysics of the narrative shows these limits and provides foundation for an exploration of the Universe in its entirety (the narrative also provides meaning to the phrase ‘exploration… in its entirety’ while simultaneously showing that the revolutionary view is not in contradiction with what is valid in the received views.) Thus the limits to received tradition are cast positively rather than in a merely negative way

In received thought, one approach to exploration is ‘foundationalism’ which is the idea that there is some fundamental kind that is the substance of the Universe and may therefore be instrumental in discovery. Classical substances include generic substance, matter, mind, idea, concept, trope, Object, relation, process, fact, proposition and others (it will turn out that any Object in the Universe can function as substance just as well—or not—as any other and that the system of Objects is far broader than hitherto imagined.) However, on account of the limitation to received thought it may be anticipated that such substances shall be inadequate. That classical substances are generally posited rather than derived suggests inadequacy (the success of materialist science suggests but does not demonstrate materialism.) The inadequacy of classical substance is positively demonstrated in the development of the metaphysics

An alternative to classical foundationalism is the idea of a relative metaphysics or philosophy in which there is no substantial foundation but the beginning is either in the unfounded or, equivalently, rests upon infinite regress

Thus the classical alternatives are foundation in substance that may seem reasonable but is not at all secure or the transparent absence of foundation of relative metaphysics

Is there a way out? The modern answer is generally that there is not

The approach adopted in this work is to not specify in advance whether there is a substance of the Universe. The position is that perhaps there is some substance—perhaps it is mind or matter or some as yet unknown kind; but perhaps there is no substance at all. The approach emphasizes that the question of substance should fall out of investigation rather than be the pre-condition and therefore prejudice of investigation

This approach may be understood by analogy with elementary algebra (it did not develop from this analogy.) In a pre-algebraic approach to problem solving, solutions may be guessed. In a transitional phase, an unknown quantity may be designated by a complex phrase whose manipulation is ponderous. In elementary algebra the unknown is designated by a name such as ‘x.’ This immediately introduces enormous power in that although x is unknown, the naming enables manipulation as though it were known: by isolating x (to one side of an equation) we solve for x. With this clarification the development of methods of elementary algebra becomes much more efficient and therefore possible. Further, these methods suggest the abstract entities of modern algebra which then acquire a life of their own or, equivalently, discover an already existing form

The idea of Being derives from the verb to be. Being is that which is there. In talking of being, it is not said what it is, e.g. what its kind may be. The idea is that Being is what is there rather than that Being is of matter or mind and so on. Therefore Being may play the role in metaphysics that the naming of the unknown plays in elementary algebra. By naming the unknown of metaphysics, we are able to talk of it without specifying it. Of itself, this of course guarantees nothing (except perhaps that in naming the unknown-as-unknown we distance our thought from prejudicial commitments.) Just as there are equations that have no demonstrated solution, naming the unknown of metaphysics does not at all guarantee that we shall discover the nature of that unknown. However, it avoids the mistake of prejudice and it allows that discovery may fall out of investigation. This is the first fundamental role of Being in this narrative and it is this that permitted the development of the metaphysics (which of course required significant work that is described in Chapters Intuition and Metaphysics)

It will turn out that Being is not a substance in the effective sense of that term. An essential idea of substance is that it should provide explanation, e.g. as a simple kind that generates the variety of the manifest world. The simpler the kind the more successful the explanation. The simplest ‘kind’ would be uniform and unchanging. How will this simplest kind generate the manifest world? The first and perhaps natural thought is that the generation should be deterministic for indeterministic generation seems to be no explanation at all. We learn in quantum physics as well as in biology, however, that some combination of determinism and indeterminism permits a dual of structured and novel emergence (the development of the metaphysics has no logical dependence on science even where the imaginative side of the development may draw from science as metaphor.) Therefore, regarding Being not only shall its kind be unspecified in advance, there shall be no advance or prior assumption as to kind of process—deterministic or indeterministic. In fact, as we shall show in Chapter Cosmology, it need not be specified in advance whether Being should be spatial or temporal (extension and duration are shown to be necessary aspects of the world)

It is thus that Being is pivotal in the present development. Being is ultimately simple

It is ultimately simple in the sense that it is not taken to be of some kind, that it is not taken to be spatial or temporal and if temporal whether deterministic or not—or even existent in any positive sense as Object: these characters fall out of investigation

The narrative

It may be clear by now that the work does not fall under a common literary genre. Therefore the title of the work and other aspects of its appearance lack the suggestive power of belonging to a genre and it may therefore be particularly useful to provide further orientation to the nature of the work

As a result of (partial) foundation of the narrative in a new metaphysics, readers expecting to see rearrangements of classical ideas or to understand the ideas in terms of received concepts may face issues of understanding. Readers who anticipate a single thread of development may fail to appreciate the breadth of concerns, developments, and applications

‘To be forewarned is to be forearmed.’ Therefore, potential sources of the problems are discussed below in Sections Understanding and Appreciation.  Additionally, the discussion suggests positive remedies for the problems


A significant problem concerns expectations that readers may bring to this work. This section therefore contains a brief discussion of the nature of the content of the essay

Newness and magnitude of the worldview (metaphysics) should be especially emphasized for otherwise the reader may anticipate something entirely different, e.g. a merely personal account or a narrative that is a compilation of received thought and development of consequences. While mention of ‘newness and magnitude’ forewarns readers that they should be prepared to burn new tracks of thought, it also informs them that the author expects critical evaluation rather than automatic acceptance or ‘conversion’

The ideas of the work draw upon ideas from the traditions including sciences and humanities but the work is not a reformulation or popular rendering or drawing out of implications of the same. The metaphysics of the narrative appears to contradict modern science but it is shown that there is in fact no contradiction

In the development of the ideas, old words (signs) are used with new meaning—this may be problematic for general and academic readers; the general reader may expect common usage to prevail while the academic may expect to see use to correspond to that of some specialist system; therefore, all readers should be prepared to reeducate their understanding

The metaphysics through cosmology presents an articulated systems of concepts: the concepts hang together as a coherent system whose effective modeling of the Universe is not a function of individual meaning (the meanings of the terms derives significantly from their connectedness as part of a coherent system.) Because, the individual concepts are selected and defined with care and because they stand together as an articulated system, readers may require time and reflection to absorb the system-as-system. Analytic philosophers who are used to piecemeal analysis of concepts founded in intuition may experience the present development as foreign

The metaphysics through cosmology does in fact present a system and therefore the reader may anticipate that what is presented is a speculative metaphysics of the kind that reached an apex with Hegel. The present system required imagination but it is justified by demonstration and subject to criticism: it is a demonstrated coherent system of ideas that is simultaneously Universal and a metaphysic of experience

Regarding proof, not all doubt has been removed even though the form of proof is sound. Two approaches to doubt are employed in the narrative. In the discussion of the ideas the issue of proof is subject to scrutiny and alternative proofs are provided; this is the first approach

A second approach arises in deploying the metaphysics where it is first noted that although doubt may remain, the metaphysics is neither absurd nor disproved—and it cannot be disproved either conceptually or experimentally in the classic ways of contradiction or experimental test. However, this is not because the metaphysics is tautologous (it is not.) It is because it reveals the Universe to be co-extensive with Logical possibility (the actual and the possible are identical) and it is therefore a new kind of metaphysics (or science) regarding which we should not expect disconfirmation

Rather, what may be expected is an ongoing adventure in variety and depth and, if used as criterion, this may determine the value of the metaphysics over time; the metaphysic lies within the realm of experience rather than a realm of disconfirmation. The second approach therefore accepts that the metaphysics may have a hypothetical character and proceeds on faith as the attitude that is most productive of maximal outcome

Here are some suggestions for readers. Some suggestions are implicit so far: expect to revise the understanding of received ideas and concepts, expect that the ideas presented appear to violate received ideas including those of science and common sense but also understand that the new understanding is well developed and that apparent contradictions will be given resolution. Understand that the revision of a worldview is not automatic, that it shall require time for absorption and for a new viewpoint to become commonplace: understand that the author has labored through the dual problem of developing and acquiring this new view and that of these two problems that of acquisition has already been resolved for the reader. Still this resolution cannot be entire for it may be only after absorption of a new view that the reader will know where an author is going (just as it is only after development that an author will recognize the aim of the Universe of being and his or her own thought.) An obvious suggestion is that the work may be read more than once—first to test the waters, then to sound the depths


The issue of appreciation is that of seeing the breadth of the development. This includes the concerns of understanding just discussed but emphasizes those of consequences for the tradition. Such consequences naturally fall under the non-disjunct areas of academic and human interest (‘academic’ and ‘human’ are understood generally: the academic is the entire formal understanding of the world and self, and the human is the entire understanding of world and self through the lens of being grounded in the world)

Detailed consequences, worked out in the narrative, include (a) significant new conceptions and developments of the major disciplines of philosophy, i.e. philosophy itself, method, metaphysics, cosmology, logic, epistemology, the idea of mind, and ethics, (b) further implications of academic interest—mutual developments of the metaphysical-cosmological system and every major discipline in the sciences and humanities and the practical arts of medicine and technology, and (c) implications for perhaps every major human endeavor, especially politics and economics and the spheres of planning and design, morals and moral action, wonder and the nature and proper foci of religion and the spiritual

Here, the modern reader may face the following problem. The modern worldview is significantly informed by natural science and therefore, unless the reader is of a fundamentalist persuasion, he or she may see symbolic meaning in religion but will tend to see the common religious cosmologies as archaic (at best.) However, the metaphysics of this so opens up the immensity and strangeness that it is again possible to talk of the variety of being as a source of a religious cosmology. However, this cosmology will not be prescribed by scripture but must be an ongoing experiment in variety

The foregoing concern is an aspect of the way the world is seen in a community of specialists. In order to build up an entire picture of the world, every part may, including the whole, need to be simultaneously revised according to the best available thought. The problem of the specialist is that while he or she may work in the forefront of a particular field, the ability to correctly see the nature of the world suffers from an inertia in regard to his or her archaic view of the rest of the world. The view built up in the present narrative is the result of repeated cycling through the various aspects until an articulated and critical picture emerged

Outline of the narrative

In earlier versions, the concerns of the previous section were addressed by providing and explanations of concepts discussions of academic and human relevance. The added length has made it difficult to see what is essential. That the concepts remained under development also added to length of discussion

Because it is essentially simple, a minimalist presentation may enhance seeing the structure of the work. Because the development has now achieved articulated maturity, minimalist presentation is now practical and even takes on an imperative character

Therefore this version will provide essential development expressed economically. Explanations will be minimal and strategic. Excision of content will increase with distance from the core: remote content will be referenced or eliminated

This version will have (1) A logically complete, minimal account of the structure (2) Minimal explanation and elaboration and (3) A sketch of Worlds (application to disciplines / endeavors) emphasizing method / content that is important for Journey (experiments in transformation)

A middle path—in some versions I may provide the detail in footnotes / endnotes which will allow a single source to generate a minimal version sans footnotes and a version with detail that does not mask what is essential


The essay is arranged in five parts or divisions—Ideas, Journey, Method, Contribution, and Reference (in some versions the parts are formally named)

Ideas and Journey correspond to the dual themes of the narrative identified earlier: (1) A collection of ideas centered on a rather new worldview or metaphysics and (2) The journey of an individual and / or group that, through grounding in enjoyment of the present, follows a path in the realization of identity with all being

The developments in the first two divisions include consequences for the idea of method. These consequences and implications for science and other disciplines are discussed in Method

In Contribution I attempt to assess the contribution of the essay to the traditions of thought and action. The final part provides Reference tools for the reader’s use

The five parts are now described in greater detail


The core of the ideas is the metaphysics of Chapter Metaphysics. This metaphysics is dually a Universal metaphysics and a metaphysic of experience. As Universal, it is a metaphysics of ultimate depth and variety. The depth is the foundational depth already discussed (it is implicit in the idea of foundation that the metaphysic is demonstrated.) The variety has two senses: the metaphysics implicitly contains the variety of being of the Universe; and it shows that that variety has no limit. This metaphysics is also foundation for a journey in realization of all being via equivalence of individual and universal Identity

The most direct foundation of the metaphysics is in the character of its fundamental Objects—Being, Void, Universe and others—which are abstracted so as to eliminate any detail that is the source of distortion; the chapter on metaphysics stands by itself. However, the metaphysics may be simultaneously founded and grounded in individual-group understanding and knowing. Chapter Intuition provides such foundation and grounding

Chapter Objects (1) further develops, in light of the metaphysics, the epistemology begun in Intuition, (2) elucidates the nature of particular and abstract Objects, (3) contrary to modern understanding shows that there is practical but no essential distinction between the particular and the abstract, and, thereby (4) further emphasizes that there is precisely one Universe and no separate worlds of matter or being, mental Objects, or Platonic Forms

Chapter Cosmology develops some important varieties of being (and concerns general but not physical cosmology)

Chapter Worlds takes up the mutual illumination and development of the metaphysical ideas and more immediate ideas in which distortion is not and perhaps cannot be eliminated


The concern of Chapter Journey is the realization of the Universal by the individual / group as guaranteed above. The metaphysics guarantees the realization but suggests that mere acquiescence in this guarantee is enormously inefficient and without reward. Journey takes up a more rewarding, active, and efficient approach and is based dually in the pure (metaphysics) and detailed (Worlds) approaches

Chapter Being is about realization in the present and may be incorporated to Journey


The metaphysics and related developments have required and been the occasion for new approaches

The approach to the metaphysics is neutral with regard to substance

It is fundamental to the approach to the metaphysics that it posits no substance in advance of analysis—whether there are substances and the number and kind of substances are to be determined as a result of investigation: it is allowed that there may be zero, one, or more substances

The approach to the metaphysics is neutral with regard to kinds and cases of Objecthood

Additionally, the determination of what things have Objecthood and what kinds of Objecthood there may be is also to be the result of investigation

The approach to the metaphysics deploys Being as the vehicle for the neutral approach

Although the idea of Being has been deployed to similar ends in the work of other writers, there is freshness in the clarity and the way of deployment in the present metaphysics (including the theory of Objects and the Cosmology.) It is significant that there is an analogy between the use of named unknown variables in algebra and the present use of Being. Naming the fundamental entity or kind of metaphysics as an unknown carries the algebraic power of the unknown without committing to its nature

The development of the metaphysics deploys a new kind of abstraction

The method of determining the fundamental Objects of the metaphysics is a new kind of abstraction—it is that of conceptually filtering out detail that may result in distortion. Therefore, the fundamental or Universal or necessary Objects are perfectly known. This method of abstraction is also applicable in more special developments such as the understanding of mind and of space and time (here distortion is avoided by filtering to a level of qualitative description and therefore perfect faithfulness must be relinquished when going beyond this qualitative level and, particularly, to precise-quantitative description)

The approach to the metaphysics is critical

The approach to the metaphysics is critical  in that it recognizes that it must be non-essentialist with regard to correctness or faithfulness of knowledge. It is implicit in the foregoing that the approach to faithfulness of knowledge must be non-essentialist. The concept is not the Object or even of the same kind as the Object and therefore the fact and meaning of faithfulness (and of the locus of the Object) do not follow from the idea of an intensional relation between concept and Object. In a skeptical theory, therefore, all faithfulness of knowledge is ruled out. In an essentialist theory there is a tendency for a uniform evaluation of faithfulness across the range of knowledge, i.e. since some knowledge claims are suspect all knowledge claims must be suspect. A critical or non-essentialist theory, however, concludes neither presence nor absence of faithfulness from the datum of the idea of concept and Object: it allows the range from perfect faithfulness to entire lack of faithfulness. Whether faithfulness has meaning and whether there may be cases of perfect faithfulness and whether there is some practical kind of faithfulness even in the absence of a clear meaning to faithfulness are therefore not determined in advance of investigation (in critical analysis.) The method of abstraction determines that it is precisely in the case of the necessary Objects (Universal or other) that faithfulness has clarity of meaning and precision. Adaptation suggests a practical but implicit faithfulness in other cases and such faithfulness is supported though not demonstrated by science. With regard to the distinction between the metaphysics and science it can be seen that a critical approach will have a non-uniform approach to evaluation of knowledge claims—e.g., doubts regarding the universality of the theories of science do not necessarily carry over to the metaphysics

The grounding of the metaphysics uses a novel sense of intuition

The present sense of intuition has roots in Kant’s use of the term regarding perception—for Kant the theories of geometry and mechanics of his time implied that the intuition of space, time and cause is an intuition of the categories of nature. Kant further specified that logic is the means to the systematic development of knowledge from a foundation in geometry and mechanics. Today the old geometry and mechanics known to not capture the essence of nature and the present geometrodynamics is not regarded as final (the theories of physics are regarded as replaceable by improved theories.) Additionally, the actual logic(s) of today are not regarded as universal or a priori. Kant’s specific use of intuition cannot be a foundation for metaphysics. However, his idea to use intuition is an immense insight. Therefore the present approach to grounding of the metaphysics in human-animal knowledge uses intuition but in a specific sense that is different from Kant’s specification. There are two differences. (1) Since the science of today cannot ground metaphysics, the approach must turn to Objects that are not the ‘Objects’ of science. The metaphysics of this narrative turns to a more basic set of fundamental Objects that include Being, Universe, Domain and Void. It has been seen that the choice of Being involves no a priori specification. What of Universe, Domain and Void? These and other fundamental or necessary Objects were not posited but their place in the metaphysics was discovered by trial and error; once discovered the articulated system was shown to constitute a metaphysics that was also a metaphysic of experience. How is it known that the fundamental Objects are perfectly known? Perfect faithfulness is guaranteed by the use of abstraction. The four fundamental Objects just noted make the development the metaphysics possible. Other Objects permit development of detail. (2) Since logic does not have universal faithfulness, it too is brought under intuition. Since the sources of knowledge are observation (facts regarding Objects) and logic (derivation of ‘new’ facts from given facts,) this amounts to bringing all knowledge under intuition. In other words there are no a priori claims regarding knowledge

Analysis of meaning

The information provided above is not sufficient to develop the metaphysics. It is also crucial that the meanings of the terms ‘Universe’ and ‘Void’ should be developed for consistency and analytic power. It is consistent with the neutrality of approach which eliminates the prejudice of the a priori that the chosen ideas (Being, Universe, Domain, Void…) and there conceptual specification should be the result of investigation. Thus the final set of concepts and their meanings were the result of trial and error with ideas and meaning. There was of course no guarantee that a metaphysics would emerge and it may therefore be regarded as multiply fortuitous that the metaphysics that did emerge is one of ultimate breadth and depth, one that shows that the Universe has no limit to the variety of being, and one that is also a metaphysic of experience

Analysis of Logic

That the Universe has no limit to the variety of being appears to imply that corresponding to every concept there must be an Object. The only restriction to the assertion is that principles of logic should not be violated. Of course the Universe itself as an Object does not have the possibility of violating logic. It is only when one part of the Universe (a mind) attempts to represent or depict another part or the whole that issues of logic arise. For concepts to have Objects, the concepts should not violate logic. However, we have seen that logic itself is not given a priori. We do not know, therefore, that (a) satisfaction of our logics always guarantees the existence of an Object or (b) that our logics come anywhere near completeness in the range of Objects that we can use them to generate. We therefore define Logic that which concepts and systems must satisfy so as to have Objects. Since the logics are approximations to Logic, the latter is non-trivial even if we do not know it precisely or fully. Getting to know Logic is a process of discovery in which we may approach it but (perhaps) never reach it

Deployment of the metaphysics

Once the metaphysics has been formulated it may be used to clarify and develop ideas across the entire range of general and special metaphysics (general metaphysics concerns the Objects that we know: the fundamental Objects of the metaphysics, special metaphysics concerns Objects whose existence follows from the metaphysics but that we may or may not know directly.) The metaphysics is deployed, for example, to develop a general and unified theory of Objects—it is general in seeing different kinds of Objects (things, processes, relations, facts) on the same basis and unified in dissolving the conceptual distinction between the particular and the abstract. The metaphysics is deployed in the development of general cosmology as the theory of variety. It may also be deployed to a number of specialized ends such as study of mind and space and time. As an example of a specific problem, the metaphysics provides a trivial resolution of what Heidegger called the fundamental problem of metaphysics, i.e. why there is being at all rather than absence of being

Applied metaphysics

Chapter Worlds develops some novelties of approach to development in the traditional academic disciplines that suggest that every context has inherent limits that may be approached. Sometimes, as in the general theory of mind and of space and time there are no inherent limits but, generally, the introduction of interesting detail results in limits. While local concepts and approaches are used, the metaphysics may be seen to frame and enhance the development of the local disciplines. A method of participation is developed in the context of the social sciences and it is suggested that this approach may have future application in the natural sciences (as complement to the traditional scientific method.) The discussion of method begins with a general analysis of the idea of method, develops the idea in relation to intuition, metaphysics, logic and related topics. Implications for the academic disciplines and human endeavors are also developed

Journey in being

The metaphysics shows that the individual will achieve identity with all being but only suggests approaches. Experiment and the local disciplines are seen to make the approach more effective. There is no guarantee that the individual will achieve the identity in ‘this form.’ It is immensely improbable that the approach will be ‘linear.’ The journey will be one of experiment, many avenues explored and many abandoned, enjoyment of the process, unavoidable pain, possibilities that emerge with knowledge, goals and ambitions that change with understanding

Faith and hypothesis

It is here that the idea of faith enters—it is the idea of faith as the attitude that is most conducive of positive outcomes. Doubts regarding the metaphysics have been mentioned. Regarding these doubts the metaphysics may be regarded as a robust hypothesis and its deployment be enhanced by faith


Chapter Contribution assesses the contribution of the present work. It also catalogs and amplifies the contributions of the Metaphysics / Worlds system. The chapter discusses criteria for significance, the major contributions, and significance for the history of ideas


The final Part has (a) sources of ideas and inspiration, (b) an index of ideas and names, and, possibly, (c) suggestions on the reconstruction of experience