JOURNEY IN BEING
METAPHYSICS
What is metaphysics?… A Metaphysics of Immanence… Why metaphysics?… Intrinsic aims
Being—review and reflection… What is metaphysics?… A Metaphysics of Immanence—reflections
on naming the metaphysics… Aims of the chapter… The first intrinsic goal—to develop
the foundation… On ‘method’… A second intrinsic goal—to refine
basic ideas on Being and to refine and set
up the Theory of Being from Metaphysics through The Future… A third intrinsic goal—to review
metaphysics and philosophy in light of
the foregoing framework
Why immanence?
Immanence of Law, Pattern and Form
As Theory of Being, all ideas and transformations flow to and from the metaphysics—the metaphysics is ‘whatever foundation developed along the way—partial and in-process’
First, however, refine some ideas from Being: general observation on the forms of experience—sentience—and their kinds
Main or generic conclusions from the forms of experience… repeated from Being: being—that which exists—given fact of being but only some generic kinds of object. The existence of generic objects: sentience, all being—the universe, difference and change, part—domain, process, absence of being—the void
General and particular (topical) conclusions from the existence and nature of the generic objects. Necessary and contextual—e.g. local, probable—conclusions
Conclusions regarding the nature of metaphysics (as epilogue and to the general conclusions of the metaphysics)
Objections and refutations
Faith and affirmation
On method
I.e. from Objects to The Future
Metaphysics and philosophy
Problems of metaphysics
Metaphysics is at the heart of the system of ideas. All theory flows to and from Metaphysics – the Metaphysics of Immanence
Since metaphysics is concerned with being, some reflections on being and the role it is to play may be useful
Being is ‘that which exists or has existence.’ As fundamental, being comes recommended by the following characteristics that have various overlaps. (1) Its uncommitted character that enables avoidance of prejudice especially the prejudice of the paradigmatic fundamental forms as commonly constructed—matter, mind, process… (2) It therefore carries the power of symbolic naming of the unknown, of what is to be discovered as in symbolic algebra. (3) It derives from the most simple of language forms—the state of being as expressed by the verb to be whose forms are ‘is,’ ‘are,’ ‘was,’ ‘will be’ and so on… (4) It does not distinguish near or far, immediate or eternal, esoteric or mundane… but permits such distinctions. Thus its esoteric and even religious connotations are incidental rather than necessary. In the global form the idea permits representation or naming of the entire universe over all coordinating features, e.g. space and time, in a single word. (5) On account of its uncommitted character and its permission of immediacy and eternality. (6) It enables connection to the traditions of East and West
It is important to note that use of ‘being’ in metaphysics cannot be passive if it is to serve as the foundational idea for the entire universe of experience and fact. Rather, it is essential to develop metaphysics in such a way that there is continual shedding of ontological commitments –explicit and implicit, given and as yet unrealized– in such a way that they are neither enforced or disallowed but remain, in general and in specific contexts, in interaction with discovery
They used to say that the ontological commitments should be the result rather than the condition of metaphysics. It is now said that investigation and commitment should be developed interactively and, until shown to be complete, continually
In this narrative, metaphysics has, roughly, the meaning that it has in philosophy. I.e., metaphysics is concerned with the study of being as such. It was seen that there is no conception or sense of existence of something over and above its conception and thus the sense of being is trivial or empty but the concept is powerful. In addition to the question of being itself and the power that derives from it (primarily below, initial observations in Being,) there are a number of related and fundamental topics that may be studied in metaphysics. These are (1) the issue of substance, i.e. whether a uniform and unchanging substance that is the source of all things and all change (this issue is interesting from the point of view of simplicity;) (2) the question of Objects, i.e. how are the ‘things’ that have being known; and (3) the question of variety of being or Cosmology, i.e. what things are there in the universe
Narrow versus broad connotation of metaphysics
This question … should interact with the development of the metaphysics therefore the following is informed by the development and the question will be addressed again below in Metaphysics and philosophy
Metaphysics is the study of being without regard to ontological commitment
Metaphysics must proceed by the shedding and assertion of commitments
At root, the ground of metaphysics shall have no commitments. Ground metaphysics shall have no commitments. First metaphysics shall have only the most universal and therefore most fundamental of commitments—that there is being
(That there is being does not mean that there is always manifest being)
Metaphysics must remain in a process of discovery until any end is (or ends are) discovered. I.e. there is no ontological commitment to either endless or to final discovery
This lack of commitment to finiteness versus infinity in discovery may not be uniform but may be relative to aspect e.g. depth and variety
This ‘first metaphysics’ appears to distinguish between void and manifest being (what is sometimes referred to as non-being and being) but the ideas of void and manifest may be regarded so as to not require this distinction. Alternately, first metaphysics may be regarded as the study of void and manifest being
Metaphysics is the most fundamental discipline from and to which the study of all other departments of study –objects, meaning, logic, mind, cosmology, the human world and faith, character and necessity of journey, explorations in ideas and transformation, and the arc of life– shall flow
Metaphysics is the discipline whose object is being and its outer limits. And: Philosophy is the discipline whose limits are the outer limits of being and understanding
In this formulation, being may perhaps be enhanced as follows. (1) Replace ‘being’ by ‘being, action and transformation’ even though this enhancement is implicit. (2) Regard Metaphysics as the object of metaphysics, Philosophy as the object of philosophy
Metaphysics is concerned with understanding the world. In one meaning, metaphysics is a study of the most general aspects of things – the way they are in virtue of their existence. The entity studied may be an object, the universe, the real, or (in a less conventional interpretation) a method of demonstration. The Theory of Being as developed here is concerned not only with what there is in the local cosmological system but what there is in the entire universe: what is actual? The Theory of Being is concerned with depth (foundation, issues of substance) and variety or cosmology. It is found that what is possible is (in the global sense of ‘is’) realized in the universe i.e. the actual and the possible are identical. However what is possible in terms of the patterns of behavior of the local cosmological system has a far lesser variety than what is possible without qualification i.e. in the universe. What is locally possible is an example of the concept of the normal e.g. of normal behavior. The idea of the ‘normal’ is developed below
They were able to show a picture of the Universe that is demonstrably deeper than that of the tradition of ideas and of greater variety than that of science, Faith, myth and fiction. Their picture of depth (metaphysics and Logic) was explicitly ultimate. Their picture of variety (cosmology) was only implicitly ultimate but still explicitly greater by an infinite factor than that of science, faith, myth and fiction
In the present section, the metaphysics will be developed and an exploration of its significance will be begun and continued in subsequent sections. Further meanings and formalizations of metaphysics will be taken up in division ‘Journey in Being,’ sections ‘Philosophy and Metaphysics’ and ‘Problems in Metaphysics’
Let us reflect on the naming of the metaphysics. What is it that gives the metaphysics its power? It may be seen to start with the void that is the source of the absolute indeterminism. From what characteristics of the void does the absolute indeterminism follow? The characteristics are (1) that it contains no Form, no Pattern, and no Law and (2) that the void exists… which it does as the complement of all being. (1) Follows from the concept of the void as absence and the universe as containing all things including, therefore, Form, Pattern and Law (as distinct from form…) I.e. the absolute indeterminism follows from the Immanence of the Higher objects of being among the ‘lower.’ (Quotes because as is seen in Objects, the distinction between higher and lower is not a necessary one.) Therefore it is the Immanence of all things in the universe (which can be seen as equivalent to elimination of substance) that makes for absolute indeterminism and so the metaphysics
This——defining characteristic may be viewed ‘negatively’ as absence from the void or positively as presence in the universe. The positive is clearer since it obviously implies the negative… even though it was the negative that occurred first in the development. The positive says more——explicitly. Further, ‘immanence’ is better than presence for it makes clear that Form is of being rather than imposed on being or merely present with being…
The metaphysics may be named Metaphysics of Immanence
Being is that which exists or has existence. Being includes not just things but also laws, patterns, and forms (the concept of Form is clarified in the discussion ‘Form…’ below and in the next section ‘Objects.’) Typically, laws are thought to be read into being. However, the concept of the Universe is that of all being – the manifold of All Being. There is nothing outside the Universe; therefore, laws, patterns, and forms are not outside the universe: they are immanent in (all) being. (It will become clear that talk of distinct universes is without content.) Therefore, while laws, forms and patterns may be read, Laws, Forms, and Patterns are immanent in Being. They did not need to further distinguish law from Law, form from Form… The Void is the absence of being and Logos is the form –or law– of all being
The following goals are those of the metaphysics in the narrative——there is also, as for the other topics, the intrinsic interest and the hope to make a contribution
A first goal is to develop the foundation
A second goal is to refine some ideas on Being and to refine and set up the metaphysics itself and Theory of Being through The Future
A third goal is to review metaphysics and philosophy in light of the foregoing framework
The narrative continues with other topics that define goals of which some may be incorporated into the above goals
Metaphysics is at the heart of the system of ideas. The topic of Being flows into it and from it –as well as from topic-specific considerations– flows the topics of Objects, Logic, Mind, Cosmology, the Human World and other topics
The Metaphysics may be seen as the foundation of the system of ideas … and can be set up as follows
The narrative interacts with the metaphysics. Although metaphysics does not fully found transformation or conceptual development it has a foundational character
The structure of this section is this. The development stems from a small group of central ideas—experience or sentience and the form of experience, the concepts and facts of being and of all being (the universe,) of difference and domain (part,) of change, of absence of being (the void,) of form, of this cosmological system and so on. These ideas outline the section; in each section the corresponding idea is the main source of development
In Metaphysics, the focus is on those underlying ‘axioms’ and consequences that are fundamental and necessarily true
Overlaid upon the above, the section has a second structure. This structure is defined by the topic regarding which conclusions are derived. These topics define the main divisions and chapters of the narrative—from Being, through Metaphysics and on to Transformation and The Future. Thus, in this section, some considerations of Being are refined and subsequent chapters are set up. This development is further elaborated in the next section, A second intrinsic goal—to refine basic ideas on Being and to refine and set up the Theory of Being from Metaphysics through The Future
Earlier it was remarked that the sense (but not reference) of the concept of the being of an entity over and above the conception of the entity is empty
What then may form a basis for foundation?
The following basic aspects have arisen: all, none or nothing or the void, and difference or, equivalently, part; these aspects pertain to the concepts of universe, void and domain
The empirical is built into the fact of perception and into the fact of content that imply being and the condition of being that implies all, none and part
The qualifiers all, none or nothing and part may apply to entities or to collections of entities. Collections of entities may be regarded as entities
It will be useful to first elaborate on the foundation and nature of the conceptual—empirical, the basic aspects and qualifiers
The essential concepts of their metaphysics were ‘Being,’ ‘Universe,’ ‘Void,’ ‘Logos’ (or Logic,) and the ‘Normal’
These concepts arose as crucial to their attempt at understanding all being. In earlier endeavors they attempted to understand all being from science and experience i.e. from the local cosmological system i.e. the ‘empirical universe.’ Suggestions from modern science (that origin of the universe out of the void may conserve energy,) from philosophy and from intuition led to a concern with the relation of the empirical universe to the void; however, the early reflections lacked a logical character. What was later revealed as the decisive inspiration –seen in the shadow of mountains– was the thought to focus on the void itself and its characteristics rather than on the empirical universe and this, since consideration of the void entails consideration of all being, permitted the logical foundation (that follows) of metaphysics
They said that it is essential to understand the meanings that they attached to these terms and to exclude all other meanings in order to follow their development of the depth and variety of being (while remaining open to the suggestive power of variant meanings)
Experience has certain patterns and forms. Which are important and which secondary? The forms selected below are the result of ongoing experiment with ideas. In retrospect they seem to have necessity but, at least explicitly, were not even contained in the prospect
Experience, though of the world, is not the world and it is not given that it is or can be fully faithful to the world
In a sense, since everything is known in experience of one kind or another, experience constitutes the world of the organism
Therefore, while there must be a world (without a world there could not be experience) it is valid to ask whether there is a world outside experience—an external world. While there is little practical reason to doubt the existence of the external world, critical doubt may serve the function of improving understanding the nature of the world and of knowledge
It is shown in the narrative that it is logically possible for a single sentience to constitute some manifest occurrence of the universe but there is little doubt that in the present phase of the universe that contains this cosmological system, there is a collection of sentient organisms and a world external to their experience. Why ‘little doubt’ rather than ‘no doubt?’ It is because appears to be logically possible that a single sentience could have sufficient information processing capability to produce an experience of the entire world. While such a thought seems to immediately run into paradox, e.g. how is the information processing embodied, the paradox itself arises on assumptions regarding e.g. the nature of the embodiment. If the embodiment satisfies the known laws of physical science then it is reasonable to replace ‘little doubt’ by ‘no doubt’
When the individual has an experience-of-something, that experience, labeled the ‘concept’ is the joint result of the form of the world and the organism. Since the organism –or society of organisms– has nothing to go on beyond the extended concept, the extended concept comes to be labeled ‘object.’ When the concept is fully faithful to the world, both concept and object may be labeled absolute. When the faithfulness is sufficient to some purpose, the concept and object may be labeled practical
It might seem that since experience is not the world, precision in faithfulness can never be ascertained. It also appears to be true that precise knowledge of all details of the world or even part of the world is unattainable. However, precise knowledge is possible if detail is not required. That there is a world –the universe– cannot be in doubt. Although this piece of information is ‘trivial,’ necessary conclusions of immense significance (and depth) will be seen to follow from such trivial but necessary knowledge. In fact, it is the trivial character of the ‘knowledge’ that results in the conclusions
That the absolute concept (object) has been defined does not mean that such objects exist. If they do exist then, in such cases, the thing-in-itself is known. It has been seen that the universe is such an object; others will be demonstrated in the narrative. Thus, the thing-in-itself –that Kant called the ding-an-sich or noumenon– is known in the case of such objects. One source of such knowledge is the specification of a concept that is sufficiently abstract that such details that may lead to imprecision or under-specification are omitted. As Kant says, the thing-in-itself is not knowable through the senses, but is knowable through intellectual concepts. Are there other, more detailed, absolute concepts? If this cosmological system were the universe and the scientific description of that system were complete and precise then the noumenon would be known in scientific description though not in ordinary perception. It will be shown that this cosmos cannot be more than an infinitesimal part of the universe and, further, that regardless how practically useful and beautiful, the modern form of scientific description cannot be complete any level of detail. Therefore, the noumenon is not known through science even though science may provide a practical local description of reality. This discussion is taken up again in Objects
In saying that there is a (manifest) world, it is not being said that there must (always) be a manifest world. Rather, it is being said that experience itself is a form of manifestation and therefore, trivially, when there is experience there is a (manifest) world
That there is some absolutely faithful knowledge does not mean that all knowledge is even capable of absolute faithfulness. There is little practical doubt that vast tracts of detailed knowledge of the world (universe) are at most practical. It will later be seen that absolute knowledge of ‘all things’ is impossible—even in limited environments. This thought is sometimes celebrated as liberation from a machine like view of human nature. In fact, it is more than that. What is impossible cannot be desirable and, importantly, ignorance of things beyond a limited context may mean and will be seen to mean the possibility of ever freshness in variety
So far, the nature of faithfulness has not been explicitly questioned. Since everything is known in experience of one kind or another, the measure of one kind of experience is another kind. Therefore, faithfulness of experience appears to be corroboration by further experience. The eye estimates a size or shape, this is confirmed by other senses (touch) and by instruments which, being of the world, are not known to yield absolute precision—except upon constructs (ideas, theory) that, in the detailed case, are subject to limits of similar origin
The situation is not as dismal as might appear. That organisms are of the world is the essential source of limited faithfulness. That organisms are of the world, are not thrown into the world as alien to it, is the source of faithfulness. It is therefore reasonable that the organism should have some innate capacity for faithfulness in knowledge that should be sufficient to some purpose. That there are organisms that should even conceive of a universe is perhaps an occasion for celebration
It is not, however, being suggested that concern with faithfulness of knowledge is something to be abandoned, something that has no value at all
This kind of approach to arguing the faithfulness of concepts may be labeled ‘transcendental’ because the argument does not depend on the nature of cognition. From the point of view of the Metaphysics to be developed, faithfulness itself may be regarded as having transcendental characteristics when it is given to the organism without the organism being able to justify it by direct (empirical) argument
The forms of experience may be labeled universal or necessary and contextual or contingent. The universal forms of experience are those whose absolute objectivity follows from the nature of the form itself. The objectivity of all other forms, absolute or practical, requires definition of a context andor empirical data not contained in the meaning of the form. The non-universal forms are mentioned below but their study is deferred to Objects
In some critical theories, a central goal is universal denial of objectivity; in some speculative theories objectivity is affirmed. The aim here is neither affirmation nor denial but rather investigation of objectivity—whether it is universally desirable, when is it desirable and possible, and to study its standard cases e.g. the universal and necessary, the intuition in its practical and necessary aspects, and the scientific and common as practical
The general, universal or
necessary forms of experience or sentience include the following. (A) There is
experience or sentience. I.e. the form of experience includes the fact of
experience. (B) In experience, there is difference and change. (C) There are
objects-in-experience (or of-experience,) hereafter labeled ‘concepts.’ An
illusion is a concept. (D) In experience there is form. Since pattern and law
are instances of form, (D) may be written, ‘In experience there is form,
pattern, and law’
The general, universal or
necessary form of experience does not include such thoughts as ‘I’ or ‘this’
center of experience or sentience. This form is considered below in (E)
Thus, sentience—experience—requires no verbalization or thought that ‘I am aware of the world and its objects’ or even ‘there is awareness.’
Commonly, and in the flux of day-to-day life, the form of experience may be taken to be the form of being
However, in metaphysics, i.e. in the service of fundamental and universal discovery, and in the service of a more true but hopefully not neurotic day-to-day, life the form of experience is one starting point of critical and constructive analysis
As day-to-day life has continuities with the universal, so the form of experience and the form of being have continuities
From (A) it follows that there is being, for without existence there cannot be experience
In having experience of something—anything—there is experience of being. Being is not an additional fact or experience over and above experience
That there is existence is implicit in the meaning (sense) of experience
The meaning of experience harbors an empirical fact
This empirical fact is the fact of being
That existence is necessary for experience is inherent in the meaning of existence
The meanings of existence and of experience overlap with regard to the fundamental fact
Whereas experience is not committed to its forms, it is inherent in the idea of being to know its forms
The purpose of critical –and constructive– analysis regarding the forms of being is not essentially to bring neurotic to common and paradigmatic forms (which are in any case not universally given.) Rather, while a purpose to common forms lies in the flux of day to day living, the purpose of critical and constructive analysis includes valuation of the common forms in their context (conservative metaphysics) and proper discovery and construction of universal and other particular (contextual) forms (ultimate and liberal metaphysics)
In ‘our world’ the fact of being is empirical. This empirical fact is given in our world
The existence of a meaning or a concept does not generally imply that some fact obtains. However, that there is a concept (even if the concept has no object) implies that there is something—it is the concept itself
In itself this does not imply that being is necessary. It says, simply, that without being there would not even be concepts (or illusions.) The status of the (meaning of the) necessity of being is a central metaphysical concern that shall be discussed in what follows
The fact of Being – from ’06… a condensed version of the foregoing. Perhaps the most basic fact or given is that there is being. If there were no being, these words would be neither written nor read; nor would there be an impression, delusion, illusion or hallucination of their being written or read
…
From the fact of being, it follows that there is the universe i.e. all being
From (B) it follows that there is difference, for without difference there cannot be an experience of difference
It then follows that the universe has part or domain
From the existence of part or domain, follows the existence of complement. The complement of a domain is the part of the universe that is not ‘in’ that domain i.e. the complement of a domain is the remainder of the universe
I.e., the complement of a domain is that domain which, together with the original domain, are the universe
If a domain exists, its complement must exist else the universe would not exist
The null domain, labeled the ‘void,’ exists and is the absence of being
Since there are parts, entities can be conceptually divided and recombined arbitrarily. For example, one half of each of two mountains could be conceived as an entity. Such indefiniteness is not of practical concern for the concept of significance is selected via some combination of intuition and experience—including experience coded in laws and theories. The ability to manipulate entities and ideas by division and combination is one source of creativity—another source, the ability to form concepts, is discussed in Mind
Without change, there cannot be experience of change. It follows from (B) that there is change
Without change, there cannot even be illusion of change (the meaning of ‘illusion’ is clarified below)
The form (D) of experience is the source of the following reflections
Even if form arises partly in experience, it must also be of the universe. To whatever, form corresponds is labeled ‘Form.’ (This thought is not final but will be refined in what follows)
Form, of which Pattern and Law are instances, is in and of the universe
Form, Pattern and Law are immanent in being—hence the name Metaphysics of Immanence… it is not just Form… that are immanent it is all things ‘material,’ ‘mental’ and symbolic… that there is no other world… that the positive conclusions are immense as are the negative ones that arise on from the implicit presence and instrumental character of the idea of other worlds in so much of the history of thought…
In the void, there is no Form—or Pattern or Law
The forms of experience further
include the following. (E) The universe is populated (at least locally) with
sentient beings that are ‘centers’ of experience that are structurally similar
to ‘this’ center labeled ‘I’ and, though this form may be doubted for critical
study as well as neurotic ends, it is part of the intuition of the
being-centers e.g. human beings
That sentient forms populate experience, does not imply that the universe is populated with sentient Forms or beings
The universe may, logically, (some ‘times’) be pure sentience i.e. a single sentience—which does not imply that at those times it is immaterial
That at other times, e.g. the present, the universe (locally at least) contains a community of sentient beings must be, as far as may be deduced in light of (E,) a contingent or practical conclusion that follows from some special characteristics of (the local) sentience (e.g. that the system of human knowledge is greater that what is practically possible for a single human being) and not from the fact of sentience. That the conclusion is ‘practical’ does not imply that there is any reasonable doubt regarding the conclusion (locally)
There may however be logical doubt. This brings up a tension between everyday thought and critical thought. Although critical thought may sometimes uproot common or scientific thoughts in their contexts, that is not its invariable function. Another function lies in the process of achieving larger (perhaps even universal) contexts of truth
It will soon be seen that even though a single sentience and communities of sentient beings are both logical possibilities, both are necessary at different phases of or places in the universe. Any contradiction of common or scientific expectation in this assertion shall also be resolved
It was earlier said: Even if form arises partly in experience, it must also be of the universe. To whatever, form corresponds is labeled ‘Form’
It is now seen that even if some forms reside entirely in experience, the conclusion that there are actual Forms is, in any instance, a practical conclusion. That Form is necessary at some phases of the universe shall also follow below. There is a difference between the discussion of Form and that of communities of sentient beings—it is that even forms that reside purely in experience are Forms while the experience of community is not community (but is Form)
The intent, here, is to mention the contingent or contextual –or local– forms and to make some suggestions regarding their nature and the question of the existence of the objects but to leave analysis to later sections and chapters
The contextual or contingent forms of experience are those forms that are contextual or contingent relative to the forms of experience that contain in their sense the fact of sentience and therefore of being, of all being, of domain and of absence of being. Whereas the general, universal or necessary forms are those for which the existence of their objects follows from the fact of experience, the contextual forms require further contingent verification of the existence of the objects (even though there may be little practical doubt as to the existence)
The contextual or contingent forms of experience include those experienced as the concepts (objects) of day-to-day life but are not restricted to such experience and include the esoteric (in so far as it contains truth) and scientific concepts and, further, the concepts of all cosmological systems (as detailed in what follows)
The contextual or contingent
forms of experience includes the following. (F) Concepts (and their possible
objects) include concrete entities such as rocks. ‘Concrete’ is used
metaphorically for, in addition to tangibles such as rocks, the concepts also
includes relative intangibles such as air, parts, and collections-as-entities.
Concepts also include processes, events and facts. Concepts are not limited to
‘things,’ ‘happenings’ and ‘observations’ but also form, pattern and law. The
foregoing concepts, i.e. objects of or in experience, may be labeled
particular. There is good reason to have theoretical doubt whether such
concepts correspond to something in the world—in doing so, knowledge and knowledge
of the nature of knowledge may be sharpened and broadened. However, there is
little practical and day-to-day doubt that, except in ‘hypothetical’ cases such
as unicorns, such concepts refer to something in the world. There are other
concepts such as number and value regarding which, although they seem to have
some kind of reality, there may be both theoretical and practical doubt that
they correspond to something in the world; such concepts have been variously
regarded as being purely mental or conceptual (and therefore not residing in
time or space or being causal) and so, perhaps, of or as of another e.g.
Platonic world and on account of the apparent immaterial character, have been
labeled ‘abstract’
The form of experience
recognizes (G) sense and feeling, percept and concept, intuition (in the sense
of Kant) and explicit knowledge, acquaintance and description (due to Russell,)
iconic and symbolic (including verbal) knowledge. These forms are pertinent to
questions of epistemology
Also recognized among the forms
of experience are those that are significant in science and that arise in
consideration of (H) ‘this’ cosmological system. As will be subsequently seen,
this cosmos is a highly localized and specific form of being relative to the
universe (all being.) Therefore the objects of science—as well as those of
common knowledge from which science stems by experiment and criticism, and by
discovery and concept and law formation—are contingent objects and the
questions of their being and nature are both theoretical and practical
Another local form of
experience, (J) may be called ‘the human condition.’ In addition to the
detailed particulars, the phrase sometimes connotes the affective rather than
the cognitive side, the limits rather than the possibilities, frailty rather
than strength, context over time and history… Such connotations are included
but their contrary forms are not excluded
Two final ‘kinds’ may be mentioned—their explicit definition and elaboration as forms or experience… and related conclusions will be taken up later
These kinds are (K) inference
and (L) category as in, e.g., Kant, Schopenhauer and the present narrative;
while these topics have been taken up in themselves it is their elaboration as
forms of experience and any related conclusions that are left for further
reflection
Regarding (K,) since there are
facts beyond assumption—being is manifest at least once—it will be interesting
to see whether there are rules of inference beyond assumption
The question arises whether the variety of forms of experience show a variety of Forms of being. Address of this concern is implicit in what follows
It is clear that issues regarding the sense and fact of faithfulness of concepts are not straightforward. If a concept is faithful, it may be said to correspond to an object-in-itself or noumenal or absolute object. Other ‘objects’ are, at least in part, constructs. General consideration of the nature and faithfulness of concepts (i.e. of knowledge) are deferred to chapter Objects. There it will be established that abstract objects are of the world and it will be seen in what sense they may be viewed as though they were purely conceptual, symbolic or Platonic; it will be further seen that abstract objects may reside in time and space and may have causal features. What will be further seen is that the distinction between the particular and the abstract is artificial
As has been seen, in the case of the absolute concept, the object is known (as known—i.e. the universe is known as universe i.e. as all being but not in its details)
From the concern with faithfulness of concepts in general, it does not follow that there are no faithful concepts. It has already been seen that being, universe, difference, domain, change, and void are perfectly faithful concepts that describe (absolute) objects. Experience and sentience are among the absolute objects. While particular forms may not describe absolute objects, there is Form. The status of a variety of concepts with regard to objectivity –absolute and practical– is deferred to chapter Objects where there will be an attempt to make the discussion complete with regard to kind or variety of concept and object
If an event (thing) is described but never occurs (exists,) it cannot be possible
If it occurs or exists, it is possible
I.e. actuality and possibility are identical in their reference even though apparently distinct with regard to sense
In fact a definite concept of possibility has been introduced. This concept of possibility, which refers to possibility of occurrence in the universe is absolute possibility
It may be thought that some other notion of possibility may be retained, but since there is nothing outside the universe, the sense of absolute or universal possibility must be identical to the sense of actuality—even though there may be an expectation of a different sense. I.e. a different sense could be deployed before reflection but it would have to be modified to the new sense—else it would be sense-less
Relative or contextual possibility refers to occurrence in a similar context. Relative to the universe, there is no ‘other’ context. When the context is the universe, relative possibility is absolute possibility
Absolute possibility will be seen to be logical possibility
Physical possibility e.g. consistency with the laws of physics is a form of relative possibility
The common or naïve concept of possibility is relative possibility
Absolute possibility is not to be confused with the common concept (it is easy to fall into this confusion)
All things are in the universe
Sentience and all of its constituent and related ideas such as percept, concept, feeling, awareness, idea, thought, image, are in the universe
While form, pattern and law are read in the universe or in being, Form, Pattern, and Law must be in the universe because there is nothing outside the universe. Therefore, Form, Pattern and Law are immanent in being
Therefore, it is reasonable to call the metaphysics under development the Metaphysics of Immanence.
It is important to be clear about the meaning of immanence. That Forms are immanent in being does not mean that there is some external object or idea that is attached to or enmeshed with being. It means that Form is of being
… The void is defined as the absence of being, is shown in what follows to exist and to have the property not only of containing no thing or Entity but also containing no Form, no Pattern and no Law
As the complement of the universe relative to itself or the complement of any element of being relative to itself, the void exists
From the above it seems that there are infinitely many voids. Each element of being may be regarded as associated with a void
Search for a not necessarily exclusive alternative to the process paradigm of evolution
A variety of intuitions of different kinds and weight. That creation of a universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. Focus on ‘being’ suggests non-being. That induction is probable rather than necessary; that necessary induction would include all laws consistent with data… and that would include no law, i.e. the only law is the law of logic, and the equivalence of being to absence of being – of something and nothing. A focus on being is bound to suggest focus on absence. The changeless behind the changing (Parmenides)
Inspiration from the heart of the forest
The final inspiration in the shadow of mountains – the inspiration to focus on the void rather than on this cosmological system
Note that although this came after the formal development, there is voidism in Indian and Judaic philosophy, e.g. the universe as the breathing that is Brahman. Sartre and Heidegger feel nothingness to be important. Wittgenstein, Hume and Leibniz flirt implicitly with the void in their suggestions that the only impossibilities are logical (Leibniz says this and Hume and Wittgenstein say something equivalent i.e. that ‘from the truth of one atomic proposition the truth of another does not follow.’ Hume’s form omitted the word ‘atomic’)
Properties of the void. This repeats some of the above. The void exists and contains no thing, Form, Pattern, or Law. In addition the above, it makes no difference whether there is considered to be one void or many voids; therefore, the number of voids may be taken to be one. A void may be associated with the universe as whole and with every element of being
If a concept, picture or description involves and entails no contradiction, it must be realized from the void. This follows since its non-realization would be a Law of or in the void i.e. a contradiction
Any void generates every void. It is irrelevant whether there are many voids or just one. The number of voids may be taken to be one
Any consistent class of concepts, pictures or descriptions is and must be realized
From every state, including that of the void state, every other state (excepting contradiction which need not be mentioned since contradictory ‘states’ are not states) is accessible i.e. no state is inaccessible
The universe enters (and leaves) a state of being the void
The concept of absolute indeterminism is that no state shall be inaccessible
The universe is absolutely indeterministic
The void is absolutely indeterministic
Since no state is inaccessible, structure is necessary; the existence of this cosmological system is necessary. It might seem that absolute indeterminism would contradict the existences just mention but, in fact, it makes them necessary
Why this is necessary?
Why this is hard to grasp?
What is its meaning?
What are its implications?
How structure is not just possible but necessary under absolute indeterminism
In what way might it be a good thing?
Combine this topic with the next
Metaphysics develops and justifies a metaphysical system that is ultimate in depth and breadth. Many meanings will be altered, broadened or deepened. This seems to suggest that common meaning is fluid. Common meaning e.g. the system of meaning that is adequate for common purposes is fluid but is it subject to arbitrary alteration? This is not precisely what happens. When a meaning is deepened to the root of being or to a lesser degree, the meaning when restricted to the original case may be unchanged or, if that original meaning is untenable, it may be altered. Thus the extension implies some change in common meaning but does not imply wholesale change. The extended system may, however, be profoundly different from a simple projection of common meaning to the root without alteration of meaning
Repeated from General conclusions about and from the concept of the void
Consideration of the natures of being, Universe and Void make possible the development of a metaphysics or Theory of Being. The general aspects of the theory are treated in the present section, ‘Metaphysics: The Theory of Being’ and a variety of special concerns are taken up in ‘Objects,’ ‘Logic,’ ‘Mind,’ and ‘Cosmology.’ The sections ‘Human Being’ through ‘Faith’ include implications of the theory for the specific topics
As the complement of any entity relative to itself, or the complement of the universe relative to itself, the void exists
The existence of the void is a fundamental fact that, as will be seen, has enabled development of the metaphysics, the logic, the cosmology and more immediate subjects that follow. Thus it is essential to question that existence. The universe exists – it is all being. The existence of a part of the universe may be questioned since ‘part’ is conceptual. However, ‘part’ is conceptual only when specified implicitly by a concept such as a property. However, if the existence of parts is merely the recognition of variety or difference then ‘part’ is not merely conceptual. The void is the part whose ‘magnitudes’ vanish. How can a ‘zero’ part be said to exist? This is where doubt regarding the existence of the void may be seen as lying. An additional doubt arises because the intended proof of existence –the single sentence italicized paragraph above– is terse and transparent. The following semi-arguments are intended not as proof –they may serve as ideas for alternative proofs– but to assist in allaying doubt. (1) The complement of a part exists. As the part approaches the whole, the complement exists at every stage of the approach and its limit is the void. (2) The existence of the void should be equivalent to its non-existence; therefore the void may be taken to exist. (3) Attaching the void to an entity makes no difference to the constitution of the entity; therefore the void may be taken to exist. (4) In physics the zero force may be said to exist; it is the force that does not change uniform motion; this of course is not a proof of the existence of the void but shows that existence may be assigned to a quantity of zero magnitude. (5) If the universe has a non-manifest phase, that phase will be the void; of course this final item does not at all prove existence of the void but provides one way to see how it may be real rather than merely a conceptual fiction; later it will be shown that while the void may be regarded as being ‘attached’ to any entity it must also be a phase through which the universe passes… Discussion now turns to development of the metaphysics
Since all pattern and law is immanent in its complement, the void can contain no pattern, no law. Consider a description that if realized would be the description of a state of affairs. If that state was never realized from the void, the non-realization would constitute a law. Therefore every consistent description –or conception or picture of a state of affairs– must be realized (there is no connection of the present use of ‘description’ to Russell’s theory of descriptions.) More accurately, the entire system of consistent descriptions must be realized. (‘The entire system of consistent …’ is a topic for further investigation. ‘An apple that is fully red and fully not red’ is not consistent. This inconsistency may be labeled ‘internal.’ External inconsistency must also be excluded. Known facts and necessities may not be contradicted. ‘It is raining everywhere –or nowhere– in the universe’ would constitute a law of the void and is an external contradiction. ‘It is raining here and now’ when it is not contradicts a fact… The statement regarding realization may be rendered, ‘Subject to mutual consistency, every system of consistent descriptions is realized.’) These necessities have the following immediate consequences. Every element of Being (entity) must interact with every other element of being. There is one universe (there are no isolated ‘universes.’) The void is equivalent to the Universe and to every entity. It makes no difference whether there are many voids or one; the many are equivalent to one. The manifest universe may be seen as having repeated ‘origin’ in the void; equally, any state may be seen as having origin in (equivalence to) any state of the universe – there are no ‘special’ states of the universe. Any entity including the manifest universe may be annihilated at any ‘time’ and this annihilation may be spontaneous ‘self-annihilation’ or the outcome of the ‘effect’ of the void – or any other state. The void is an actual state i.e. the universe ‘occupies’ the state of ‘no manifest being’ repeatedly in its trajectory or ‘travel’ between states of manifest being. The void is not outside the universe; it is the universe in its non-manifest states. The relationships between the manifest and the non-manifest states are neither causal nor deterministic. The equivalence of the void and the universe is equivalent to complete indeterminism. Essential indeterminism necessarily results in structure. There is no universal determinism and whatever causation there may be is either not universal or vastly different (perhaps weaker and less regular but simultaneously longer in its reach) from the causation of common experience and science (classical or modern)
The fundamental principle of the Theory of Being, just shown to be true, is the assertion that the entire system of consistent descriptions is (must be) realized
I.e. the only universal fictions are the logical contradictions (fact is stranger than fiction)
That, in the Theory of Being developed here, the possible and the actual are identical shows that the theory is ultimate with regard to breadth or variety of being. This follows e.g. from the existence of the void and its equivalence –in the sense that it is generative of– to every state except the logically contradictory states. That this ultimate character is implicit has been shown earlier
[There are thoughts in the writings of Leibniz (Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, b. July 1, 1646, Leipzig,) of David Hume (b. May 7, 1711, Edinburgh, Scotland) and of Wittgenstein that have similarity to the theory developed here. Leibniz suggested that the only impossibilities were logical contradictions. However, it appears that Leibniz did not take this thought to its possible conclusion – the necessity of the realization of the entire system of consistent descriptions and the possibility of proof and actual proof of this necessity; Leibniz may, in fact have disagreed with the conclusions being made here – he wrote that ‘Nothing arises from nothing.’ In the subsequent topic ‘Second proof of the ‘fundamental principle’ of the Theory of Being,’ use is made of the idea of Hume and Wittgenstein that ‘from the truth of one atomic proposition the truth of another does not follow’ (the word ‘atomic’ does not occur in Hume’s version.) These writers, as well, did not take their thoughts to their possible conclusions; they were anti-metaphysical; and the statement ‘from the truth…’ may have had among its intents to show a lack of metaphysical (causal) connections in the world… It is interesting to note that the fundamental principle –proven above– may be used to demonstrate Wittgenstein’s idea]
They recalled Plato’s suggestion that power (having an effect) is ‘the’ measure of Being (‘the measure of being is being.’) They may have started with this idea but, instead, they found it more convenient to development of the understanding of being to start from the concept of being (and therefore the Void) itself. Thus it follows from the theory that there is power between every two entities and power among any (every) collection of entities. ‘Being is the measure of being.’ This is similar to the idea that knowability is essential to being (this is not the idea that being known gives or is being.) However, the idea seems suspect. Why would something have to be known to a particular individual in order to have being? That is not the claim – a better form of the claim might be that it must be knowable to some being (the Theory of Being then implies that it is known – Possibility is actuality.) Still, it seems suspect to suggest that some organism must (know or) be capable of knowing an entity for that entity to exist. That, again, is not the claim. The ‘causal’ order is reversed: if an entity exists it is known. Again, a question arises: if knowing is a mark of Mind why, when mind is a special kind or aspect of being, should being known be (in effect) a mark of being? The answer will be taken up in the discussion of mind below. They distinguished mind-as-they-experienced-it-at-first-hand from Mind in general. They showed that the concept of mind may be consistently extended to the root of being and that this extension was Necessary; i.e. without the extension, the ‘paradoxes’ of Mind and Matter would continually arise. They forestalled the objection e.g. of the materialist who would say that mind-at-the-root (pan-psychism) is absurd. They did this by identifying the nature of the doubt: it is a doubt that thinks that the claim is that the mind at the root is like animal or human mind – possessed of a variety of functions and elaborations, capable of understanding and so on. Instead, mind-at-the-root is shown to be coeval and equi-primitive with primal manifest being. There is a remaining doubt. What is it at or about the primitive level that allows identification with mind and where does (the concept of) matter fit into this scheme? In discussing mind (below) they were able to address this doubt as well
Being known (knowable) e.g. by human beings does not confer existence although it does show existence. However, existence necessitates knowability. This implies that there are no entities that are unknowable. This may appear to be an excessive claim. Yet, any claim to knowledge or knowability must be based on some concept of knowledge. In the following, the claim that existence necessitates knowability is investigated in terms of a number of conceptions of knowledge that start with the naïve case in which knowledge is thought to be knowledge-of the entity and proceeds to consider alternative conceptions of knowledge, the nature of truth and of the real
The ultimate character with regard to depth is explicit and implies that while alternative systems of equal depth are possible, no deeper foundation is possible. A variety of alternatives is developed
The ultimate in breadth is implicit. That it is implicit means that while the variety of being is ever open to discovery, this variety is ever contained within the principles of the metaphysics – that, except for moments, while all may be known not all is known, while all may be realized not all is realized. That the breadth is ultimate means that every real, the realization of every consistent idea or system of ideas even if labeled myth or legend or fiction lies with the domain of the system developed here
Existence and properties of the void
The fundamental principle and its proofs
Possibility, actuality, logic
The ultimate depth and breadth of the metaphysics
Depth and its definition. Ultimate depth. Substance and determinism; substance and determinism (or causation) are twins. Without determinism, substance has no significance. Elimination of substance. Absolute indeterminism, its necessity and the necessity of form. Normal cosmological systems and their necessity. Mechanism and explanation. Normal mechanism of variation and selection – it is not universal but that it sometimes occurs is necessary and is probably associated with the population of the universe by form. Origin of normal (quasi) causation and normal (quasi) determinism; other meanings of ‘cause.’ That the void does not cause being in the normal sense of cause; of necessity, being comes from the void without being caused by the void; that this may be labeled ‘Cause’ in a more comprehensive meaning that includes but is not limited to cause
Heidegger used the phrase ‘nothing nothings’ as if to describe nothingness (the void) as a causal agent. Here, in an inadequate understanding of the void, Heidegger succeeds, even while he expresses an intuition, in mystification… In the intuition of the inadequacy of substance, Heidegger has, perhaps, not achieved the intuition of the co-inadequacy of determinism and causation. Therefore, his intuition has not achieved full adequacy. Nevertheless, he perseveres with his intuition despite its apparent perversion (and repugnance to myriad readers.) If Heidegger achieved the first step of overcoming substance, here is achieved the second and necessary step of overcoming determinism. This second step is necessary to emerge from the realm of mere intuition into logic which of course does not exclude intuition. Because Heidegger did not take or perhaps appreciate the second step, he was, via determinism, still implicitly wedded to substance, despite his explicit repudiation of substance. Therefore, he was compelled to use a mystifying language. His critics on this point were, of course, right and wrong. Perhaps, the wrong was greater than the right for Heidegger went perhaps a third –an important third– of the way (the remaining two thirds being explicit repudiation of universal determinism and consequent introduction of logic into the intuition) whereas the critics in insisting on clarity achieved nothing (this does not diminish the function of criticism but instead points to the value of deferring criticism i.e. it is unlikely that Heidegger was unaware that argument was lacking or that he was groping at truth.) Ravi wondered what debt he owed to Heidegger. He knew of Heidegger in the background; he had read portions of the translation of Sein und Zeit. Heidegger’s focus on being perhaps affected his own focus on being. However, there were a myriad other factors from the tradition of thought, from the everyday that resulted in his particular focus. For a long time he meditated on the universe and its possible equivalence to being. Only in his inspiration, seen in the shadow of mountains, did Ravi see that he should focus on the void itself and this was the crucial step. He later realized that focus on the absence of being (the void) was equivalent to focus on all being and not just on what he already knew, not just focus on this cosmological system… No doubt, even though illogic had been overcome, the intuition of determinism and cause is so strong (Ravi had only haltingly been able to overcome that intuition without rejecting it in its proper place) that despite the displacement of mystery by logic, the appearance of mystery to some readers in the strangeness of his idea-scapes would be inevitable
Breadth and its definition. The ultimate character of the breadth is infinite and implicit. An infinity of breadth may be (recursively) described but no description contains the entire infinity of breadth. The breadth contains all myth, all scripture, all fiction and drama, all legend… with the single restriction of logic. Cosmology is the Theory of Variety
Provide a sampling of the actual breadth. Defer detail to Cosmology
Since all descriptions that entail no contradiction become manifest, a Form may be regarded as a more durable manifestation
All structure may be regarded as that of Form
Form may be regarded as coming out of the void
Form is immanent in being i.e. it is of being rather than imposed
Some Forms are more durable than others
The distinction between the Forms of lesser (transient) and greater (durable) Forms is not one of kind
Actual Forms are dynamic
A Form of infinite duration (static Form) is not a realized Form and is not capable of decay or annihilation or of interaction. I.e. static Forms have no origins –cannot come into being– and if one had being it would have no end. A static Form has no significance. The existence and non-existence of static Forms are without distinction
The existence of a static Form capable of interaction (dynamics) would constitute a Law of the void – in addition to being obviously (inherently) contradictory in nature. The being of a static form is logically impossible. The existence of a such static Form would be a violation of any Logic immanent in being (this statement anticipates but is not used at all to found the concept of Logic of the present narrative)
All Forms are dynamic. There are, as has been seen, no static forms. Forms have origins and ends
Mechanisms are mentioned below, in Metaphysics, and are considered further in Cosmology
There is no distinction in kind between a transient and a (durable) form
The condition of durability may also be called stability and the characteristic that results in stability may be called symmetry. Because, with exceptions such as the void, there are no eternally durable forms, there are no absolutely stable and perfectly symmetric forms. The durable forms are relatively stable and near symmetric
That all structure is Form and since there are no absolute substances, the view of being that emerges has Platonic characteristics
As already noted, Form is immanent in being. Form is not imposed. Nor is the immanence that of a foreign kind. Form is of being, of entities as much as is being-hood… as much as is entity-hood (and will be seen to be capable of consistent regard as the same kind as entity-hood)
The idea of Form as foreign or imposed has probable origin in that Form is experienced as form, i.e. as perceived and therefore ascribed the vague status of an object residing in ‘mental space’ but not in actual space
However, perfection (symmetry) of form is never attained, is logically impossible and is therefore not desirable
All actual worlds are in the one universe
Forms reside in this world
Sentience may be seen as a relation among forms. This sets up the possibility of error, paradox and correction
Alternately, sentience may be seen as a form that includes the related forms and their relation
Excepting paradox, all forms have the possibility of sentience
Significant sentience requires sufficient durability for the appropriate elaboration of form
Recall that (1) the possible and the actual are identical and (2) a description, concept or picture that harbors and entails no contradiction is actual and therefore possible and necessary. Note that it does not follow and has not been shown that every actual, i.e. possible state has a description
Therefore, a concept arises of Logic as the Theory of the Possible or, equivalently, as the Theory of the Actual
In the preceding statement, provided that it is understood with sufficient generality, ‘science’ may replace ‘theory’
Here, use deviates from the capitalization convention of reserving Title Case for the immanent form and lower case for the concept. Here, Title Case refers to the present concept, Logic and lower case refers to the classical concept, logic
What is the immanent form of Logic? Rather than Logic, it may be labeled the Logos. However, it is the actual. Therefore the Logos is, trivially since so far all that has been done is to specify it as another name, the actual
From the foregoing, for a sentient being, Logic may be regarded as the theory of depicting, conceiving or describing the possible and the actual
This may appear to be trivial in meaning (sense) but is not so in significance (reference.) Here is the ultimate character of Logic
There is a project to develop this concept of Logic and its consequences
If description is in language, the theory of proper use of language (grammar) is Logic. From the Metaphysics of Immanence, this follows with perfect clarity and simplicity. Wittgenstein’s thought regarding grammar is arrived at from a universal perspective and the discovery that the thought so follows is experienced as surprising, humorous, trivial, and deep
It is not the fact of the connection of logic and being with grammar that is surprising – that there may be a connection is obvious once it is pointed out
What is surprising is the clarity and necessity of the connection, that the connection is one of identity rather than mere relatedness
And it is also surprising that the connection should have emerged when it was not sought
However, it needs also to be allowed that conception generally, including sensing, depicting, imaging are a form of ‘description’ and therefore there is a grammar or logic of conception and of depiction
Whatever is allowed by logic is absolutely possible
Deduction concerns possibility of a proposition B, relative to the truth of another proposition A. Therefore, the standard concept of logic, i.e. logic as deduction, falls within Logic as defined here
The results of induction (e.g. probable inference) generally and the theories of empirical science in particular are concerned with patterns of e.g. physical possibility in e.g. this cosmos. Therefore, what is induced and science as objects fall under Logic
In general, there appears to be no infallible or universal ‘method’ of arriving at a scientific theory by deductive inference from a set of data. Regarded as universal law, scientific theories, however powerful and beautiful, however ordering or unifying or applicable, appear to be capable of improvement especially as the domain of application is expanded
Still, scientific theories may also be regarded as fact over a restricted domain. It is in this sense that what is induced and what is science may be seen as falling under Logic
Recalling the identity of the possible and the actual again, it follows that whatever is possible (actual) is also necessary
Whatever is allowed by Logic is absolutely possible and necessary. This kind of necessity may be labeled ‘extensional’ to distinguish it from the common or classical meaning or idea necessity as one whose truth is independent of the being of things – perhaps as truth by meaning e.g. by the structure of symbolic systems. Such necessity, since it is apparently independent of the being of things may be called intensional. Looking forward to the discussion of abstract objects in Objects, the distinction between extensional and intensional necessity will appear to break down except that while extensional necessity refers to objects in the world, i.e. the universe, intensional necessity appears to refer to symbolic objects. The discussion of particular and abstract objects shows that the distinction breaks down (immanence again.) More accurately, the economical, universal and realistic interpretation of necessity (and, as it shall similarly turn out, of objects) is one in which there is no distinction with regard to extension vs. intension or with regard to reference to the actual vs. some ideal world
The immanent aspect in these conclusions make it clear that reference is crucial in Logic (and soundness of language that includes grammar.) If a description or conception or depiction is Logically i.e. Grammatically sound, it may be realized; rather, it is realized
It is shown by examples in Logic, that improper reference may result in paradox and that a number of the classical paradoxes are resolved by paying proper attention to reference
It certainly appears that requiring proper reference is sufficient to valid Logic or Grammar
A possible and immensely important exception to the foregoing is the infinite case – for what is an infinite object… what is the object whose concept refers to an infinite extension or an infinite collection? There are preliminary thoughts on the object side of ‘infinity’ in Objects and in Logic
Is the requirement of proper reference necessary to validity in Logic and Grammar? Since various semantic paradoxes (Russell…) and set-theoretic paradoxes (Zermelo-Fraenkel-Skolem and von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel) have been resolved by non-referential artifacts, the requirement of proper reference may be unnecessary
However, this conclusion is not clear. The valid aspects of the various analyses (Russell…) should be studied to see if reference is the root justification (Kripke employs ‘grounding’)
Secondly, a general study of the nature of ‘logical objects’ and infinite objects may be undertaken to analyze necessary and sufficient conditions of validity including the important case of the necessity and sufficiency of proper reference
These thoughts define a research project
In any case, however, it appears reasonable that requiring proper reference may be rich in consequences
This idea and the remaining thoughts in this section continue the possibility of the foregoing research project
It is now clear that in the above sense of Logic, mathematics and science are chapters of Logic. The kind of chapters that they are, however, seems to be different. Logic concerns the actual and its descriptions. Mathematics appears to concern those forms that are amenable to ‘formal’ treatment. Science, as it is typically practiced, concerns the forms –patterns, theories and laws– of this cosmological system. Is the inclusion of mathematics in Logic the logicist thesis of Russell? Whether it is shall depend on where logic is thought to stop and where mathematics begins. It is not the case that what is traditionally taken to be logic (as in the Frege-Russell Logicism) is shown here to found or contain mathematics
In reviewing the developments, especially those regarding the fact of being as implicit in its meaning, the General metaphysics, the discussion of Form, and the present section A concept of Logic… , it seems that their ideas veer (both implicitly and explicitly) in the direction of Wittgenstein’s Tractacus (whose influence has significance here) and go beyond it in some aspects. The ideas that the universe is (in the global mode of description) all its ‘states’ and that all its states are all states is close to Wittgenstein’s’ thought that the universe is the ‘sum’ of its atomic facts. A distinction between the present thinking and that of Wittgenstein is that, here, all states are not given at the outset of the analysis and that their kind and enumerability and denotability (reference) is not given at outset or assumed to be possible even in principle. Additionally, there are parts of the Tractacus (e.g. the discussion of Ethics – see Objects) that suffer from an implicit substance thinking regarding the nature of the Object
The backward foundation, elimination of substance thought, and elaboration of the ideas of the Tractacus is a project that requires patronage, that awaits keen analysis
The number of states of the universe is infinite
There are infinite collections
The concept of ‘the class’ of consistent concepts etc presents a problem. What is that class? How is it formed?
The issue may have resolution in terms of the concept of patch, mentioned in the context of global and local descriptions
There is another kind of care that is needed in considering what is consistent and therefore actual. Consider ‘There is an individual who knows everything!’ Although the claim may seem absurd, there is no explicit logical impossibility. However, depending on what it means to ‘know everything’ there may be a logical impossibility relative to that meaning
There is a project to study the idea of the class or system or classes of consistent conceptions, pictures, and descriptions
The source of the idea to this project is the intuition that while an infinite variety is being revealed, that variety may have profound, interesting and intricate limitations
The universe is infinitely more varied than the description in any myth, any fictional account, any scripture, and any science. The only restriction on variety is the Logical principle stated below
The universe is infinitely more varied than this cosmological system
The ‘regular’ behavior of this cosmological system in which there is structure and there appear to be inaccessible states, in which there is causal like behavior is termed ‘normal.’ The meaning of the normal, however, must, at least initially, be an open concept because, although, this cosmos is the necessary inspiration, it may not be the prototype—of what is sought
An entire panorama of cosmological (universal) possibility and actuality opens up. Here are two examples that are of course both subject to the requirement that no contradiction should be involved or entailed. (1) Any piece of fiction is realized. (2) Any known state of any cosmological system is infinitely repeated in the universe. The implication of these examples is clearly immense. Description of the panorama is taken up in Objects (under the topic of Identity,) in Cosmology and in Faith
It is possible to talk of a map of the universe. A typical scientifically informed person today might think of the universe as the physical universe originating with a singularity (the big bang) about 20 billion years ago and about 20 billion light years across. That ‘physical universe,’ here called the local cosmological system is a finite dot in the infinity of the universe as revealed here. The infinitesimal character of the local system regards not only extent and duration but also kind of being. ‘Kind’ includes constitution, nature, magnitude, longevity, inclusivity, and, when ‘intelligent,’ kinds and magnitudes of ability
Any organism with sufficient ability and time will discover and realize all intensionally necessary truths (this may happen even under restriction to the normal but without that restriction, will certainly happen.) Intensional or logical necessity is explained below. Desire and dedication may immensely enhance the efficiency of the discovery but are not logically necessary
They repeat—the universe is infinitely more varied than this cosmological system. This raises the following concerns. First, it may appear to question the very regularity of this cosmos—however, not only does it not question the regularity on some sort of ‘probabilistic’ basis, the Theory of being –the fundamental principle– shows the necessity of such systems. Second, it may be thought of as de-centering. In general, the advances in the thought in which human being appears to be farther and farther from center, are de-centering only relative to a certain view and certain personality types. The enjoyment of the moment is a form of eternity… And, Theory of being and related developments (Theories of actuality, identity…) show that there is no being that is not at center (human being is de-centered only if it is assumed that human centeredness is unique)
The ‘regular’ behavior of this cosmological system in which there is structure and there appear to be inaccessible states, in which there is causal like behavior is termed ‘normal.’ The meaning of the normal, however, must, at least initially, be an open concept because, although, this cosmos is the necessary inspiration, it may not be the prototype—of what is sought
From the void, the universe must enter a state of being. This resolves what has been called the fundamental problem of metaphysics i.e. why there is being
This entering may be viewed as ‘entering’ the void state. It may also be viewed as annihilation of the universe
The universe may be in the void state or in a manifest state. Both are actual, neither eternal. There is no reason from the perspective of possibility that it is currently in a manifest state. However, in the void or non-manifest state there is no experience of a universe. If there is experience, the universe must be in a manifest state
The developments regarding Mind, suggest that in any manifest state there is experience but not necessarily of the focused, acute kind that is experienced by the living beings of earth
There are further cosmological conclusions e.g. that there are infinitely many normal cosmological systems, that excepting when a contradiction is entailed, every actual state of being within the universe and every actual description of a domain of the universe will recur infinitely in time and space
Since the void is absolutely indeterministic, and a void may be regarded as attached to every state and every domain (as the complement of that state or domain relative to itself,) the annihilation may be regarded as being brought about by the void
There is no especial significance to ‘annihilation by the void;’ the annihilation may be regarded as self annihilation
In the sense that every state flows from the it, every state is equivalent to the void
In the global perspective it might be said that the universe ‘is’ in a state of the void; however, it may be also said that it ‘is’ not; this form of the assertion encourages the twin habit of using both local and global perspectives but whether it is otherwise enlightening is open to question
Every state is equivalent to every other state
All is change and flux and all is unchanging (Parmenides, Plato) may be read equally from the Metaphysics of Immanence but of course is dependent on how the reading is done
The origin of a formed or even transient cosmos from the void is indeterministic
The origin is necessarily indeterministic (the void does not in any sense contain or map deterministically to a formed universe)
Although the void may be thought of a ‘base’ state relative to which formation and origins occur, under absolute indeterminism the role of base state may be played by any state of the universe
The concept of causation may be seen as a topic in cosmology
Cause can be seen as interaction among dynamic forms that have similar characteristics but can also be interpreted as a Form that includes the interacting form
There can be no causal relation among static forms and there is little causal relation among highly transient forms
In general, causation is little like the causation of classical physics or even the probabilistic causation of quantum physics
There is no universal causation of the classical or quantum kinds. Perhaps the label quasi-causation or normal causation is more applicable than causation. Such quasi or normal causation must have exception
There are and must be phases that are normally causal and normally deterministic
As a result universal absolute indeterminism (no unaccessed states) such phases must exist but cannot be absolutely causal or absolutely deterministic (in the classic sense)
All causation is at most quasi-causation; all determinism is at most quasi-determinism
As a result of universal interaction, there must be some weak kind of universal causation
It is seen again how much truth is affected by meaning
The universe is absolutely indeterministic (absolute indeterminism obtains when the only inaccessible or unaccessed states are the logically inaccessible states)
It is often thought that indeterminism cannot explain form and structure
Since there are no inaccessible and unaccessed states in absolute indeterminism, states of form and structure must too be accessed (the probability or population of the universe by formed states or cosmological systems is addressed below)
The absolute indeterminism of the universe is that no states are unaccessed. This contains the absolute determinism that all states are accessed (except those whose access harbors or entails contradiction)
The absolute determinism regards which states are accessed i.e. all states are accessed. The absolute indeterminism regards the manner including sequence of access
Mechanism is an aspect of cosmology
Mechanisms or explanations show only probability, relative stability, near symmetry
While it may be thought that formed states are relatively improbable relative to transient states, near symmetry and relative stability imply durability
Combined with the selective nature of perception (higher perceptivity in the cosmological systems of certain types of greater complexity,) it is reasonable to claim that this results in a greater population of formed and perceived states. However, if a state with high degree of formation invariably results in higher perception i.e. perception of the form over mere feeling, perception, then, does not entail any additional selective character
This kind of reflection may have implications for whether a formed cosmological system must have life andor sentience. There are reflections of a different nature on this topic in below and, later, in Mind
The normal is the generic term for the being of a formed cosmos in an absolutely indeterministic background
Mechanism is typically associated with the normal
Whereas formation by a single step is logically possible and therefore necessary, it seems that incremental variation and selection (of relatively stable states) is far more probable
They saw that there were identities among Metaphysics, Logic and Cosmology; that there was arbitrariness to the distinctions. They saw that in metaphysics, the focus was Being itself; in Logic, Form; and in cosmology, Variety. The developments of Logic and cosmology, below, are continuations of the development of the metaphysics. A Logos is in the process of revelation
A classical substance is a uniform and unchanging thing or object from which all variety and change manifest
The idea of classical substance arises, perhaps, from a desire to explain the complex from the simple
Substance theory appears to be desirable relative to a desirability of explanation e.g. of the origin of formed states of the universe e.g. of the origin of a formed cosmological system
Monism is the theory that there is one substance
However, a concern immediately arises. How would monism explain variety and change? Where in the realm of the uniform is the varied, where in the realm of the unchanging is the changing?
This is one source of dualism – the theory that there are two or more substances
Dualism, however runs into the same problem of explanation because the variety in the world is infinite. A theory with infinitely many substances is no longer simple and explanation of change may require reference to shifting combinations and illusion. How do shifting combinations occur if the substances are unchanging? Illusion may explain change and variety but this explanation is illicit for the perceiver, too, must be of substance
What is the problem, then, with substance theory? Why is substance explanation not forthcoming?
It is the result of the desire for deterministic explanation
The idea the universe is a (deterministic) machine has common appeal (especially to certain personality types,) in religion, and in science (even though quantum theory contains indeterminism)
To be truly simple instruments of explanation, substances would be deterministic
Simplicity of determinism is consistent with the original desire for simplicity in substance
It is the tacit assumption of determinism that makes substance theory untenable, that requires the proliferation of substances that still provides no relief
The establishment of formation from the void and the recognition of the absolutely indeterministic character of the universe shows that substance theory is untenable and unnecessary
Determinism is the forgotten twin of substance theory
The void may be taken to be the basis of explanation that was sought in substance
However, since the void is not deterministic, it may be improper to refer to the void as a substance
The void is not a true substance. There is another reason for not regarding the void as a substance. This reason, already noted, is that although the void may be thought of a ‘base’ state relative to which formation and origins occur, under absolute indeterminism the role of base state may be played by any state of the universe. It is equally valid to regard any state of the universe –including that of the void– as the sub-stance of all being
Yet another reason for not regarding the void as substance is that although ‘voidism’ may have been regarded as a substance theory in certain developments of the past, here there voidism is not posited – the metaphysics does not start with the void and there is nowhere any assumption of the fundamental character of a category or entity of being as in materialism, idealism and so on. Instead, the existence and characteristics of the void and the metaphysical consequences are all derived from basic empirical facts
The void and its absolute indeterminism are simpler than substance
The void is ultimately simple
The void and absolute indeterminism are absolutely simple because they place no explanatory requirements on the elements of being
The elements of being are, then, a result and not a pre-condition of explanation and investigation
Another motive to substance theory is that, under determinism, without substances, there is no explanation of being that terminates at some concrete place, that explanation is either incomplete or (andor) non-terminating i.e. without end
From the void there may be both finite and infinite chains of explanation. The generic explanation of being is finite
An appeal of substance had been that of providing a non-relativist philosophy i.e. one that terminates e.g. with something simple. A relativist philosophy is one that never terminates and is unsatisfying because it provides no foundation for metaphysics or philosophical understanding
Explanation from the void terminates at the void. The resulting metaphysics is not a substance theory of any kind (whether material or mental like or in the form of facts or propositions…) but is not a relativist philosophy. It is non-relativist, i.e. it provides a foundation although not a determinist one
If a determinist foundation is not possible it cannot be truly desirable
Conversely, if an (absolutely) indeterministic foundation is necessary it cannot be other than desirable
Yet another appeal to dualism had been the absolute separation of mind and matter. Regardless of the philosophical, theological and scientific motivations for this separation, it should be clear by now that as distinct substances mind and matter could never interact and as absolute but dedicated, e.g. within this cosmos, even if indeterministic, are likely doomed as explanatory experiments
Later, it will be seen that if mind and matter are released from their local and historical moorings, they may be realized as nothing but other words for being
This opens up the resolution, in Mind and in Human being, by what is essentially the theory of formation from the void, i.e. from absolute indeterminism, of the mind-matter paradox and to an understanding of the nature of mind and its grounding and many aspects thereof
Given concepts of mind and of matter that are not other terms for being, if it is specified that mind and matter are distinct substances, there can be no causation from mind to matter (or matter to mind,) and there can be no origin of mind in matter (or matter in mind)
On the condition that they are substantially distinct, at least one of mind and matter is not a substance
Regarding matter as the fundamental element of this cosmos (i.e. as generalized to include energy and the other elements of theoretical physics,) matter can be a ‘local and effective substance’ but not a substance
Mind and matter are not substances
I.e. if they are regarded in their common senses and as substantial in nature, neither can function as a metaphysical or universal substance
Comments on the immensely cosmo-centric view in John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 1986
An anthropomorphic view sees being as having human nature. In an anthropocentric view, human being is at the center of the universe
A modern sentiment perhaps fostered by four centuries of science and by liberalism is to de-anthropomorphize thought about non-human being e.g. other entities and the universe as a whole
However, anthropomorphism is difficult to escape altogether. Even when explicitly shed, it may remain in the weak form of cosmomorphism – modeling the universe on the local cosmological system e.g. taking the laws of physics to be the laws or at least a blueprint for the laws of the entire universe
Cosmomorphism is the building into a metaphysics or world picture the characteristics of the immediate cosmos – except perhaps the most fundamental characteristics (e.g. that there is being, that there is the universe)
Cosmomorphism is difficult to escape. However, its retention (mythic, scientific or philosophical-metaphysical) is infinitely restrictive of vision
Upon positively shedding all shreds of cosmomorphism, a vast ‘universe’ of possibility immediately appears
It is then possible to ascertain what elements of that universe are (correspond to what is) real. The result is a metaphysics of infinite and ultimate depth and breadth
The foregoing possibility is here demonstrated by construction. A metaphysics of infinite and ultimate depth and breadth is constructed (the notions of ‘ultimate,’ ‘depth,’ and ‘breadth’ are defined and elaborated)
A guiding principle for the metaphysician is to obtain conceptual distance from the immediate world without relinquishing all relations to it, without relinquishing intent to return to the immediate. The immediate is essential as is home; and is useful for its suggestive power, inspiration and as test
Home is not invariably a fixed place
This guiding principle opens up a path to an adequate and proper conceptual relation to (understanding, knowledge of) the entire universe
The principle is also available to the study of particular aspects of the immediate world. It is helpful, for example, in the study of (human) mind. First, in recognizing the conceptual nature of mental categories and therefore seeing that neuroanatomy and neurophysiology (…) are at most half of the picture that is sought. Second, in the recognition that perception, thought, emotion, intuition and so on are conceptual and therefore not given as immediately experienced or conceived a play is allowed that permits movement toward a proper understanding and foundation of these categories and their relations
For an inhabitant of this cosmological system, knowledge of the entire universe must be of a general or abstract character
However, such knowledge is intensely and perhaps surprisingly illuminating of human knowledge and, particularly, knowledge of the immediate world
The immediate and the ultimate are mutually illuminating
These claims are demonstrated constructively
Another modern sentiment stands against anthropocentrism
However, it is clearly seen in the metaphysics and later in Objects, especially in the Theory of Identity, human being –every human individual– stands at the center of being. What is now seen is that is not the exclusive case, i.e. all other entities and creatures also stand at center. It is then perhaps more than a value judgment to think that human being stands neither above nor below the other forms of life. What may be lost in thinking of human being as special (which may be seen as based in insecurity fostered by a false view of being) is gained in identity – in being centered among the elements of being
Since the void is equivalent to All Being, there is no substance and no explanatory need for substance. Being may be regarded as having (Necessary) origin in the void. Explanation terminates in the void without need for explanatory regress. (These assertions and their meaning are further shown and elaborated in what follows)
An alternate statement is that the void may be considered to be the substance and it may play that role in view of the complete indeterminism of the void. The purposes of classical substance theory include the explanation of complexity from simplicity – of the Form and Variety of the world in substance which is uniform (formless) and unchanging. The difficulties of the classical forms of substance theory arise on account of a (tacit) association of determinism with substance. This tacit determinism is apparently consistent with the purpose to explain complexity from simplicity. However, given determinism it is not merely difficult but impossible to explain form, variety and change from uniform and unchanging substance. This is so because determinism and true novelty –not determined by e.g. a previous state– are exclusive. Regarding sub-stance, it is clear that determinism is the imposition or immanence of law but absence of any such imposition or immanence is equivalent to indeterminism; therefore indeterminism of substance is conceptually simpler than determinism
[It would be interesting to review the history of substance theories, the meaning of substance, the way in which successive substance theories arose in response to the problems identified with earlier ones, the increasing sophistication of substance theories. However this temptation is avoided in this version of the present narrative, whose intents include brevity, since all substance theories remain problematic and since it is here demonstrated that the primary objective of substance theory can be achieved without substance. It will be useful, though, to carefully define the problems of substance theories. It is often thought that philosophical explanation requires substance because it is essential to making sense of the world. A non relativist philosophical system is one whose system of explanation terminates at some definite point with some kind of entity taken as fundamental; the motive to such systems is that in the alternative relativist systems there is (can be) no foundation or terminating explanation. It is thought that non relativist philosophical system must acknowledge substances in the most generic sense of that term, for that is only to acknowledge some fundamental entities in the system. A fundamental entity or a system of fundamental entities must be simpler than what is to be generated or explained for otherwise it or they would not be fundamental. This, combined with the tacit assumption of determinism (due either to this being the classic mode of explanation or to the thought that determinism is simpler than indeterminism and therefore inherent in substance) makes generation or explanation of novel Variety and complexity in terms of simplicity impossible. Apparently, therefore, there is a paradox of explanation: relativist systems do not provide (non-terminating) explanations and non relativist systems can not. The source of the paradox is the tacit assumption of determinism (and the tacit assumption that determinism is conceptually simpler than indeterminism.) If the requirement of determinism is lifted, non relativism is possible but does not require substance. Lifting of the requirement is necessary to non relativism and efficient in the production of the ultimates in depth and variety]
If simplicity is taken to be the criterion of proper or good metaphysical explanation, metaphysics based in the void and therefore also in absolute indeterminism is necessary
Since classical substance theory and determinism are bound together –substance theory has significance only if determinism obtains– it is possible but not proper to consider the void to be a substance
The concept of the Void is ultimate in simplicity; it is this simplicity that allows for its actual generative power – the ‘simplicity’ of classical substance is an illusion for it contains the constraint of determinism that the void lacks. Therefore regarding the classical sense of substance, it is proper to not regard the ontology based in the void as substance ontology. The dogmas of substance and determinism have equivalence: without determinism, substance can have no significance; without substance there is no need for determinism
The system of explanation based in the void terminates in it. Further the existence and properties of the void are derived from the existence of the world. Thus this form of ontology provides explanation that terminates and posits no arbitrary fundamental substance or given – except the world (Being) itself
In the present Theory of Being the void or absence of being has the following character that constitutes the explicit and ultimate depth of the theory. It is ultimate in simplicity. If the requirement of determinism is eliminated, the void may be regarded as the substance of all being. It provides an explanatory system for the necessity of all being without assumption and without explanatory regress
As an alternate to the void, in view of the essential indeterminism of being (since manifest being is equivalent to the void,) any state of the universe may be taken as fundamental and every state be seen as equivalent to it – the universe has no special states (these observations have been made earlier)
The following concern may have occurred to the reader. What has been said so far may be stated in the simple form (omitting logical niceties) ‘anything is possible.’ How is this consistent with the experience of the world of laws and limits? To answer this question it is required to show how form and structure must arise out of the void in indeterministic process (the origin of form and structure in indeterministic process may seem to be counterintuitive if not paradoxical.) It may also be useful to provide a plausible or probabilistic explanation or suggestion that the universe is dominated by formed systems – or at least that such systems will dominate observation. These issues are addressed in what follows
A sentient field reveals mind
Sentience may be regarded as a field of sentience or as a field of bodies with experience
There is no essential difference between these depictions
A contingent difference would be a ghost
Excepting ghosts, there is no difference
Ghosts are subject to the same analysis
If there are ghosts, they fall under the same analysis. If there are ghosts, they are merely another kind of entity
The sentient-field and body-experience field descriptions of organisms in the world are merely different terminologies
Except for the eternal solipsist, solipsism, i.e. occasional solipsism, is possible and necessary on account of the Theory of being
The universe might be consistently seen as a solipsist (however, since it enters a phase of being the void it would not be an eternal solipsist even though the universe it is eternal)
Therefore, any argument against solipsism must be practical, i.e. in such and such a kind of system of beings e.g. durable evolved, solipsism would be impoverished or impossible
The world of human experience is far richer than it could be if the individual were a solipsist
If a creator is external to what is created, the universe can have no creator
One part of the universe may create another part
That is logically possible. However, origins from a void may, in terms of the standard mechanism, be far more likely
The form of one cosmological system may be ‘informed’ by that of another or of the background universe. It is perhaps typical that complexity and intelligence are self-formed while formation from the outside occurs for at most initial conditions. This is because the ‘ability’ of a system that forms another may, with exceptions, be of a far greater level andor complexity
Omnipotence (God) as an explanation of form is seriously lacking because as explanation of origins, there must also be an explanation of the origins of the omnipotence which is less rather than more likely than self-formation. From Theory of being and from eternal duration, self-formation is not at all likely; its probability is in fact unity. In any case, arguments regarding ‘external’ formation and its extent must be on a case by case basis
Although the manifest universe may be seen as coming out of the void, it is a stretch of meaning to say that the void created the manifest universe
In no deterministic or strictly causal sense did the void create the manifest universe (or any cosmological system or domain)
However given the universe in the void state, the following are true. ‘The’ universe will manifest (in this sentence it is pertinent to note that ‘universe’ is used in a sense that is local in duration.) Myriad cosmological systems will emerge (from this and subsequent visitations to the void state)
There is a project to investigate the meanings of cause according to which the void may be said to cause the manifest or a domain or in which one domain may be said to cause or create another domain
…
The void is an event
A number of objections to the foregoing analysis may be raised. Some foci for the objections are (1) what may appear to be the use of mere concepts to demonstrate actual or real consequences and (2) that the laws of quantum theory imply the absence of actual things (the ‘ground state’ of the local cosmological system) will be the quantum vacuum which is a state that is far from being (the) void or absence of being but is a seat of enormous amounts of energy and a place of continuous creation and destruction of particle pairs, and (3) the violation of common sense in the idea of ‘something from nothing’ and, in physics, possible violations of the principle of conservation of energy. Responses to the objections follow
(1) All being and the absence of being –the void– are concepts but not mere concepts i.e. the fact of their reference is above question in a way that the reference to e.g. atoms and apples cannot be: whereas there is always some question about the existence of an atom or an apple (are they precisely captured in a concept) there is no question, not even a logical one about the concept of being or the void – the fact of being for a reader or a writer is given just as the absence of being consists in the absence of all givens, entities, patterns and laws. (2) The quantum vacuum is the seat of patterns of behavior that are laws. The void contains no law and is therefore ‘below’ the quantum vacuum in simplicity and fundamental character. The void ‘generates’ the quantum laws of this (our) cosmological system as well as the laws and entities of all cosmological systems. (3) Common sense and intuition –at least for some persons– is indeed violated; there is nothing, it may appear, in common day-to-day life that suggests the origin of a cosmos out of a void. However, common sense, experience, and intuition are situated in the everyday world. That they (may) show no origin of being from absence does not imply that such origin is impossible or that it does not occur. Self-aware empirical common sense is silent on such issues and, should it desire to know, will seek to follow the analysis. It appears to be a fact of human variety that some individuals are bound to their experience more than others. Such binding is important e.g. in survival; however, freedom from binding is also important in growth and, perhaps, in survival (such issues are discussed in detail in the subsequent section ‘Human being.’) It is interesting that the integration of intuition and analysis is similar to what occurs in mathematics, especially e.g. in the use of algebra (which emphasizes the symbol) in geometry (whose forms are initially known intuition.) The power of the algebraic approach reveals itself in the analysis of geometric forms and even concepts that are not amenable to the intuition… Attention now turns to the issue of violation of the principle of conservation of energy. It is an immediate consequence of the fundamental principle that, regarding the entire universe, conservation of energy does not (and cannot) obtain; (near) conservation laws are perhaps features of (relatively) stable worlds. However, since, in terms of physical theory, energies can be positive as well as (e.g. gravitational field energy) negative, spontaneous creation of ‘a universe’ from nothing need not violate the physical principle of conservation of energy
The idea of ‘method’ is not that of an algorithm that, if followed, will result in precise or correct knowledge. If such algorithms should arise they would, of course, count as method. It will be seen that a universal algorithm for knowledge and transformation is impossible; this confirms practical expectation
What is meant by method is a system of fundamental insights regarding the nature of being and fundamental patterns of thought and transformation that are conducive to and arise and are revisable with the practice of thought and transformation
It is right that ‘method’ should be taken up after or in interaction with development—with Theory of being
The most general aspects of ‘method’ will be the Methods of Theory of being
Specific aspects of method arise in the topics, e.g., Human being
Applies also to Principles of thought and transformation
In Faith it will be observed that, even in the absence of insight, the eminence of epistemology may be seen as a loss of nerve in deference to an absolute reign of reason (even as reason dethroned itself) and that it is perhaps this absence of nerve that is responsible for it to have taken 2,500 years of philosophical thought for the emergence of the Metaphysics of Immanence. (In Götzen-Dämmerung, Nietzsche, who is perhaps the philosopher of both life and of reason, laments the reign of reason)
A fundamental source is the approach via (A) description of the forms of experience,(B) conclusions from the different forms, and(C) the kinds and aspects of conclusion
The Methods employed in the development of the metaphysics deserve mention…
Initial contact with the world was via an earlier evolutionary paradigm that was temporal, and employed the categories, first, of mind and then of matter. It appeared that a non-temporal paradigm, would complement the earlier one and that this might take the form of a view that was neutral to the temporal / non-temporal distinction or included both modes of description. Additionally, mind and matter were found wanting in their particularity and their distinctions and the resulting limitations of a view that appealed to either or both. After experimenting with varieties of materialism and idealism including some from the history of thought, such substance like paradigms were abandoned – not as the result of a conscious decision but because the explanatory modes inevitably seemed to be artificial and contrived and because a better alternative was found. If Hegelian idealism has basis in appeal to reason and realism –in addition to imagination and intuition– that basis remained invisible. That alternative, being, had surfaced early but it the process in which the concept of being came into clear (and finally simple focus) and its advantages became obvious were slow. The advantage of neutrality was clear quite early. However, the development of a logical metaphysics around being was slow. There were experiments with the idea that the universe is equivalent to nothingness (the absence of being) but, despite the intuition of this thought, and despite the fact that the net energy of the universe may be zero, the necessity of the idea remained clouded
The situation changed when an inspiration to focus on the properties of the void (the term was chosen because an association with Sartre was felt to be repugnant) instead of on those of the universe (as then conceived.) This inspiration proved to be the point that permitted transition from intuition alone to logic; and from this point on the development of the Theory of being, starting as a trickle gathered momentum as a deluge
A key insight – the void contains no pattern, no law, no form. Therefore, from the void, every consistent state emerges. Therefore, the universe must enter a state of being the void. Therefore, logic is the one law of the universe. Since the universe contains all things, the actual is identical to the possible. What is this possible? Slowly it emerged that it is the logically possible. Patterns of derivation emerged that centered around the ideas of ‘all,’ ‘none,’ ‘difference,’ ‘part,’ ‘actual,’ ‘the possible’…
The ‘grand’ vision of the metaphysic appeared to be indeterministic. Later, the term ‘absolute indeterminism’ arose; the idea appeared to contradict the possibility of form and of the being of this cosmological system. The resolution of the contradiction regarding form had been well known from thought on evolution that, not only does indeterminism allow form by seeking stable states that would be inaccessible under determinism, such states are novel; indeterminism results in novel form. Since all states are accessible, the state of this cosmos be accessible. The distinction between a formed cosmos and the transient background is described by the term ‘normal.’ However, the determinism and causation of a normal system are in fact quasi-determinism and quasi-causation; at root every system is absolutely indeterministic but there are phases of behavior where the indeterminism is little in evidence
An interesting point in the analysis. Not only does it emerge that ‘something from nothing, is necessary, but it seems that fact emerges from mere ideas and words. This seemed quite incredible. The resolution is simple in concept. In addition to (contingent) facts that could be otherwise and whose truth must be seen, ideas and words have necessary fact built into their meaning e.g. in the fact of experience there is being
Necessary fact resides in meaning e.g. the fact of meaning
From such facts the beginnings of a metaphysics emerge by derivation
Patterns of derivation are emerge, certain concepts are noted to be important
Some concepts are similar to classical concepts from the history of thought. An example is that of logic. That the possible is the actual shows the intimate relation between metaphysics and logic. A new concept of logic emerges that must be and is related to the classical concept
In addition to the incorporation of the empirical in the form of necessary fact contained in (the being of) meaning, contingent fact is encountered e.g. the being of this cosmos and it apparent contradiction of the growing metaphysics is resolved by the metaphysics itself in the demonstration of the necessity of normal systems
The nature of the normal system is close to the classical notion of it but still essentially different. The classical features are present for ‘most purposes.’ However, the exception is of enormous importance and absolute indeterminism underlies the normal
Along such lines there is a resolution of the issues of substance theory: the concept of substance and determinism are twins; there is no substance; yet a non-relativist foundation of being is possible (in the void;) and along these lines there is resolution of various problems of classical metaphysics including those of mind and matter
Different branches of classical thought are brought under the new umbrella or paradigm which emerges as a ‘paradigm free paradigm’ because no paradigms are imposed. The key concepts are the old ones: Metaphysics, Meaning, Being, Object, Logic, Mind, Cosmology, Substance, Universe, Absence of Being, Form… however, their meanings shift to incorporate what is the essence of the old and also so that the variety of meanings is seen as an interactive and overlapping (e.g. the overlap of metaphysics, logic and cosmology)
First, contact with the world – including necessary and contingent fact; and the determination required to encounter the necessary fact; this requires to neither reject relativism (because it teaches a valuable lesson) nor acquiesce in it which would be a premature nihilism of ideas based in example rather than in necessity
Second, search for ideas among the classical and in imagination (it appears that whatever is new and fresh in imagination has connection and break with the classical ideas)
Third, seeing patterns of inference and emergence of important concepts and cultivating these
Fourth, ongoing incorporation, modification, and integration of areas of classical thought while being open to new ideas, facts and vision…
Before derivation came constitution e.g. ‘Being includes not only entities but also Patterns, Forms, Laws and Logos (universal law.) Entities are Forms.’ The derivations or inferences are of a number of kinds that follow. (1) General logical derivations such as ‘The entire system of consistent descriptions is realized,’ ‘There is no distinction between possibility and actuality’ and so on. (2) Logical characterizations of particular concepts e.g. Power, Form and Number (below.) (3) Normal or probabilistic considerations e.g. the formations of domains by ‘normal mechanisms’ and with ‘normal behavior;’ it is not necessary that all domains be normal and be formed by normal mechanisms (incremental change and durability of relatively stable forms) but the normal domains dominate the population of being and their formation is dominated by normal mechanisms; it is necessary, however, that some normal domains be formed by normal mechanisms. (4) Finally there is interaction between the Theory and special topics as included e.g. in the sections ‘Human being’ and ‘Faith’ in which the particular topic is illuminated and enhanced by and provides elaboration of the Theory of Being
The ‘logical’ character of these developments may be limited by the precision and certainty of the particular topic. When the development is an enhancement of the foundation of the special topic, the previous limits of that topic are no longer applicable and certain of the resulting conclusions may be necessary. Examples of necessary special developments include that evolution must involve both indeterminism and selection for (adapted or relatively stable) Form; that there are necessities of the Extension of the concept of Mind (below) to the root of being; that there must be both bound and free symbols; that there be symbols (and images) that have degrees of binding to action (emotion;) that constructive thought cannot be entirely deterministic. Other developments are not necessary; some developments are reasonable e.g. when what is normal and therefore extremely probable –an example being mechanisms of origins– is taken as obtaining in a specific and apparently normal domain; other developments may be more speculative e.g. in assuming that something that is necessary in some domain applies in a given normal domain (speculation is included when it seems useful.) There is no intent to exclude significant content. Rather, an objective is to make clear the degree of confidence (from certainty to mere speculation) and significance of content
Refinements are relative to the most recent print edition of 2006
The following aspects are refined here or in Metaphysics
Why being – the active use of the idea in eliminating habits of prior metaphysics. The form of experience and the empirical content of meaning. Concepts and objects. The approach to the question ‘What has being?’
Clarifying the meaning of the form of experience as remembered form and as including the fact of experience. Distinction between forms of experience and Forms of being—that the forms of experience are not taken –unless demonstrated– to be or to give the Forms of being. I.e., to not make any assumption that the forms of experience have objectivity. Introducing or recognizing the idea to derive –as far as possible– the metaphysics from the form of experience.
The absolute depth and breadth was recognized in the Some refinements since the previous edition. The name Metaphysics of immanence. Systematization of the aims and derivation of the metaphysics and its use in setting up the other topics and divisions
Clarification of the relation of experience to the world; the existence and meaning of the external world; concept and object; absolute objectivity and noumenon or thing-in-itself… and the practical concept; possibility of absolute objectivity; relation to and clarification of Kant’s system; transcendental meaning of faithfulness; faith and affirmation
Elimination of habit substance thinking in elucidating the nature and role of metaphysics… What is metaphysics? What should a metaphysics do? The idea of meta-metaphysics and metaphysics as physics. Recognizing and clarifying the empirical content of core metaphysics. Finding equivalent characterizations of the metaphysics. Clarification of the ideas and fact of the ultimate depth and breadth of the metaphysics. Clarification of the concept of substance, the nature of the void and the elimination of substance and its significance. Clarification of mechanism. Introducing the idea of Faith and affirmation relative to issues of objectivity. Improved set up of later discussions including those of Metaphysics and philosophy
The problem of the object is clarified. The idea of the concept-object is no longer used; while the tendency to conflate concept and object is recognized, concept and object are distinguished. The problem and meaning of faithfulness is clarified. Absolute and practical concepts (objects) are introduced and the possibility of absolute objects shown. Universal or necessary and contextual or contingent forms of experience are recognized
Particular and abstract objects. The concepts; from the metaphysics of immanence, form is the basis of the abstract object. From the metaphysics of recurrence, particular and abstract objects are set on the same basis; and, abstract objects may reside in time and space and may have causal efficacy. Absolute and practical objects; the noumenon. Classification and examples
Application. Consistency and reference. Number, mathematical and infinite objects. Identity. Ethical or value object. Action, concept and object. Truth and the real
That all things and Forms are in the universe sets up the study of Objects
That knower and known are in the universe (and are constituent to a form) sets up a notion of knowledge where exact correspondence percept to perceived or concept to conceived has no universal meaning; and therefore no universal occurrence; and therefore no universal desirability or necessity. Conversely, this may be seen as good; it shows that discovery (a kind of formation) may be available. This does not rule out that there are cases where exact correspondence has meaning and possibility. This narrative constructs such a system. Another possibility regards sufficiently abstract objects (next.) A third is the development of quantum theory to describe a system of both knower and known. Although this narrative shows that projection of current theoretical physics to the universe would be mythic, there may be a significance for knowledge within ‘our’ normal cosmos or with sufficient abstraction some greater application
That perceiver, perceived and percept are in the universe sets up the study of abstract objects. Questions such as whether they are temporal or spatial are to be settled on a case by case basis, i.e. it cannot be said that all abstract objects are not spatio-temporal but only that certain sufficiently and appropriately abstracted objects are. Are abstract objects mental? What does that mean? It could mean ‘Do they exist in some abstract or abstracted conceptual space?’ The resolution is, perhaps, that they may be regarded (from the concept side) as residing in conceptual space but they are better regarded as being in the world (universe)
Intensional necessity may be seen as extensional necessity over certain abstract objects
Use—its meaning, lexical theory and atomism
Holism and residence of meaning in the system of concepts; division and recombination of concepts; formation of the free concept
Meaning—a system in, of and in interaction with the world. That until demonstrated otherwise, meaning remains incomplete, contextual, and in evolution. That if meaning has limits on precision and completeness, in revealing ever freshness of discovery this is good
Concept and object—sense and reference, connotation and denotation, intension and extension
That sentience is a form whose constituents include other forms (organism, object) and their relation sets up the study of Meaning and of Mind.
Theory of possibility
Theory of descriptions, grammar… description, conceptualization, depiction
Logos
That Logic is the one law of being
… and logic
Paradox and reference
On logic and logics
Mathematics
Science
That Logic is the one Law of being sets up the study of Logic
Science may be seen as a kind of relative possibility but not (always) a necessary one. Science will be taken up further in Logic
The systems of deductive logic are studies of relative but necessary possibility
In common and much philosophical and scientific use, mind and matter are vague and extensible concepts that may each fit one another and fit many phenomena but in their definiteness cannot fit all phenomena. If the requirement of definiteness is lifted they are not even candidates for substances and on account of the metaphysics each may be extended to cover the other and all phenomena
If mind and matter are definite substances then they are necessarily identical. If they are distinct substances then, necessarily, a contradiction results
…
The status of mind relative to the ground of being is clarified
As commonly used, mind and matter are indefinite concepts but may be so regarded or defined to incorporate what is true of the common meanings and reach to the ground
Feeling is the essential character of mind—it is the primitive form of mind; it reaches to ground; its elaboration gives mind-as-experienced… as discussed in Human being
Resolution of mind-body, mental causation and other problems
Originality, consciousness and attributes
Cosmology is the Theory of variety
General cosmology… a variety of cosmological consequences
Mechanism and explanation. Necessity of absolute indeterminism. Necessary and normal mechanism
Time and space
Cosmological status of substance
Local cosmology – atomism, divides
That there are no fictions except logical contradictions sets up the study of the variety within Cosmology. The formation from the void sets up the study of origins of both transient and formed (normal) systems
Explicit recognition of ‘method’ for this section is new
Necessary conclusions regarding Human World follow from necessary premises e.g. necessary propositions from Theory of being and necessary facts regarding the human world. Contingent conclusions, usually detailed and contextual, follow when one or more premises are contingent
Continuous and extended reflection in which the atomic conclusion is regarded as neither final nor the unit of reflection but is integrated with a larger whole and tested for coherence and factual character. Experience may serve the role of experiment—although some situations call for active experiment to achieve greater differentiation –including precision– such experiment is by no means universally necessary and the extreme points of view that eschew and that invariably require controlled experiment are both mistaken
Human World provides a ground context for the journey—where Theory of Being provides the universal ‘context’
Human World is presented as a contribution in aspects of the organism; psychology, intuition and its categories; society and its institutions; ethics and ideals; the problem of the modern world; the nature of civilization and history; and to the concepts, nature and place of faith and affirmation and of religion
Human essence—e.g. awareness of and therefore, by duality of ability and function, instrumental presence in the stream… Essence as remaining in continual reflection until conclusion is necessary and complete
Feeling –as defined here– as the fundamental element of mind; attitude and action as characteristics or manifestations attached to feeling but not as elementary. Dimensions of feeling. Integration and function. The intuition… and its categories defined by the categories of being. The unconscious… its existence, its nature as an element in the continuum of rather than opposite to feeling, its significance in binding and freedom. Growth, personality and commitments. Atman. Dynamics e.g. psychoanalysis, determinism and the unconscious… and dreams. Love—fact before theory; the core idea as sufficient equality regard for self and other. Language—the importance of symbol but arbitrariness of the distinction between symbolic, iconic and dramatic imagination, processing and communication… and conclusions from the absence of complete distinction. Language, sense and grammar. Achievement and disorder… or function and dysfunction
‘Method.’ Ideas of society, culture and institution are developed from enumeration of the possible kinds of group interaction in light of the Metaphysics and the nature of Human being
Individual and group. Social freedoms. Culture and institution. Institution of culture. The social institutions. Dynamics…
The problem
The context of the problem has no boundaries—an occasion for a meditation on ‘Our World’
Ethics and instance, and instance and instance are not separable
The interactive character of problems of ‘Our World’ and their dimensions—cultural, educational, economic, political, law, and faith and religion
The co-existence of absolute indeterminism and of form is crucial to the study of the Human world
The concepts, nature, and place of faith –especially in the modern world– and religion. Institutions of religion. Religion and truth
Nature and function of institutions of religions (‘the religions’) and adherence
Nomadic societies and the character of faith
Rational attitudes toward religion—especially in the present world
Old and new concepts. Metaphors for civilization
Civilization as connectedness of society and societies in time and space. Internal coherence as incomplete. Theory of being shows the necessity of universal civilization and identity of individual and group with that civilization
Prospect
History as the web or matrix of interconnection
Classical ideals and substance thought
The highest ideal incorporates the ideas of the past –the classical ideals– and search for a hierarchy of ideals
Nature of a journey—how the endeavor is a journey. Includes transformation of ambition and goals
Why the journey (re-discovery of the universe) is essential to realization
Journey’s arc
Story as presentational form
Principles of thought and transformation arise in thought and transformation—in the journey. They do not stand outside; a glimmer of ‘method’ is seen, cultivated, multiplied, refined…
The remaining ideas illustrate the journey—are occasions of discovery and illustration of Theory of being
History, basis and theory of transformation. Root in history and Theory of being
System of experiments
Transformation so far. Designs
Continuing…
A time of perception. A time the eternal in the present; of Brahman in Atman
Some elements of process
The place of the journey in a life
The following take on materialism is to be incorporated into the development
Materialism and other substance ontologies begin with a dedicated (implies restricted) concept, e.g. matter (if materialism is another name for being it is not dedicated but empty with regard to being a substance)
In monism, the universe is matter or mind or…; in dualism it is more than one kind or substance and each kind is restricted in nature and it is this essential restrictedness that in the thinking of the dualist requires dualism… Here the universe is what it is! This trivial and obvious thought is the source of a revolution. Whether there is a substance and if there is, what that substance may be will fall out of analysis rather than being a precondition of analysis
Similarly, the idea that analysis should be flat (lateral) is a precondition. The proper mode of analysis –flat, depth or mix– should be a result and not precondition of investigation. That analysis should be in some specific mode is a consequence of a way of thought rather than expression of a universal necessity or dependent on the subject matter, e.g. meaning, science…
The approach here is to start with the immediate. Then the word meaning of ‘being’ shall fall out of the subsequent consideration. Insofar as the meaning-sense of being is empty, the analysis of its sense-meaning shall be clarification by elimination of invalid and misleading associations. Being is perhaps the one (general) concept whose analysis is without depth; however this does not imply that being contains no depth. Perhaps the only concepts whose analysis shall necessarily be horizontal (lateral) are empty concepts. Perhaps the only general metaphysical concept of this nature is that of being. Additionally, the fundamental concepts for restricted contexts may perhaps be empty and therefore their analysis horizontal
However, in saying ‘being is’ is it not being said that being is something? And then what is that something that being is said to be? No, these assertions are not an implicit part of ‘being is’ and will become part of that assertion only if the phrase is extended to ‘being is x.’ The bare phrase ‘being is’ or ‘being’ refers to the necessary empirical facts of experience (rather than the content of experience) and of entirety, absence, difference and domain
In admitting the case of absence of manifest being i.e. that the universe visits the void state, the fact of perception becomes occasional (even if dominant) but not universal
That there is an occasional fact of perception necessarily obtains. It is not possible that there is never perception or that there is always perception
The truth of the previous paragraph holds when ‘perception’ is replaced by ‘manifest being’
Is it not however in saying ‘being is that which exists’ being asserted that being exists-in-time? There is a variety of uses of the idea behind the word ‘is.’ Some uses are peripheral to the assertion of existence and have no pertinence here. As far as existence is concerned, the use does not always indicate existence in time… and even if it did, that could only mean that ‘is’ does indicate existence in time and not that it must do so and that ‘is’ could then be extended. Does that mean that existence out of time (or before, or after or over time) is possible or is a possible connotation of ‘is?’ If the facts are possible then an extended andor neutral connotation is also possible. Since it is not clear what ‘out of time’ means that idea is omitted here. The ideas ‘before time’ and ‘after time’ may refer to states of being in which change therefore time is indiscernible but do not appear to have a connotation of true timelessness but only that of apparent timelessness. The idea of being-over-time may connote a picture in which e.g. the trajectory of a motion is regarded as the entity; in this case the use of ‘is’ would not connote being-in-time. Then ‘is’ could be used neutrally to connote both cases of in or over time. A similar consideration is possible with respect to space or space-time. And, finally, further abstraction results in the global andor local description described in what follows. Thus being is not necessarily regarded as in or not in time, in or not in space, and, in the abstract case, that space and time (or space-time) are the only descriptors or that whatever descriptors obtain form a universal continuum
Are space and time always descriptors and are they the only descriptors of manifest being? If manifest being must require variety it seems that extension or space is necessary. Since all being must occasionally obtain as the void or absence of being, it would seem that change, duration or time is necessary. Space and time then are necessary to manifest being (and though it is possible to appreciate how they may necessarily be coupled in certain cosmological arrangements it is not as easy to see that this is always the case.) Are space and time sufficient to manifest being? Since manifest being relative to the void is given by the fact (variety) and act of manifestation, it appears that they are sufficient. However, the previous appearance may be simply a consequence of the structure of human intuition or the nature of this cosmos
The clarification of the meaning of being then, since the being as such knows no distinctions, is an elimination of associations that dedicate the idea in some direction so as to specialize it. Distinctions are either eliminated or the distinct realms are allowed to stand together. To not do so results in a specialized association. The following distinctions have been eliminated or mentioned: substance vs. non-substance theories, finite vs. infinite depth theories, local vs. global description, necessary vs. contingent dependence on space and time, continuum vs. patch, manifest vs. non-manifest, difference vs. uniformity, and part vs. whole. Additionally, the following distinctions may be considered. Absolute determinism vs. absolute indeterminism, the varieties of cause and cause vs. non-causation
Here, in the idea of being, all, absence, difference and part, is (the root of a) systematic metaphysics. This metaphysics may frame speculation but is not itself speculation; and it shows also in significant measure what ‘speculations’ are necessary, what are perhaps only probable, what may be highly probable, when the occurrence of what is probable in any context or domain is necessary relative to all being, and when the metaphysics itself gives little credence to contingent contextual claims or speculations
The greatest scheme of thought, regardless of its source, is grounded not in speculation or imagination or romance but in cold logic
The real immanent form of logic in being called Logic is not other than feeling but contains it
The discussion the review of metaphysics and philosophy, their nature and possibilities in general and not in their specific form as in this narrative is to be in the division Ideas. The aim here is to set up the later discussion. Distribute material accordingly