|
The way of being Anil Mitra, Copyright © March 15, 2021. Revised July 31, 2021. Home page for the way of being Contents the concept and possibility of metaphysics reason and metaphysics (treatment) cosmology of limitless identity development of the discipline of metaphysics the aim of being is the aim of the way realization (the way and its means) reason and metaphysics (review) reason and metaphysics (mention) development of the way as a resource
planthe document is a skeletal framework for the way—and a source for writing a final version of the way for more planning, see plan_pre.html 1 into the wayalign what comes before the preview with the preview, and minimize the former the main parts of the narrative are divisions to know and realize what is real this is an informal division on the way and the narrative it has functions of a prologue, a preface, and an introduction a prologue shows the place and origins of the way and the narrative in experience and the world the essence aim of the way discovery and realization of the ultimate in and from the immediate means knowledge, its principles in interaction with— action (transformation) and its principles which include experience, imaginative and critical reflection, experiment, and learning— …which this is developed in the first of two more formal divisions—'the world’ key results the universe is found to be limitless—i.e., the greatest possible; it goes through peaks that are also limitless; this limitlessness is inherited by the individual; there are intelligent and effective paths to the ultimate; that the universe is limitless is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics and its join with what is valid in tradition is a metaphysical system named the real metaphysics the value fundamental to the paths is enjoyment—appreciation of joy and pain; the resolution of the problem of pain is dual, (i) in direct therapy (ii) in following, developing, and negotiating paths which is imperative according to the value (which is also therapeutic) pathways path development and negotiation is developed in the second formal division—'the way’ the final division of the way, ‘into the world’, is an informal reflection on the way and the narrative in the world—on living in light of the way the main sections (into) the way has two main sections the way and the text subsections: the aim of the way, origins, sources, means (of realization), understanding the narrative, and resources ‘understanding the narrative’ may present problems (i) meaning can be definite only in a definite context and since the real metaphysics goes beyond (but does not contradict what is valid in) tradition, the concept and system meanings here cannot be received meanings; it is therefore essential that readers pay attention to meanings (definitions) and the emergent system (of course, critical imagination is expected and readers may later integrate for themselves what is pertinent in their versions of received meanings) (ii) in arriving at the real metaphysics, it was pivotal to address some fundamental problems of philosophy that are generally considered incompletely resolved. here, the problems are not addressed for their own sakes, but (a) because they constitute part of a circle of issues central to forming a true picture of the world, and (b) the ways (methods) of approaching the problems are useful elements of a method for the metaphysics; and while some resolutions have been obtained, I have not been at pains to observe in each case that “this is a fundamental problem of philosophy” a preview of the narrative there are two subsections— principles reason and the a priori flow of ideas being >> experience >> beings >> possibility >> tradition >> the real metaphysics >> pathways to the ultimate shared discovery and realization of the ultimate in this world and beyond to live in the immediate and the ultimate as one individual in the world experience, reflection on the world, and limits of consensus experience search for meaning for understanding and exploration of the world for paradigms and traditions, ancient through current, of understanding and exploration tradition and its limits tradition will be conceived as what is valid in all world cultures, ancient and modern, including their knowledge, values, process activities, and ways or methods secular tradition sees the world as in consensus experience a strong version of secularism sees the world as limited by consensus experience however, except that what is true in experience of this world is not to be contradicted, it is consistent with experience for the universe to be greater—the greatest possible, but it is implicit in ‘possibility’ that true knowledge and valid inference (‘reason’) is not contradicted—therefore: it is consistent with experience (and reason) for the universe to be the greatest possible note—we will understand ‘reason’ to be the valid process and content of direct and inferred knowledge and its acquisition transsecularism admits the secular world as part of a larger world dogmatic transsecularism, as in some religions, posits a speculative transsecular picture as real the twin limitation of secular and transsecular thought a secular thinker who would break out of the limits of strong secularism may be unable to do so, due to the twin limits of conservatism (strong secularism) and the absurd alternative of dogma beyond tradition the traditions have a ‘progressive’ strain—seeking to go beyond tradition probing the histories of world cultures and peoples reveal chaos and direction—many directions; is there (a rational framework that sees history as) a single, ultimate end? an adequate meaning of ‘rationality’ will be developed the greatest possible universe it will be shown that the universe is the greatest possible the meaning of a kind of possibility is that given a concept, that the concept has an object is not / is ruled out according as the concept does / does not satisfy the criterion for the kind that the universe is the greatest possible is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics the ‘greatest possible’ is necessarily in the greatest sense of possibility—i.e., it must be logical possibility in this section ‘logic’ will be ‘deductive logic’ the meaning of the fundamental principle is that given a concept that is not illogical, it specifies an object though we generally see deductive logic as necessary inference, this may be inadequate with regard to meaning, and our logics may and almost certainly not exhaust logic we will find logic to be a kind of theory of the universe a logic will be the theory of a class of beings in the universe that are defined by a mode of expression without a final metaphysics (as study and knowledge of the real) the modes of expression cannot said to be final or exhaustive the greatest possible universe is one that has identity and form without limit and that phases in and out of peak and dissolution; that confers its limitlessness on individuals (who merge as one in the peaks); that has limitlessly many kinds and numbers of each kind of cosmos, all in communication with the void; where one mode of achieving limitlessness is that of individuals and civilizations moving from cosmos to cosmos … to universal peak note—these characteristics do not exhaust what obtains in the greatest possible universe; the fundamental principle exhausts what is in the universe with regard to depth (i.e., in principle) but not breadth (in fact, variety); the beginning of an exhaustive and systematic listing of what obtains in the greatest possible universe is found in the world the real metaphysics how is this ‘destiny’ to be undertaken—it is a given, but the greatest enjoyment of pleasure and pain is in intelligent development and negotiation of pathways tradition is a pragmatic instrument (complementary to the above perfect metaphysics or cosmology) to negotiate pathways—the perfect illuminates and guides the pragmatic, the pragmatic illustrates and is instrumental toward the perfect, which is, in the movement toward the ultimate, a real and seamless synthesis named the real metaphysics the individual search experience reason learning process (action) transformation the world snapshots history destiny chaos equilibrium process traditions paradigms institutions literature > the world experience reason process (action) aim develop and present (share) means and resources for the aim of the way function—share discovery and realization of the ultimate knowledge and action means of realization path to the ultimate character intended as a contribution synthesizes traditions, but not a mere synthesis goes beyond tradition ultimate in some directions (‘depth’) system emergent, not imposed concepts treated at more than one level (further) topics within each level pre and post metaphysics i.e., before and after proof of the fundamental principle aim and destiny foundations being—what objects and kinds have being pre—being itself, experience (its recursivity, its interpretations), the as if world post—the real, concrete and abstract objects, tropes through universals experience, its interpretations and dimensions logic universal and process—deduction (logics) and induction logic as the theory of the universe that applies to all beings that fall under a particular mode of expression sciences—abstract (e.g., mathematics and linguistics) and concrete (natural, social, and universal, e.g. the real metaphysics and cosmology) free will … levels of detail and sophistication minimal field manual the common reader significant academic agent develops, shares, negotiates paths to the ultimate perfect vs pragmatic … final vs tentative … principle beyond the definitely known, meaning ranges from partially to fully not determined—so meanings of terms and the system must transcend received meanings; naturally, there will be some continuity of meaning, some breaks, but in any region sufficiently far from that of common experience, concepts may have significantly altered or expanded meaning… and perhaps entirely new meaning the universe is revealed as limitlessly greater than in standard received paradigms, secular and transsecular—therefore received paradigms may be limited and distorted versions of the real ideal knowledge just above is abstract and not instrumental and needs synthesis with ‘tradition’ to be concretized and instrumental therefore, to understand the narrative it will help to… set aside received meanings and paradigms, at least temporarily follow concept meanings as defined in the narrative follow the system of meaning recognize that the meanings constitute a system hold judgment from received paradigms in abeyance while absorbing the system (later, such judgment will be useful in synthesizing the ideal with tradition or rejection of the ideal) absorb the system as a gestalt allow critical synthesis with the received (tradition) another source of difficulty is that it was instrumental in developing the narrative, to address a number of problems of philosophy, generally seen as difficult and incompletely resolved. while I have an interest in philosophy, a primary reason to take these problems up here, is that even an attempt at addressing them was instrumental in developing and using the real metaphysics. as it turned out, some resolutions were obtained by careful analysis, which sometimes involved appeal to the metaphysics, while the metaphysics enabled side-stepping other problems. I have not taken pains to say of each problem taken up that “this is well known but unresolved problem of thought” see into the world > resources reason and the a priori should the narrative employ new terms for ‘the a priori’ and ‘reason’? reason Immanuel Kant’s approach to knowledge and its foundation was via ‘understanding’ and ‘reason’ for Kant, understanding was direct knowledge and reason was inferred knowledge here, we seek a single term to encompass direct and inferred knowledge; we will use ‘reason’ reason is the most effective way to achieve ends, including the end of knowledge, with inherent and appropriate certainty though reason is the means, that it should contain knowledge itself is implicit does reason include its own means? i.e., does—can—it self-justify? the a priori the received meaning of a priori knowledge is that it is known without experience (other than the experience of learning the language in which the knowledge is expressed); here I break with received use and define a priori knowledge or principle is that whose foundation, to a desired or appropriate degree of certainty, is integral to or part of the knowledge itself (in this sense, a priori knowledge would be self-founding) thus, while there may be a priori propositions in the received sense, in general, such propositions will not be a priori in the present sense; on the other hand metaphysical system that had propositions at a range of ‘levels’, e.g. propositions about the world and propositions about propositions, could, at least conceivably, be a priori in the present sense is reason a priori? the questions ought to be what might it mean for reason to be a priori? can reason be a priori? and, if so, how can we formulate reason—or, at least, a system of reason—as a priori? let us address these issues when an individual or society and its culture develop, in the beginning, most knowledge will be received and the knowledge is not a priori for the knower, but it may be treated as a priori; however, as the development continues, some aspects of knowledge will carry with it its own means and therefore become a priori (note that so far I have not distinguished certain from likely true knowledge or means) however, surely, one thinks, not all reason can become a priori; at minimum the idea that all knowledge is a priori seems improbably true however, what we will find is outlined in the next two sections ‘abstraction’ and ‘the real metaphysics’— abstraction to abstract from a concept is to form another concept in which some details of the first are omitted in this meaning the abstract concept is not remote or abstruse but may be more accessible, more real, and more knowable than the real the essential concern about abstraction, here, is whether abstract concepts can be perfectly faithful to their objects consider ‘being’ conceived as the property of existents; are there existents? indeed there are, for the universe as all being exists and experience as consciousness exists; therefore, though the set of examples thus far is sparse, there is being and there are beings or existents; further, we will develop an abstract, potent, and perfect metaphysics that refers to the universe and finds it to be limitless abstraction enables perfect and potent knowledge; this will be exemplified and amplified next the real metaphysics there is a realm of abstract knowledge that is perfectly faithful, that shows the universe to be limitless, that shows that all beings realize limitlessness, and that, if enjoyment is a value, being on a path to realization is an imperative on the other hand ordinary reason as received and practiced continues to have its received and conceived problems of truth and significance yet this ordinary reason is the only means we have at present of negotiating pathways to the ultimate; and while it is unlikely to be perfectly faithful, it is in its pragmatic worth perfect as the only effective means to realization (and further realization may be a motion of beings from cosmos to cosmos, each with its own pragmatics, each to be cast off in moving to the next) the perfect illumines and guides the pragmatic; the pragmatic illustrates and is instrumental toward the perfect; and, in terms of the ideal of realization, they form a perfect union*, which will be named the real metaphysics * the criterion of this ‘perfection’ is dual—perfect correspondence for the realm abstract and universal knowledge and pragmatic for ‘ordinary’ reason (which includes ordinary knowledge); it is important to note that this stands against purism (or anti-purism) regarding knowledge and its criteria the flow is designed to support the aim—discovery and realization of the ultimate, stated earlier being and experience we begin with being, in itself, unlike standard foundational approaches – substance, infinite regress – coherentism which are all posits, being requires no foundation and is not, as argued by some thinkers to be so trivial as to be impotent or not a concept at all. it is not only founding, but it also is grounding of our place in the world and process toward the ultimate in a sense we never emerge from experience, particularly consciousness at all its levels, and it is therefore the place of our being and significant meaning—and co-founding and co-grounding; in its richness it stands in apparent contrast to the abstraction of being; experience is the place of realization; being is found essentially experiential and relational beings—the universe, the individual, the void the universe is defined as ‘all being’ and is therefore framing; the individual is critical as it is the locus of experience and realization; the void is the absence of being and is critical to the development as the place where no laws obtain and is therefore a source of absolute limitlessness note that the definition of the universe as all being (over all extension and duration and any other extensional parameters of which, by the way, it can be shown that there are none)—it eliminates endless debates such as what created the universe, for, since there is no other being, the universe was not created (and generally, beings are categorially incapable of self-creation) it is from the properties of the void that the fundamental principle may be derived possibility analysis of possibility is analysis of limitlessness and leads to new conceptions of— logic concrete sciences physics, biology, psychology… abstract sciences mathematics… tradition as the store of cumulative knowledge and process, tradition is the pragmatic complement to the fundamental principle noted above; the integration of the pragmatic and the perfect lead to the real metaphysics the elements of the real metaphysics are foundation of reason …as the place and process of knowledge and inference cosmology of limitless identity …as description of the universe, its identity, and what the individual realizes pathways to the ultimate 2 the worldto know the world the universe is limitless—all beings inherit and may realize its power meaning is formally discussed later this discussion is a short but important preliminary to the formal development of the way the constituents of a linguistic meaning are a concept and associated sign, simple or compound, and its possible objects even within the known, the associations are, in general, at most semi-definite or fixed in moving into the unknown, there can be no fixity in the following, however, there is definiteness of meaning; how is this possible? the definiteness obtains only on the ideal side of the real metaphysics to be developed, as follows a system of meaning is—was—arrived at by trial and error; the emerged metaphysical system is shown to capture an abstract of all being—the entire one universe; in the context of this abstract, meanings are definite; in the less abstract realm, meanings have tentativeness relative to an ideal of perfect faithfulness but it is shown that their pragmatic meanings are perfect in a pragmatic sense to be defined it is therefore critical to follow meanings as defined; to put aside received meanings and criticism while absorbing the emerging metaphysical system; later, the reader may and ought to return to criticism to accept or reject the system; and if it is accepted, perhaps to enrich the significance of the system and received meaning by integrating them into the reader’s system of meaning to follow the narrative, it is essential to follow meanings as defined; later, the reader may return to criticism and perhaps to meshing the emergent system with their native and received system of meaning preliminary comment—because being is found to be essentially experiential, metaphysically and epistemologically, the discussion of being and experience may be seen as a single discussion ‘being-experience’; for convenience, however, the material is presented as two textually separate but not conceptually distinct discussions a being is that which is and being is the characteristic of beings as beings. alternate— being is the characteristic of that which is, and a being is that which has being is being a being? the concepts are distinct, but with and only with sufficient abstraction, the objects are the same neutrality of the concept toward differences among beings, kinds, and categories; examples— though we think of beings as manifest, even that distinction will not be sustained in admitting, later, the void as a being toward be-ing vs becoming (vs relation, interaction)—i.e., to form (with extension and quality) and formation (change, with relation) substance distinctions toward any view of the universe as what has been revealed so far in our experience including science (that is, universe as being is consistent with experience and science) … further, universe as being is logically consistent with the content of experience as fact but this says nothing though it is neutral to the distinctions above, it allows them (as well as their ruling out) and the possibility of their reality—i.e., it allows, within it, a range of special connotations of ‘being’ characteristics of being see section of same name, later criticism not a concept trivial significance it is the concept that excludes no object seemingly trivial, being is—will be seen—powerful as ground and container for the world and its variety, for special and general kinds ontology the study of being there is being there is being metaphysically, ground of the world, framework for (human) endeavor, knowledge, understanding, reason, value, action, and transformation does not refer to particular or special beings or kinds—which enables founding and framing them epistemologically, foundation for metaphysics (as above) foundation without infinite regress or coherentism or pitfalls of substance—see infinite regress arguments as will be seen, enables objectivity without relinquishing significance via closure in depth but ever openness in breadth—i.e., via ‘philosophical algebra’ foundations foundations and foundationalism are appendiceal to ‘why being?’ foundationalism a basis for truth of assertions why of assertions, we want to know their truth and, therefore of reasons for truth assertions may be ‘single’ facts and theories of things and values, we want to know their ‘kind’ and reasons, and whether things and values are distinct of our own being, we want to know its nature, place in the world—the scheme of things, its significant meaning, and potency for becoming how an assertion is known true (a) directly (b) inferentially and therefore (at least seemingly) depends on some statement known true classification neutral regress pragmatism transience cartesian skepticism coherentism negative anti-foundationalism pyrrhonian skepticism positive substance what (positive) ‘depth’ pro, con alternatives being the foundational character of being is that, unlike substance, it is not a posit; it is the unknown of a metaphysical algebra; and the power, then, is it allows and levers unfolding of metaphysics as study of the real and, further, since being is ‘that which is’, as study of the immediate and the ultimate being is optimally foundational relative to metaphysics, epistemology, values, and existenz; in plain terms— being is the best foundation for the real, for knowledge, for values, and for being authentic “how being is known and studied” ontology the study of being note—much of the development above and below is ontology relation to metaphysics— metaphysics is study of the real as it is (pragmatic metaphysics may be admitted) and includes the question of the nature of the real (admitting that in that there is nothing more real than the real, there may be no ‘nature’ of it, beyond that which is known to be known—perfectly or pragmatically) ontology, a branch of metaphysics, deals with being—what it is, its nature, its characteristics, its form and formation… abstraction if a concept pragmatically identifies an object to abstract is to delete some details from a concept either to focus on the essential or to leave only the undistorted or ‘perfect’ thus, objects may be labeled ‘abstract’ or ‘concrete’, but lie on a continuum—are not fundamentally or ‘metaphysically’ distinct; thus ‘abstract’ means neither ‘abstruse’ nor ‘remote’—but is most real and most immediate the abstract is often defined via free, especially linguistic, concepts (‘concepts’) and the concrete by bound concepts (‘percepts’), which renders the abstract suitable for correspondence perfection and the concrete inclined to pragmatic sufficiency later we develop a join of the perfect and the pragmatic in a real metaphysics that is perfect in a way that will be defined the abstract inhabit the concrete; the concrete populate the abstract abstraction enables perfect knowledge, e.g.— there is being abstracts shows the power of being examples—being itself (and existence), experience as experience, a number of the characteristics below (with sufficient abstraction), form (and extension), formation (and duration), Form (and the abstract block universe), ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete’ objects “what being is” (the object and the concept) existence the defining characteristic but note, existence is an equivalent, not another concept the distinction between ‘being’ and ‘existence’—e.g., independent vs dependent existence or being is fundamentally nil, because, as will be seen, to talk of being as distinct from experienced being is null (see discussion of experience) the claim that existence is trivial is true, but the trivial may be potent; the claim that there is no concept of existence stems from the thought that the putative concept makes no distinction, which in turn results from suppressing the concept, which in turn results from thinking ordinary things exist in isolation from their concepts, which the analysis of experience below will show to be untrue the ‘problem of negative existentials’ is trivially resolved by analysis of (the meaning of ) concept meaning no further essential characteristics—except those essentially inherent—being is just the characteristic of beings as beings real removes ‘mystery’ regarding what is real—given that something has being, there is no further question of its reality (e.g., is it material, is it transcendent…) … but does not remove the experience of the real as mystery there is of course the question of how being-hood is determined, and this is taken up in considering experience, below experience a general characteristic in that being is essentially experiential; the meaning and truth of this assertion are treated beginning with the section on experience below a hierarchy of experiential being is described in the section on beings below interaction power, cause discussed later, under ‘reasons’ state a set of characteristics (properties) in terms of which a being is partially or fully known form the knowable characteristics of a being all beings have extensional form—which entails spatiality, i.e. which specifies spatiality rather than fitting an otherwise conceived notion of spatiality exception—the void or absence of manifest being similarly, if the ‘material’ is to have an ontological meaning, it ought not to be sought in the ‘physical’; rather it ought to be sought in form—e.g. occupying space, or having power (see below) non-durational, changeless, or static form is conceivable, therefore logically possible; later we will see that the logically possible is realized, therefore there are static cosmoses, which are of limited significance and cannot support sentient beings while change is not entailed by form alone, it will be seen to be entailed by experience; and change is an aspect of formation which is entailed by the fundamental principle of metaphysics, demonstrated later formation may be seen as an aspect of form; it entails temporality there is no third form related characteristic beyond form and formation—i.e. no third kind of coordinate beyond space and time (but a world with two measures of time is not logically impossible), abstract or concrete, except, perhaps, the absence of form and formation sometimes ‘form’ will refer only to extensional or spatial form; thus we could write Form, which has aspects of form and formation becoming becoming, e.g., origins and change, where there are any, entails duration—immanent temporality thus, being includes becoming, action, relation… non-characteristics “what being is not”—some other uses of ‘being’ being does not refer specifically to the special—e.g., ‘higher’, ‘spiritual’ – or ‘material’, ‘essential’, ‘independent be-ing’, ‘human’, ‘sentient’… includes these modes, so far as real—i.e., though being is neutral to these non-characteristics they may lie within or constitute sub-divisions within being power power is the capacity for interaction—i.e. to enter into cause and effect, including self-cause and self-effect the being that has no power at all does not exist a being that has no power, direct or secondary, on a knower, cannot be known by the knower the following employs the meaning of experience given later—a being that has no direct or secondary effect on a knower’s experience, cannot be known by the knower power is a measure of being a generalization of the concept of power is that of a reason (distinct from reason) a need for this generalization is the fact that it is conceivable that there are states of being that have reasons for their being that are not ‘material beings’ just above ‘may be’ ought to have been used instead of ‘are’, but we will later justify use of ‘are’ reasons a reason is that which has entailment in the world reasons are mentioned here for completeness, the treatment of reasons in the section on beings is more complete the reality status of ‘possible being’ and examples of possible beings are discussed in ‘beings’ greatest conceivable (logical) real (natural, experiential, universal) the use of ‘experience’ as developed below, is broader than as in ‘external experience’ and has overlap with uses of ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ ‘experience of’ (first meaning) i.e., ‘experience of’ ‘the experienced’; i.e., awareness directed toward-from the world (attitude and action) the etymology of experience—ex: ‘out’, per: ‘try’—is not particularly helpful to the meaning of experience used here but is so for the following here, does not refer to the related use of ‘experience’ as the process of getting knowledge firsthand—i.e., doing, feeling, seeing, or thinking about is there ‘experience of’ etc? at least a manner of speaking (metaphor) we use till what obtains is clarified and shown detail an ‘experience of’ is a concept (‘mental content’) and examples are feelings, perceptions… ‘the experienced’ is the object (‘material’ or formal—i.e., of form) and an example is the world, which includes experience itself experience as concept and object to be able to talk of experience (e.g., of the world) is to know that there is experience of experience—experience, which is ‘subjective’, is also object or objective in this manner, experience is unlike the abstraction to being; yet it will be found that being is essentially experience and experiential discussion of experience as object continues shortly ‘mind and matter’ the material is being as such; the mental is relationship; a further ‘kind’ would be relationship of relationship which is relationship—i.e., there is no further kind; mind and matter are the only elements of what Spinoza thought to be an infinite series (but there may be limitlessly many Spinozan attributes) ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ can be seen as attributes of experience, as experience is intrinsically ‘mental’ and extrinsically of form; and thus, seeing mind as temporal and matter as spatial is limited as experience has both temporality and spatiality and as experientiality is seen below to be the greatest real view of the universe experience is extensional experience is durational from experience there are ‘mind’ and ‘matter’; later from possibilism (FP), it will follow that the universe must be experiential and there must be mind and matter modes experience is attitudinal-active; bifurcates as attitudinal and active; there is no strictly pure case, for there is always potential relation to the world attitude-action experience directed toward self in relation to (form and formation of) the world note—even though there is distinction, attitude and action are integrated and it is therefore better to conceive and define attitude-action than to define attitude and action separately attitude emphasis on form and world over of formation and self but note in the more inclusive senses, form includes formation and world includes self (and with reinterpretation, the inclusions could be reversed in direction) action emphasis on formation and self over form and world ‘pure’ experience case that the directedness is null (but inner or potential) dimensions (‘functions’) inner-outer, form-quality, bound-free, iconic-symbolic, imperative-neutral, state-function-recall (memory) develop the logic and implications for cognition, emotion, feeling, memory, personality… find and use existing documents animal awareness in all its forms (second use, abstracted from the first) is there non-conscious awareness? will find awareness to be a kind of relation between sentient and world and conscious to non-conscious awareness a continuum (multi-d) of degree, not kind awareness is relational; this is also noted below relational being in all its forms (third use, justified below) as ‘experience of’, experience so far is relational; pure experience is internally relational and potentially relational regarding the world substance substance theory is rejected here—but taken up as an aid to analysis of the place of experience in the world (as it was earlier taken up to showing being as truly fundamental) a substance is a particular that exists independently of other beings thus, substances may found the existence of all beings on ontologically independent beings and if the behavior of all substances can be described and known, so can that of all beings (in principle)—i.e., substance would be epistemically founding in this role, substances are (i) unchanging, for if changing indeterministically, they are not epistemically founding, and otherwise they are reducible to the unchanging (ii) describable (simply) in their being and changes (iii) non-interacting, for if interacting and describable they are reducible to one substance (iii) but one in number if ontological independence includes causal independence, only self-caused entities like Spinoza’s God can be substances; though this can be gotten around (the void is self-caused), it is an unnecessary sophistication (and from its complexity and power, Spinoza’s God is unfounded, as are all substances) shortfalls of substance are (i) a substance is a posit (ii) a substance is inadequate to variety (iii) multiple substances do not interact dualist foundation is incoherent; substance foundation must be monist a strict material cosmos is one in which matter is the only substance and experience (‘mind’) is no part of matter therefore, our cosmos cannot be a strictly material cosmos; it is at least approximately substance, but the substance must be experiential—and as experiential to have form and change which is experienced as ‘material’; but this is no foundation because as a strict monist world there is no explanation of its being a possibilist cosmos is one in which the greatest possibility is realized in a possibilist cosmos, experientiality may reach down to the root it is later seen that the universe is possibilist being is experiential-relational, where the experientiality down to the root is of the same kind as conscious awareness but of lower degree; and also extends up to the greatest being (whether an actual being or an open hierarchy) levels of emergence of the concept of experience we see the concept beginning to emerge above; collect these emergents as a first level; regard the interpretations below as part of this first level; since the interpretations cover the possibilities of the nature of the world from experience, they provide neutral objectivity regard the post FP fixing of the fixing of experience as the world as the second level there is experience—and experience of experience the notion of an ‘external world’ is metaphorical experience is recursive experience is part of the world … and an as if world which includes experience the as if world contains (as if) experience itself, the experiencer (or self), the experienced which—over and above experience and the self—other selves including animals and the ‘environment’ which harbors all of the foregoing the environment and its contents are the world or universe, which are usually distinguished, but will be seen to be the same later ‘as if’ will be removed—it will require interpretations that are broader than the above as if—even if ‘as if’ is not removed, the as if world is a world (of sorts) place of our being and significant meaning experience is the place our being and place (if not source) of all significance not transcended, for the measure of experience is experience; therefore, for us, being is experiential and, ultimately, as experienced as will be seen, we are entirely experiential; the universe is entirely experiential the place of all change, intrinsic and instrumental relational; therefore, being—the world—is experiential the being without (with no trace in) experience, self or other, is effectively non-existent (later ‘effectively’ will be removed; this will require expansion of the meaning of ‘experience’ to the root—to make the elimination meaningful; and it will require establishment of the fundamental principle to make it true) co-foundation …together with being necessity—experience is our only window on being (for we do not get outside it); it is therefore necessary to foundation sufficiency—and therefore sufficient to whatever foundation there may be with adequate, unconditionally sufficient, e.g., to being will be seen perfect, relative to the aim of realization source of all knowledge—the world being and experience complement one another as object and subject side of the world and approach to the world; this is taken up in detail in ‘interpretations’, below, and further developed in the subsequent narrative experience incorporates reason effective—optimal—way of achieving good—valuable, optimal—outcomes (ends, right ways, virtue) includes determining value includes attention to received reason note the distinction—reason vs reasons understanding, inference, and feeling—and their products (knowledge, rational action); received reason includes learning knowledge world ‘everything’ clarified below concept mental content in this most general sense, does not distinguish between percept, or ‘low or high level concept’ referent that part of the world which a concept locates not all concepts have referents a concept can refer to another concept—i.e., concepts may be referents; if they could not we could not have a concept of the idea of a concept object referent of a concept external object an object that is not a concept the distinction between a concept as object and an external object, may mislead us into thinking that the distinction is fundamental (it is not), definite (it is not, objects have been seen to have an interpretation of being concepts at root, and the idea of the world as a conceptual system will be found to be an effective understanding of being and the universe), and that external objects have a different grade of reality than concepts (a mistaken view) from a universal perspective, the distinction between concept as object and external object is not as significant as it seems, and will and need not be emphasized in any metaphysical description of the universe world the complete system of objects external world the system of external objects with minor modification, the comments on external objects apply to the external world meaning a concept and its possible intended objects the use of ‘meaning’ here is that of concept meaning and is distinct from that of significant meaning iconic case iconic concept the concept is ‘pictorial’—i.e., it ‘shape’ (appears to) conform to the object iconic meaning an iconic concept and its possible intended objects sign (simple) mental content or other object, whose shape has no significance in itself, and whose role in meaning is solely in association with iconic concepts sign (compound) arrangement of simple signs that acquires meaning (possible intended objects) from conventions about the arrangements that correspond to forms of the world i.e., the convention is not mere convention, but has arisen in selection or in design, so as to model (aspects of) the world linguistic case a linguistic concept is a simple or compound sign associated with an iconic concept a linguistic meaning is linguistic concept and its possible intended objects knowledge meaning realized preliminary the concept and object, above, already have characteristics of experience will now consider amplification and further characteristics how is experience known as stated above to talk of experience requires its existence in higher being (e.g. in some animals), experience is self-aware that we have experience of experience is a source of intelligence for it results in the ability to direct experience Descartes—to doubt experience is an experience: to doubt experience is to have experience That there is experience requires no foundation beyond experience; and, certainly, the being of experience is not to be and does not need foundation in something else (e.g., matter or brains—which does not mean that there is no conceptual or actual relation between matter and brains or that the study of the relation is without worth) form experience and form experience has form (with extension and relation) and formation (with change) given experience as premise, there must be form and formation; but are form and formation will later be found necessary without further premise—but there are no further modes of difference but for absence (there may be multiple spatialities and temporalities in the same region) sameness-difference difference fundamental and elementary aspect of the world, without which there is no experience of the world sameness absence of difference duality sameness and difference are dual is not absence of sameness equivalent to absence of manifest being? identity this definition covers individual or personal and object identity sense of sameness of object (including self as object) extension (space) measure of difference over difference of object duration (time) measure of difference with sense of sameness of object change difference with sense of sameness of object therefore, duration is measure of change attribute (Spinozan) measure of difference as difference with sense of sameness vs of difference of object exhaust kinds of Extensional difference, there are no further Spinozan attributes; however, this account does not eliminate the possibility of limitlessly many qualities Extension extension with duration attributes (non-Spinozan) quantity aspect of an object that is dependent on Extension quality aspect of an object that is independent of Extension may include spatiotemporality property quality that is independent of an observer experience of see more complete earlier discussion of knowledge ‘pure’ experience is relational icon sign language symbolic-iconic syntax is iconic languages metaphysical language(s) the experienced world includes experience—i.e., experience is experienced object experiencer self (also experienced) relational nature of experience meaning and knowledge because of its importance, this has a separate higher level section —i.e., of experience and the world experience as if of the real may be (i) categorially in error in mistaking what is ‘as if of the real’ with the real (ii) imprecise, even if categorially valid the aim of this section is to (begin to) derive valid description(s) of the real from experience since we always remain ‘in experience’, the notions of ‘world’, ‘validity’, and ‘the real’ will necessarily be derived from the entire range of experience what in this section, an interpretation is a description of the world that is consistent with the entire range of experience more generally, ‘interpretation’ may be used to refer to description of some object that is consistent with some system of experience the interpretations may include patterns (‘higher’ concepts) projected on ranges of direct experience (percepts or ‘lower’ concepts) why interpretations are pragmatically useful since not posits, even if categorially and objectively unfaithful, are open to refinement and correction analysis of a range of interpretations that are consistent with experience may and will lead, by demonstration, to a true picture of the world and the real (this will require clarification of the meaning of ‘true picture’) the aims are (i) to develop definite conclusions from experience, e.g. that there experience, that there is being (if only the being of experience itself) and so on which we have done so far, then of the existence of beings and the universe, which (in outline), is rather trivial and then the existence of the void, which while formally trivial, is profound in its implications (ii) develop a range of interpretations of experience (there is some concern with whether the range will be complete in some sense) (iii) regarding consistency with experience we can choose the level of conclusions in #i—if we start at the beginning (just experience) we will be able to generate a greater range (iv) we will look for a (the) maximal interpretations (an interpretation is maximal if it contains all beings contained in any other), there mutual consistencies, which can be eliminate at which level of conclusions #i and which are true descriptions (v) the remaining descriptions will then be true and the choice from among them will be made, not on the basis of truth, but on the basis of efficiency (noting that efficiency will be relative to criterion—but perhaps our analysis will single out one group of criteria that will be pertinent to the greatest value which should also emerge from analysis) the interpretations the main interpretations—i.e., classes of interpretation—are numbered (i) and (ii) there is experience—for to doubt experience is to have an experience, positively—experience is the medium of our being and window on being there is experience of experience—for without it, we could not know there is or report experience there is a world—if only that the range of experience is itself a world there must be a world—this will be shown after demonstration of the fundamental principle; heuristic—the standard world view, below, and its apparent stability; existential heuristic—from meaningfulness the world is strictly materialist—this seems to follow from some interpretations of science and the apparent objectivity of ‘matter’, but, as we have seen, it is not a consistent interpretation of our world; however, from possibilism, developed later (the fundamental principle), there are strictly materialist worlds and other barren worlds that are dead to process, life, and experience the world is monist, with experience as the substance and as having a matter-like aspect in having form and formation—this is at least an approximation to proximate experience (i.e., to our experienced world, e.g., the world of modern cosmology—the big bang or, perhaps, the multiverse world) (i) a common world view that we call the standard secular view (SSV)—the world is a place with selves and others (including animals) and an environment (including plants), where the environment is not experientially null but has experientiality at a low or zero level (ii) the world is the world experience as if of a single experiencer, but without the experiencer; though seemingly absurd, this is logically possible; here are two sub-cases (a) the experiencer has the experiential capacity of a human being as it is typically held to be—if our world is as rich as generally held, this cannot be our world (b) the world or universe itself is the experience of an experiencer of sufficient experiential capacity—from the earlier discussion under ‘substance’ this is not absurd, and it incorporates interpretation #i (SSV) above; it shall be named a field of being and experience (FOBE, FOE) interpretation and is an interpretation for the universe; if possibilism (FP) holds this is the maximal universe and includes all other possible interpretations of experience above; FOBE would phase into and out of manifestation, and the manifest phases would include human beings merged as ultimate in peak being Since FOE will be found to hold— being is fundamentally experiential, and experience its measure experience is the place of our being, and the place, though not source, of all significance longer title—principles of enumeration and grouping; making a complete catalogue of course, this goal is likely impossible for limited beings—the aim of this section is, therefore, to enquire into and begin to execute approaches to constructing a complete catalog a first question—what is the manner in which beings are known? as seen they are known as concept and object criterion—perfect faithfulness vs pragmatic or ‘good enough’ with sufficient abstraction, there is perfect faithfulness intension-extension intension actual and possible significant beings—actual because they are; possible, for later we find all logically possible beings to be beings; significant because non-significant beings are effectively non-existent (later, they are found to be non-existent) extension beings and kinds aspects from the concept of being, an aspect of a being is a being just as being is a being (with sufficient abstraction; note that Heidegger and many metaphysicians would reject this assertion; but they, though they are right at a concrete level, their objection does not withstand abstraction or, as we will later see, a pragmatic interpretation) of beings and kinds made rational—first in terms of the intension vs extension of ‘beings’ then, since beings are seen in aspects—even a whole may be seen as an aspect, the rationale is being ® aspects and their kinds classify the kinds rationally grouping particular vs kind an aspect is a being seen from a perspective— e.g., a part of a being a kind is defined by an aspect an aspect of a being is a being a kind is a class of beings and is also a being essence essence stands in contrast to being an essence is ‘what a being really is’ for being as such, its being-hood is its essence essences an aspect of being ‘most’ significant to itself or another essences arise as part of discovery and realization, not as defining characteristic aspects of beings are beings identity entity-hood process relation state i.e., a state of being or affairs form forms as snapshots formations material or substance aspect property or characteristic quality quantity abstraction power reasons a generalization of the concept of power experientiality abstraction (and concretion) to abstract is to filter out detail by working with the concept side of a being with sufficient and appropriate abstraction, the concept may be perfectly faithful to the abstract of the being abstract and concrete being there are no abstract vs concrete beings, rather there are continua of abstraction, and ‘abstract being’ and ‘concrete being’ are metaphorical uses for places on the continua there is no fundamental distinction between abstract and concrete objects the abstract have concretion, and the concrete have abstraction; the distinction is rather epistemic—what we label concrete are those referents first registered by the senses; those we label abstract tend to be those first known by conception—there is thus (i) an air of hypothesis about abstract beings (ii) a sense of non-reality, e.g., that they—many abstract kinds, though not all—do not reside in time and space and are not sensible; however, pre-FP, we can establish the being of some abstract kinds; and from abstraction, they are not categorially insensible or non-spatiotemporal but, rather, degrees of sensibility and spatiotemporality have been abstracted out—in some cases completely post FP, all consistent concepts have objects an aspect of a being may be seen as an abstraction objects identities concept-object though treated earlier, the purpose here is as part of a classification and catalog of beings the two discussions should be made consistent and unnecessary repetition eliminated concept-object as the essential object—from earlier analysis of experience therefore, there are no abstract objects as distinguished from concrete objects of course, some objects may be properly called abstract or concrete from other perspectives rather, objects lie on a concretion-abstraction continuum and the distinction is one of how the objects are known, rather than their constitution and, so, from that perspective we consider— concrete objects the term is metaphorical, and used for objects known perceptually (i.e., via bound concepts) abstract objects used for objects known in terms of free concepts and, so, from that perspective we consider— value values as real the abstract and the concrete the abstract and the concrete are not distinct kinds but lie on a continuum (or continua, for there is more than one mode of abstraction) the abstract or ideal forms are immanent in the concrete, so, from the theory of being, there is neither need nor justification for their distinction according to kind what is more because our ideas are (co-) forms, we attribute substance (reify), but there is no need or justification to do that; substance therefore is a reification—and not a justified one at that parts proper parts wholes parts voids parthood whole or ‘all’, ‘the being’, e.g., universe (below) part e.g., cosmos, individual null the void, below, the being that contains no being form form in time formation over time how there is no further attribute to form, beyond form and formation experiential or sentient elemental through feeling, cognitive, agentive, through… idea subject aspect of form concept sign elements of language phonemes, words, parts of speech (see Part of speech - Wikipedia), tropes intelligent beings intelligence is ability for meaning as significance and reason a hierarchy of intelligent beings— living animal plants? viruses? societies self-aware beings identities identity sense of sameness of self or object here, focus is on self as object self why is my-self this self or, why is one who they are and not another ‘are you in fact You’—or is self a fractured version of Self agents free willed beings free will—what it is or may be; conditions for possibility of; human free will, issue of persons, individuals humans can know that their real being is greater than their form—but are at a primitive level and so this knowledge is not common and takes effort but this knowledge is possible—later we find the universe limitless; therefore, all beings are limitless; and realize Brahman (below) societies and cultures human societies … gods there are remote gods; but we are not other than gods; we are on the way to becoming god(s)—we are ‘eruptions’ of creation, a wave front as much as rays, manifesting agenthood, on the way to ultimate agenthood Brahman thus far in the narrative, gods and Brahman are hypothetical possible vs actual an actual being is one that in fact exists a possible being is one that could exist according to certain criteria while details are given later, here are some criteria logical if a concept is not illogical, possibility is logical; a logically potential being could not exist if it were not physically possible and physical possibility were the only real possibility; however there is nothing in our sciences that rule out beings that do not satisfy our physics; later we will see that all logically possible beings exist (i.e., all logical concepts have objects) if a concept is illogical we may say, equivalently, (i) there is no corresponding object, i.e., it does not exist (ii) the object is the void or in the void real satisfies some ‘reality’ criterion—e.g., the laws of physics, validated experience, and so on the real are a subset of the logical post FP—the real are the logical ‘reasons’ fall naturally under ‘a variety of kinds’ but are given a separate section because of their significance reason to consider reasons the concept of ‘reasons’ is introduced so as to allow that the cause of a state of being, including existence, may be other than a manifest being the concept of a reason a reason is that which has entailment in the world ‘a reason’ is to be distinguished from ‘reason’ both the reason and its entailment may be states of being, e.g. a fact or a quality of a being, particularly its existence a reason may be abstract or concrete; however, the distinction is not intrinsic but relative to (our) mode of conception—‘direct’ as in perception, or representative as in iconic-symbolic conception consequent the entailed state classes of reason logical the relation between reason and consequent is logical logic is defined later real the relation between reason and consequent is in the world the real is defined later self the reason is located in the consequent, or the reason and the consequent are the same full a full reason is a reason absolute a full but empty reason deterministic full partial a partial reason is contributory to a reason necessary the consequent is certain possible the consequent is not ruled out impossible if the reason is given, the consequent certainly does not obtain think about this indeterministic neither deterministic nor impossible probable the consequent is likely cause another term for a reason self-cause is logically possible it is obviously possible for complex entities it apparently occurs for ‘particles’ in physic effect another term for a consequent to be a consequent includes but is not limited to temporal consequence power power is concrete cause (and effect), the action of a being on self or other the being that has no power, self or other, does not exist; power is a measure of being monadic, dyadic, perhaps polyadic creation create to materially cause the existence of a being creator being that creates (a being) self-creation impossible, for it presumes simultaneous existence and non-existence exception—the void, for, as will be seen, the void is the being for which existence and non-existence (non-manifestation) are the same spontaneous creation or origin logically possible appears to violate usual notions of cause, so one might not want to call it ‘cause’ but that is somewhat a matter of terminology, for while physical cause might not be applicable at that level, the level is at least apparently not physical in our common sense of the physical—i.e., the void (nothingness) does not seem physical part vs whole a being repetition universe all being; all beings there is precisely one; no other that is, the universe exists must the universe exist? if there is a reason for existence of the manifest universe, it must be necessary—i.e., not just likely; and it must be absolute—i.e., not require another reason if there are two never-interacting sub-universes, for a being in one sub-universe, it is effectively the universe for a being, the effective universe is all being that has power with the being will see later that there are no distinct never interacting universes nothing outside; neither form, nor matter, nor idea, nor foundation, nor creator, nor potential… contains all possibility for the universe, the possible, actual, and real are the same for a given world—or the universe—different possibilities arise relative to parts of it, but the world itself is just one actuality, one possibility creator, creation the creator of a being is the reason or cause of its being (existence) no being self-creates (can self-create) for that requires simultaneous existence and non-existence exception—the void because its existence and non-existence are equivalent however beings may be self-causal a creator is other than the created being the universe has no creator—for there is no other being …unless, however, if the nil being, reason, or cause is a being (if the universe has a reason, there is a conclusion without a premise) it is logically possible for the manifest universe to spontaneously originate from the void or nonmanifest cosmos creation stable essence pattern law a law is a being limit individual occurs in more than two places; finalize identity the void the absence of being; the being that has no parts the void is a being, for its being and non-being are equivalent the reason for existence of the void is the source of deep and interesting properties that now follow the void exists; its existence is necessary and absolute this is a first form of the fundamental principle of metaphysics, abbr. fundamental principle or FP its existence is necessary; its destruction leaves it intact; it may be said to self-create (thus, since a being is the being adjoined to the void, beings can self-create—and while this seems to contradict the earlier assertion that beings do not self-create, it is not a true contradiction, for what was meant is that manifestation is not self-manifestation) there are no laws in the void in the void is the potential for and connection among manifest phases of the universe and its peak being-identity the number of voids has no significance it might be said that except that there is at least one, the number of voids is without significance; however because there is no distinction between there are no voids, there is one void, and there are some voids in the void—i.e., in nothingness—eternity is an instant; this is relevant to the eternal being of the individual… in the wait between one occurrence and a recurrence the being is void and the wait is an instant quantum vacuum the void is not the quantum vacuum in considering the origin of our cosmos, it is worth looking at the origin of the quantum vacuum from the void, rather than looking only at the origin of the quantum fields this is a preliminary and short treatment of possibility, prior to the real metaphysics at this point that a possible being is a being is neither affirmed nor denied the concept given a concept of an object (objects), it is possible according to a criterion, if existence of the object is not ruled out by the criterion in this sense, possibility as a property of concepts and their potential objects rather than a property of an object intrinsic of the concept e.g., logical extrinsic of the object ‘real’ e.g.—directly and definitely experienced (perceived), scientific for a world, cosmos, or other limited context a single occurrence implies possible reoccurrence only on conditions such as sufficient homogeneity (e.g., spatiotemporal), which are presumed to obtain a possible object, not known actual, cannot be ruled out, and, with appropriate conditions, may be effected by agents for the universe over all duration the actual and possible are identical the concept and possibility of metaphysics study and knowledge of the real has begun therefore, possible trivial so far trivial means easy to the point of tautology, but, as will be seen, not empty or lacking power or potency not trivial in that the conceptions of being (and its relation to experience), experience (awareness), reasons, power, beings, the universe, the void required interactive refinement as part of the metaphysics under development will continue to develop into a metaphysics of ultimate power—the real metaphysics therefore, the present conception is an excellent one does not and is not intended to exclude other conceptions of metaphysics but will include and subsume some of those others and may require or suggest rejections of further others (a) as metaphysics (b) altogether this was shown above i.e., the fundamental principle—limitlessness of the universe, its identity, and the individual if a possible being, i.e., one corresponding to a consistent concept, did not emerge from the void, that would be a law of the void; therefore, since there are no laws in the void, all possible beings emerge from the void, i.e.— the universe is conceptually limitless the universe has identity the universe is realization of the greatest possibility which will be seen to be logical possibility this is the second form of the fundamental principle the demonstration is an ontological proof (one that appeals only to the property of being or existing) Anselm’s erroneous ontological proof of God’s existence, ‘the ontological proof’, is an example of an ontological proof existence of the void which is necessary and absolute, is a necessary and absolute reason for existence of the universe the individual inherits the power of the universe, for the contrary would be a limit on the universe this the full treatment of possibility in light of the real metaphysics the concept (preliminary) given a concept of an object (objects), it is possible according to a criterion, if existence of the object is not ruled out by the criterion in this sense, possibility as a property of concepts and their potential objects rather than a property of an object paradigm of possibility possibility according to a criterion intrinsic i.e., logical third form of the fundamental principle kinds kinds and modes of expression or concept extrinsic i.e., real kinds kinds and modes of being metaphysical from the fundamental principle, the most inclusive possibility is logical possibility (presuming logics to cover all valid forms of description) general identical to intrinsic thus, note the oneness, at the most inclusive level, of the intrinsic and the extrinsic and, below, note that mathematics and science fall under logic as particularizations in the abstract-free concept-symbolic vs concrete-percept-world directions special real in having some features of the real but not necessarily of any particular being (cosmos) cannot violate logic; may violate law but that is not a primary intent, except to understand law and laws purpose—to analyze the real or aspects of it without encumbrance of particulars real form i.e., form and formation > extension, change theoretical limited by theory, hypothesis, or law scientific limited by theory, hypothesis, or law e.g., physical, cosmological, chemical, geological, biological, psychological, social, economic, and political mathematical sentient intelligent self-aware able to inquire into the nature and meaning of (its own) being logic potential knowledge may be classified by how it is right (or not)—the concern of self-consistency or self-conflict (‘square squares’ is self-consistent, ‘square circle’ is not) is logical; the concern with agreement or consistency with the world is real, e.g. empirical of scientific; the mathematical is the scientific for (some) abstract or possible worlds given premises, logical consistency permits conclusions, which, when the forms of expression of the knowledge is sufficiently context free and abstract, are certain and the logic is deductive thus deductive logic may be seen as a means of certain or necessary inference if conditions permit probable inference at best, the reasoning or ‘logic’ is inductive; conclusions from limited data to a scientific law or theory is deductive if only intended to apply to the data set; otherwise it is inductive; but conclusions under a scientific theory may be deductive and certain, if the theory is deterministic and applicable, and if the premises (e.g., initial conditions) are true and sufficient for uniqueness of and therefore certainty of the conclusion or prediction; on the other hand, if the theory is probabilistic, then, in general, only a probability distribution for the predictions is possible—but the distribution itself may be certain and thus the probabilistic case may sometimes be seen as permitting certain prediction (except in the case of absolute indeterminacy in the sense of no pattern at all, some certainty obtains) science (and mathematics) presume logic; logic may be seen as (proto) science (it is from here that a sense in which logic is empirical is derived) there is a sense in which science says nothing of the world—the world is there being the world, doing what it does—science is merely saying what it does (but is of course informative to limited minds); similarly, logic, too says nothing; logics (as including science as including mathematics as structures within logical structure) are aids to limited minds so that the minds can say something, and aids to potentially erroneous minds so that they avoid saying less than nothing thus, for limited minds logic is a (the) theory of the universe that applies to all parts, but to no part particularly—i.e., just to that part though not to others since the given part or being may not require all modes of expression for its description, not all logics apply to it; but their application is nil rather than inapplicable if the universe has a reason, there is a conclusion without a premise it has been seen that the universe has a reason—therefore there is a (‘deep’, ‘profound’) conclusion without a premise; this is a way to see that— logic is a theory of being and is not just the theory of inference but being and inference are related as it is the form of (the description or concept of) a being that permits and requires the possibility of inference similarly, the sciences, while they are ostensibly about the world, enable inference how to arrive at a system of logic—the sentence calculus given sentence expressions, p, q, … e.g., “the sun is shining”, … , let the expressions in quotes be such that (i) they can obtain or be ‘true’ (ii) their negations, e.g. “the sun is not shining” or ““it is not true that” “the sun is shining”” have meaning and obtain or be ‘true’ (iii) expressions (statements) can be true or not true but not both, then (iv) it makes sense to define false as not true and assert that (v) statements are true or false and cannot be both now one can set up a sentence calculus by appeal to the semantics of sentences
an interesting and potentially useful case: dialethic logic some references—Dialetheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Paraconsistent Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Inconsistent Mathematics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) consider the example, taken from dialetheia (Wikipedia), that if John is in the doorway to a room, we might say “John is in the room” and “John is not in the room”; now that is not a true contradiction for the apparent contradiction depends on different meanings of ‘in the room’ (and we might prefer to say “John is three quarters in the room” and then, with the appropriate meaning of ‘is three quarters in the room’, there would be not even the apparent contradiction); still, however, the example above suggests there may be some value to considering ‘dialetheia’, i.e., statements that are both true and false in another example, Graham Priest, who may be considered the main founder of the principle of dialetheia for arguing that there are true dialetheia, discusses Kant on the phenomena and noumena—Kant argued that since only the phenomena are describable by the categories of thought, one cannot say anything about the noumena—however, Kant says a lot of things about the noumena; this example may be defused by arguing that whereas we cannot say anything about the noumena at one level (base level categories) we can do so at other levels now consider the void—its existence and non-existence are equivalent; if destroyed, it is not destroyed… which are seeming dialetheia—and, so, a dialethic logic might be one in which some statements could be both true and false; which may perhaps be defused by arguing that existence is not a property such that for all beings, either the being exists or does not; in that case, again, there would be no true contradiction even though “the void exists” is both true and false; another resolution is to see that if A = x has manifest existence, then B = A and not A, is an explosive contradiction, but that mere existence is a property that (i) is a property of the manifest as well as of the void (ii) non mere existence is not a property now consider the empty universe—any element of this universe is black and not black, which is in the form of a dialetheia, but not a true dialetheia because the universe is empty from the examples it seems that the dialetheia are in some sense edge cases and that ‘dialethic logic’ would be standard logic with a patch; however, it is not clear that significant examples of dialetheia cannot be given; therefore— it would seem that dialetheia are interesting but that the issue of dialetheia might need further clarification before being recognized as (i) more than standard logic with a patch (ii) clearly useful or not (iii) clearly admissible or not the sciences the distinction between abstract and concrete sciences is not absolute or regarding kind of object abstract mathematics linguistics concrete natural social reason pre-metaphysics join of the abstract metaphysics above, with tradition, and reason description perfection residual significance of ‘limited world’ philosophy—metaphysics, epistemology, value issues newness doubt alternate proofs, heuristics residual doubt consistency alternative attitudes metaphysical postulate existential principle of action meaning of the real metaphysics i.e., meaning and implications of the real metaphysics and the fundamental principle intensional intensional or explicit—limitlessness, the only inconsistent concepts have no objects fact and nature of the demonstration analysis of possibility extensional extensional or implicit—the variety of being being and universe metaphysics of experience
implications for optimal action distribution of effort – allocation of resources modified Pascal’s Wager reason and metaphysics (treatment) this is the main post metaphysics discussion of reason the concept foundation no a priori meaning of the metaphysics the sense of ‘meaning’ in ‘meaning of the metaphysics’ has two aspects intrinsic specifying and elaborating the metaphysics in other words so as to make it understandable (e.g., the exploration of the nature and kinds of possibility) and functional (that metaphysical actuality is logical possibility and so logic, aided by imagination, is a tool to address the question “What has being?”, which should replace “Why is there being?” as the fundamental question of metaphysics it was Heidegger who argued that “Why is there being?” ought to be called the fundamental question of metaphysics extrinsic discovering the range of being—i.e. cosmology as study of the variety and spatiotemporal extent of being elements discovery and action feeling and cognition value and object criticism and creation (imagination) doubt attitudes interpretations … of experience revisited and ‘finalized’ functions of experience, the revisited, grounded in cosmology and logic, finalized cosmology of limitless identity description (cosmological)—identity of universe and individual, Brahman, extension, duration, variety, peak, cosmoses, transaction limitless universe, identity, beings or individuals the universe has identity; which are limitless in variety, arrays of cosmoses, physical laws, extension, duration, peak, and dissolution; the ultimate peak or process has been named Brahman; and as below, individuals inherit the limitlessness of the universe the ultimate and the individual in the ultimate, facts, patterns, and values are one aim of being to be repeated in the way individuals proximately limited experiential beings death real but not absolute individuals inherit the limitlessness of the universe realization enjoyment appreciation of the quality of living, intrinsic or experiential—perception, thought, pleasure, and pain, and extrinsic—being in the world pleasure pain value see enjoyment above ethics, aesthetics, intelligence, and their relations intersection of value and being (previously: values are beings) ethics aesthetics intersections of ethics and aesthetics—properly understood, ethics and aesthetics are one, and are not so much restrictive as about imperatives to action, whether constructive or experimental imperative on pathways to the ultimate would be part of ‘cosmology of identity’; promoted because of its significance detail and practice are in the next division—the way givenness of realization beings already participate in the identity and limitlessness of the universe effectiveness of intelligent engagement and development of pathways intelligence define is there a better word than intelligence? principles reason (the real metaphysics) further sources tradition the agent on paths there are intelligent and effective pathways to the ultimate; if enjoyment is a value, there is an imperative to be on a pathway; to be on a pathway is not just to follow but to negotiate the real and to develop pathways, which are informed but not determined by tradition; they are developed via reason—experience, reflection, action, and learning; enjoyment—particularly, pleasure and pain—is a necessary part of paths and requires attention, but the best approach to enjoyment is not only direct—it is also being on a path there is an imperative to develop and negotiate pathways to the ultimate; the means is reason; enjoyment, particularly pleasure and pain, is a necessary part of path, and its best address is dual—direct and to be on a path interpretations of experience revisited dimensions of being treatment here is ‘vertical’—in terms of ‘levels’ of being; also placed in cosmology, where treatment is ‘horizontal’—in terms of detail and variety within the levels
pure pragmatic paradigms development of the discipline of metaphysics relation to other sections under ‘the world’ introduction descriptive, analytic, and synthetic-experiential metaphysics the aim is to analyze classical and modern metaphysics in terms of the methods leading to and results of the real metaphysics (i) for completeness of the approaches and problem sets (ii) evaluate the problems and any receive resolutions as significant, trivial, or ill conceived (iii) resolutions of significant outstanding problems logic of the problems of metaphysics classical through current problems of metaphysics the logic the developments emphasize those problems not already treated cosmology is part of metaphysics, but is placed in a separate section, first because it incorporates the pragmatic side of metaphysics that draws extensively from tradition, and, secondly, because there is a traditional distinction between cosmology and metaphysics description of the universe and its forms or patterns supplemented as possible and useful by concepts, analysis, experience, and learning form includes formation patterns allow extrapolation, prediction logical logical cosmology is general cosmology philosophical method reason see the main discussion of reason paradigms paradigms are part of reason but are mentioned explicitly here because their use is significant mathematics, logic, recursion, computation, games determinism part determines whole this is also what a pattern is … and indeterminism; kinds of determinism; absolute determinism and absolute indeterminism block universe as perspective or description rather than having a different grade of reality than that of other descriptions the alternate description vs different grade of reality pervades knowledge of many contexts, e.g. the interpretations of experience, and the question of heliocentricity—which, from a neutral standpoint, is a question of efficient description relative nature of the determined— the determinism (vs indeterminism) is effectively determined by locale in the universe, e.g. a cosmos, and is observer dependent to the extent that the substance of the observer is the pragmatic substance of the locale and merging of identities form and formation method method for general cosmology real metaphysics, received and reasoned paradigm reason—review and extension from earlier discussions under metaphysics and general cosmology an open topic from interpretations of experience variations of the paradigms ‘physical cosmology’ method method for general cosmology and cosmology of form methods of physical cosmology astronomy theoretical physics cosmological modeling cosmological realms origins and reasons… galaxies… solar systems… planets… life and its creation and origins the dimensions are treated ‘vertically’ in metaphysics, here the vertical treatment is in greater detail and is extended horizontally also treated in cosmology here the treatment is one of principle—derivation of the essentials; later treatment in cosmology is practical 3 the waybeing in the immediate and the ultimate as one the world and the real as one same title earlier in the world > cosmology of limitless identity the aim of being is the aim of the way discovery and realization of the ultimate in and from the immediate realization (the way and its means) “the way and its means” reason and metaphysics (review) reason is treated above; here there may be brief recall of essentials of reason for realization of reason and received ways foundations for path development were considered above; here the aim is to develop practical detail for sharing and realization template design immediate to universal all activities and dimensions of being adaptable to a range of circumstances individuals to civilization everyday dedication and affirmation meditation-action everyday template universal world problems and opportunities
the principles; need to integrate the secular and the transsecular; details and programs developed in ‘into the world’ universal template 4 into the worldto be real in the world ‘into the world’ follows ‘the way’ back into the world, illuminating the connection in individual life, civilization, and ideas; it could be part of the previous division, but is less formal
having understood the nature of the world, transformation, and destiny, we return to an emphasis on realization in and from the world the immediate and the ultimate as one
freshness of attitude requires renewal—even for paradigms that are reinforced in society. but the way is not so reinforced, and requires especial effort to maintain its freshness as living truth renewal meditative active retreat one world and integration problems and opportunities of the world
a theory of ‘challenges’ reason and metaphysics (mention) here, reason is just mentioned; see reason
literature media continuous text historical integration cyclicity
resources
the way site, publication, sharing life, death visioning life, death, and their resolution incorporate personal priorities texts |