Experience and its Dimensions
For The Way of Being | A Journey
Anil Mitra, Copyright © January 2, 2019—January 7, 2020
Experience and its Dimensions
Experience is subjective awareness (in this first meaning, it refers to animal consciousness—particularly human consciousness; the meaning will later be expanded to include more).
Note that when the meaning of experience is expanded, ‘experience’ will do double duty—it will stand for both meanings.
What is experience or consciousness? The ‘definition’ above seems merely to give subjective awareness a name but not specify what it is. A difficulty with that is that we expect the definition to be in terms of something else, e.g. matter (the matter that makes up the brain and so on). However, that has problems—matter as we know it is (i) not known to be fundamental and (ii) not known to be capable of experience, even in aggregate. Perhaps consciousness is fundamental in itself, not to be defined but only to be illustrated by example (i.e. examples of subjective awareness). This issue will be resolved subsequently—the illustration is in § Dimensions of the world and the fundamental nature of consciousness is developed and grounded in what follows and stated explicitly in § The real and its interpretations.
There is experience (for the case that there is not is that seeming experience is illusory—but ‘seeming’ and ‘illusion’ are experience).
There is experience of experience (and it is thus that there is knowledge of experience and so it is at this fairly primal level at which experience is reflexive; and is at this level at which knowledge that there is a world begins).
However, not all experience is reflexive; yet further non-reflexive experience may be inferred.
It is in experience that we are our true selves; and experience is the place of all significance (for it is only in sentience that there is meaningful signification; but note that it is not said that experience or life are the only significants).
A being—or an existent—is that to which some form of the verb to be validly applies; Being (capitalized)—or existence—is the property of beings-as-beings.
In some uses ‘Being’ refers to special and perhaps ‘higher’ forms of existence. Here such kinds are taken up as kinds or topics that fall under Being.
For the verb to be to validly apply, the being must be knowable—either in experience or by inference from experience (but to be known to be knowable is to be known). That is, there is a concept—the experience—and the object—experienced or inferred from experience.
There is a sense in which we never get outside experience for the measure of an object-in-experience is further experience. However, there are routes to effective objectivity: (i) ideal via abstraction—so that what is abstracted is free of distortable detail and (ii) pragmatic—that which is good enough for certain purposes or true for those purposes. And there is no significance to the distinction between objectivity and effective objectivity.
The ideal and the pragmatic are subsequently woven into a single system (‘the metaphysics’) and some important examples given (the ultimate and its path, § The real and its interpretations, and § Dimensions of the world; see a journey in being-complete.html for a systematic development of the ideal-and-the-pragmatic).
Experience has Being (it has existence).
An experience is a being (an existent).
Experience is the place of our Being.
The hypothetical being that affects no being or experience is effectively nonexistent.
The world is what is the valid object of experience (and what may be validly inferred from it).
Without the phrase in brackets in the definition of the world, it would be a definition of the external world.
Perhaps experience has no object at all and the seeming world is just a place within experience (i.e. what I call my experience).
Solipsism is position that experience has no object (i.e. that the seeming self, body, environment, and others are just places in ‘my’ experience).
Solipsism is at minimum an interpretation of the world. It is logically possible but prima facie absurd—however, the absurdity is that the experience that constitutes the world is that of an individual. Without that assumption it is in fact not in contradiction of common interpretations but makes fewer ontological commitments than the common. Reasons to consider it and the question of its possible truth are taken up later.
To repeat earlier assertions—There is experience of experience (and it is thus that there is knowledge of experience and so it is at this fairly primal level at which experience is reflexive; and is at this level at which knowledge that there is a world begins). However, not all experience is reflexive; yet further non-reflexive experience may be inferred.
Since there is experience of experience, solipsism cannot be entirely true. The world is at least experienced experience itself; and the greater realm of experience that may be inferred.
Still, solipsism is an interpretation in which the effective world is nothing but experience.
This interpretation is named metaphysical solipsism or MSV.
What is the aim of such an interpretation? To suggest that the usual attitude that there is a world beyond experience is not true and that solipsism is true? To critique and refine the usual attitude—or to suggest yet another and perhaps better ‘interpretation’? To suggest that we have little true knowledge—i.e. knowledge of knowledge? To critique general metaphysical knowledge and its means? Some or all of these (so far as they are compatible)?
Let us not answer the question of the aim right away but allow the answer to emerge with reflection (this approach, which is also taken as regards Being—below—might be called algebraic philosophy).
The ordinary secular view (OSV) is that experience is of a real world that contains experience itself, a self or ‘I’ with a body, and an environment that contains others—animal and human and that the latter are similar to the self (subject).
On this view the world has a triad experience, experiencers, and the experienced (and the experiencers experience the triad while the experienced spans it).
Materialism is the view that the world is made of matter (perhaps as understood sensibly, in physics, or in metaphysics). Strict materialism further maintains that matter has nothing of or about it that is mind, either in advanced or primal sense. On strict materialism, experiential mind is impossible—and therefore strict materialism is impossible (for given exclusive nature of matter, experience is impossible even though a world of beings that behaved as though they had experience is possible).
Strict materialism appended to the ordinary secular view yields a standard secular view (SSV). Clearly, SSV is impossible. However, our cosmos appears to be substance-like for some purposes and to that extent SSV approximates our cosmos.
Still SSV is not true—while it is an approximation for some purposes it may be entirely untrue for all purposes; and to find the truth we seek further interpretations of experience so that we may analyze all interpretations comparatively.
Before looking at alternatives, let us consider the notion of substance. We use substance in the sense of a single, simple enduring kind that generates the entire real (to be explanatory a substance must be ultimately simple or else it would need explanation; therefore substances cannot interact for there is no mechanism of interaction). One proposed solution to the problem of strict materialism—matter as a substance—is dualism which is the substance theory that there is more than just matter: there is also mind. However, in that case mind and matter must interact. The essential objection to dualism is not the problem of how two substances interact but that if they do interact they are then no longer two distinct substances. Monism—that there is one substance with both experiential and material aspects tentatively resolves the problem. But an objection is that this ‘monism’ is not ultimately simple. The response is that yes it can be, if experience and experienced are not essentially different (and the ground work for this has already been laid above). This leads to a world as field of experience interpretation of OSV.
In the world as field of experience interpretation (FOE), the world is a field of experience. In this field there are selves that are centers of heightened – structured – processing of experience in an environment that is not non experiential but whose level of experientiality may be low level, perhaps effectively zero. Mind (experientiality) is of course manifest. What of matter? Matter is neither posited nor rejected but there is as if material behavior (alongside the experiential which includes experience of as if matter).
Are FOE and MSV in contradiction? Only if MSV is thought to be identical to the contents of a limited experiencer.
Does FOE stand in opposition to SSV? Yes in that where the experientiality of the environment in SSV is null, in FOE it is not null even though it may be at least effectively zero in value. However, FOE may approximate and be an as if SSV in the case that the experientiality in an environment is below the threshold of being evident.
This leads to a special case of FOE—the extended standard secular view (ESSV) which is FOE in which the experientiality in the environment is below the threshold of being evident to the experiencers in the field. ESSV is effectively SSV but without its contradictions.
Is there a reason, then, to consider FOE over and above ESSV? Indeed there is for while ESSV mimics SSV, both are descriptions of an empirical world that may be limited. FOE is not similarly limited and ought to be entertained regarding the transempirical metaphysical possibility of the universe. Perhaps there is no such actual transempirical universe but this ought to be established by reason rather than by posit. This is in line with the idea of algebraic philosophy and what we might call algebraic metaphysics. What are some possibilities of algebraic metaphysics?
Perhaps the universe is the realization of the greatest possibility.
We wish to demonstrate the assertion that the universe is the realization of greatest possibility. Let us develop some consequences of the assertion for their importance and so as to motivate demonstration of the assertion.
If the universe is the realization of the greatest possibility—the universe has identity; the universe and its identity are limitless in variety, extension, duration, and peaks-sustainings-durations of the same; for example the universe has limitless arrays of cosmoses of limitless physical variety; this has been named Brahman; the limited individual inherits this ultimate—it does so not as limited but in merging with Brahman; within limited experience (the limited is far greater than the just human), the universe is ever fresh; it may be typical in ‘this life’ to have only an image of Brahman and a small increment toward it; yet there are cases of individuals with direct clear transformation to Brahman—beginning in the immediate but finally, if not in this cosmos then in or in transcending another; for the rest, we connect after death which is real but not absolute—it is diffusion but not death of identity; and for the rest there are paths to the ultimate; though realization of the ultimate is given, to seek a path with intelligence enhances enjoyment and effectiveness as well as the height of Brahman—for Brahman is not other than I; and if we value this there is an imperative to be on a path; the paths necessarily have ecstasy and pain; ecstasy is not to be overly cultivated nor pain to be overly avoided; the address of ecstasy is that calm intelligent enjoyment of the path is most productive of Brahman (and what is sought in the seeking of ecstasy); and the same is the best address of unavoidable pain (which is not to deny the importance of and need for compassion and aid for those in pain and those unable to process path—for which the best aids available, e.g. medicine, are to be sought); (for) realization is not only an individual process but a communal process of jointly receiving the understanding of and creating the real (named Sangha); and the main generic ways of realization would have already been identified, for if the world is experiencing – experiencer – experienced then the ways of transformation for the limited experiencer to the ultimate (Atman to Brahman) beginning now are twofold: the experiencing (inner) and experienced (instrumental); the former include the meditation in which experience and its capacities are explored and sought to be enhanced; the latter include the sciences and technology, applied to exploration of the universe, transformation of the body, and created (artificial) life as supplement and as independent (perhaps with uploading of mind to ‘machine’); and the two modes, only nominally distinct—inner or intrinsic and external or instrumental—join in Yoga, Reason, and the Logos (which are all the same) and to which approximations are taught in the traditions but which remain experimental and their continued discovery part of realization. While both modes are essential and indistinct there are senses in which the intrinsic is superior—for it is key to the instrumental via, e.g., metaphysics, science, mathematics, technology and key to Be-ing via, e.g., the humanities, art, and symbols of the ultimate. However, in the expansive meaning of experience (to be completed below), the instrumental is intrinsic.
Those are some possibilities of algebraic metaphysics and they lie within the possibilities of general FOE but not of ESSV (except where those under ESSV acquire insight). If we can demonstrate that the universe is the realization of the greatest possibility we will then know that these possibilities obtain and that we are part of Brahman. We will know that the universe is essentially a field of experience. We will know that:
As part of its field of experience we are essentially connected to the entire universe—we are in Brahman and we are Brahman (for Brahman itself phases as do I).
Metaphysics is knowledge of the real.
To continue we need metaphysics in this meaning. However, this meaning has been criticized and is largely rejected today. We respond to the criticism by developing a metaphysics. Note that we already have some metaphysics in affirming the nature and existence of experience, Being, and the universe. It may be observed that the truth of this knowledge of the object (experience, Being etc) as of the object is the result of abstraction in which what is retained is undistorted.
It becomes clear that we do not know truth of the nature of experience and so of the world without understanding its true nature. We often think of received knowledge, our secular and transsecular (religious) paradigms as the best we have and so tacitly think they are the best possible; but science is essentially empirical and its theories not known to project beyond the empirical; and religion remains dogmatic (though symbolic of what may lie beyond current science). However, it is consistent with the received that what lies beyond is the greatest possibility.
The physically possible is what is consistent with our physical experience of the world, particularly of physics—the science of the most elementary aspects of the empirical universe. To arrive at physical theory, we form concepts (compact hypotheses) designed to agree with what is observed. The freedom to form such concepts makes for the possibility of both error and validity (within the empirical domain); from comparison with given observation and further observation (experiment) we are able to discard the erroneous and retain the empirically valid.
But while one kind of error is disagreement with the empirical, another is contradiction within the concepts themselves; which has not to do with the world; and for which the systematic elimination of contradiction results in logic. While the physically impossible could be realized in a world with different physics, the logically impossible cannot be realized in any world.
The logically possible can be realized in some conceivable world and it is therefore part of the greatest conceivable possibility; the logically impossible cannot be realized and is not part of the greatest conceivable; therefore the greatest conceivable possibility is logical possibility (though of course our logics may be—a small—subset of the world of logics).
Physical possibility and other worldly possibility presume logical possibility (but are usually built in without explicit mention). Logical possibility is the most permissive of kinds of possibility.
What is the cause or reason for (existence of) the universe?
And is there a cause? It cannot be another being for since the universe is all being there is no other (obviously then if there is a cause it is not cause in the modern sense of physical cause which is interaction and roughly the same as Aristotle’s effective cause). It cannot be origin for that too would be due to another being or self-cause but self-cause could only mean that there is some initial spark to build on, which would not be self. In any case origins and physical cause are not what we ought to seek because physical cause explains only how effect is transmitted but not the reason or ultimate cause for the process and its Being. That is, the cause cannot be material cause (because it is categorically impossible and not because it is insufficiently effective).
If it cannot be material, what is left over (in terms of our understanding) it would be ‘logical’. But (i) what would that mean and (ii) why would it exhaust the conceivable kinds of cause. An argument for the latter is the in principle complete analysis of experience or concept formation as being erroneous or correct as regards (i) relation to the world (physics, sciences) and (ii) the concept itself (logic). Let us now turn to #i—what it would mean.
The concept of logic has been elucidated as analysis of the possible—is the concept possible (realized) in some world. We are now not talking of physical possibility or whether it is possible in this world. Our local evaluation or thought of what is possible is that it occurs or may occur in another circumstance (world). But as regards the universe there is no other world and the possible and actual are the same. But from our local perspective in which we are at least temporarily cut off from any other worlds, the possible appears to exceed the actual (and we tend to invest this appearance with reality which is valid to some pragmatic though not ultimate extent).
Perhaps the cause or reason for (existence of) the universe is possibility. But since we know there is a universe this adds nothing. However the objection to possibility as cause is that per possibility the universe may as well as may not exist (be manifest)—i.e. the cause of the universe is essentially accidental.
Similarly, we may reject probability because probability just assigns a numerical value in the case of possibility.
Just above, it was tacit of course, that the numerical value was less than 1. For if the probability were certain, that would indeed be cause.
Perhaps then the (manifest) universe is necessary? If so, that would be a good cause. But how? And what does it mean?
The universe is manifest or not (it is either in a manifest state or not in a manifest state).
The properties of a manifest state include its laws which have a positive aspect—its patterns or laws are immanent; and a negative—what is not according to law does not occur. That is there are ‘prescriptions’ and ‘proscriptions’. The nonmanifest has neither prescriptions nor proscriptions.
If the universe is nonmanifest there is no proscription; if the manifest did not emerge, it would be a proscription; therefore the manifest emerges.
That is, while the nonmanifest is possible, given a nonmanifest state of the universe there is (will be) also a manifest state; and similarly, there is (will be) also a further manifest state. The universe phases between the manifest and nonmanifest. There must be (phases of) something rather than nothing.
The manifestation of the universe is necessary; this is relative to the nonmanifest—which is ultimately symmetric; therefore by symmetry, the universe must realize not just one possibility but all; which is the greatest possibility (and not just the greatest ‘conceived’ for the conceived was seen to be effectively the real, but now the effective real is seen to be the real).
This could also be seen from the absence of proscription regarding the void.
In the context of the universe the possible is what obtains in some circumstance (world); the necessary is what obtains in all; the impossible is what obtains in none.
What was tentative earlier is now confirmed—
As part of its field of experience we are essentially connected to the entire universe—we are in Brahman and we are Brahman (for Brahman itself phases as do I).
A metaphysics has been constructed. It is ideal for it shows what is possible. It does not show how to attain it (some suggestions were made).
From the foregoing, the manifest—the universe—is equivalent to the void; and therefore to every being (and so every being to every other); and thus while there may be local and approximate as-if substances, e.g. matter interpreted according to ESSV in our cosmos, there is no substance ground or foundation of the universe.
The ground of Being is Being and experience as and of Being.
We could of course take the void or any being as substance; however, this would be a distortion of the notion of substance and violate the reason for its use in metaphysics. But this is not a loss for assumption of substance is now seen, not just as unnecessary, but contrary to the nature of the universe.
This ideal shows what is possible. It also shows an ultimate value—realization of the ultimate (of course in and from the immediate).
How is this to be achieved? The observation already suggests the answer—our knowledge in and of the immediate. Whatever has some validity in the history of human knowledge to today, I call tradition; and the criteria are at least pragmatic but may also be ideal (i.e. perfect faithfulness where such has meaning). Now the value of realization of the ultimate does not require that knowledge employed in so doing should be only ideal; it may also appeal to tradition. It must appeal to tradition for that is our anchor in the world. Now the ideal in itself may seem complete; however there is always further illumination by way of insight and criticism; and advance, at least by new forms of understanding (sentence structure etc). Further tradition is not seen as static but as a process that includes the process of individual thought.
It is now seen that the ideal and the pragmatic form a dual system—the ideal illuminates the pragmatic and the pragmatic forges toward the ideal (moving not just in this cosmos but perhaps from cosmos to cosmos and more); and therefore while the ideal is perfectly faithful, the pragmatic is also perfect for the purpose of realization, for we ought not to tarry forever on the way (and it is also clear that the ideal of perfect knowledge in traditional senses is impossible without abstraction).
This duo—the ideal and tradition—form a perfect metaphysics for realization of the ultimate; we will call this metaphysics simply, the metaphysics.
The systematic character of the metaphysics is emergent rather than imposed (e.g. by prior commitments); and it contains the elements of its own improvement. The standard criticisms of metaphysical system do not apply. The system is of course open to criticism but on its own ground and not via assigning it to some pre-conceived (a priori) category.
Our cosmos is ESSV—approximately substance. If it were strictly material experience would be impossible; emergence would be a failed explanation (it would explain as if conscious behavior but not true consciousness since there is no consciousness on the strict view); the substance would be neutral to pure matter vs mind; it would be a monism as described above. This suggests strongly that the cosmos is ESSV; that the elements of physics, present or future, are the place of elementary ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ (as object and relationship, respectively); that what emerges is higher mind and not mind as such. Where does this come from? It comes necessarily from essentially the void or nothingness; and if mechanism is sought (it is not necessary) we may refer to common paradigms, of which the variation and selection from biology seems most likely. One actuality for the be-ing of the world is the juxtaposition of form and indeterminate transition from form to form; and its occurrence in origins and evolution of the empirical universe, life, and choice (free will); so that form and formation are neither pure determinism nor pure indeterminism (randomness); which is a resolution and rejection of David Hume’s famously popular argument against free will.
The void itself is both like and unlike the quantum vacuum (or just the vacuum). It is like in that it is ground to the manifest. It is unlike in that it is unmanifest—but the vacuum is just a low level of the manifest. Perhaps the vacuum is the residual of formation from the void via process as suggested above.
But our ESSV cosmos lies in an FOE universe.
Is the universe an FOE universe? Yes, it has that interpretation. Does this imply that our standard views, e.g. SSV are false? No, provided we think in terms of ESSV which locally—i.e. for our empirical cosmos—approximates SSV but which is categorially an FOE and categorially distinct from SSV.
Our cosmos may be regarded as an SSV for many practical purposes but for ultimate purposes it is an ESSV within the category of FOE.
What then is real? Our experience as it is part of FOE is real. That seems to do violence to our pragmatic sense of matter as real—but it does not for whatever is practically and ultimately true of world as matter lies within FOE. It is only our inadequate understanding of experience that results in its rejection in favor of matter as real or on the other hand any exultation of it as ideally real (i.e. real but in contrast to matter).
Experiences with their experiencer – experienced sides and elementary and higher forms are the ultimate real.
It is not assumed that there are ultimate elements; but given an experiential form, it has elements.
This is the enhanced, inclusive, and fundamental meaning conception of experience that was promised at the very beginning.
From a journey in being-outline.html (sections labeled Experience so far summarized)—
1. Experience as the place of all Being, knowing, and significance is a real and (metaphysically) robust view.
2. The sound, fundamental, and extended conception of experience includes our high level animal experience as well as the primitive level of elementary entities (and the possibility that being elementary is relative).
3. Of the FOE worlds, there are robust general FOE worlds; ESSV is robust but only locally across form and duration; if the experiential world of MSV is that of an individual, it is logically possible but not robust; otherwise if the experiential world is just that, it is equivalent to FOE.
4. Non FOE worlds including SSV are as such non robust and at most local but SSV may be seen as a corrupt description of ESSV.
5. The extended view of experience is equivalent to an extended view of mind that is inclusive of ‘matter’ for where there is experience there must be form and form has extension; and form requires formation which is in duration; which are fundamental characteristics we assign to matter. Locally, there may be many modes of experience (‘matter’-‘mind’) but in our empirical cosmos there appears to be but one—which is foundation for unity of beings in our cosmos (but not clearly necessary for such foundation).
6. The main interpretations of the experiential world are FOE—general—and ESSV—to which SSV is a pragmatic approximation; our empirical cosmos. ESSV is nested in FOE and this provides intrinsic (which includes the instrumental) direct paths—via experience-Being—and indirect paths—via death, diffusion, and re-emergence from Atman to Brahman.
From the metaphysics we can now regard the universe as a field of Being. Individual beings that make up the universe necessarily have form and formation; from form there must be extension and from formation there must be duration; but as form and formation are local they are interwoven as, therefore, must be measures of extension and duration (which are measured with forms).
Individual beings always have experientiality; but its value may be zero. The material side of a being is form as form. There is no ‘smallest’ or finally elementary being but there may be regions, e.g. cosmoses, where some beings are practically elementary. Thus beings have parts (sub-beings) in interaction; which makes for interaction among beings; which is simultaneously ‘material’ and experiential (with a possibility of value zero).
Individuals are built up of lesser beings (elements) and it the form of the whole that gives rise to human and other higher level experientiality.
Similarly, the elements are built up via process, made efficient by ‘mechanisms’ such as variation and selection, into living and cosmological forms.
Creativity, e.g. concept formation, by the individual is similar in its way.
In the following we enhance FOE by writing FOE(B) to indicate that the universe is a field of being with material and experiential ‘dimensions’. The same could be done above where the discussion is dependent on the fundamental principle (FP).
Let us develop a map—a system of dimensions of the world, ideal and pragmatic, for employment toward the ultimate. These will also be dimensions of experience. A part of the map will be a high level—rather than detailed—map of (human) consciousness.
This world is—experience itself, experiential self or I and body, and environment (you, they, it, inert environment).
The main interpretations are—
1. FOE(B) (general) and
2. ESSV (to which SSV is a pragmatic approximation; our empirical cosmos).
ESSV is nested in FOE(B) and this provides intrinsic (which includes the instrumental) direct paths—via experience-Being—and indirect paths—via death, diffusion, and re-emergence from Atman to Brahman.
But there is a real abstract which, by abstraction, is ideal in the sense of being known with perfect faithfulness—
The pure elements are experience, Being and beings, universe, void, logic (and possibility and necessity), and law.
These are the elements that enable construction of the fundamental principle and the metaphysics.
Natural (relatively unconstructed)
Living (complex, built of the physical in that no further elements seem necessary).
Experiential (mind, psyche as object, perhaps always in association with life—at least in its known advanced forms; the physical and the elementary experiential are two aspects of the natural).
Social (group, relatively constructed)
Culture (knowledge, value; neutrality to distinction between knowledge and value)—language and communication, generation, transmission.
Organization (groups)—small (the individual, family, community) and large and institutional (political, economic—and technology and military, research and education, art and the religious).
Universe (and unknown)— FOE(B) (Atman, Brahman) nesting ESSV (self to Brahman).
The world is a field of experience—(i) centers of experience or experiencers (which phase in and out of the One), (ii) relations of experience (the experienced, the contents—e.g. the FOE(B) that nests ESSV and the normative world).
From FP there are no true elements. In fact any being may be ‘the’ element (in the ideal one is sufficient even though the pragmatic requires ‘many’).
However, within the universe as FOE(B), ‘unit experiences’ may be identified for pragmatic purposes. These are compound (there are no ultimate units), which enables and explains relation (interaction) and process (and are thus an improvement on the Leibnizian monads and roughly the actual occasions of Whitehead’s metaphysics of organism). Regarding process, they have form and formation; which allows for dynamics. They may enable building a pragmatic metaphysics of our world but this task is not taken up here and now.
To do. Consider and implement requirements to build a pragmatic metaphysics of our world.
The attitude – action axis
In modern philosophy of mind, three ‘axes’ of the mental have been identified—the attitudinal or intentional of how mind refers to objects, the experiential which is seen as pure, and the active or direction of exertion or control over the world, particularly on the body.
Here, we see that experience itself is (associated with) attitude and action and that there is no essentially pure experience. For practical purposes, i.e. for the individual, there is pure experience but (i) it is degenerate with attitude and action not absent but influencing and pending and (ii) ‘purity’ is relative to the ‘I’ which is normatively the individual but in fact the normative pure experience of the individual is relational among the elements of the individual.
Thus in the following where we talk of the senses and their organs, we add as is done in Yoga psychology, the actions (breath, expression, movement and more) and their organs.
The inner – outer axes
As noted above, the inner – outer distinction is relative to the ‘individual’ under consideration; here it is the human individual.
The free – bound continuum
Some elements or aspects of human experience are bound to the world—perception is of the object, as is autonomous aspects of motor control.
On the other hand there is freedom of thought and action.
The distinction just above defines the free – bound continuum.
Form and property
Form is that which requires extension; property is intensive (and primary or secondary).
Form and formation
Eternal forms are abstractions; they have Being but omit dynamics; their approximations have minimal dynamics.
Pragmatic forms are associated with formation and dynamics; in which space and time or spacetime are immanent.
Relatively bound (to world as object).
Spatial (form)—inner (primitive feeling, primitive motor action without autonomy; and aggregate feeling and action) and outer (sense, action on the world).
Note—perception is the result of perceptual intuition (capacity for formed experience of the world, informed by concept formation), action is the result of intuition of action (capacity for forming action, informed also by concept formation). Thus thought-emotion (concept formation) partakes of or is in a continuum with sense and action, with the inner and the outer.
Note—intuition above is in the sense of Immanuel Kant.
Temporal (change)—intuition of time, recall (memory).
Relatively free (including concept formation)
Body—inner—feeling with degrees of freedom.
World—outer—iconic and symbolic concepts; and conceptual intuition or capacity for concept formation (emotion is a join of conception and free and primitive feeling).
Spatiotemporal—concept of space; concept of time, past – present – future and will and sense of purpose; concepts of science, philosophy, and the transcendent.
Aesthetic—syntheses of the ‘elements’ that speak to the ‘being’ of the individual or person.
Synthesis—‘mind’ in an expansive sense—perception, thought, concept formation, and feeling (emotion) come together in realism regarding the world.