THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS
WRITTEN IN THE
TRINITY
ANIL MITRA PHD, © 2001, REFORMATTED July 2003
Document status: July 22, 2003
This document was fundamental to me at the time it was written and may be the basis of an interesting elaboration of the idea of a fundamental problem of metaphysics
However, the
No action necessary
Maintain as a source
SUMMARY
If a problem is to be to be called the fundamental problem of metaphysics a demonstration of its fundamental nature should be given. Here, the fundamental problem is found through analysis to be “why is there presence” rather than why is there something rather than nothing. The problem of existence is shown to be trivial. Presence is, for example, my presence in the world my being alive to and in it - sentience and action are examples of what it means to have presence. The concept of presence is elaborated. In the second section, a resolution is given. The “proof” is base on showing identity relations among the quanta of existence, of being, and of presence... and of mind
The result is a metaphysics of presence in which presence refers to actual rather than enduring presence; in the latter and common meaning, metaphysics is another term for substance ontology. Here, metaphysics of presence is not substance ontology
As noted above, the treatment in Journey in Being, though brief, goes beyond the present
Legend
Plans
1.1 What
I mean by “preliminary reflections”
1.2 The
real fundamental problem: preliminary reflections
1.3 On
the necessity of sentience: preliminary reflections
1.4 The
fundamental problem of metaphysics - I
1.5 The
fundamental problem of metaphysics – II
1.6 The
fundamental problem of metaphysics – III
1.7 A
note on the term “presence”
1.8.1 An
experiment: Heart and Mind in Understanding
2.3 My
relationship to the fundamental problem
2.3.1 On
the personal level. The riddle of myself
2.4 The
Philosophy or Metaphysics of Presence
2.4.1 The
claims of the Philosophy or Metaphysics
of Presence
2.6.3 Elaboration
of the argument
2.8 Illumination:
The argument continued
2.8.5 A
glass of wine or a teacup
2.8.6 An
electron or quark or quanta of matter
2.8.8 All
of existence / existence
2.8.9 Unknown
and un-conceived beings or unknown factors or properties
2.8.10 Unknown
beings: further comments
2.8.11 Unknown
beings: teleology
2.8.14 Criteria
for selection of the fundamental problem of metaphysics
2.9.2 The
Criteria are Best met by Presence
2.9.2.6 Essential
to the universe being real
2.9.2.9 Peculiar
to beings with mind and agency
2.9.2.10 Powerful
in the sense of being
empowering to the agent
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS
Sunday 9.16.01
Note relations to the section: What are the problems of a Philosophy of Mind?
The original fundamental problem – why is there something rather than nothing
But when we abandon universal causation, and this also means abandoning determinism – and we must abandon universal causation, then the problem of something from nothing is trivial
What, then, is the fundamental problem?
I start with preliminary reflections that are suggestive and intuitive rather than logical and formal
The meaning of preliminary reflections is as follows. It is not the purpose of such reflections to prove anything. Rather, preliminary reflections give motivation and plausibility – even “wishful thinking.” Preliminary reflections may be anthropomorphic, anthropocentric even when these characteristics should be absent in “formal” reflections. It should be noted that not only is there nothing intrinsically wrong in wishful, anthropic or any other thought that may be suggestive, forceful, persuasive – or heuristic: such reflections should not, of course, be mistaken for “proof” – proofs, whatever they may be in this context, will come later although, of course, it is not exactly a proof that is involved in the sense of demonstration by a logical chain from axioms. These kinds of thoughts may, in fact, be more illuminating and it may be illumination and not proof that is needed. For one, there may be no [intellectual] proof – the only “proof” may be in action and the role of intellect will be in sorting out and giving some evaluation to alternative actions. Secondly, since we are of the world – something often and even necessarily put aside in formal proof – the indulgence of our nature, of anthropism, may be essentially informative and not lacking in its own form of rigor in the kinds of arguments labeled transcendental analytic. In the former sentence it would not be necessary to limit our attitudes to anthropism but also to other labels that root us in the world: the fact that we have knowledge, thought and belief; the fact that – in common with plants and animals – we are alive; the fact that we are of the environment, that the atoms in our bodies were forged in stars, our ability to feel and think in evolution. There is also the formal argument about the nature of informal argument: the context of discovery and the context of justification [or imagination and verification, speculation and criticism]. But that is not anything esoteric – it is what one often does in, say, evaluating a complex expression in mathematics. One first uses any means – imagination, guesswork, heuristics, looking it up in a book assuming it is not a closed book examination and life is not an examination – to come up with possible answers; then one sets to the task of formal proof. And, even the work of coming up with such a proof [after the informal; and of coming up with what is to proved before and together with proof] may involve intuition and guesswork in the initial stages and formalization in the final analysis
It is the puzzle, the mystery of ourselves. Not as humans as separate from the rest of the world – life, plants, animals, nature… but as humans-as-part-of-nature and, because we have special insight there, there where we are given and need no know-ledge, but not because we are otherwise special even though each species has something special… and also as humans-as-humans… that is the puzzle
Why are we here? And what is the nature of our presence. Something from nothing – that is necessary and, so, is not a puzzle. Our presence seems contingent, an accident and, so, is a puzzle
But why is there a mystery, what is, from where comes the mystery? Without sentience, there would be no mystery, no one to feel it. [ Although it seems that there could be existence without sentience ] Our presence becomes a presence through sentience
Without sentience, there is no presence
In this sense, sentience is necessary, not because in order for something to exist, it must be known but in order for something to be present, it must know
“Know”, “sentience”, “aware”… are being used somewhat abstractly here. As humans, we know. But much of our knowing is a higher level knowing. These words, here, are allowed to have the higher level connotations but are intended in their lowest level connotations. As an example, if there is something about the interaction of two elementary particles that makes one particle “aware” of the other then that sense would be included. It is not being said, although the question is being asked and a hypothetical affirmative considered, that an elementary particle is so aware, but the point is that if were so aware then the ““ word would have that as a basic sense; higher level ““ would be specialized cases
In what sense or way might an elementary object of being [ an elementary particle… ] “know” another elementary object? As the signature or condition of their mutual creation – because that mutual creation required a symmetry among the elements of creation so as to have the degree of stability required beyond a more than “transient” history
What would be a universe that did not have awareness? If I am aware, does that mean that the universe is aware? Is sentience evolving or universally present – what is it like to be a quark? Is that inner, given aspect present in Φ? Is the idea of the first elementary particle the voice of the particle – is that voice the voice of the universe, is it a voice or is it void, a mere projection?
Can a universe without sentience be alive, have life, exist – it cannot be present. Is life something, or something apparent? Should we say existence is presence? Thinking about that requires us to get out of where and what we are – is that possible?
Can a universe without sentience exist? Can it exist, not in the sense of for something to exist it must be known… but is sentience a condition of existence. How are we picturing sentience? Can a universe that is not knowable or cannot contain sentience exist? What does it mean to talk of a universe or the universe?
I say all sentience is of the same type but need not be similar in quantity, quality and variety. What is common to all sentience that we may say that all sentience is of the same type? – It is presence. A quark, the most elementary quantum of existence, is present if not aware-as-I-know-or-conceive-awareness
The idea of presence shows that meaning is found in the elementary quanta of being. The fundamental trio: meaning, existence, and presence
So, now, take out the self-centered part of the question about our presence, eliminate the local, anthropic content and find:
This
point added later 12 / 27 / 2001
After going through
rotations and gyrations…
I think the fundamental
problem is
xxxxxxxxx
That was left open. There
is a point of view from which we are all contributing. A Hegel or a Whitehead
or a Buddha is a
This is
not a democratic statement. Because some individuals think “I am better, I will
rule.” Democracy requires limits to
xxxxxxxxxx
…
Why is the universe present?
What is presence?
Is that presence necessary and why?
Are there any distinctions among sentience, presence and existence? What are those distinctions?
Or:
Why is there presence – rather than absence? This is rather a play on words since the meaning, here, of presence is not the opposite of absence
The previous sections have been motivational. As we have seen, existence is given: against a background where there is no causation, no original law, existence is guaranteed. If there is a true void, true nothingness – then there will also be phases of existence. That is because nothing ® nothing is deterministic, the ultimate law and logos. The distinction between existence and non-existence is not as fundamental as one may suppose. Perhaps one needs an “algebraic attitude” to see all that. So what is it that is fundamental like existence but not automatically given? It is not the anthropocentric answer of our presence, knowledge, awareness, consciousness – even though all that is quite amazing. If we chose human awareness [I am using awareness in this section as representative of consciousness, knowledge] or, more generally, as the awareness of living forms we could then muster up the following weak argument: existence is guaranteed and we observe it in those phases of existence when we are here. The argument we are going to give is much more powerful. It is based upon, first, a distinction originally raised in On Mind and Metaphysics, between awareness-as-I-know-it and the most basic form of awareness – a form that I call presence. The argument, in its original form from On Mind and Metaphysics, shows that presence is universal and necessary. However, since presence-as-I-know-it is not [a] given in the way that existence-as-I-define-it, presence is more fundamental. However, the argument shows more. It shows that presence is the most significant candidate for the basic metaphysical category to be explained. If not ethical, this is tinged with ethics. This is of course, interesting, since existence is not a category – “that which is”. There is an equivalence between presence – the most basic form of awareness – and existence; therefore, presence, which we know, first, as a category is not a category. There are no, ultimate, watertight categories. Along the way a number of issues need to be and are resolved: the question of the nature and place of matter, the nature and relations among metaphysics and ethics and the idea that there is an ethics of this world and the root of ethical possibility ETHICS at the core of existence and of coming into existence and so the fundamental integration of metaphysics and ethics [and, of course, what is passé, and epistemology], issues as to the nature of the various players – mind, matter, presence, existence which come in two flavors – the basic kind and the as-I-know-it kind, the issue of pan-psychism – is this a kind of pan-psychism? The basic kinds, however, are not of a posited noumenon type; rather their existence and nature are established by a form of transcendental analytic – a complex term for the simple idea that the objects and kinds of objects in the world have bearing on the nature of the world – a universe – that permits or creates those kinds of objects
Thus we could elaborate the fundamental problem of metaphysics as a system of questions or problems follows:
What is metaphysics?
[This is clearly necessary; and is metaphysics possible?]
[One thing that is being shown is that real metaphysics is possible. It is a metaphysics that does not depend on logic chopping and is not a “descriptive” metaphysics. It includes but is not limited to a practical metaphysic. However these points go beyond the scope of the main discussion. First, an evaluation of the whole system of culture is needed. The place of, at least, the following items is necessary: knowledge as practiced in modern universities – this includes science, analytic philosophy and the concept of knowledge as an independent exercise, an exercise independent of action. Second, the concept and value of certainty. Third, the system of values that underlies the modern concept of knowledge; and the modern ideas regarding the limitations of knowledge. Such values include the minimization of risk and the promotion of the concept of safety in knowledge [how often do we here of certain exercises in knowledge referred to in academics as “dangerous”; and the association of knowledge with power and success.] Fourth the incredible egocentrism of a fraction, though by no means the whole, of the academic community. Consider, for example the absolutism of Stephen Hawking: anything outside physics does not exist. Fifth, the bizarre entry of sentimentalism: Hawking is a quadriplegic therefore, not only are his efforts admired, but also his contribution to knowledge is more valuable; Heidegger was a Nazi [deplorable] and therefore his contribution is diminished [ridiculous]. Of course this kind of thinking is also a cover for ignorance. Finally, sheer ignorance or denial of the lack of external foundation of knowledge and sheer wallowing in the artifacts of society: easy analysis, no risk, consumerism. Above all, real metaphysics occurs in interaction with action, and such action is always associated with the possibility of annihilation but therefore also with the possibility of transcendence of putative limits. It is amusing that certain of the priests of the academic community lament the alienated nature of our existence and yet hang to that existence on with a viciousness that would put to shame a she-bear defending her cubs. If our existence is, after all, that trivial – why not take some real risk with the possibility of real existence. So far, we pave the way. What makes real metaphysics possible? First, a rigorous local or practical metaphysics. Second, arguments such as the transcendental analytic. It is curious that the transcendental analytic may be regarded as suspect, or “lesser”, the step-sister of direct argument from origins. Argument from origins reigns in science and science oriented philosophy including analytic philosophy. That is odd; for here we are; here is where all argument starts; therefore the establishment of all scientific theories – theoretical physics, evolutionary biology, real psychology – are in their nature derived from a kind of transcendental analytic. Third, as we proceed from the particular to the general, we also go from the concrete to the abstract; thus uncertainty is balanced by flexibility. Fourth, despite the solidity of the nature of our knowledge in our domain – e.g. starting from the semi-hypothetical big bang – the absolute fluidity beyond that domain: the dissolution of causality; the origin of knowledge and being in no-thing; and therefore, also, the origin of logic – logic as the way of generating knowledge includes all defined modes o f logic. Fifth, metaphysics in action. Sixth, imaginative construction and iteration with logic. Seventh, the modern and other systems of knowledge as concrete in their domains and metaphorical beyond those domains. Eighth, the inclusion of all human dimensions including “heart” as discussed below in Heart and Mind; and thus the inclusion in a not ad-hoc and reasonable way; and analysis of the function of emotion. How? Here is a brief analysis of the place of emotion in mind. First, define feeling as the realm of proprioception that is characterized by the quality of intensity: simple pain, anger, joy, sorrow. Analyze the possibility of such feelings as simple feelings. Second, the functional aspect of and relations among feeling, perception and thought. Relative to action, perception is neutral; feeling exercises or is a factor of compulsion, of bound action; thought expands and contracts possibility without a sense compulsion. These components and their relations are adaptive: perception makes for an immediate map of the environment, thought provides “freedom” of action, but, since, thought is not always correct, not bound, feeling that is not under rational control but tightly bound is necessary. It is often claimed in clinical [and “pop”] psychology that feeling predates thought. Certainly simple feeling predates “higher” thought and thought in language. But, likely, simple “thought” perception channeled into action is evolutionarily co-eval to may even predate feeling. As thought provides more freedom, emotion must become more intense. This is why the deer has a simple joy and pain in comparison to the relatively “neurotic” wanderings in feeling and thinking space of human beings. Beyond that, there is an interaction between thought and emotion. When a deer sees the fawn in peril, there is some imperative to act. But, if the deer did not sense peril, how would that be communicated? Humans can also communicate facts and claims and that leads to feeling regarding of the validity of the claims. In this and a variety of other ways thought and feeling interact. In fact, in “emotion” thought modifies feeling and feeling colors or provides the color for thought. An ultimate objective of a real metaphysics is to go to a place where the agent becomes the author, or enters into authorship of the real. Thus while human agents are partially responsible for the conscious construction of social artifacts, the nature of the ultimate quanta of existence are not thought to be subject to the designs of the human agent. Of course, if the nature world is self-conditioning and its nature was not completely given at the origin then human agents have a miniscule effect through their “bodies” if not their agency. This is not what is meant. What is meant is a valuation of the ultimate nature of existence – beyond causation, in the realm of non-being, that no-thing which knows not even law and from which existence is a trivial consequent; and a valuation of the nature of the agent; and of the connections and possible connections between existence and agency.]
What is the fundamental problem of metaphysics?
[The fact that it is seen as a problem means that we have an idea of the answer, but are not completely satisfied. The original problem was “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Or, why is there existence. Or, perhaps, with Wittgenstein, a sense of mystery that there is anything at all. But we are not satisfied with this answer because we have shown existence to be trivial. So, we want something that is close to existence but non-trivial. And we have a sense that sentience is close to existence. But there are problems with sentience. We, therefore abstract sentience to presence. And, we will show that presence is fundamental, necessary to existence, and just as “general”, but also at the heart of things: there is “mere” existence but no mere presence. The answer to this question is another:]
Why is there presence – why is the universe present? Or, why is there presence rather than mere existence? Must there be presence, and why?
[The core fundamental problem.] [Presence is defined] [Then:]
Why is this the fundamental problem?
[The answer to this is implicit in answering the first question but its explicit statement is valuable.]
Is there a solution to the fundamental problem and the question of why it is fundamental?
[An elaboration of the problem. The motivation for this “problem” is that there is, generally, despair over the original fundamental problem and there would be even more despair regarding this reformulation. Therefore, this question is important. The development that follows gives a demonstration of the following answer: “yes”.] [Finally:]
Given that the answers to the foregoing questions is yes, what is that solution?
How is that solution developed?
[Solution and solving go together.]
[More elaboration of the problem. The solution is given in the following development.]
[Then there are some elaborations on the theme of presence, meaning, sentience… :]
What are the relations and distinctions among meaning, sentience, presence, existence, mind and matter?
[An answer is given]
In the following, I first answer the core fundamental problem. The argument is quite short. I then consider a number of related counter-arguments that claim that the argument could be applied to entities besides “presence”. The response is longer and careful but requires no significant elaboration – it does require careful attention to consistency of meaning. The response is not a counter demonstration but is an admission of the counter argument and a defusing of its significance. Thus, what is shown is that presence is necessarily more fundamental than any other concept or [kind of] object, is more informative to any being, and has, in the sense of power of transformation, more power than any other concept or object
When I first wrote this topic THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS it was more a groping toward the fundamental problem and I was not thinking that I knew the solution; nor did I think of first asking and answering the question of the fundamental problem itself… but, of course, we all knew these solutions all along
I felt it important to avoid the connotations of the terms “awareness”, “sentience” and so on. I could distinguish between the basic and the as-I-know-it kinds but there would be confusion due to the familiarity of these terms within the anthropic context. Therefore, and also because of its suggestive power, I chose “presence” which, of course, also comes in basic and as-I-know-it kinds. However, the confusion would be significantly less since presence is not commonly used in this [technical] context. There is another use of “presence” in the “Metaphysics of Presence” which is another phrase for substance ontology. In what follows I will use both the term and the phrase but with different meanings, the meanings given here, and with no reference or allusion to or significance drawn from substance ontology. It does seem in what follows that a substance ontology falls out of the argument but that is not the intention; further, the significance of substance ontology would be significant in a Cartesian framework which is defused in the development
Some thoughts on logic and human value. In the following development, there is a reasoning. Of course, the importance of the topic, the motivation have to do with “heart”. But we will see a place for the heart, of emotion, at the core of logic. How can that be? A surprise. Continue on. But we could generalize the scheme of context of discovery and context of justification by including context of valuation. Context of valuation has two parts: first showing real [human] value, second showing the universality of that value. Three points. All this context “stuff” sounds new and formal; but the basic idea occurs in many forms and many places; find the destination then build the road, find the theorem then prove it, speculation and criticism, heuristics and formal proof… Second: valuation straddles discovery and justification. Third, render the context stuff as intuition, reason, emotion; or being, mind and heart…
Here is a personal reflection that probably will not find its way into anything formal? Tears for the ultimate flow with those for the most particular and most lovely. Somehow, this reminds me of “that which is most polluted is most lovely.” “That which is most vile, most ugly, most evil… is still of God.” “That which is diseased, cancerous, paranoid, manipulative, and angry. Imperfect in body and mind – perfect imperfection.” The last ““ is a personal allusion that may be cryptic. I know that this romanticism of the imperfect – is a romanticism; not that it is not a good / bad thing; but, that, I’m not there. Anyway, “I could be the lover of all things.” And “Because: although we all fear contamination we are all contaminated. Therefore a relationship which contains explicit contamination is wonderful.”
These thoughts constitute the concept of an experiment – the combination of heart and mind in understanding. Heart includes emotion. Thus heart and mind can be read, emotion and mind. Emotion is part of mind but there is a point of emphasis to the redundancy. Heart and mind are already combined in art and life. The face of science is cold, rational; heart enters through the passion with which science is pursued; and the uses to which it is put; these uses include the practical and the understanding. How are and might heart and mind be “combined” [the quotes are a reminder that they may already be combined but have been separated as in analytic philosophy] in philosophy. This type of question always raises another, “What is philosophy?” Certainly, heart and mind are combined in Nietzsche’s writing. Or, in the Vedas, the language speaks also to the heart. Is the meaning conveyed to the heart or the “joint” meaning conveyed to heart and mind, through the poetry of the Veda, a valid philosophical or a valid metaphysical meaning? The immediate counter-argument would be that analysis, the standard of rigor, can stand by itself without emotion – likely, analysis will be clouded and diluted by emotion. This can be countered: but emotion and thought can be kept separate; and, surely, emotion is always present and therefore explicit recognition is good. Neither argument is knock down; actual practice is determined by “economy” and fashion. But the what is being examined here is not whether there is or should be an interaction between heart and mind in philosophy and related thought but whether there is real meaning conveyed jointly by, real understanding held jointly in heart and mind. Jointly and, perhaps, separately. Two possible approaches to this question: analysis of the place of emotion in mind, and the question of the separability of knowledge from action [1] / ... [2] / ... [3]. If knowledge is ultimately inseparable, then one of the function of “knowledge claims” is action; thus an external or practical significance. But the analysis of the place of emotion may reveal an essential, co-function of heart and mind in understanding and knowledge – a co-function in which the components cannot be separate. Feeling is “binding” and thought is “freeing”; both are required in the formation of stable structures, situations, contexts. In question, also, are the natures of knowing, belief, and the mental functions
This reminds me of the definition I once gave of “religion” – the relating of an entire being to all being. Elaborate upon this: the relating of an entire being – an individual, a society… – in all its dimensions to all dimensions of all being, of the universe
Next, the “solution” phase. That sounds dry; and perhaps anti-climactic – we are in the business because we like problems: the challenge and the romance. A bit of humor: the fundamental problem of metaphysics includes the question “What is the fundamental problem of metaphysics.” Generalizing to the entire theatre “Hey, what’s the problem man?” EOH. But the solution is one with a twist; and it’s the start of a series of criticisms that give the solution itself a charge. Anyway, we subscribe partially but not altogether to “Philosophy is studied not for the sake of answers but for the questions. These questions enlarge our imagination and our knowledge of the possible, reduce dogmatic assurance against such speculation which closes the mind but, above all, because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind is rendered great and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.” [Bertrand Russell.] There are equally great alternatives: the path of action takes many forms but in each there is a confidence despite-lack-of-confidence in one’s being that one is supremely part of the great universe and that being-is a form of knowing that transcends all talking, pointing, and showing
Next: although the “solution” phase is part of this section its character is somewhat different and it was conceived and written under different circumstances and therefore is assigned a new section number
Sunday 10.7.01
Or, in reference to Ernst Haeckel’s sometimes ridiculed work: The Riddle of the Universe
This topic draws upon the previous sections Categorical Ontology and The Fundamental Problem of Metaphysics. Above all, it draws from and informs the essay, On Mind and Metaphysics and the substance of this section and the two sections linked immediately above should be incorporated into On Mind and Metaphysics
This section – the fundamental problem of metaphysics – begins with the “puzzle” of sentience: why is there sentience rather than mere existence? Some such form of the fundamental problem is necessary since, as we have shown, mere existence is given. That is the intuition. Why sentience? The intuition is “In this sense sentience is necessary, not because in order for something to exist it must be known but in order for something to be present it must know.” That is, without sentience, that the universe may have existed “would not have made a difference.” It is sentience that makes the existence of the question possible. It is sentience that is the meaning of existence. The intuition is that sentience is fundamental. This is also an intuition behind the concept and naming of the essay On Mind and Metaphysics: metaphysics and mind are mutually informing – it is not a one way flow from metaphysics to mind; it is unlike metaphysics and matter where there is also a two way flow of information but there “matter” is a mere data point; mind, in the intuition is fundamental. Mind, sentience is what infuses us with being. The word infuse is perhaps improper: mind is our being. Of, course, in this sense mind is not a high level concept as Heidegger argued. Mind is in some sense fundamental
There are two problems with the use of “mind”, “awareness”, “sentience”. First, that the concepts do strike us, despite the intuition above, as, in some ways, derivative, not fundamental. After all it is only in special forms or aggregates of matter – is living matter necessary or sufficient? – that these characteristics appear. To clear up this problem we go to the argument of On Mind and Metaphysics where the elements of mind appear in the most elementary quantum of matter. A number of problems were required, there, to be cleaned up: first, pan-psychism; second, that what appears at the elementary level is not mind-as-I-first-know-it but what, at the elementary level, corresponds to and is required for the high level. That most basic level of sentience, metaphorically described as the “what-it-is-like” of the elementary quantum, the actuality of the quantum of interaction rather than our description or apprehension of that quantum is called presence. Presence is that which in the most elementary quantum, which is possessed by each such quantum, which aggregates in certain forms and processes as mind-as-we-know-it. The existence of presence as discussed here is demonstrated in On Mind and Metaphysics
The second problem is as follows. It is the intuition that presence is fundamental. But that is not a proof. This issue is part of the fundamental problem defined in The Fundamental Problem of Metaphysics. The “proof” follows the following plan. First, show that there must be presence rather than mere existence; then that this is the fundamental problem of metaphysics. I suppose that is a long way of saying that there is a dual problem [identifying and solving the problem.]
The identification and solution of the fundamental problem is a major step. Why? Start with any idea of what it is to be here – to be alive on this planet in this universe. It could be nothing other than what it is. You tend to the cows in the morning; bicker with someone at lunch; enjoy a joke; struggle in the afternoon heat; have supper with a friend; give someone a kiss before going to sleep. The feelings are in the range of bad to good. You live your life or you seek more. That is a paradoxical statement. Someone says “don’t change the world.” But we are part of the world and if it is our nature change the world then not changing the world is changing the world and changing the world is not changing the world. So seeking more is, for some, living your life. And that’s regardless of the explanation for why you seek more – your mother did not breast-feed you or why you are content with the status quo. Someone wants to present a negative psychology, someone wants to present a positive one; or a negative metaphysics or a positive one for change / acceptance. The fact is change and acceptance are here. So, start with what it is to be here. It is a limited circle. I want to enlarge that circle. I travel – in physical and mental space. The first travel in mind space is the journey of evolution. It is material and temporally oriented. 1987. Then the idea of an alternative. 1995. Atemporal, non-material in that matter is not essential, absolute. The problem despite its esoteric look is the answer to the atemporal, absolute; the balance to the temporal. It is the completion of the circle. When I go into my favorite bookstore the structure of my rounds have changed. Next: entering the dynamics of mind and being. Anything is possible; beyond words
Love
Ideas
Nature
[Note that there is another meaning of “Philosophy of Presence” that is substance ontology. That meaning is not so common that another word is necessary. This is a caution to avoid any confusion.]
§ This is the solution of the fundamental problem
§ There is no riddle
§ That [sentience as] presence is the fundamental nature of the existent universe
§ This may begin to sound like idealism; or pan-psychism. But as shown elsewhere it is not necessarily so. Note, also, that an idea is not its content and is also not my apprehension or idea of the idea. What is an idea; our concept of it is incomplete
§ That presence = existence
§ That presence º existence
§ That presence º F
§ That this is not a monism. A monism takes something in our world and posits it as real. But, here, nothing is posited; it is neither “mere” creation, nor “mere” discovery – even if there truly such things. It is a creative discovery. Of logical necessity, it is not a categorealism
§ We are of the stars and not alien to distant galaxies. This romantic fact is not part of the argument although it may be part of the appeal of the argument
§ Presence = existence is primarily a fact and not an ontology
The solution is developed and at the end we show that the various components, The fundamental problem of metaphysics – III, are resolved
If we were not deluded by the paradigms of our culture, our species, our kingdom [animalia], our type [living], we would probably not need proof: we would see. The paradox is: delusion is necessary for existence. ‘Delusion’ is being used in an abstracted and generalized sense, not in its psychiatric sense as psychosis, and not in any intrinsically pejorative sense; still, I suppose this lends an unintended wisdom to the idea that a belief common to an individual’s cultural background will not count as a delusion. Translated into English, that says that in order to exist you must specialize in your form – in contrast to the universal form, F. [It is an interesting point that this satisfies Wittgenstein’s idea that form is the possibility of structure.]
So, the purpose of proof is to free us from THE delusion, to have vision, to see… not to prove; the proof is an aid; it helps us face the limitations and contradictions of the ‘delusion.’ Thus, the proof should be short. But there may be an elaboration of ideas that is the other side of the proof; the proof shows us the contradictions and necessities, the elaborations of themes open us from the sparsity of the contradiction to the opulence of the real. Anyway, it is a definite mistake to think that the ultimate truth will be proven – the “assumptions”, axioms or primitive truths would be more ultimate than ultimate. If, presence is the most fundamental nature of the universe – that would not be proven; it would be the basis of all proof. Additionally, the idea of a self-contained system of proof of theorems from axioms is as ultimate in a logical or mathematical system is a mistake. See the discussion in ON INFERENCE
Also, in a sense, proof is a process of communication. The communication of “certainty” or degrees of certainty. But, to see, the receiver must also participate, must look, must desire to be free of the delusion
The questions of how to “see” and the nature and necessity of seeing are also important. Seeing is the manifestation of presence. An inversion of that order: seeing ® presence / existence must be an interaction; an evolving system; a dialog; a dialectic… We also see in raja yoga – in contrast to the removed knowledge of gñana yoga, raja yoga is knowledge by acquaintance; but there is a generalization of the concept of raja yoga that is needed. And there are senses in which in karma and bhakti yoga we also see. Similarly, through art, drama, literature, music…
Thus, it makes sense to say that [a purpose of] philosophy as ultimate knowing, as gñana yoga, is to illuminate, to point… not to prove. Similar things said by Whitehead, Wittgenstein on showing over saying, Richard Rorty on philosophy as edification, Suzanne Langer on “presentational form”, Iris Murdoch in that her literature and her philosophy are difficult to separate, Buddha on the 10 useless questions, the bible on faith – see THE TRUTH CAN BE KNOWN. Similar things seen in the nature of art, music…
Proof or argument will now be given in QED form
We have seen that the intra-activity and interactivity of the quanta of existence are the quanta of sentience and mind: these quanta of sentience are the presence of the quanta of existence, and are mind
This follows from the conditions of existence
Thus existence º presence
Thus, we have shown
What are the relations and distinctions among meaning, sentience, presence, existence, mind and matter?
It is sufficient to consider presence, existence and matter. Existence presence; and matter and presence are, even in the conventional way of looking at them, alternate ways of seeing
The elaboration is a repetition of The Argument Itself, with the elaborations in square brackets[]
[The argument is surprisingly and yet necessarily short. A long argument would add only to the result or conclusion being vague, opaque or mysterious. The best argument is to show. Showing is not external proof. Showing is not literally showing. It is walking the same path together; now we know the same path even though no one proved the existence no one described the path; you took me to the path, you held my hand, you knew the path before I did, and as we walked I learned to appreciate the path, it was slow but I learned well; we walked the same path we know the same path, we look at each other, we know and have common knowledge; but you never described a path to me, I never described it to you; we know it, we know it together. And, what’s more, and interesting, and here’s how heart and mind stand together and yet independently: walking together, we found love.]
We have seen [ above, and in On Mind and Metaphysics ] We have seen that the intra-activity and interactivity of the quanta of existence are the quanta [speaking metaphorically] of sentience and mind: these quanta of sentience are the presence of the quanta of existence, and are [in aggregate] [living form and] mind [-awareness-consciousness] [as manifest in living forms and relationship generally.]
[Mind is not restricted to life even if mind-as-we-originally-saw-it-in-the-womb-of-culture is so restricted.]
[We know that in quantum mechanics every quantum of existence must be able to interact with every other quantum…
Research the point that every quantum of existence must
be able to interact with every other quantum
…Thus, all is present to all
This is not intended as proof but shows a meaning and may lend support to the blind
We are all blinded by being alive, by existing. And that is good, too.]
This follows [also] from the conditions of existence
Elaborate this: existence from F ® mutuality of all existents – from the requirement of stability or existence sustained over transience; and this mutuality = interaction = presence. Does symmetry fit here?
Thus existence º presence
[This explains:
Why is there presence – why is the universe present? Or, why is there presence rather than mere existence? Must there be presence, and why?]
After writing down the proof above, the following
counterargument occurred to me. It turns out that the above proof though
formally correct is empty of meaning in a way to be soon seen. In answering the
counterargument the following occurs: other parts of the fundamental problem
are resolved; the fundamental problem is seen from the point of view, also, of
the heart; the importance
and significance of the fundamental problem, the arguments, and the priority of
presence are brought out. These features of the counterargument were not
pre-conceived by me but came out in the process
You argued backwards from the presence of mind-as-I-know-it
But that argument could be applied to anything:
Matter [includes energy…]
A blade of grass
A computer
Life
A glass of wine or a teacup
An electron or quark
An idea
All of existence / existence
Unknown and un-conceived beings or
unknown factors or properties “x”; e.g., teleologic being!
Good and evil
Meaning
[“Good and evil” added
And so the essence of the universe of existence, of “nothing”,
is, e.g., that of a teacup; and therefore, not only are you saying nothing,
your argument is empty and leads to contradiction
The counter-argument is correct, for example, in claiming
that the essence of matter is identical to the essence of existence
The counter-argument is clever in choosing a variety of
examples: matter, a blade of grass… unknown beings – examples that vary in
kind, depth, abstraction and generality; unforeseen beings and properties are
allowed. The purpose of the counter-argument was to show contradiction in the
argument; but even if there is no contradiction, the counter-argument also
trivializes the claims and arguments, so far, of the fundamental problem of
metaphysics. However, it is also true the variety that points to the resolution
of the counter-argument even though the resolution does not require this point.
The variety also points to the depth of the solution to the fundamental problem
What the variety of the counter-argument points to is that, yes, all claims [that the argument could be applied
to anything – matter, a blade of grass, a computer…] are true, but not all are
equally informative. Not all are equally deep, equally significant
This point can be made directly
It is true [in a sense] that the essence of all being is that
of each being. But, for some beings, this information is more deep, more
powerful, more informative – is closer to bringing out the nature of being, of
the universe. The argument for this is the argument of On Mind and Metaphysics
The essence of the ultimate can be
seen [is] in all beings. Every being contains that essence
[The idea to use the variety of the counter-argument came “later”. I first wrote down a list of items, this was somewhat ad hoc. Then came the use of the counter-argument against itself and for the argument for the fundamental problem of metaphysics. Then an expansion of the list. The criteria for expansion were: to be comprehensive – and so to strengthen the counter but also the original argument; to include natural objects and artifacts in service of variety; to include the fundamental and the “trivial”, the large and the small; to include what have been regarded as categories: mind, matter, existence; and to include the concrete and the possible. Thus, a degree of rationality entered into the list. “Heart” enters through associations with a blade of grass, life, a glass of wine, love… It is important to note that although these associations give life and color to the argument and to the metaphysics of presence, the argument itself stands alone. Thus, the clarity of reason and the warmth – and bitterness – of feeling and emotion can stand together without “corruption”. A personal statement: corruption of the kind contemplated is a value; for reason is a practical instrument and does not come signed with any guarantees. This statement is rather anti-Platonic; but, a Platonic world of possibility may yet stand behind the actual world. However, it is not a Platonic world of the ideal standing behind the material. Still, such a world can be conceived and spoken.]
We now consider the items in the above list as candidates for the “fundamental” essence of the universe, of all being. The idea of fundamental essence is related to: showing the depth of being, of the universe; being most informative; being explicitly necessary, peculiar to beings with mind and agency; being most essential to the universe being real – the concept of “real” is open; most powerful in the sense of being empowering to the agent. This latter point of empowerment of the agent is real in that while knowledge is a tenuous connection with the real, power in the sense used here is ultimate connection with the real – whether by immersion or by action and transformation. The argument will be that all items fall short in relation to presence
In each case, the “proof” that the essence of all being is contained in the particular being or form of being is the same and therefore need not be repeated. What is different among the examples is the significance
Here, the result is powerful but not deep or profound. Matter as the essence of all being does not contradict presence as that essence for mind / matter are not distinct categories as we have seen in On Mind and Metaphysics. Further, as shown in On Mind and Metaphysics, the idea that matter is the essence of all being is not a reduction since the nature of matter is not given and true matter contains, at its center, the elements of mind, i.e., presence
The example of matter is “materially” powerful because matter is pervasive but not ultimately powerful [or informative or empowering] because matter is not unique, peculiar to or characteristic of being
As I wrote “A blade of grass,” I was looking at one. I chose it for the impression of size and beauty. The essence of all being is in each blade of grass. Is it there in the blade of grass as a blade of grass, in its life, or in its material nature? What is the significance of the beauty and the particularity that I felt? It is mind that partakes of the beauty
Similar to a blade of grass. Interesting, deep. What is the relation between life and mind? Is all mind found in living forms; does all life have mind?
Raises the question, “What is life?” with the suggestion that, without mind, without presence – to something, life is nothing
Interesting but overworked. See Computers, Beings, Minds. There is some discussion in Unknown and un-conceived beings or unknown factors or properties, below
This is an interesting example. It is frequently used to a variety of ends. Complexity in simple things; ritual. Symbolically informative: “the universe in a glass of wine.”
As an example of matter, the example is trivial. Yet even as a trivial example it has the essence of all being. Materially, also, “the universe in a glass of wine.”
[No example of matter is ultimately trivial or shallow.]
As a social, cultural phenomenon: the depth is assigned, not intrinsic
Given a full theory, should not the existence and properties of the electron permit prediction of all other particles of, e.g., the standard model of elementary particle physics
As we have seen, the elementary quanta of matter have presence
Distinguish idea and “the picture I have” – when I have an idea. The picture, the experience of blue is not an object. It is not presence but it is presented in presence
Then what, if anything, is the idea itself? The idea is, in a sense, the neuro-chemical processes etc., but ‘idea’ is also used to refer to the picture I have. But it is not enough to say, even if it is accurate, that an idea is the neuro-chemical processes – or any set of physical processes described from the outside. Probably, the physical and the idea I have are dual descriptions as discussed in On Mind and Metaphysics. Starting from the particle-field duality this whole question of idea vs. the picture, and what is an object needs to be thought out
Idea is an excellent choice: “an idea” for it applies also to presence but that is resolved by replacing presence ® the presenting object; and it applies equally to the interaction of eh electron but that is not a problem for it was not necessary to talk of the electron and its interaction as pointed out in On Mind and Metaphysics
This whole section, the idea, is spurious. Improve it or
drop it
Existence as the essence of all being is uninformative; every being, everything exists
Existence-as-essence is not powerful as is matter-as-essence. This is because existence is given; the material nature of being is not given. Matter is one cusp of pervasion + restriction and this is related to the source of its power
Existence is not “unique”, peculiar like mind, presence
[What is going on here? First, I say presence is universal and now I say it is unique – is this not a contradiction?
Presence-as-I-know-it is unique
Matter-as-I-know-it is restricted in its nature
Existence-as-I-define-it says nothing of that which it exists except, perhaps, that it is actual
I do not want to say existence-as-I-know-it because existence “qualifies” all being and my knowledge does not cover all being. Strictly, knowledge-by-acquaintance.]
The idea of existence is beautiful in some aspects. It is not why the world exists but that it exists is mystical. Wittgenstein. There is something attractive about the idea. Even though, on a non-causal view, existence is given there is something special to our contemplation of that which exists. However, existence is lesser in comparison to matter [power] and presence [material and mind power, uniqueness, characteristic of our being.]
We exist but that is not our characteristic – or even one of our characteristics. [Even] Heidegger’s Dasein is not mere existence
The following considerations apply to all beings – not just “unknown” ones
If without presence, will not exist. Will build upon presence. If without “high level” presence, will lack intrinsic meaning-as-I-know-it but could be meaningful to other kinds of being
This is just as a computer can “play” chess or “prove” a theorem without having a “clue” of what it did… the computer does not actually “prove” the theorem. The operations [at a symbolic level] of the computer can be seen, however, as a model of the proof. The input symbols and formulas correspond to the concepts and selected axioms; and the outputs are interpreted as theorems. [It is interesting that since computers do not have the kinds of prejudice that humans have, there are examples of novel proofs of trivial theorems.]
Why would one say, on the other hand, that humans – mathematicians – prove a theorems? Simply because they know they prove the theorem! More precisely, the mathematician understands the elements described in the previous paragraph and for him or her the formal proof may be ‘merely’ expression and confirmation of intuition – intuition based in understanding – which a computer lacks despite heuristics that may be built in
But, is not a computer present to itself, a robot present to the world? Yes – as specimens of matter – as electrons, protons, silicon, metal… The fact that a “computer” is a computer is assigned. In the case of an electron the name “electron” is assigned the fact and nature of its being is not assigned. For a computer-as-computer: name, fact and nature are assigned
That is not to say that there will not come a stage – probably based in different architectural concepts and perhaps with some degree of intrinsic evolution of both hardware and software – computers will have an intrinsic being as thinking, acting machines
Will not evolve away from presence
The characteristics-as-we-know-such beings may not clearly involve the essence of presence; however, the elements will be those of presence or, alternatively, matter or existence
Will possess object-hood and manifest as matter
It is through presence that such beings will know – know their own natures, know themselves, know the world; and, since presence º matter, without presence, such “beings” will neither know nor be
The issue is interesting but somewhat tangential to the line of development
At the level of F, before causation and causal connections, there is neither teleology nor mechanism
Within a “given universe” or part of universe, mechanism may reign as fact or mode of description; that is contingent
But, if a universe is not given, the factual claim in the previous paragraph is neither true nor false
If there are truly teleologic beings [define that carefully] then the universe would be truly teleologic
The point is not that good and evil as we see them is at the heart of all being, all existence – but that there is a proto-ethics at the foundation of being
It is necessary to show what this proto-ethics is. It is not the presence of “ethical beings” at a micro-level. Just as ethics is concerned with choice and construction, so at the micro-level there is possibility, bifurcation [or multiple alternatives], selection and construction. This reasoning also applies to “meaning.”
The first issue is “what is meaning at the human level?” Let me specify that it is not semantic meaning that is being considered here; rather it is significance: what, if anything gives a human life significance? There is also some concern with authenticity: some ways of having significance may be felt to be more right than others. It is not my purpose here to pin down what makes meaning authentic – it makes sense to leave that at least somewhat open. Two dimensions of authenticity are the metaphysical – does the way of meaning relate the individual to the real nature of being – and the ethical – is the way of meaning right? It is not found, primarily, by listing a set of meanings of meaning. Such a list might be helpful, of course, in a number of ways: a review of the reflections and lives of others through history as a history of meaning. Also, meaning is not found in writings, inspirational literature or affirmations, religious observance, good acts… all of which may contribute. For a human being, meaning is found through a lifetime meditation on meaning in relation to action, to the construction of the being of the bearer of meaning
To look to the presence of meaning at the level of the elementary constituents of being we will not look for “significance”. Rather, we look for what it is that makes meaning possible – the capability for meaning. Just as in the case of mind and consciousness, a full explanation requires, also, considerations from biology, psychology an explanation of the capability for meaning from the elementary level is not intended to be complete
The factor from the elementary level is the ability to form novel, stable structures and the recursion of this at a variety of levels of complexity; and the resulting degree of variety – the uniqueness of the historical process
Presence includes the basic factors of good and evil and meaning at the elementary level
[“Good and evil” added
The fundamental problem of metaphysics is to establish what is “most essential” – to ask what is “x” where x = what is most essential; and to then ask “why is there x” or “why is there x rather than nothing” or “why is there x rather than mere existence” or “why is the universe, all being of the form x – or constituted of x”
The criteria in question in this section are the criteria for selection of the kind, quality or being “x”
In considering various candidates for “x” we arrived at the following criteria:
Power
Informative
Beauty
Depth
Elementary
Essential to the universe being real
Necessary
Particularity
Peculiar to beings with mind and agency
Powerful in the sense of being empowering to the agent
Unique
Note that unique usually means “the only one” or “one of a kind.” It is used in an “enhanced” sense here. After all what is so special about one of a kind. It is morbidity that values this meaning of uniqueness. We allow degrees of uniqueness – “uniqueness” is not used as a complex symbol and its relation to the number one is erased from present use. Essential, as used here, relates more to value and importance than to substance
What is the significance of the criteria? I argued from intuition and an intuitive concept of importance that presence was, perhaps, the essence of all being. A formal proof was provided. The formal proof applied also to all kinds of being. I noted that this was not contradictory. This implies that the fact that a kind of being is “paradigmatic” of all being in all universes [the universe] is not as important as was thought; it is rather trivial; rather it is the “value” of the paradigmatic being that is key in selecting the being or kind. But “value” is not being used here in the mere sense of value to human or other particular beings; but value to all being, to the universe. Thus, ethics is at the core of things, at the core of metaphysics. This is connected to the idea that every being contains the essence of all being. That contrary to the spirit of alienation, contrary to the critical and pessimistic views of science and philosophy that reigned in the 20th century, contrary to those who would see human beings at the pinnacle of being, and contrary to those who see anthropomorphism as ultimately empty – to those who might idealize other beings and kinds there is an entire pantheon… contrary to all these: the every being and kind is at the center, the essence of all being, of the universe is in every being. Now, since it is value that determines the “paradigm”, and noting that value is changed from its usually conceived place as adjunct to some particular kind and finds itself at the core of things, the core of being, the core of the universe, the center of the metaphysical and ontological stage… so, it is important to get the system of value right
The foregoing system of values is right; it was obtained from an examination of a collection of beings and kinds that was both inspired and systematic. Is there a simple summarization of this system, a criterion or simple criteria for the criteria? We may formulate this as follows: unique, yet essential
The original argument for presence has been made trivial. Value rather than ontology has been shown to be significant; but in doing so the relation between value and ontology or value and metaphysics has been inverted – or, at least, democratized: value, lies at the core of the nature of all things
There is here a problem of communication. At once someone is going to protest that, don’t be ridiculous, morals are relative, “ethicalism” is absurd, anthropomorphic and anthropocentric… Arguments against this protestation have been already given above; uses of “ethics”, “value”, “anthropic” revalued and redefined to more closely fit the real order rather than the self-indulgent order. For example, it is the lazy indulgence – even prejudice and bigotry, in anthropocentrism – rather an anthropic focus among other foci – that leads to the criticism of the anthropic focus [among foci.]
Use of the concept of matter as the “fundamental” nature of the world, the universe, being is powerful: it is the material form upon which transformation is wrought. However that may be, there are deficiencies with the use of material power as basic. Presence as fundamental provides the same power without the deficits. However, the power of presence far exceeds that of matter since it is not just that which is used in transformation but it is that which knows and brings about transformation
The concept of existence applies a priori to all being and is not, therefore, a source of power
The reasons that presence is more informative in a fundamental way are similar to the reasons for power. Philosophically, the concept of presence resolves a number of ongoing puzzles, perennial paradoxes and problems
Again, presence partakes jointly of the subject and object of beauty
Existence and presence are equally deep provided that existence is allowed to cover non-existence. This is the algebraic sense in which “0” is a quantity. In this extended form, presence and matter are present in the phase of non-being
Presence is sufficient for all being; all being-as-immediately-known
In the generalized forms, matter and presence are equally elementary. In the primitive forms, presence includes relationship and is so elementary and comprehensive. Evolution is the elaboration of presence
This applies to the necessity and essentiality. Without presence, the universe is not only inert, devoid of meaning and the ability for meaning, devoid of evolution and relationship. In the deepest sense, matter = presence; but if presence is subtracted all that is left is inert opaque “monads”
Presence-as-I-first-know-it is mind, agency. It is also this that makes presence particular and informative
Discussed above
Presence-as-I-first-know-it is restricted to specialized forms of matter. Its uniqueness implies the power of the idea of presence
This explains why presence is selected as the fundamental character to be explained. I.e. the following are solved
What is the fundamental problem of metaphysics?
Why is this the fundamental problem?
The considerations have also shown answers to:
Is there a solution to the fundamental problem and the question of why it is fundamental?
Given that the answers to the foregoing questions is yes, what is that solution?
How is that solution developed?
From Journey 1999: Thus, in order to achieve a full
science of the world, we will have to go back to rather that further away from
the anthropic, animal or sentient mode of being – but we now see that at the
same time, we will go forward into the universal as measured by the objective,
the abstract, the all… and the conceptual
The solution is not essentially one of ontology or metaphysics – where that is interpreted as one of categories and essences. We saw that every being possesses the essence of all being. But we see that for some [kinds of] being this fact is more empowering, powerful, essential and so on. The aspect of being that is supremely empowering is not existence – that is given – nor matter but presence. And we saw how it is these ethical or axiological criteria rather than the [narrowly] metaphysical that determine what is most basic. Thus, the development of the solution originally suggested by intuition and metaphysics is ethical. [The item “Good and evil” of the counter argument was added after this point occurred to me. Thus the line of argument “forced” that entry.] Of course, this implies a revaluation of the natures of metaphysics and ethics and finds them inseparable. Shall we call the resulting first philosophy ethics or metaphysics? If we do not make anthropic mistakes, we may call it ethics. That, however, is bound to lead to misinterpretation and perhaps we may eschew the conventional terms “ethics”, “metaphysics”… and focus on the [philosophy of] presence
I have reformulated the fundamental problem of metaphysics [as defined by Aristotle, Heidegger, Nozick, somewhat by Wittgenstein and others] along rational lines, i.e., have presented an alternative to “why is there something rather than nothing” and shown why the alternative should be the fundamental problem; shown the reformulated version to be ontologically equivalent [the ontology is shown to be trivial] but ethically or axiologically deeper than the old version; in fact, shown the reformulated version that uses the concept of presence to be the deepest possible; shown the axiological argument to be fundamental; have redefined and unified metaphysics and ethics and [contra Kant, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, myself…] shown them to be possible; have connected this rational and necessary version of the fundamental problem to other essential and basic problems of metaphysics, mind, philosophy: being, mind and matter, causation, determinism – and so free will, choice, good and evil, pan-psychism, the ultimate and absolute; have solved the fundamental and these related problems [solutions to some the related problems are distributed in other notes and essays… see, for example, On Mind and Metaphysics, Problems of Mind and Consciousness, Metaphysics and the Problems of Consciousness, Ethics, On Good and Evil, and The Elements and Potential of Being] including the old fundamental problem and shown that there is no evolution beyond or transcendence of presence except into non-being
The core of every being is identical in nature and kind to the core of all being, to the core of the total – not merely physical, one, universe or cosmos. Human being, morals, mind and consciousness, ethics as the right construction of being… is at the core of creation
Is the statement at the end of the summary of conclusions the
end of an adventure? No, it is the beginning. For: every being must, in order
to see the truth, strive to find and create and to see itself must see into the
core of all being, into the heart of the universe, the hearth and heart of
creation. If you doubt that you will find yourself, all being there, ask your self, “Why can I see?”