The Way of Being

The aim and plan of the introduction is to show how to understand the way and motivate interest and excitement (‘excitement’ is calm anticipation of the real and the ultimate). Why is this needed? Because view of the way is unfamiliar (to many) and its development may be difficult. The aim of the introduction, then, is to address unfamiliarity and difficulty in simple terms.

In this introduction, I will place somewhat complex ideas in small print and indented paragraphs.

How to read this preliminary. In the preliminary—as in The Way… and thought, generally—the ideas stand as a whole. However, reading is linear and so readers should not expect understanding before the entire preliminary has been read.

How is the way an adventure? What is the excitement? It is a new view of the universe; it is that the view is based in reason; that the view finds the universe to be the greatest possible, which may be seen as process; that individuals take part in that process; that the process is ever fresh and highest adventure. There is indeed pain which is unavoidable; the way addresses the problem of pain in what is argued to be the best possible way—in principle.

The Way may be difficult to understand—(1) its core is simple and true but getting to that simplicity and truth is difficult, (2) the way develops (proves) a view of the world or worldview (the new view described above) which, though simple to state, will be difficult to see in its meaning and consequences, (3) the view is consistent with and builds from but may seem to contradict science, reason, and experience. I will address these issues, which will show the excitement by grounding it.

The core of the way and its worldview is simple. The foundation of the way can be seen to be true in immediate experience—that there is experience and that the universe and its parts exist (this is unlike a science whose basic entities such as quantum fields are remote from observation). Thus the foundation is simple—so simple that it appears trivial. It is trivial and yet its consequences are profound. There are of course subtleties and difficulties that must be dealt with to prove the new view above and so to draw out the consequences (see the rest of the preview and the essays). However, the idea behind the proof is simple. It is to take from the real only those aspects that are not subject to the distortion of perception that knowledge of them is perfect; and to select those aspects that enable us to talk of the real as a whole. This is the foundation of the new view and its excitement.

It may seem that something has been pulled out of the hat—that is because I have glossed the subtleties. The entire range of subtleties involve some of the most difficult ideas at the edge of knowledge and that mountain is difficult to climb; but there is an ascent and then the world is simple again once seen from the top. There's an analogy. Think of a familiar theorem, say Gödel’s theorem (actually theorems): one can describe it as well as the idea behind the proof but to actually know that it is true one has to go through the details of the proof which are somewhat daunting because of the novelty and the detail but not difficult in principle.

Is the worldview a system of metaphysics? The question is an aside relative to the aim of the introduction and therefore formatted as a ‘complex idea’.

The worldview is indeed a system of metaphysics. Is this problematic? In the early twentieth century a deep distrust and rejection of metaphysics arose. In fact some people hold that “metaphysics is religion”. Today that distrust has resulted in new conceptions of metaphysics that are acceptable in secular thought. The original meaning had two aspects (i) metaphysics was knowledge of the real and (ii) it was not limited to the empirical. Both aspects were criticized for (i) because knowledge is subject to distortions it was thought that knowledge of the real is impossible and (ii) trans-empirical knowledge seems clearly impossible. I will address these concerns shortly but let us first talk about the place of metaphysics in culture. With metaphysics as a picture of the real, we cannot live without it. There are regularities of experience, the sun rises, the ground is there and does not vanish under foot and so on; without subconscious reliance on such elementary regularities we would not be able to attend to what is essential. In secular thought today, the sciences of physics and biology define an at least tacit metaphysics that is a foundation of secular culture. The foregoing kinds of ‘metaphysics’ may be labeled ‘pragmatic metaphysics’ and regarded as inescapable, yet they are metaphysics (and as we see below secular metaphysics of the universe as seen in the sciences so far is absolutely unfounded). So how is metaphysics as knowledge of the real possible? (i) Though knowledge is generally distorted at least somewhat, there are aspects that are undistorted (as we see below) and (ii) these aspects are not trans-empirical but rather envelopes of the empirical that are still within the empirical (also, as we see below). In consequence, what results is a metaphysical system that is (a) of all reality, (b) trivial, because of selection only of what is undistorted, (c) but nonetheless profound in depth and consequence (as we will see), (d) conceptual but not instrumental (because of #b), and (e) can (and will) be complemented by ‘pragmatic knowledge our cultures’ to constitute an effectively perfect knowledge of the real and of instrumental function within the real and toward the highest in the real.

The meaning of the worldview. What does it mean that the universe is the greatest possible? It means roughly that if one has an idea, concept, of picture of something—say a novel world—then provided it is not absurd, the ‘something’ exists (that is, all possibilities are realized).

What does ‘absurd’ mean? It means, roughly, that it should not contradict itself or fact (i.e. violate neither logic nor science—it is shown how in the paragraph after the next). Now to realize ‘all possibility’ may seem absurd for consider “it is possible that the possible is impossible” which seems to challenge the idea that there is such a thing as the greatest possibility. However the meaning of ‘possibility’ is, at least naïvely, that which can happen—so the previous assertion in double quotes becomes “it is possible that what can happen cannot happen” which is clearly due to using ‘possibility’ in violation of its meaning.

Some consequences of the worldview—i.e., that all possibility is realized. Here are some possibilities—(1) The universe has identity, (2) The universe and its identity are limitless in extension (e.g., time and space) and variety, for example there must be arrays of cosmoses like ours without limit to number or variety, (3) Inviduals merge with and realize universal identity, (4) The process is ever fresh but also involves pain, (5) There are feasible paths of realization that are creative yet critical in approach, that encounter both ecstasy and pain, that address pain in an optimal way, and that take the Buddha’s middle way of enjoyment (between opulence and asceticism, between ecstasy and pain), and (6) There is an imperative to cultivate and live in pathways, perhaps of one’s design and choosing.

Aware readers will see that some of these thoughts derive from the Indian philosophy of Vedanta and the teachings of the Buddha. What new here is the demonstration of the view and consequently the drawing out of consequences and the consistency with and learning from (what is valid in) ancient knowledge through modern science, logic, and reason.

How is this worldview consistent, particularly with reason and modern science? In simple terms, any reasonable conception of ‘possibility’ must be consistent with reason, science, and experience.

Let us flesh out the consistency of the view. The greatest possibility cannot exceed what is allowed by logic, for what is disallowed by logic cannot exist (in this or any world). An example is a square circle, whose concept can be stated in the words ‘square circle’, but since nothing can be a circle and a square, cannot exist (and which shows that though the words can be stated their combination is a contradiction for it is implicit in the concept of a circle that it is not a square and vice versa). The concept of ‘logic’ may be enhanced to include necessary fact, e.g. ‘there is experience’, ‘there is Being’ and others. This is similar to the modern notion of argument except that the latter also admits contingent fact.

How is ‘the greatest possibility’ consistent with science and experience? The essential point is that science is empirical (experience is empirical by definition). Science has theories that seem to go beyond the empirical but in truth they are models of the empirical. Therefore any claim that science has captured the essence of the universe is unfounded for there is, on the method of science itself, a possible realm beyond the empirical universe whose limit is only (the greatest) possibility. Now this does not at all imply that that realm exists but only that it is possible. Therefore to claim that what is possible is real, proof must be given. That is done in the developments in the essays.

Why do some scientists, philosophers, and lay persons hold that science has revealed the essence of the real? It is because the empirical models (theories) of the empirical data are so beautiful and so predictive that they are thought real and that, perhaps on the grounds of avoiding rank speculation, there is a prohibition on thinking of a ‘beyond’. There is perhaps also a personality and institutional investment in science that makes some scientists think of and present science as the ‘new priesthood’.

There is a further reason that science is seen as revealing the essence of the real. No one individual, even the ‘expert’ or‘authority’, has a grasp of the entire cultural system of knowledge. Rather, when a sufficient number of persons--scientists and lay persons--regard a picture of the world as real, that picture is so much 'in the air' as to become and emergent reality (more precisely, the emergent picture of reality). Thus the emegent picture is not necessarily spelled out explicity. It emerges in a manner similar to the way in which meaning in language emerges. It is held true, not because it is true, but because it has a combination of sufficient pragmatic instrumentality and because sufficient numbers of people hold it true such that it is self-reinforcing. Of course in any culture there may be more than one picure of the real and these may co-exist with or without conflict.

It remains to deal with one issue. If the facts of the universe are the facts then, even if the universe is far greater than the empirical cosmos, how can an individual in our cosmos think in terms of an unrealized and immense possibility? The answer is somewhat subtle. It depends on a block view of the universe (not one of the common block views of the physical universe). Think of the universe’s history over time. Though the universe is dynamic, that picture, since it is over time, is static (but contains the dynamic). A particle in the block is a line, perhaps with an initial and final point. Rather that is what it would be in a deterministic universe. But ‘greatest possibility’ implies that the universe is absolutely indeterministic (which, since it implies all possibilities are realized is, non-paradoxically, also absolutely deterministic). Therefore in the block universe with indeterminism, instead of a particle as a line a ‘particle’ is a myriad of converging-diverging lines. Our empirical cosmos is one more deterministic phase of the universe but relative to it the ‘facts’ are not determined; rather, relative to the cosmos, the facts external (outside as well as before and after) to the cosmos are possibilities. As a bonus, the converging-diverging lines picture shows how individuals merge with one another as universal identity—and note that this occurs outside, before, and after our cosmos but may also begin within the cosmos in ways not yet known! How? The limit of empirical observation is not only the distant in spacetime but also the small and weakness of interaction (no reference here to the weak force); and if the distant in spacetime is ‘outside’, the small is ‘within’ and the weak ‘among’ us.

In conclusion to these conceptual thoughts, we have justified the earlier thoughts of a new and exciting worldview—and more: we have seen ways in which the excitement is among and beyond us.

A practical question of means or paths to the ultimate now arises—what are the means of finding and living pathways to the ultimate? Perhaps it is presumptious to talk of “the means”.

Let us begin by talking of some means. Begin with classifiction. We can divide means into inner, intrinsic, or of the PSYCHE; and outer, instrumental, or of the WORLD. The world can be divided as nature (elementary and physical, complex such as living), society and civilization, and the universal (and unknown). The intrinsic and the instrumental have been and are both historical and modern. The following is a very incomplete but useful sketch.The historical ways come from religious traditions; the traditions most consonant with the present worldview and with which I am familiar are those of the Buddha and, from Indian thought, the Vedanta philosophy and the Bhagavad-Gita. Modern ways emphasize the instrumental, e.g. use of physics, biology, and computer science to model the inner. In the present development these ways are used as suggestive but not as demonstrative.

Let us appeal to the principle that this is the greatest possible universe. This is a demonstrated metaphysical principle that is the basis of a metaphysics, of which some consequences have been stated. The foundation of the world view, we saw, was in concepts not subject to distortion. It shows that all beings are capable of the highest achievement, and that there are feasible ways or paths. It does not show the paths. It informs us about ultimate reality but does not show it to us. It is an abstract system of knowledge (‘metaphysics’) which is not abstract as remote but as abstracting the undistorted from the distortable. How shall we complement the abstract so as to have a ‘handle’ on the world. We appeal to TRADITION which we define as what is pragmatically valid in historical through modern cultural traditions. What does ‘pragmatically valid’ mean? Where as the abstract metaphysics is perfect for all purposes, the pragmatically valid is as if perfect for some purposes. And even good enough for some purposes is all we need.

For the abstract shows us that our cosmos is effectively infinitesimal; that we move from cosmos to cosmos on the way to the ultimate (e.g as mergings in the block universe picture), always taking advantage of local conditions and laws; failure is not meaningful except as temporary, for in the block there is no final failure but only movement backward vs forward; that we never need more than a practical instrument in that process; and, therefore, even if the pragmatic is “only good enough” it is a perfect instrument for the process.

What is the outcome, the amalgam of the abstract-perfect and concrete-pragmatic? The abstract illuminates and guides the pragmatic and the pragmatic illustrates and is perfect instrument in the abstract ideal. The two form a perfect system (traditional knowledge and epistemology remain important in their context but with modified signiricance) that is developed in the essays and named the perfect metaphysics or REASON—where reason is not defined as an explicit system but implicitly as an in process instrument that is simultaneously (i) searching for and guiding search for the ultimate, (ii) reflexive—i.e., employs all elements of the real, i.e. the world in critical and imaginative interaction including emotion and value, which entails and includes (iii) reflexive optimality. This is the the means of realization.

Preview—purpose and overview

Human beings have a sense of purpose and DESTINY. Knowledge and action are effective in evaluating purpose and purposes.

The Way of Being is centered in a new and demonstrated worldview—the PERFECT METAPHYSICS, also called the metaphysics, whose core is the demonstrated fundamental principle of metaphysics—i.e., that the universe is the greatest possible (in the sense of logical possibility). This worldview is consistent with logic, science, and experience but goes far beyond our standard secular and transsecular worldviews.

Some consequences of the perfect metaphysics are (i) the universe—defined later—has Identity, (ii) the universe and its Identity are limitless with regard to variety and extension—which include peaks of limitless magnitude and variety followed by dissolutions, (iii) individuals merge and participate in these universal processes, (iv) there are effective paths, individual and shared, to the revealed ultimate, (v) the paths are ecstatic and ever fresh, (vI) pain, suffering, ennui, and tension between the immediate and the ultimate occur and are not to be avoided—the effective paths are those that attend to pain where possible but do not dwell on it.

The Way of Being site presents path principles and templates.

Being and beings

A being is that which is—which exists (indicated by the underlined is); and BEING (capitalized) is that which characterizes beings (here the 'is' that is not bold is indicates definition; we will say that a being has Being rather than is Being).

The use of ‘is’ above is an intransitive form indicating existence and not one of the other uses of ‘is’. The word ‘is’ is a singular form of the present tense verb ‘to be’. It frequently refers to an ‘entity’ at some tacit location (and thus assumes spacetime). Here, however, it will designate a form of the verb ‘is’ that is neutral to all the italicized terms just above. It will not just be tenseless and neutral with regard to location but it will not assume spacetime. It will not just be neutral with regard to the distinctions of entity vs relation vs process but it will not assume the entity-relation-process description; and it will not assume the distinction of descriptor vs described (adjective, adverb, property vs noun, verb etc).

The term 'is' in 'that which is', has the most neutral use possible (it will not assume spacetime and, particularly, will be neutral with regard to tense and location or locations; and it will be neutral with regard to the distinctions of entity vs relation vs process vs property and more, e.g. even the linguistic form of ‘trope’). Using the term extension to refer to sameness, difference, and their absence—which are precursors to spacetime—a being is that which is in some region or regions of extension. Thus a being is an existent. Further, while Being and being have distinction, at the present level of neutrality, the distinction vanishes.

In the present sense 'Being' is most neutral and general. This is an abstraction in the direct sense that eliminates distortion due to concrete detail; it is thus most direct rather than remote abstraction; and this enables perfect knowledge as in there is Being which though trivial, is also a source of depth and conceptual power. The history of thought abounds with special meanings of 'Being'; these are all eschewed here. This is a gain rather than loss for it permits re-introduction of other valid special meanings as kinds of Being which inherit the precision of the present general meaning.

The hypothetical being that affects no being does not exist. The measure of Being is POWER or interaction—the ability to affect and be affected—i.e., Being is the measure of Being. This is the source of the conceptual force of 'Being'—i.e., that it does not refer to an axiom or another kind.

Experience

EXPERIENCE is subjective awareness or phenomenal consciousness in its pure, attitudinal, and active forms. Experience is relational (even the pure form is internal relation). Experience has the property of power.

Experience is the place of all significance and meaning in the sense of what is important—e.g., of the 'meaning of life'. It is a necessary and a priori condition for meaning (this does not imply that it is the source or cause all meaning).

The hypothetical being that affects no experience at all may be taken to not exist (we may think about it but then it is the thought that affects us). It is effectively non-existent. Further, it is a consequence of the fundamental principle (proven later) that it is non-existent.

Note that above 'experience' refers to animal consciousness and 'higher'—at least to what is recognized as sentience. It will follow from the fundamental principle that the entire universe may be regarded as experiential in some primitive sense.

The universe, the void, and the fundamental principle of metaphysics

The UNIVERSE is All Being—i.e., Being over all extension.

The VOID is the absence of Being. It contains no beings, yet has Being—for its existence and non-existence are equivalent. This is crucial to the proof below; other proofs are given in the essays; but since it is fundamental and consistent with all experience it may be alternatively regarded as universal law or principle (due to its conceptual power) or, if doubt remains, as existential attitude, (action) principle, or hypothesis.

Proof of THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF METAPHYSICS. (1) A natural law or, simply a law, is a pattern that obtains in a part of the universe. Laws have Being—i.e., they are beings. Therefore there are no laws in the void. (2) If there is a logically possible state that does not emerge from the void, that would be a law. That is—all logically possible states emerge from the void. (3) That is—the universe is the greatest possible (in the sense of logical possibility). Which is the statement of and thus concludes proof of the fundamental principle of metaphysics.

Consistency of the fundamental principle. There is no contradiction of fact, experience, or science—even though there may seem to be, for (i) a fact and its negation are not possible but (ii) possibilities other than our empirical cosmos may be realized elsewhere in the universe (and from the the fundamental principle they are realized).

Tradition and the perfect metaphysics

The fundamental principle reveals an ultimate universe with the properties and consequences stated earlier. It is powerful in showing this ultimate—in illuminating the real. But it does not show how to connect to the real. For this we turn to what is valid in cumulative knowledge (see, e.g., system of human knowledge, reason, and action.html) or tradition to complement the fundamental principle.

TRADITION—because largely detailed, concrete, and hypothetical—cannot be ultimate, perfect, or complete; it is pragmatic. However, the fundamental principle reveals perfect knowledge, in light of which there is no need for perfection of the pragmatic—for the pragmatic provides the best and therefore pragmatically perfect instrument toward the ideal ultimate. The ideal illuminates the universe and the pragmatic while the latter illustrates the ideal and is instrumental toward it. The two combine to form a system that is perfect in its knowledge of the ultimate and in its pragmatic instrumentalism toward the ultimate. This system is the PERFECT METAPHYSICS—I also call it, simply, the metaphysics for brevity and to not be over presumptive of the judgment of readers.

Significance of Being, on purism

Perfect metaphysics—continued. Its epistemology is not that of a single criterion—it has dual criteria which, as seen, are perfect; this gives some validation to traditional purist epistemologies but also limits their significance as well as the significance of 'purism'. Importantly, note that we have shown that many traditional critiques of metaphysics stem from a naive single valued epistemology—that of correspondence perfection. Instead we have a two pronged metaphysics, an abstract side from the fundamental principle which is perfect in the old way and the concrete which is perfect according to criteria revealed by the abstract. This further shows the conceptual significance of Being—it is inclusive (from neutrality) and perfect (where sufficiently abstract). Note: this is not abstraction of remoteness but of direct knowledge made possible by omitting distortion and projection due to concrete detail.

The issue of purism was also seen to arise in the tension between the immediate and the ultimate and between 'ectasy and pain'. It arises in many contexts (i) for, though we often think it base, there is essential connection among economic, political, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and other valuational issues, (ii) in the insistence on certainty for all purposes, (iii) in the insistence of substance, monism, and some specific susbstance, and (iv) more.

Paths, enjoyment, summary

The (perfect) metaphysics implies that there are feasible paths to the ultimate (a lesson from the history of modern physics is that 'feasible' and 'easy' are not the same). The home page discusses means. Some suggestions toward paths are in the sources. Further information is here; and greater detail is here.

In any path pain, suffering, ecstacy, diversion, and ENJOYMENT arise as among essential human issues. Pain cannot be avoided. Where possible it must be addressed as part of the path to the ultimate. There seems to be meaningless pain—e.g., the pain of an infant, the pain of cancer—where this can be alleviated it must be. The pain of parents may be alleviated by addressing the infant's pain, by caring, and by understanding that the capacity for pain is essential in the movement from negative to positive—locally from adaptation, and universally from the perfect metaphysics—and that from the perspective of human being pain has meaning as part of the net movement on a path. Ecstacy, too, is not to be avoided, it is to be enjoyed but not over-cultivated. Focus only on pain or ecstacy, where it is avoidable, is diversionary; where it is unavoidable it is known to be temporal. But enjoyment is not to be avoided. Without feeling, there is no meaning, no real path. Being on a path in this world and to the ultimate, sharing the path, then, are the places of enjoyment.

Summary of the way (i) the one universe is the greatest possible, (ii) all beings participate in this greatness, (iii) there are ways of realization for what we think of as limited individuals.

Definitions

The definitions are now at definitions.html.