The way of being

Contents

Why ‘being’?

The limitless universe

Demonstration

An experiential universe

Design

The ultimate

Other views of the ultimate

Realization

The way of being

The Way of Being

The Way of Being began with a question – What is the best that we can do? That is, of course, a very ‘large’ question that covers fields of knowledge and action. A response to the question needs guiding principles, especially worldviews – pictures or descriptions of what the world is like. Beginning with sources in eastern and western thought, many views were developed, and many were superseded until a view based in ‘being’ was arrived at, worked on, and corrected until satisfactory.

Why ‘being’?

1.	Many worldviews have an assumption at their very foundation—they assume some kind of thing, e.g., matter or mind, as fundamental. A view based on being does not make such an assumption – “The world has being” says, simply and essentially, “the world is what it is”.
2.	But this is open to two criticisms—(a) that “the world is what it is” is obvious and trivial, but (b) on the other hand, that so much thought about being has seen it as deep, even unknowable.
3.	The criticisms are defused as follows—(a) the approach from being is trivial, but this is one of its sources of power, but (b) there is depth, but it is not of being; rather it is to be found within being. And, that it is to be found within being is not a hypothesis or assumption but may be shown true as it is in this work. In other words, here, ‘being’ functions for general thought as the idea of the unknown variable functions in algebra. The approach from being is an algebraic approach to philosophy.
4.	A little more can be said about the power of the idea of ‘being’. “What the world is” is absolutely inclusive—it includes all the real and only the real. For example, ask whether the laws of physics are real things in themselves? Materialism gives no answer. Or rather it gives a negative answer—though the laws are immanent in the world, the laws themselves are not material and therefore cannot be real. But since they are in the world, they must have being. This (kind of ) argument is crucial to the power of the idea of being and is employed in this work.

The limitless universe

The universe conceived as all being is limitless—this is at the center of the worldview of the way of being. This view may have been thought before, but—

i.	In the way of being (‘the way’), its meaning, demonstration, development, and consequences have newness.
ii.	As the view is developed here, it may require individuals to re-educate themselves in their worldview, requiring a transformation of Gestalt, which may take persistence, time, and careful attention to the meanings of terms.

Before showing and developing the worldview of the way, let us first consider some common kinds of worldview as background, without subscribing to them—

i.	The common and often tacit view of the world as the world of experience supplemented by ordinary reason. The views below begin in and in reflection on this view.
ii.	The version of science that explains known phenomena of the world in terms of elements and behavior (hypothesized and confirmed by observation so far), which is practically valid with regard to what is observed but has no verified or necessary purchase in the region beyond observation. This open attitude to science is a framework for a ‘scientific and secular humanism’.
iii.	Hypothetical or ‘speculative’ metaphysics, which is similar to science in its method but attempts to account for a wider view of the real (e.g., matter and mind under one synthesis), painted in strokes broad enough to achieve synthesis.
vi.	‘Real metaphysics’ (the term has recent use), founded on elements and inference that are (argued to be) real and necessary, respectively. Within a framework of real and necessary elements, particular detail may be founded on elements that are hypothetical and good in particular cases but necessary in their occurrence ‘somewhere’ in the universe.
v.	Religious views, which are typically hypothetical metaphysics in terms of unseen realms and beings (and are often dogmatic), which, even in dogma and other negative attributes, may have spiritual, social, symbolic, and other value—for example, cultural, economic, and political. Even where dogmatic or mythic, the symbolic may point to the real.

Our views condition what we ‘naturally’ accept and reject as possible truth about the world. Reductive science may deny what is not yet seen in science (despite the history of revolutions in science and scientific worldviews). In the Abrahamic religions, the ultimate has remoteness as a characterization. Some religions are said to deny or lessen the significance of the immediate world.

Note that none of the kinds of worldview is necessarily dogma. Religion could divest itself of dogma. The other kinds of worldview can be dogma when they are held true beyond their empirical-rational base. A view that would otherwise be dogma may eliminate dogma by admitting doubt.

Consequently, the essences of the common worldviews allow the expansive (‘outside the box’) thinking that will facilitate understanding of the view to be presented here.

The view of the way has an ultimate real metaphysics as framework, which begins in and returns to experience, and is filled in with elements and paradigms from science, lesser metaphysics, which have suggestions in symbols of human culture.

Demonstration

The view of the way of being makes no ad hoc hypothesis, scientific or metaphysical; and it posits no dogma. It may be seen as the common view from experience and ordinary reason, made explicit, enhanced by imagination, subject, repeatedly, to imagination and criticism. It is the common or ordinary view, applied intelligently to itself.

The view begins with elements that are not speculative (definitions in brackets)—being (existence), beings (existents), the universe (all being), the void (absence of being), laws (which have being), and demonstration—the void has no law and therefore the greatest possibility emerges from it—i.e., the universe and every being (they all have the void as part of them) are limitless. Since it is based in real elements and elementary reason, this view may be labeled ‘real metaphysics’ (ultimate in depth, its scope will be broadened later).

On account of their simplicity, the definitions and demonstration (proof) above may be perfect in that the ideas represent or correspond to what they intend to represent. In a more complete treatment, the definitions would be elaborated (i) to ensure fullness of meaning and (ii) to avoid ambiguity and imprecisions of interpretation.

This essay is a brief introduction to the way of being. It focuses on the lived (‘existential’) side of the way. The definitions and proof may be questioned (e.g., being as existence, the void as existing and containing no law). For greater detail, rigor, and foci on academic ‘sides’ (philosophical, metaphysical, logical, and scientific), visit the home page of the way of being.

Doubt

There are general doubts. Can we talk about being at all, which is often argued to be ineffable, i.e., inaccessible to words (language)? Is the ineffability due to the discrete, explicit, and one-dimensional nature of language, and is being accessible to the entire language bearing being? Can we have knowledge (at all)? How?

These are more than academic questions, for if the answer is that we cannot or that we do not know that we can, then, surely, the endeavor of the way of being may be incapable of being carried out. On the other hand, if the answer is ‘yes’ or ‘maybe’, then the attempt to answer the questions is more than just academic—for in attempting to answer the questions, we may make a positive contribution to the endeavor. Thus, the endeavor of academic philosophy, from the Greeks and other civilizations till today, has significance for the human endeavor. Discussions of the issues are available in essays linked from the home page of the way of being (and in philosophy, generally—for a start, readers may begin with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

At the same time, we might not want to wait for philosophy and human knowledge to complete themselves in all rigor before we ‘join the fray’. In this brief account, we address doubt but shall not dwell on it beyond brief address and agreement to live with doubt and confidence.

As noted above, the very elementary character of the basic building blocks of the way, give us some confidence in the foundation of the way.

There are also specific doubts.

It is natural to doubt, especially, the void as real and the universe as the realization of the greatest possibility.

Response to these doubts is in three stages.

First, the claim is consistent with experience. Views of the cosmos as the universe are not empirical. And, while we do not see all possibilities, they may occur beyond the current spacetime boundary of observation—the picture would be one in which every possibility occurs beyond ‘this possibility’ and the collection of all possibilities is the universe over all difference (e.g., space time).

Second, a demonstration has been given. It is empirical in nature for there is no questioning that the universe exists or that there is simple and necessary inference. Yet, given the magnitude of the inference and importance of critical attitudes, doubt should remain.

Third, even if doubt remains, we can still regard realization of all possibility as (i) an observation consistent postulate (ii) an existential principle by which to live in the immediate and ultimate which is significant as the value of the possible outcome is immense – which is enhanced by a need for a balance to a merely critical attitude (iii) as a practical and complete metaphysics to begin understanding of open issues in human knowledge and ethics.

But what does limitlessness mean?

Limitlessness

What are the meanings of the terms ‘limitless’ and ‘greatest possibility’? Given a concept—a conceptual picture—of the universe or a part of it, the picture may be in error if (a) conflicts in the picture itself which make it unrealizable (b) disagreement with what it attempts to portray. If it agrees with what it attempts to portray, the picture has real possibility. If it has no internal conflict the possibility is coherent. Because the real must be coherent, real possibility cannot exceed coherent possibility. That the universe is the greatest possible or limitless means that real and coherent possibility, though conceptually different, are identical in points of fact.

That is, given a conceptual picture that has and entails no internal conflict (i.e., has no incoherence), it is realized. This is a significant limit on what pictures can be realized, but not a limit on the universe. That is, the pictures that are realized far exceed what is thought on the basis of the kinds of worldview in the limitless universe.

Before looking at consequences, we ought to elaborate the notion of coherent possibility. The term ‘logical possibility’ is an equivalent in one sense of the term ‘logic’. Logic has a number of senses. We use its sense as employed in mathematics—logic as correct inference from premises to conclusions. But this sense need not be seen as a process—once the process is complete and there is a system of interrelated results based in a consistent set of axioms, the (mathematical) structure is logical. Coherent possibility is structure in this logical sense. Some people may have a negative reaction to logic in this sense as rigid and sterile. However, it is neither. What is true is that while what coherence and logic require is sterile, what they allow is ultimately rich.

Significance

Here are some consequences of limitless realization, which begin to bring out the richness of coherent or logical structures and, so, of the universe.

The universe and all beings and their identities are limitless—they realize the greatest possibility: the universe is limitless in extension, duration, and variety and peak of being in which all beings merge; the universe phases between peak and nonmanifest; all possibility, everything, something, and nothing are equivalent; it has limitless cosmoses of limitless variety—some cosmoses are passing through ours with barely any interaction; the ‘normal’ limits the cosmos (its laws and magnitude) and of beings (e.g., birth and death) are real but not absolute (they are real over limited extension and duration); though ultimate realization is given, there are intelligent and efficient paths to the ultimate—they do not ignore but emphasize the immediate (given limitlessness and that we live under limits, it is a fundamental value to attend to the limited world and the limitless universe); an efficient path involves shared negotiation—the relation of leader and follower is relative; to be on such paths is enjoyable; pain and doubt are unavoidable—their best address (i) healthy living—physical, mental, and communal (ii) direct address while on a path (which involves the best therapy of the time and the fortunate giving aid to the less fortunate).

In saying that everything, something, and nothing are equivalent, we come close to saying that they are identical—which would (seem to) be contradictory. The contradiction is resolved in seeing that they are not identical in a difference (e.g., temporal) perspective but are identical in a perspective above all difference (e. g., space and time). For more on such apparent contradictions and resolutions, see dialetheia.

A normal cosmos

We tend to think that our cosmos is as we experience it and as found in science—a cosmos with galaxies (and clusters and more), solar systems, planets of which at least one has intelligent and conscious life; a cosmos formed, perhaps, by cosmic evolution (a tentative theory), in which life was formed by incremental adaptation. Such a cosmos is normal.

However, it seems possible that the cosmos was formed all at once when we were created complete with (false) memories. It is possible that there are cosmoses whose entirety is my consciousness. It is possible that we are a simulated cosmos, or one created by a god that itself requires no creation. Such cosmoses are—would be—strange.

Though we may doubt it, it is logically possible that the cosmos is strange. How can we tell? We cannot but need not be absolutely—logically—certain. It is sufficient that a paradigm of incremental adaptation suggests—strongly—that it is practically certain that our cosmos is normal.

Incremental adaptation also suggests that formation is normal—it traverses near stable forms with the difference between successive forms being relatively small.

The same mechanism also suggests that the phenomenal population of the universe by normal worlds is greater than that of strange worlds—for while strange worlds may be many, their lifespan is almost always transient. Furthermore, since seeing requires perception, and perception almost always requires a normal world, the phenomenal proportion of worlds that are both visible and normal is yet greater.

Nonetheless, there are limitlessly many strange worlds. Their real and symbolic significance is not to be discounted.

Though the world may appear to have design, a standard view is that that the apparent design arose mechanistically, i.e., by processes that are intrinsically without ‘awareness’ and, particularly, without any knowledge of or intent regarding the future.

An experiential universe

The substance of the world is what it is—what it is made of, i.e., what its constituents are. In materialism the world is said to be made of matter; in idealism it is some kind of mind-stuff. There are other possibilities.

Such views tend to run into difficulties. If the world is nothing but matter, it is difficult to explain how is mind possible. That it is all mind would seem to contradict physical science and what many people, academic and nonacademic, see as common sense.

There is an alternative. It is to say nothing more—in the beginning—than the world is what it is. And since the world exists, and being is existence, such a view may be called a ‘philosophy of being’.

Let us introduce the concept of experience—awareness in all its kinds and modes, active and passive. The aspects of experience or experience of something are ‘experience of’ and ‘the experienced’, which are related in being parts of experience. We experience our experience as consciousness, but not all experientiality need be like higher level consciousness. The elements that make up our beings are not conscious as we are but interactively ‘add up’ to our consciousness.

Not all beings need be experiential. But from limitlessness all must be capable of it—at least elementary and low level.

Is there a further ‘kind’ beyond experience? Since experience is relational, a further kind would be relation of relation which would not be a new kind. However, there are grades and modes of experientiality. Our grade is such that we comprehend ‘grade’ and ‘mode’; we can contemplate and act on design toward higher grades; in our current manifestation we are not and most likely far from the highest.

We are experiential beings in an experiential universe.

Design

We have some awareness and knowledge of the world and its processes; we can anticipate some aspects of the future and prepare for it; we can modify the world; we can tailor our actions toward future ends. Though our designs are far from ‘total’, that we have design does not appear to be mere appearance.

Does it follow that, though raised via mechanism (though not determinism), the universe—being—can take charge or command and enter into true (self, intentional) design and thereby engage in advance (progress) and arrive at peaks of being?

The standard academic view seems to be that the universe is essentially mechanistic and that our designs are not instrumental toward universal ends.

However, limitlessness shows otherwise. Though functionally mechanistic in its elementary states, the universe is intelligently teleological in its higher states. In some higher states the function of intelligence dominates.

And we are part of that process. Whether we are and will be part of the function toward higher states and peaks—in our present manifestation—may be doubtful but is an open question.

However, our being is both manifest and nonmanifest. The peaks are not other than our being. Our total being is part of the phasing of the universe among peak and void states.

Our total being is experiential peak being.

The ultimate

In God and Other Ultimates, © Jeanine Diller, (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (recommended reading for this section), the author describes a number of models of the ultimate from Indian (South Asian), Abrahamic, East Asian, and historical and modern theological and philosophical traditions. In Diller’s essay, a model of the ultimate is a more or less specific picture of the ultimate, e.g., a particular specification of Brahman, God, or the Dao. Though the models exhibit a variety that challenges formation of a clear, true, or final concept of the ultimate, they are only a sample of historical and modern models. Questions arise (some questions are given answers alongside the question, others are given answers later in this section)—

i.	Is any of the ‘cultural’ models or combination, the true ultimate? Diller’s answer and an answer from a reading of her essay appears to be “no, it cannot be claimed from the models, that humankind has formed a true conception of the ultimate, either in the abstract or as a person-like being” (not a quote from Diller’s article). For cultural perspectives on what the ultimate is or may be, visit her article, God and Other Ultimates.
ii.	Do the cultural models point to a true ultimate? They do reflect and provide intuitions of the ultimate (over and above symbolic meaning). However, given that apparent experience of and reason about the ultimate in cultural history cannot claim to be well founded, what the models provide in terms of real meaning is tentative concepts of at most partially known objects. That is, from history, human knowledge of the ultimate is incomplete, in-process.
iii.	Is there a true model which is also ultimate—i.e., one that transcends the cultural models? Can it be known to human being(s)?
iv.	What is(are) the relation(s) between the models and the world, cosmos, or universe?
v.	What is the relation of limited (human) beings to the ultimate?

Let us now respond to the unanswered questions above.

We begin by recalling the real metaphysics of limitlessness. It entails that the universe has identity, realizes all possibilities, which include phasing between peak and nonbeing, and that our cosmos is one of limitlessly many of limitless variety. It also entails that all (human) beings realize whatever the universe does—that they do so in merging with and as peak being (which defuses the apparent contradiction that two distinct beings cannot both be the ultimate). Is our limited and unlimited nature a contradiction? No—for we are limited in a limited spacetime (cosmos) but unlimited from a perspective that transcends all particular cosmoses, locations, and epochs.

The real metaphysics entails that all self-consistent models are realized—in some cosmos. It does not follow that they are robust in the sense of stability, significance, and population from the section, a normal cosmos. Even when a model has symbolic significance it does not follow that it has real significance in this world (of course, symbols may guide action even if deficient in reality).

The ultimate model is that of limitless possibility, the universe, and (human) beings as one, peaking and dissolving without end. This is, of course, a framework, within which there are ways, paths, worlds, and limited models.

Let us describe the ultimate in terms of a picture from a brief piece on god—

The background is that it is a warm day with a mild breeze. In the distance is a highway with the hum of traffic. But here there is a sense of placid silence.

“If you are at the bank of a river teeming with life and aware of the history of life, you may get a sense of being part of it, rising from simplicity, moving toward higher states, and participating in the process, on the way to peak being.

This may be termed a ‘god process’; all beings and the world are part of it.”

This is an intuition of the ultimate of which we are part (of course many other intuitions and insights, nature and self-based, are possible and historical).

The real metaphysics shows that such intuitions are realized, and the broadened version of the metaphysics shows that this intuition is robustly realized.

Other views of the ultimate

Some views of the foundation of the world appear whimsical, e.g., the world rests on the back of a giant turtle.

Others seem inspiring to many people—the idea of a perfect god the creator, where the meaning of perfection includes being all knowing, all powerful, ultimately benevolent, and the source of all meaning (in the sense of significance).

There are contradictions in this notion of perfection but let us ignore them. Limitlessness entails that there are such gods and cosmoses created by them. Yet, (i) as argued above, the population and significance of such cosmoses is limited (ii) it is not likely that ours is such a cosmos (iii) the entire universe is not created by any being—let alone God or a god—for the demonstrated view from being implies that there is no being that is other than the universe and therefore there can be no creator unless we think of necessity as the source of being or regard the void or any being as the source of all being and (iv) there is no ultimate perfection in the traditional sense but perfection, if the idea is to be used at all, ought to mean being-in-the-process-of-moving-toward-the-ultimate.

Realization

We shall now look at making realization of the ultimate in and from our world as effectively as we may. We do so in two stages.

In the first stage, we observe that we are experiential or aware beings in an experiential universe; we have seen that experience is a relation with two sides ‘experience of’ (which we may label subjective, intrinsic, and of mind, without commitment to mind as something more than experience of) and ‘the experienced’ (labeled objective, instrumental, and of matter, without commitment to matter as something more than the experienced); and therefore there are two complementary approaches—instrumental, through science and technology and intrinsic, through transformations of self (which we may think of as spiritual endeavor, for example meditation and yoga).

Though we called them two complementary approaches they are in fact interactive and ultimately one, for, as we have seen, ‘experience of’ and ‘the experienced’ are related constituents of experience.

In the second stage, we supplement the ideal metaphysics of limitlessness with what is pragmatically valid in our traditions (instrumental and intrinsic); the ideal illuminates and guides the pragmatic and the pragmatic illustrates and is instrumental toward the ideal; the join it is not perfect in terms of received notions of knowledge, e.g., as representation; however, it is the best possible in terms of the ideal framework and otherwise the best available in process, and is thus perfect relative to the revealed ideal of ultimate realization (and may be perfectly representational in peak states). The join is thus a perfect, dynamic, and seamless system; we name it the real metaphysics

Then, effective realization of the ultimate requires intelligent use of these instruments—critical imagination regarding instrumental and intrinsic possibility; in this life we may achieve a degree of intrinsic realization, but full realization occurs beyond—either (i) immediately (probably rarely) (ii) ultimately, which may involve return of individual self to universal self and re-emergence, perhaps among the myriad cosmoses (for paths, one may refer to world religions, secular thought as in The Meaning of Life (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and its secondary references, one’s personal resources, or path templates on this site.

With our attitudes so informed, and without disregard for reason and doubt, we walk with doubt and confidence into the ultimate, while even our immediate lives are transformed.