JOURNAL – 2004
Thoughts Toward ‘Journey in Being’
From the Trinity Alps and Travels in Washington State

HOME | CONTACT

JOURNEY IN BEING

SUPPLEMENTS TO THE FOUNDATION – SEPTEMBER 2004 PRINT EDITION

ANIL MITRA PHD, COPYRIGHT © OCTOBER 2004, REVISED February 2013

Document status: February 11, 2013

Essential content absorbed to and no further action needed for Journey in Being

CONTENTS

Minor Changes  1

Planning And Revision  5

The Document 8

Minor Changes

A small number of typographical errors has been corrected and some phrases and sentences have been improved for clarity. Some of these changes are noted below. However, I am not maintaining an extensive list of the corrections. The code of abbreviations is in the SUPPLEMENT TO THE AUGUST EDITION

p.10, l-3: replace ‘lose’ by ‘loose’

p.13, ¶2, s2: delete the space before the comma

¶7: replace ‘Wittgenstein’s thoughts on philosophy as grammar’ by ‘Wittgenstein’s earlier writing on the nature of logic and his later thoughts on philosophy as grammar’

¶-1, replace ‘dotted underline’ by ‘small capitals’ and render Descartes, Hume and Wittgenstein in small capitals. After this paragraph, add

I have found the paradigms and theories of science to be extremely useful and suggestive even though I have argued that those paradigms do not project to the ONE UNIVERSE

It is impossible to do justice to the extent and variety of the influence in a text or bibliography of any length. However, I will briefly mention some important ideas that are significant in my thought and the individuals that I associate with those ideas. It is not always the case that my thought is derived from the association. Occasionally the derivation is indirect, through the writing of another individual or through the cultural milieu. Sometimes, the association has been made and has confirmed or helped to clarify my thinking after the actual process. There are times when words are suggestive – the terms introduced by earlier thinkers is a factor in channeling thought in a certain direction. Numerous associations and influences are surely omitted. The following collection of associations is illustrative and, to some extent a reconstruction of the sources of influence

I associate the name of Socrates with the importance of reflection over conclusions even though, in this essay, I have labored to make definite conclusions. Socrates’ name is also associated with the idea of living the consequences of what one thinks and believes. Combined with the THEORY OF BEING this becomes the idea, developed here, that embedded thought and action are mutually sustaining – the existence of one is a condition of existence for the other. I have been influenced by Plato’s use of the idea of POWER. Plato’s concept of POWER is one of extreme simplicity – it is the ability to have an effect. It is this concept that enables the identification of what is and what is not, i.e. what is or has being. Aristotle and Heidegger emphasized the importance of BEING. Aristotle introduced the idea of SUBSTANCES or CATEGORIES OF BEING. The ideas retain practical significance, but the concept of POWER renders them as conceptually and fundamentally unnecessary. Descartes’ contribution to the analytic method enables efficiency of thought. Spinoza’s thought that, in addition to mind and matter, nature may have an infinite number of attributes is a useful reminder on the limitation of our embedded categories of thought. Leibniz’ thoughts on the experience of a particle of being –the words are mine– are suggestive in showing that a resolution of the mind-body problem is in recognizing that we have, with Descartes, arbitrarily attributed lifelessness and mindlessness to the particles. Hume’s criticisms of a variety of forms of thought have been a spur to understand the nature of CAUSATION and other CATEGORIES OF COGNITION. Much later, in the twentieth century, Popper showed an almost obvious way to see that Hume’s criticisms do not apply to the categories of cognition but to the view of those categories as absolutes. Popper’s view, which has the advantage of a knowledge of two centuries of science since the time of Hume, is that science must be revisable in the light of new information. I have argued here that the fact that science has been subject to revision since its beginnings does not show that all knowledge –even empirical knowledge– must be forever subject to revision. This amounts to a criticism, on the style of Hume, of Hume’s criticisms. Kant introduced the importance of what, in this essay, I have labeled the IDEAL OBJECT. In doing this, Kant did not restore the categories to the status of reality but did show how to explain the categories and justify their use. Here, I have shown that symbolic knowledge of the thing-in-itself is possible but have not shown that for a finite –e.g. animal and human– mind embedded knowledge –knowledge that is immediately ready for use– of the thing-in-itself is possible. However, I have also argued that this impossibility not factual but logical and, therefore, any human desire to have complete and embedded knowledge of the NOUMENON or thing-in-itself is not rational. This, however, does not imply that a human desire to become or experience the infinite is irrational even though a preoccupation with such a desire might be labeled ‘unbalanced.’ Hegel’s concern with the absolute is a reminder to not avoid reflection on ALL BEING even while being concerned with the details. I have found Schopenhauer’s essential version of Kant’s CATEGORIES OF COGNITION, i.e. space, time, and causation to be a useful point to begin reflection on the categories. I have supplemented Schopenhauer’s system with a fourth category, that of HUMOR, to reflect the fact that, we live in a world that is only partially causal at root and in its manifestations. HUMOR is the category of cognition-feeling that is involved in the negotiation of the essentially unpredictable and the unmanageable

Nietzsche revealed the universe to be a place of ever-freshness and emphasized in a new way the limitations of received cosmologies. Although vastly different in temperament and scope, Nietzsche and Whitehead have in common an awareness of vast ranges of previous thought and their interconnections. I have learned much from their general themes of thought as well as their very specific uses of and connections among ideas. Whitehead has a sense of significance that is absent from much of analytic philosophy. The work of Frege in codifying reason and of Russell in identifying sources of paradox in naïve thought has been present in my thoughts on the ABSENCE of all things that has been so significant in developing the THEORY OF BEING of this essay. The possibility of paradox has been one of the motives to careful thought in any endeavor that refers to ALL things. The combination, in this essay, of the idea of POWER and the non-trivial concept of ABSENCE –or VOID– make possible a foundation of an understanding of ALL BEING without INFINITE REGRESS and without SUBSTANCE. A network of POWER may be seen as emanating from an individual or locale; thus, its combination with ABSENCE is a combination with an individual or local perspective with the UNIVERSAL. Wittgenstein further emphasized the need for care in the use of language and, much of his writing is an elaboration of this theme i.e. what constitutes care in a variety of contexts. Wittgenstein is exceptional for a combination of severe criticism, austerity of thought, and a sense of ultimate things. From science, Einstein’s THEORY OF GRAVITATION and the EQUIVALENCE OF MASS AND ENERGY, the QUANTUM THEORY of Schrödinger and Heisenberg, and Darwin’s theory of NATURAL SELECTION have been suggestive in arriving at some core conclusions of the THEORY OF BEING. These include that ‘something may come from nothing,’ that the process of the world is indeterministic and that essential indeterminism must result in structure. However, I have not used science in showing these conclusions to be true. The justification comes from analysis of the nature of BEING and the nature of ABSENCE and drawing conclusions from these analyses. Incidentally, this line of thought has no connection with what has been called ‘chaos theory.’ The process is analytic in the sense of Kant. Instead of drawing conclusions from the world to ideas, conclusions about the world are drawn by considering the question, ‘What is the nature of the absence of the world?’ The conflict between some of the conventional readings of the paradigms of science and the great critics such as Hume and Wittgenstein has been the instructive for or, at least, supportive of some of my thoughts

I have attempted to see whether my thoughts are nothing more than the union of the prior thought to which I have been exposed. Because the history of an individual’s thought and influence is remote and diffuse, this conclusion would be difficult to demonstrate even if it were true. However, I have not yet been able to see or to show it to be true. What I have found or experienced repeatedly, as did Plato, is that what I may have thought to be creation is discovery and what appeared to be discovery is re-discovery. There is a beautiful point where the ego becomes still and thought is sustained through its force as if carrying the thinker along with the thinking. Whether true or otherwise, the discovery of ideas has often presented as if it were the exploration of a previously unseen landscape of unanticipated clarity and beauty

p.14, h ‘The concept and structure…’ replace the entire paragraph by

There is a need for continuing review of the following topics. Is a complete foundation possible? It is argued in the essay that a complete and embedded foundation is not possible. Is the foundation complete with regard to the needs of metaphysics and the journey? What is the best ordering and reasoning out or logic of the document –the introduction, the foundation and the journey– and its topics with regard to logic or reason and the needs of exposition? The logic of the document should include consideration of those topics whose consideration is distributed over more than one location in the document. To what extent is the journey essential in being and becoming? Is there an implication that the literature over-emphasizes the roles of thought and the written word over that of action? What is the role of ‘timeless thought?’ The approach to timeless thought through thinking, action and evolution. What is the proper balance between thought and action? What are the proper balances between perception and thought, between being and becoming, and between living and seeking? It has been argued that the agent has over-emphasized her or his role in change. It has sometimes been said that human beings should not endeavor to ‘alter the course and being of nature.’ However, there may be a human nature that includes agency and, perhaps, insisting on quiescence is an attempt to alter nature. What is proper relation between the individual and the universal journey? Review the equation that Atman is Brahman. Review the adequacy of the phases of the Journey in Being as laid out in the sources above. ‘Logic’ as the central discipline [1] of necessary law, [2] a system of context-specific necessary laws or ‘logics,’ and [3] the intersection of the elements of the real e.g. journey / Journey, thought / action, subject / object, symbol / ideal object

h ‘Structure of the next edition…’ The original version was rather sparse. Replace the entire text by

Volume 1: Introduction and Foundation

The introduction will include: biography but no more than is pertinent to the journey; the nature, origins and necessity of the journey

The foundation is part of the journey and will contain the essentials of the journey and its theoretical support i.e. the THEORY OF BEING and its dynamics. The precise distribution of topics among the volumes is open but the foundation will contain essentials of the THEORY OF BEING while details of the metaphysics will be developed in the second volume

Volume 2: The Journey

Metaphysics: the relation and possible identity of metaphysics and logic which suggests and is implied by metaphysics as the discipline whose only limits are necessary limits and by logic as the discipline that expresses the outer limits of possibility. A logic as the outer limits as a kind of possibility and the implications of this consideration for a general or context free logic. The equivalence – or otherwise – of these conceptions of metaphysics and logic to the theory of the void and its consequences. The concept and resolution of a complete system of metaphysics. Classical, analytical and other recent metaphysics – including learning from the metaphysics of Africa, China, India, Latin America and non-industrialized cultures. General and physical cosmology, the place of mind in cosmology, an account of mind at the primal and the animal and human level including consideration of the categories, the functions and their integration, and the neurological support of categories, functions, and integration. Symbol, language and thought. Epistemology. The theory of group action and value

Experiments in transformation: dynamics and the theory of experiments in transformation. The theory of a complete, minimal set of experiments. General experiments, theory and experimentation with machines [computation,] and social action and theory of value [ethics and political theory and philosophy]

Biographical elements that enhance the understanding of place of the individual, the story of all being, and the relevance of individual motivation and doubt in discovery

A note on ‘psychologism:’ although the author does not subscribe to the view that the study of mental processes can provide foundation of logic, metaphysics, the dynamics, or their divisions, there is little doubt that psychology –among other factors– influences the beliefs of the individual

p.15: replace h ‘Specific topics’ by ‘Specific topics for further study and investigation’

p.33, ¶5, l3: replace ‘that nature’ by ‘the nature’

p.41, h ‘Primary implications’, ¶-1: replace this paragraph by:

Necessary and empirical aspects of LOGIC; concept of DYNAMICS of being and its identity with LOGIC; possibility of metaphysics, definition of a complete system of problems of metaphysics starting with the concepts of POWER, p.10, and the VOID, p.27… illumination and resolution of this system as discussed here and, later, in METAPHYSICS, p.59

p.68, change h ‘Bibliography’ to ‘Bibliographic Information’

p18: it looks as though there is a heading at the bottom of this page. There should be no appearance of headings on the bottoms of pages

p21, ¶-1: ‘THEORY OF BEING,’ is not ALL CAPS or 7pt. Make corresponding changes for all occurrences in the original document

p29, ¶-1: before s ‘Everyone understands…’ add ‘The argument is as follows:’

p33, ¶13: replace ‘ultimate’ by ‘limiting or ultimate’ and ‘which includes intuition and apprehension’ by ‘used in a sense in which it includes intuition and apprehension’

p40, ¶3, add after s2: ‘An inconsistent logic may be viewed either as not a logic or as a logic of no context. Such logics may be useful, especially in the case of systems whose consistency status is not known and the utility arises, in part, when the developed system has application while the inconsistency, if any, is effectively quarantined.’

s3, change the phrase, ‘it is so’ to ‘it may be so’

p42, ¶4,l3: change ‘The solipsist does not’ to ‘The consistent solipsist does not’

p44, §‘Alternative Foundation.’ ¶1: replace ‘might be’ by ‘is or might be’ and add sentence, ‘The foundation of the previous section starts with a consideration of ‘ABSENCE’ or ‘THE VOID.’ The alternative foundation starts with LOGIC. Since the CONDITION OF ABSENCE is equivalent to all contexts, and since the core of LOGIC is, in its conception, applicable in all contexts, the two foundations are equivalent. Therefore, the choice of foundation is one of preference rather than of logic.’

P45, ¶3: replace ‘Now consider’ by ‘Now, as clarification of the concept of logic, consider’

p52: add a brief comment before h ‘Mind’… (because one heading immediately after another looks awkward): ‘The purpose of this section is to discuss mind, symbol and value for beings that are similar to human being in their capabilities

p.52: Change heading, ‘Symbol and Value for Human Being’ to ‘Human Being: Mind, Symbol and Value’

p63, ¶3; replace s2 by ‘This important and difficult question has been stimulus for many penetrating advances in the history of thought on the nature of knowledge.’

s3: replace this sentence by ‘Since a response to the question is itself at the limit of knowledge, it can have no a priori external foundation.’

p63 s-1 = p64, s1 is poorly constructed; replace it by, ‘In this essay, we have seen, in the THEORY OF BEING, p.2, where it has been possible to make valid assertions about ALL BEING, that even to the limited human form of being, there are no universal, necessary or absolute limits.’

p64, ¶2: replace ‘The thrust’ by ‘A significant thrust’… replace ‘introduction of ideas and analysis of concepts’ by ‘introduction of ideas and analysis of their concepts and the possibilities of the concepts’ … add, ‘In particular, analysis of the absence of being sheds clear light on the nature, condition and necessity of being.’

12.16.2004. Modify the opening of §‘Two Divides’ as follows – note the mention of life. The first ¶s replace the final ¶ of the previous section

The application may be considered to be two-fold. At primal, general, or ultimate all possibilities are shown – in a generic way; and are shown to be necessary. At the human level, there is, above and in the following, application to the development of understanding [METAPHYSICS, p.28,] the nature and way of becoming [TRANSFORMATION, p. 31,] and to ethics [VALUE, p. 29, GROUP ACTION, p. 29, and THE HIGHEST IDEAL, p. 29]

The narrative now turns to HUMAN BEING. Although I use the word, ‘human’ I am thinking, in the following section, of human or similar being. I do not think of human being as non-animal but as a particular kind of animal being with emphasis on what may be distinctive of human being – an issue often and perhaps necessarily tinged with speculation, perspective and value. Here, I regard the capacity to have and freely generate symbols as characteristic – while it is not the only crucial stage in human evolution, it is –essential to the enabling of– human meaning and enjoyment, and what measure of control over destiny we may possess

In using the word EVOLUTION, I refer to the fact of origins, growth and development rather than to a mechanism or theory of evolution such as evolution by variation and selection. For, as noted earlier, a mechanism or theory is NORMAL rather than necessary

3.2 TWO DIVIDES in the EVOLUTION OF BEING: COSMOS and SYMBOL

The following divides, though they do not cut us off from PRIMALITY, are fundamental to HUMAN BEING

A divide or turn –turning or critical point– may be thought of as introduction of and loss of symmetry. For example, in becoming from the void the identity of ALL BEING is lost –though not absolutely– while near symmetry of form is gained

It may be useful, in a full history of being, to identify additional divides or TURNING POINTS such as the origin of LIFE [link to future discussion of LIFE]

3.2.1 Origins of a COSMOLOGICAL SYSTEM or COHERENT PHASE-EPOCH of the UNIVERSE

The origin of a cosmological system is the origin of a determinate ‘universe’ within which DETERMINATE BEING, KNOWING, and LOGIC may be possible

Although the ORIGIN of LIFE is fundamental it may, in the present discussion of divides in the origin of human being i.e. being with SYMBOLIC CAPABILITY, be thought of as continuous with the origin of this –our– cosmos

11.11.04. ‘Whereof one Cannot Speak…’ Emphasize that the original meaning of ‘Whereof one cannot speak…’ was about the limits of language –and thought– and about what it is not merely difficult to know or empirically possible to know but what is logically impossible to know. This is relevant to the thought of Kant and of Wittgenstein

Planning And Revision

Editing and Modification

VERSIONS

Long-academic-technical |short-popular

Implementation: (1) use offset, small text, footnotes, appendices to mark technical-detailed parts, &OR (2) have separate versions

EDITING, REORGANIZATION, AND CONSOLIDATION

Objectives

Think out the logic of the relations among the topics | eliminate excessive repetition, placement of individual topics in multiple locations

Bring all discussions of each topic up to date in terms of the latest ideas | introduce clarity into the individual discussions

Printing this document

Printing this document may be useful at some point toward its consolidation

Documents to consolidate

Type-scripts

Except some linked below, all documents are in the temporary folder C:/My Documents/1. World and Being/realization/being-elements-temp

The original versions link to the temporary location. When the revision of foundation is complete, documents whose function is temporary will be eliminated and the others returned to their original locations

Exceptions: 1. JOURNEY IN BEING. 2. Edit –eliminate repetition– after main revision: COVER LETTER with contact info; smaller paper size | COVER and FRONT PAGES

The documents – FOUNDATION and:

10.02.04. TEN QUESTIONS ON BEING | 11.21.04. LETTERS TO MICHAEL GREENBERG | 11.28.04. This document | 12.3.2004: OLD FOUNDATION OF APRIL 2004 | key items from JOURNEY IN BEING | OUTLINE OF EXPERIMENTS | JOURNEY IN BEING - NEW IDEAS | and NEW IDEAS SUPPLEMENTS | NEW IDEAS SUPPLEMENT 1 | PRINCIPLES OF THOUGHT

The following temporary documents: FOUNDING EQUATIONS OF MOTION | HAGGAG | I DON'T WANT TO TRANSFORM | I TAKE IT AS AXIOMATIC | LOGIC AND NATURAL LAW | SOME MATERIAL TO INCORPORATE | WHY BEING | SUPPLEMENT OUTLINE

Details of use for TEN QUESTIONS ON BEING

PURPOSE and GOALS of the Journey – questions 8 and 9

What is expected of a Theory of Being? – question 6

BEING – questions 1 and 4

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS – questions 2 and 3

COSMOLOGY – questions 4 and 5

FURTHER COSMOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES – question 7

ACTION – question 10

JOURNEY IN BEING – question 8

Regarding PRINCIPLES OF THOUGHT. Develop and incorporate the principles

From principles: first principles, history of philosophy e.g. ‘Socratic method,’ dialectic, transcendental methods including the transcendental analytic

Examples of general and special purpose principles from my sources, e.g. PRINCIPLES OF THOUGHT, how to think of mind from JOURNEY IN BEING

Some sources to use in the consolidation

11.28.2004. Use the Britannica articles and download of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles on | Charles Hartshorne – LOCAL, WEB | Alfred North Whitehead – LOCAL, WEB | Samuel Alexander – reference in ‘Process Philosophy’ – LOCAL, WEB [there are other references to Samuel Alexander in the Stanford Encyclopedia.] Also see: The Collected Works of Samuel Alexander – LOCAL, WEB | Charles Sanders Peirce – LOCAL, WEB | I may use Iris Murdoch’s, Existentialists and Mystics to better inform myself on a number of topics, especially the thought of Sartre, Camus, and Simone de Beauvoir | Dabobert Runes Dictionary of Philosophy for metaphysics, logic, cosmology and other topics | Physical foundations of logic -- Normal Equations of Motion: currently I the form of a handwritten note; see, also, Quantum Logic – LOCAL, WEB, LOCAL1, WEB1; possible resources: COMPLETE LATTICE - WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA, LATTICE THEORY -- FROM MATHWORLD, QUANTUM MECHANICS, QUANTUM THEORY: VON NEUMANN VS. DIRAC; need to integrate form, logic, quantum logic and need study of algebra in relation to lattices and rings | Use the research plans and sources from DESIGN FOR A JOURNEY IN BEING and other documents to achieve a high standard for philosophy, logic, metaphysics, cosmology, ethics (axiology,) the disciplines and the history of action

Where to incorporate – some preliminary suggestions

Charles Hartshorne – nature and meaning of God and religion…

Alfred North Whitehead – process, elements of being…

Samuel Alexander – Space, Time, and Deity

Charles Sanders Peirce – Logic, Logic of Science, Pragmatism and the reduction of the 12 Kantian categories to Quality, Relation and Representation [Note Schopenhauer’s reduction to Space, Time and Causation]

Some elements to consolidate

Pertinent elements and their philosophies: Possibility, necessity and modal logic | Process | Religion, god, space-time | Other…

How to Consolidate

SEQUENCING FOCI

1. NEED – dynamic, parallel-iterative

2. CONCEPT – by document outlines, primarily THIS DOCUMENT, FOUNDATION, 4.O4 FOUNDATION; review titles – think of alternates, choose one that makes the point and is brief and bold; LOCATE ALL OCCURRENCES OF WORDS-CONCEPTS-TOPICS

3. TASK – sequence: FOUNDATION + THIS DOCUMENT ® OUTLINE ® fill in and consolidate; ® LEXICON ® site

IDENTIFY AND OUTLINE: relevant portions of remaining documents in §‘Documents to consolidate’ of FNDN.SUPP 9.04 II. Use the PROLOGUE in the INTRODUCTION to FOUNDATION. Topics to include from JOURNEY IN BEING: from the introduction – fundamental principles, the four paths; from the narrative – the discussions of cosmology and mind and; §2 on EXPERIMENTS – start with OUTLINE OF EXPERIMENTS; and, possibly, material from §§3-4

EDIT, ENHANCE AND CONSOLIDATE OUTLINES, TOPICS AND TERMS; merge, primarily to FOUNDATION using the generated data and the suggestions below. Use the external sources above. He / she

Style and Paragraph Analysis

Plan: make a list of style issues

Headings – details need to be experimented and filled in. Aim for: suggestiveness, BOLDNESS, rigor – for depth, breadth, ADVENTURE; appeal to individual and group at all levels – informal and formal. Experiment with formatting of titles at the different levels

WORK ON STYLE: POETRY, FLOW; SIMPLICITY; enhance BOLDNESS; NARRATION; READABILITY; INSPIRATION. To make the essay more readable and narrative-like –like an UNFOLDING, an ADVENTURE, a STORY or MYTH or EPIC– write it as such. As a ‘NOVEL,’ ‘poem,’ or ‘INSPIRATION.’ To make it read as such, place details, asides in indented paragraphs, smaller print, foot or end notes, or appendices – this permits the rigor, precision and detail to remain with the dramatization. Occasionally, develop the details of the LOGIC AS A DREAM. Analyze each paragraph, section and other unit as appropriate for function and expression and modify or eliminate the unit or appropriate parts. Edit for proper and excess use of keywords and phrases, especially ‘Journey’

Link and Format

Keywords to link: above, below, earlier, later, previous, subsequent, immediate, elaborated, detail; preface, introduction, foundation (and the section titles metaphysics, logic, cosmology…,) journey in being, fundamental problems, lexicon, sources and influences, index, author

COVERS AND COVER LETTER FOR THE PRINTED VERSION

Bring into sync and eliminate excess repetition from: INTRODUCTION | Back cover | Complimentary copy – COVER LETTER

The Document

Place for Title Pages

The Text

Preface  8

Introduction  11  |  Foundation  25  |  Journey in Being  79

The Fundamental Problems  82  |  Lexicon  84  |  Sources and Influences  85  |  Index  85

The Author  85

Preface

Plan. Some redundancy, though not logically necessary is pedagogically useful. Eliminate non-functional redundancy between the preface and introduction | main text. While the main text is about the Journey (the subject,) the preface is about the essay

The preface makes suggestions that may be useful in reading, understanding and evaluating the essay

Introduction

The fundamental concerns and objectives in this essay are UNDERSTANDING and REALIZATION of the NATURE and ALL POSSIBILITIES of BEING. The title of the essay reflects the NORMAL necessity of becoming to being and fact that the achievement of the goals is in the form of a JOURNEY

What is possible includes the finite –everyday life– and the infinite. The focus on all possibilities is not an exaltation of one at the expense of the other. The finite and the infinite require and enhance one another. That is not to say that there is but one way. Every positive life illuminates all life. Nature –including human nature– and circumstance are varied and there are many ways that, together, constitute life

The conceptual side of the essay is a determination of the possibilities of being and what possibilities are ACCESSIBLE to any GIVEN BEING, especially HUMAN BEING. In achieving this goal, it has been necessary to study and build upon the traditions of thought – especially METAPHYSICS, LOGIC and COSMOLOGY. The theoretical objectives have been satisfactorily achieved in this essay. Since some possibilities may be undesirable and others remote, it has also been necessary to study and reflect on ETHICS and FEASIBILITY. Feasibility sets limits on what is ethical in a number of ways; and ethics conditions views on feasibility in that there is sense to devoting some energy to less feasible but more desirable or valuable objectives.

The experimental side is concerned with realization of the possibilities. It has been necessary to assimilate the histories of ACTION and realization as a foundation for the realization. The experimental investigations are currently in process and the essay describes the what has been achieved so far and the path ahead

What are the possibilities and limits of transformation of any being? A short version of the response in this essay is as follows. Many limits that are considered to be absolute are actually limits of probability or feasibility and may be considered to be normal or practical limits. The only absolute limits are necessary limits – ones whose realization would violate logic i.e. the constitution of being. Thus the transcendence of normal limits is not impossible but normally improbable or infeasible. An objective of the development –conceptual and experimental– is find ways to bring the infeasible into the realm of the normal. That this goal is not purely magical is suggested –though not proved– by the observation that a number of alchemist’s dreams from the past are realized in science

In addition to the objectives of realization, it is a further conceptual and experimental goal of this essay to show that the objectives are feasible

Outline

Plan. Integrate aspects of the following with the topics of the Outline. The topics should be distributed among the sections to minimize repetition. The PREFACE is about the document. The INTRODUCTION narrates the origins, main goals and motivation – for the journey and system of ideas which are here outlined in less technical terms than in the two main sections. The FOUNDATION provides a conceptual basis for the journey: a sketch of the total metaphysics; analysis of knowledge – its nature and function, relation to becoming (action) and extent to which independent foundation is possible. JOURNEY IN BEING describes the journey – systematic and chance. A variety of topics, all integral to the journey, are developed: some were begun in the FOUNDATION or earlier while others are new. The topics include: the metaphysics – being and mind; general and physical cosmology; analysis of human being and theory of value; understanding and transformation. What has been accomplished so far leads into what remains of the journey. The main text is followed by a number of supplements and aids to reference. There is a systematic outline of FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS that includes plans for further study. A LEXICON that shows the mutual influence-in-process among the THEORY OF BEING or metaphysics and the constituent concepts. SOURCES AND INFLUENCES lay out my personal sources and reconstructs the influence of the literature and the cultural milieu on my thought. Finally, the INDEX locates the discussions of the various concepts in the text

The essay has three main sections – an INTRODUCTION, p.4, a FOUNDATION, p.4, and a NARRATIVE, p.4, of the Journey. The introduction is less formal than the other sections. A number of supplementary sections assist in understanding and reference

The INTRODUCTION narrates an outline of the Journey – the origins, main goals, motives, and reasons for the approach taken including the use of the concepts of JOURNEY and BEING. The origins of the Journey include a personal story. Although the personal narrative is of interest to me, I have suppressed the purely personal and focused on what is useful to the objective of realization

The FOUNDATION provides a conceptual framework for the Journey. The primary topics of the foundation are metaphysics or the theory of being, theory of knowledge, logic, and cosmology. These primary topics enable the development of a description human mind that includes structure, function and growth. While understanding is one of the objectives, the other main goal is transformation. The primary topics provide an approach to transformation and the description of mind enables a design of a ‘complete, minimal system of experiments in transformation.’ As experiment, transformation is necessary to the development of understanding. However, transformation is intrinsically important – meaning not only the transformation of the arrangement of the world but also of the form of being, of the individual. The theory includes an understanding of becoming in general, of the nature of purpose, and of consciously undertaken and purposeful transformation. A journey is necessary not only because process is essential to discovery and transformation but also because enjoyment of the process is at the foundation of purpose. The foundation establishes the contexts of all being and of human and animal being, it justifies its own structure as well as the structure of the journey

The JOURNEY is a NARRATIVE of three interweaving journeys. These journey-threads are the individual but not necessarily personal, including a foundation; the human; and that of all being. Here, there is a more complete account of the ideas established in the foundation. The narrative covers KNOWLEDGE, METAPHYSICS as the THEORY OF BEING, EXPERIMENTS IN TRANSFORMATION, EXPERIMENTS WITH METHOD (algorithms, computation, and machines,) and SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY and TRANSFORMATION

The supplementary sections begin with a systematic outline of FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS, p.4. The list of problems shows what has been accomplished and assists in reviewing whether certain issues deemed essential to the development have indeed been adequately addressed. The set of problems also includes issues that merit further reading, study and exploration; these include TRANSFORMATION of being. The fundamental problems are followed by a LEXICON, p.4, whose purpose is to show how the basic concepts form a fluid system in interaction with the idea of being developed here; a discussion of SOURCES AND INFLUENCES, p.4, that lists personal sources and a reconstruction of the influences on my thought; and, an INDEX, p.4, of concepts

Function of the Essay

… in relation to the Journey

Relation to the Journey, the longer documents and the website

Brief INTRODUCTION TO THE JOURNEY IN BEING. I thought this could be done well –best– by focusing on the MOTIVATION and PURPOSES, the FOUNDATION, and a BRIEF OUTLINE OF THE JOURNEY, what has been done – ACCOMPLISHMENT THUS FAR, the SYSTEM OF EXPERIMENTS and REFERENCE TO THE LONGER NARRATIVE

Reading the Essay

Plan. Review the following paragraphs, and those to  be included from the original document. Review criteria: the main topics identified – comments on style and need for repeated reading and so on, brevity, coherence, non-repetition, sequence of argument, coherence among the paragraphs…

In writing this essay, I have attempted to be rational at every step. ‘Rationality’ as used in this essay includes reasonability and emotion; the meaning of this inclusion is explained in the text. That a text is step-wise rational does not mean that it forms a coherent whole, or that the conclusions and imperatives are either significant or feasible. The coherence, significance and feasibility are revealed in the text as a whole; and this is best appreciated by reading the essay twice

10.20.04 – remainder of this paragraph. Add comment that, in a fundamental view, not only does the world-view change, grow… but EVERY WORD –CONCEPT– MUST CHANGE AND GROW AND TRANSFORM IN ITS MEANING. Prime examples are the words INDIVIDUAL, BEING and LOGIC. It is not merely that the WORLD VIEW CHANGES or grows; rather the SCOPE OF VISION GROWS, EXPANDS and MORPHS; and, further, the growth or morphing is not at all only AT THE OUTER SPATIAL edges but also at the INNER CORE. Take the BEING OF THE INDIVIDUAL. In one COMMON AND STANDARD VIEW, the individual is a RELATIVELY FIXED quantity. Of course the individual has a LIFE, is BORN, GROWS, DECLINES and dies. However, these limits define the TEMPORAL boundaries of the individual on the standard view in which the ‘skin’ of the individual is also the SPATIAL boundary. There are other BOUNDARIES in the standard view such as LIMITS ON ABILITIES. In a more INCLUSIVE VIEW, the individual is not fixed and is in flux; the boundaries of the individual are not absolute and the individual may be seen as a TRANSIENT ELEMENT of more INCLUSIVE BEING even while the individual may not experience its participation in that being. In an expanded perspective, the ‘standard individual’ may experience a more COMPREHENSIVE AND DUAL VISION, seeing

‘A MOUNTAIN AS A RIVER AND A RIVER AS A MOUNTAIN’

It follows that even the MOST BASIC, the MOST COMMON and the MOST FUNDAMENTAL WORDS receive NEW MEANING or UNDERSTANDING, NEW LIGHT. Such words include ‘IS,’ ‘NOUN,’ ‘THING’… This is in no way contradictory to the idea that meaning is found in USE –SENSE and ANALYSIS of meaning is not distinct from use– for it may equivalently said that USE EVOLVES. This EVOLUTION OF MEANING –of sense and REFERENCE– and of use is essential in the transition from one context to another regardless whether the transition is a reduction, a simple change, or an expansion in scope. It is therefore a guarantee that the reader will not understand the essay if he or she is not willing to, at least temporarily, relinquish her or his cherished and often hard earned understanding. This is another reason that the essay should be re-read in order to permit the best understanding

While every significant word has a new meaning or understanding, the old meaning is not completely abandoned but nor is it maintained as it was – even in its ‘original’ realm, new significance may be found. The INTERACTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW, the POSSIBLE AND THE REAL is a source of FERTILITY in the UNDERSTANDING OF THE REAL. Examples of such words include BEING, POWER and ERROR. The POSSIBILITY and ACTUALITY OF METAPHYSICS is a testament to the fertility bound within the idea of being. Power, the ability to have an effect also has meaning as in the phrase ‘will to power’ and there is a relationship between the immediate and the primal meaning. Additionally, in the THEORY OF THE ABSENCE, there is a new understanding of EFFECT, and so of CAUSE and POWER; this has implications for the immediate meaning. ERROR, in an essential sense, is essential to TRANSFORMATION

On Style

Plan: make a list of style issues

Implement and, perhaps, mention the following. Unless I implement the following change, comment on the personal and the impersonal: when are they indicated? Change ‘AUTHOR’ to ‘I’? If I make this change, the comment on ‘I’ vs. ‘author’ may be eliminated. It may remain because the point is significant. If I retain the comment I should modify it to explain the suppression of the formal ‘THE AUTHOR’

10.7.04

Comments or further comments on ‘PERSONAL’ vs. ABSTRACT LANGUAGE [I/author] and content. VALUE OF ABSTRACT LANGUAGE in impersonal contexts. E.g. in physics, the personal may be appropriate in popular writing or autobiography. In Journey in Being, the IMPORTANCE OF THE PERSONAL occurs in the following ways. First, the Journey is about the relation between the individual and the universal. My Journey is a data point. Thus there is a place for both kinds of content here. Additionally, my journey is a point of contact – in terms of what may be learnt from journey and in terms of resonance with the story

I have alternated between ‘I’ and ‘the author;’ similarly, there is an alternation between ‘you’ and ‘the reader,’ and ‘you, the reader.’ I am tending to ‘I’ and ‘you’ not in relation to arrogance or humility but, simply, because of the novelty of meaning. In cases where my meaning is equivalent to the putative / conventional meaning, I may use the phrases ‘the author,’ ‘the reader’

Make the comments about the lack of systematic references succinct

Issue. Should I include the following – or implement it without comment? Add a comment about the history of language i.e. that some languages –e.g. Old German– contain or contained a common as well as masculine and feminine forms of the pronouns? Add another comment about the linguistic, political and ideological significance of this issue?

Comment on SHE / HE, HER / HIM, HERS / HIS. I prefer ‘she or he’ to ‘THEY,’ ‘hers or his’ to ‘THEIRS’ and so on. In the first instance of an occurrence of a pronoun, I have placed the FEMININE form first –MASCULINE second– and have, thereafter, alternated the order of placement. Implement the comment

Introduction to the Journey in Being

‘ARE YOU AFRAID?’ HE asked

‘No!’ I replied

‘You should be!’ HE said

‘Afraid of the INFINITE, you mean?’

‘Afraid of infinity!’

‘Men FEAR the infinite because it is larger than the FINITE which they KNOW and fear
But the infinite is NON-BEING; it is inconceivable to fear the infinite: a MISTAKE OF IDEAS
Only the finite can be felt or feared or LOVED
THE FINITE IS MOST LOVELY and most fearful!’

‘You contradict yourself a thousand times!’

‘Every motion contains its OPPOSITE
A circle begins at any point; and comes back to the same point!’

Planning. Review this title. Alternatives are ‘INTRODUCTION,’ ‘INTRODUCTION TO THE JOURNEY IN BEING,’ ‘AN INDIVIDUAL JOURNEY,’ ‘MY JOURNEY IN BEING,’ ‘MY JOURNEY AND ITS RELATION TO BEING,’ ‘THE ORIGINS OF THE JOURNEY IN BEING.’ I prefer the current version because it implies an introduction to the journey, its place in being, and, from the TABLE OF CONTENTS, the personal version

Some comments

10.06.04

Refer to the PROLOGUE to JOURNEY IN BEING

Will contain the main conclusions emphasized briefly, starkly and prominently

EVERY SIGNIFICANT HUMAN PROBLEM

EVERY SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS i.e. of the THEORY OF BEING and, by implication, of every actual being and kind of being

Topics may be as follows

Add comment: In the beginning I emphasize the INTUITION regarding the journey and its dimensions; justification, logic come later in the section ‘Foundation’ and elaboration in the section ‘Journey in Being’

10.22.04. Indicate why the introduction is long: it brings the ‘general reader’ into the discussion, and it is the place where the individual is emphasized in a personal way. Additional comments below in the section ‘The Value of the Personal.’ [The section on the Journey revisits the individual in its integration with the universal]

Possible topics:

Note that the topics, ‘What is the Journey in Being,’ ‘Motivations and Objectives,’ ‘Origins of the Journey in Being’ are not completely independent

INTRODUCTION | OUTLINE

Plan. Changes are needed to the relation between the Preface and the ‘Introduction to the Journey…’ The outlines of the two sections and the changes are below. It is important to maintain a charismatic appeal in these two sections

Topics From the Preface

Plan. There are two possibilities for the preface. One is to keep it; the second is to incorporate it here in the ‘Introduction to the Journey…’ In either case, changes are necessary and the changes are similar in each case. The changes including what will depend on the choice are given below

I am leaning toward. Keeping the preface. This is because the topics ‘Function of…’ and ‘Reading the…’ are necessary [?] but out of place here

Introduction

Most of the detail will go to the section, ‘Objectives and Trajectories…’ If the preface is retained, I might eliminate this heading and combine the preliminary comment before the heading with a one line summary of the ‘Introduction.’ If I keep the preface, there will be a reference to the detailed treatment in the ‘Introduction to the Journey…’

Outline

If the preface is retained the title might be changed to ‘Outline of the Essay.’ The section will remain mostly as it is. If the preface is incorporated here, this section might be placed after ‘What is the Journey in Being?’

Function of the Essay

This section and the next, ‘Reading…’ will remain mostly unchanged. If brought here, they may be placed in a separate subsection, ‘Introduction to the Essay’ or ‘Introduction to the / this document’

Reading the Essay

Topics From ‘Introduction to the Journey in Being’

What is the ‘Journey in Being?’

Significance of the Journey

Why ‘Journey?’ [Why Being? Has a separate section]

Origins and Trajectories (paths) of the ‘Journey in Being’

Note the addition of ‘and Trajectories (paths) ’ to the original title

Origins

Two trajectories (paths)

Ideas and transformation: evolution and materialism, search for the absolute, the theory of being… dynamics of being and transformation

Experience: what is significant is the contribution of experience and its enjoyment to ideas and transformation. Work: teaching, consulting, restaurant, healthcare including mental health. Relationships. Therapeutic relationships: learning aspects of relationships in general; being real in the presence of others – being with feeling in the moment. Living in nature: the positive aspects of being; reflection; being apart from human culture. Travel. Learning and thought: education, research, development, world of ideas; writing, construction and criticism. Seeking transformation: dreams, meditation, dynamics

Note that I am not implying that the experience is ‘necessary’ but that there is in my case a contribution to the development of the ideas and the journey in transformation. What is important is not just each experience but what is done with it

Significance of the personal story

Plan. Eliminate ‘cloying’ and overly detailed aspects. Review the significance of the personal story as it is and in the essay and this document… and include what meets the criteria

Objectives of the ‘Journey in Being’

Plan. The original title was ‘Purposes and Goals of the Journey.’ Purposes are why the Journey is undertaken; goals or objectives are the end result. One reason that the Journey is undertaken is for the end result. However, the Journey is also undertaken because it is an adventure –even though laborious at times– and for the process – the ‘results’ along the way, the in-the-moment. All this is of course included in either objective or in purpose appropriately interpreted but is not explicit. What should the title be? Perhaps ‘Purposes of the Journey’ because ‘objectives’ sounds formal, ‘goals’ seems to emphasize primarily ends, and ‘Journey in Being’ is repetitive and long. Yes, perhaps ‘purposes’ but elaborate the meanings as just done

Note. Keep only essentials in simple but charismatic language here and details to the part, ‘Journey in Being’

Origin of the objectives. While the goals are stated here, understanding and formulating the goals – generically and concretely – is part of and falls out of the journeying. An approximate analysis is: perceiving, reading ® ideas, the idea of possibility, the idea of achievement in ideas and in transformation, origin of goals ® growth of ideas and being ® the question: What is possible – for an individual, for all being? ® suggestion from myth, science, Vedanta, reflection on logic – the hypotheses: individual is equivalent to all being and all being has no limits except necessary or logical limits; and from yoga, mysticism and other transformational disciplines on the possibilities of transformation ® formal demonstration of the hypotheses in the THEORY OF BEING ® and of the related approach to transformation – the DYNAMICS OF BEING ® construction of the possible in cosmology as suggested in imagination by myth, religion, science ® journey in transformation

The Concept of Importance

Why is this concept included? If it is significant, should it be placed here? If not, where?

On Being

Where should the introduction to being go? Perhaps the following distribution: Here – an introduction to the concept of being and the bulk of the response to ‘Why Being?’ In foundation, most of development of the concept of being

Are there other topics for ‘On Being?’

Comments on the Word ‘Being’ and its uses… and the use here

What is the meaning of being? The nature of being and why the nature of being is specified by the meaning of being

Why focus on being in the study of what is real? Because, fundamentally, what is real is what exists – what is, i.e., being itself. Further, although it may be objected that even if the concept –the intension– of being is clear, the issue of what has being –the variety or extension, actual and possible and their natures– is not altogether clear and partakes of the unknown, it is this very unknown aspect that is most powerful for there is power in giving the unknown a name

Thus the focus on being is occasion for development of a foundation for metaphysics... and for (rational) enumeration and consideration of every fundamental problem of metaphysics (being) and human being

Symbol and Error

Plan. This is a long, sloppy and somewhat directionless section. A lot of my writing is like that. Not really directionless but the direction and point is lost in my meandering off into side issues (a mixture of ego and interest.) This section, however, now appears to be particularly directionless and this is because the points it was trying to make are now made so much more precisely and clearly. What are the essential points? Pin them down; eliminate unnecessary aspects; sharpen the useful ones; keep the essential points here and place the details with the essentials in the ‘Foundation’ part – perhaps together with its new sub-section, ‘Principles of Thought.’ In doing all this, it will not be necessary to retain the titles. What needs to be done with the ideas in the titles? Where should the essential ideas be placed

The essentials of this section include: there are modes of cognition in which finality with respect to completeness or precision are never finally pinned down; and there are modes in which such pinning is possible. In between the ‘extremes’ the determination of finality depends on the viewpoint. (Earlier, I argued or implied that everything was viewpoint.) Identify the various modes; identify their limitations – limitation on the incompleteness of the modes that supposedly cannot be completed and limitations on the completeness of the modes that can be completed. A primary limitation seems to be that the completeness of the modes that can be completed is either very general or not useful in real time, i.e., not of the form of knowledge-in-action; however, these limitations are somewhat theoretical and it is found that the theory of being developed has significance for areas of being otherwise –perhaps previously– thought to be inaccessible to knowing and transformation. This is the fundamental message of the theory of being. The limitation that is transcended is one that is held both in common and normal scientific sense but is certainly not a rational limit and certainly various individuals –the makers of myth and art and literature, the great charismatic figures of religion and human action, scientific revolutionaries– have questioned such limits in various ways. Should the title of the section still be ‘Symbol and Error?’

Mind and Error

Mind, Thought, Language

The Hard Problem of Knowledge

The Possibility of Positive Judgment

On Criticism

Planning. This section, ‘On Criticism’ was not in FOUNDATION. It seems to fit here and its essential details should also fit into ‘Principles of thought.’ Details are considered in this outline because the idea is new. The planning points under ‘Symbol and Error’ apply here

FOUNDATION has considered the negative judgment and taken up the assertion that ‘the negative judgment is the peak of intellect.’ However, is their truly such a thing as ‘negative judgment?’ Is not all judgment positive?

Some thoughts on the nature of criticism

Before life, there were no ideas –valid or invalid– on earth. (Here, idea does not include perception.) Ideas did not originate from criticism but from having ideas. The ‘original idea’ was a hypothesis or speculation. Without the idea, there is nothing to criticize. Without criticism, there can be no validity to the hypothesis or speculation. There is no progress in conceptual or theoretical knowledge without both speculation and criticism

In formal theories and application of criticism, hypothesis and criticism are often viewed as distinct

In actuality, while forming hypotheses –while speculating or imagining– criticism is always present either explicitly in the ‘back of mind’ or implicitly in the quality of the hypotheses

Criticism is present at all levels

… and must be held in check sufficiently to allow the development of lines of thought

Criticism alone does not produce criticism or indicate when criticism is effective; speculation is necessary in the production of efficient critical thought and approaches

Criticism must be subject to criticism; must be self-referential

Proper combinations of critical and speculative thought lead to much more effective hypothesis and creative thought than speculation alone; and to much more critical thought and critical tools than the critical attitude alone

Aspects of criticism

Question of an intrinsic function of cognition. The introduction will consider the question, for example of whether the function of cognition is knowing or knowledge or whether there is an underlying dynamic of the instruments of cognition in adaptation of which the cultivation of a system of knowledge –practical, theoretical and interpretive– is a useful but specialized example that has a specialized apparatus and creates its own context which appears as a universe

Contextual surrogates for the universe. Contextual universes whose character is such that they are often taken as the entire universe

The problem of infinite regress in analysis of the faithfulness of representation. In some modes or according to some models of representation, the analysis of the faithfulness –what makes it valid– never comes to an end; on the utilities of such analyses; on their limited applicability; and how, although the analyses have utility, the underlying models are based on a picture of cognition which also has utility but that neither the picture or the utilities are necessary even though they lead to elaborate and powerful results; that even within the picture there are sub-pictures that may avoid the criticisms; and that the way out of the necessity, the grip, of the regress is to recognize its relative or contextual nature: that it contributes to life but that good living does not require it to be absolute… and that there is a universe of being, of living and, even of striving –although striving is also contextual– beyond it

Realization: the Journey Continues…

The purpose of this section is an informal review of where the Journey stands. It is at the ‘cross roads’ between ideas and transformation… is ‘cross roads’ a good metaphor – what would be better

Ideas: Being and Aspects of Being

Transformation

The Central Conceptual Issues

What is this section about? Isn’t it part of the appendix-like section ‘The Fundamental Problems’ and, if so, should it go there

Summary

Why a summary? Probably because, in the original version of the essay the ‘Introduction’ was sloppy

In this outline, items in red were not in the relevant sections at the time I made the outline; the topics may be in the original document, FOUNDATION, but not necessarily at a corresponding location

February 23, 2005. Needs work: as of this date, the following points are some elements of the outline but need completion and sequencing

What is the ‘Journey in Being?’

‘JOURNEY IN BEING’ is the Journey of all Being; and the story of the universe

Planning. To the following from FOUNDATION, consider adding comments to the effect that the individual in question is the generic individual; that only in the introduction is the account explicitly mine; that §Foundation is abstract; that §Journey emphasizes the relation between the –generic– individual and the story of all being although my journey is in the background; that the story of being includes all knowledge and that the journey in being includes all realization or becoming and travel through all being; and that, here, the story emphasizes and the journey of realization and transformation seeks, the relation between the individual and all being. Planning. Keep only essentials here and place details and logic of the structure of the journey in §Journey. Planning. Also consider making the indicated changes

‘Journey in Being’ is the name of two essentially interwoven journeys and their stories or narratives – an the individual journey and the journey of all being

The first is an individual story journey – that of the author’s travels in being where transformation and understanding interact. Understanding shows what is possible and guides experiment in action and transformation. A greater understanding of the universe – of being, brings a greater degree and variety of being into the realm of what is known to be possible. This connects to the second story

The story journey of being – of the one universe requires no motivation to be told. Being is known through its possibilities. Being is conceived in its aspect as a Journey. That is, the trajectory is more a meander than a linear path. Understanding and design interact with chance and undirected change

Individual / whole

The universe is THE ONE UNIVERSE: ALL BEING

Journey in Being is not less than any study or inquiry – into the meaning and nature of all being or of any particular being, than science, art, technology, myth and religion… or into any particular action – exploration, conquest… Journey in Being includes transformation of the very nature and being of any particular being and of all being in any particular manifestation. Thus Journey in Being is conceived as the greatest undertaking and the greatest be-ing. And, while ‘Journey’ does not exclude any approach, it emphasizes a certain approach that is derived from the nature of being itself – that being is not static, and that the dynamic or transforming aspect of being is not fully predicted – it is not a path or a tour: becoming – an essential aspect of being in which the nature of entities is determined – is a Journey

Add comment, perhaps in association with existing comments on ‘meander,’ about the growth of the concept and the purposes of the journey and the need for openness and to avoid rigid attachment to earlier objectives and plans. That the transformation of plans and objectives is almost essential on account of new revelations from the learning and revelation in the journey itself. I.e. that the journey is undertaken implies that it will transform. That this does not eliminate the significance of objectives and plans but argues against rigid attachment to a specific set of plans

The following more technical version requires preface with a simple, bold non-technical version

‘Journey in Being’ has two primary goals

A fundamental goal is to experience the LIMITS OF THE INDIVIDUAL; this defines the question, ‘What are the limits of an individual being?’ or ‘How far can an individual go in the REALIZATION OF ALL BEING?’

REALIZATION includes knowing and becoming which includes TRANSFORMATION INTO ANOTHER KIND OF BEING

Transformation –EXPERIMENT– is essential: it is more basic than knowing. However, knowing is meaning; a guide to and in interaction with realization

The second basic question or goal regards ENJOYMENT. Enjoyment is sublime. Enjoyment of the present is great; excluding pain excludes joy. Enjoyment of the present is not altogether distinct from enjoyment of realization. REALIZATION, ADVENTURE and KNOWING are FORMS OF ENJOYMENT – emotion is not distinct from knowing i.e. cognition

THERE IS ONE KIND OF ENJOYMENT – it is enjoyment. ENJOYMENT OF BEING and ENJOYMENT OF BECOMING are identical

‘Journey in Being’ began as my Journey; it began in awe and wonder in being and its variety – revealed in the world, told in words. In the beginning there was enjoyment and not questions, not the word ‘being.’ Enjoyment led to its cultivation; cultivation to search for knowledge –understanding– and then for transformation; and, later, I came to prescribe the search by fundamental goals and questions

…

The ‘UNIVERSE’ signifies ALL BEING i.e. that which is necessarily SELF-CONTAINED IN ITS BEING AND BECOMING – but not in its being without becoming. BECOMING IS ESSENTIAL TO BEING

To achieve the goal of realization, the individual must RETRACE, to the extent possible, in KNOWLEDGE and ACTION, the JOURNEY OF ALL BEING

Thus, ‘Journey in Being’ refers to AN INDIVIDUAL JOURNEY –in this introduction I emphasize my journey– and to the Journey of All Being

In FOUNDATION, p.10, I [endeavor to] show the identity of these journeys i.e. that there is but one Journey in Being, that the individual may realize all being. Naturally, possibility is not feasibility and FOUNDATION develops the necessary theory to establish possibility and evaluate feasibility and its significance. JOURNEY, p.26, is a working out of realization of what has been shown to be possible

ORIGINS of the ‘JOURNEY IN BEING’

Origin of the Journey: various individuals have an ORIGIN or origins – a human being, a PHASE-EPOCH OF BEING [the universe,] but it is not assumed that ALL BEING has an origin… or that it does not. It appears, from the THEORY OF BEING, that there is no ORIGIN to all BEING

The idea of the Journey: GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT, and therefore TIME, as essential to BEING AND MEANING. Comment: this does not diminish BEING-IN-THE-PRESENT. Whereas I have previously emphasized being-in-the-present in balance with the journey, seeking and transformation I can also see being-in-the-present as a phase of the journey, a phase of enjoyment and which includes preparation for the next phase both in terms of awareness-understanding and preparing for action

In the live of the individual: the individual comes to realize that she or he is on a journey… and then comes to cultivate the journey and its dimensions and possibilities

Significance of the personal story

Significance to the outcome; what can be learned

Incorporate

My LEARNING. The following is a beginning

Here, the significance is the connection between my story and ‘the Journey’… and the PURELY PERSONAL, my journey, my learning: although not biographical and although I intend to include only what is relevant to development of the ideas, to the Journey, the personal has the following additional function: it may be inviting, assuring, a point of connection and the open function – I don’t know precisely what will be useful: here I may use my intuition

Except brief allusion or reference, the learning – as follows, for others and for the Journey may be placed in the second main section ‘JOURNEY IN BEING’

10.22.04 – this section. Note that the following material is new – there may be some reference to it in foundation: consolidate

Extended PERCEPTION VERSUS JUDGMENT. Seeking / OPENNESS to NEW VISION, IDEAS, DIRECTIONS, OBJECTIVES

PERSISTENCE – despite doubt and incomplete happiness. What is the significance of ‘incomplete happiness’ for the understanding, the nature of the understanding, and its place in the total ‘mental’ life of the individual?

DOUBT and ASSERTION

INTUITION and REASON

ANALYSIS, REALISM, HOLISM – and how ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY and CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY create ENVIRONMENTS THAT SEEM TO BE THE WORLD. This is done in much more limited settings

MULTIPLE EXPERIENCE / BROAD EXPERIENCE

Problems of RADICAL CRITICISM

Problems of EXCLUSIONARY THINKING

PURPOSE and GOALS of the Journey

Use questions 8 and 9 of TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING

The ultimate purpose of the journey

It is not assumed that PURPOSE is intrinsic to all being – or that it is not. Instead, any intrinsic purpose will be derived:

IS PURPOSE INTRINSIC TO ALL BEING?

In its ultimate purpose, the Journey recognizes only NECESSARY LIMITS

While individual beings have purposes, these are not assumed to constitute the purpose of all being. The purpose of all being may be regarded to be the sum or the union of all purposes – and both. However, it should be recalled that a concept, whether as intuited or in its local sense or in extension to the primal, is –unless known or proven otherwise– never given but experimental… as part of a FIELD OF CONCEPTS. This is true also of PURPOSE

Thus, the ULTIMATE PURPOSE will be the knowledge and REALIZATION OF ALL BEING; there is NO PURPOSE OF BEING OUTSIDE BEING. This entails the questions of what is POSSIBLE, what is FEASIBLE, what is of VALUE for all being… not merely because ‘ALL BEING’ illuminates ‘HUMAN BEING’ but because ALL BEING IS THE LIMIT OF HUMAN BEING

It will, of course, be necessary to demonstrate the truth and the significance of the assertions

The purpose will include TOUCHING EVERY ESSENTIAL PROBLEM OR ISSUE OF HUMAN BEING –of life, of realization and, trivially, of the disciplines– and this will be necessarily done within a FRAMEWORK OF ALL BEING i.e. within a framework of the THEORY OF BEING. It may be argued that even if there is no purpose to ‘TRANSCEND’ human being, the best UNDERSTANDING and REALIZATION of the immediate possibilities of human being occurs within the UNIVERSAL FRAMEWORK

Some comments on the MOTIVATION – and my motivation

11.1.04 – applies to these comments on motivation

1. While there is a tradition of IDEALISM [INDEPENDENTLY STANDING KNOWLEDGE is possible; modified in REALISM to knowledge of the OBJECT-AS-IT-IS; modified by –scientific– EMPIRICISM to emphasize the origin of knowledge in EXPERIENCE… these comments are not endorsement of realism or empiricism] the thesis here is that while a form of complete ideal knowledge [symbolic] is possible, it does not seem that this would be EMBEDDED. By ‘embedded’ I mean a DYNAMIC KNOWLEDGE that is available for use without reference –excessively delaying reference– to processing. As far as embedded knowledge is concerned, knowing and acting require one-another for their being: knowing is possible when there is a repeatable structure to ACTION. This is not the thesis that knowledge should be practical or acted upon to give it validity

The nature of embedded knowledge includes that knowledge which is not separated, and may not be separable, from the LOOP OF KNOWING AND ACTING. I have said that it appears that absolute embedded knowledge may be impossible. It would make more sense to say that absolute embedded knowledge does not have meaning

It is essential to note that any distinction such as EMBEDDED-ACTION vs. SYMBOLIC-KNOWING, while fundamental in some senses is arbitrary in others. The arbitrariness derives – at least in part – from the lack of complete distinction between the embedded and the symbolic

2. The Journey seeks all being as realization and becoming and an essential aspect to this, in addition to the knowing-acting-transforming dynamic is the individual-universal interplay which includes the origin of the journey

3. A foundation of the above is possible as in the section, FOUNDATION

4. ENJOYMENT, adventure… sub-journeys as part of the journey. The PRINCIPLE OF MEANING. My LIFE AS ADVENTURE

The Concept of IMPORTANCE

The objective of the ‘Journey’ is to realize what is possible

Although the goal is ultimate sense, it appears to be remote and devoid of meaning for human or any other given being. The objectives include showing [1] that the objective can be achieved by human or sufficiently similar being, and [2] elaboration of the significance and ramifications for all being, especially human being and society. The achievement of ultimate goals does not exclude enjoyment of life, of the immediate; the ultimate and the immediate are bound together in enjoyment, in meaning and in achievement

In achieving this goal, knowledge and understanding are important –necessary– but not sufficient. Action –transformation, becoming… a journey– is also necessary

Surely some possibilities are extremely remote and some are undesirable. A proper objective is to realize what is possible within the boundaries of what is practical or FEASIBLE and ETHICAL

An impossible objective cannot be realistically desirable. However, pursuit of less practical but possible goals may be preferred when their value is sufficiently great. A MORAL individual is one for whom DESIRABILITY and morality are identical; however, what is moral or ethical is not given but its discovery, which builds upon the traditions of ethics, is a part of the Journey

In asking what means and objectives are ethical, the question of the meaning of ethics, morality, VALUE, desirability, and importance are at least implicit

ON BEING

Planning. The topics should be distributed among the sections to minimize repetition. This applies, especially to the discussion of being here and in FOUNDATION

Planning. The following topics –from the meaning of being to religion– are treated formally and more completely in the foundation and the narrative for the Journey. The inclusion here is as part of the plan to provide motivation for deployment of the concept of being through a non-technical overview of the idea and what may be learned from its consideration. A note should be added to the text that, while the theory of being can be given an external motivation –so as to enhance understanding, so as to provide incentive to study and deployment– there is a sense in which the theory provides its own motivation. The topics are all currently Heading 3 style: this enables comparison of and sharing among the discussion here and in the other chapters. In the final version of the essay, the Heading style will be eliminated and the discussion of the topics may be condensed to a few paragraphs; useful material not used here will have FOUNDATION as its most likely destination

Here explain the function of being as that which exists or the property of existing. As the UNION OF ALL BEING it is MOST FUNDAMENTAL and MOST BASIC; as INTERSECTIONS OF CLASSES OF BEING it is the most ‘refined’ or ‘HIGHEST’ in its potential as a tool for understanding

Asking ‘What is the meaning of BEING?’ and ‘Why BEING?’ as a foundation for understanding are tied together and further illuminate the choice of the title ‘Journey in Being’

On Being: the topics

Planning. The topics were Heading 3 style but have been changed to underlined, Normal because Heading 3 is not necessary here. The purpose is to provide an outline to give an overview of the foundation and the journey as preliminary and to complement the motivation. As noted above, the content should be distributed among the sections. What is retained here should address the purpose just note. For reference, the topics are

What is –the meaning of– BEING?

Here, this question can be replaced by the simpler, ‘What is being?’ whose answering entails also answering ‘What is the meaning of being?’

Comments on the word ‘BEING’

Focus on Being

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE METAPHYSICS AND SO ON… AND CONSIDERATION OF EVERY FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM

SYMBOL and ERROR

Discussion of the symbol and the significance of error. The possibility of an end to error

Planning. Considerations similar to those for the previous section, ON BEING, are pertinent here

Planning. What is the significance of this section? What is its essence? Why symbol and error? What is the connection? Am I focusing on symbol here or error? If error, then why symbol? Is it not symbol, the free symbol to be precise, that allows ‘error’ to have meaning i.e. ‘rational control’ over ‘variation’ and, so, make error possible? How does it relate to the main thrust of the narrative / journey? Should it be maintained? In its parts or as a whole? Where should it / the parts be placed?

MIND and ERROR

The term ‘JUDGMENT’ implies the possibility of error. I see a mountain, I estimate its height. The estimate may be wrong and is subject to correction. I see the contours and shape of the mountain; I take in its quality –the terrain and shades of light– but what is the mountain? Does not science inform me that the mountain is ‘really’ an accumulation of atoms and forces? Yes, of course, there is more to the mountain than I perceive but it is not merely that my perception may be improved by incorporating science. There is a sense in which my PERCEPTION CREATES THE MOUNTAIN by having the ability to perceive ‘mountain-hood.’ Thus KANTIAN IDEALISM deals with the problem of knowledge by dealing with OBJECTS AS IDEAL OBJECTS

This leaves us in an uncomfortable position. We never know the THING-IN-ITSELF. That is not quite true because we can form and test hypotheses thus creating theories. But the distinction remains between embedded –ideal– and theoretical knowledge, between –the Wittgensteinian concept of– philosophy and science

We will deal with the problems in greater detail later. Here, the following may be observed. The source of discomfort may be seen in the desire to verify knowledge as positive knowledge. However, this requires getting outside our system of relations with the world i.e. outside knowing. This appears to be impossible. But what is impossible cannot be intrinsically desirable. The desire is based on a false conception of the nature of knowing from, e.g., the acuity of perception and the success of science

The original function of ‘cognition’ is not knowing but –mutual– action. Knowing, as in analysis, as in science, is derivative. Knowing this we live in enjoyment. The fact of analysis, of science may improve ‘function’ but does not provide us with an ultimate vantage point on knowing. And the reason that it does not do that is not because of simple i.e. correctible error but because ‘KNOWING THE EXTERNAL OBJECT’ is NOT IN THE NATURE OF KNOWING

Knowledge of the external object is not in the nature of knowing because knowledge is in the knower – or, perhaps more accurately in the relationship between knower and known. Thus, impossibility of knowledge of the external object is a conceptual impossibility and not a contingent impossibility. That the knower absorbs something of the known and thus knowledge is not supra-material does not change the conclusion. That ‘the function’ of cognition is not –essentially– knowing is a further motive –over and above the fact that there should be no motive to the impossible– to not pretend or attempt to seek knowledge of the object. Note that the impossibility in question refers to the apprehension and not the comprehension. Also note that, having shown the impossibility of knowledge of the object, at once this implies a change in the meaning of knowledge which is the reason that Kant calls possession of the ideal object knowledge

MIND, THOUGHT, LANGUAGE

Fit this in

The HARD PROBLEM OF KNOWLEDGE

The problem of the POSSIBILITY OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE OBJECT –the external object or thing-in-itself– may, in analogy to what has been called the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness i.e. the mind-body problem in the case of consciousness, be called the hard problem of knowledge. These two problems have in common that they are CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS. For such conceptual problems, the CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK that is used may profoundly affect conclusions regarding the problem

Thus, for example, if we accept that (aspects of) relations among the elements of being are in the same category as awareness, there is nothing to explain regarding the conceptual aspect of the mind-body problem. This, of course, is not saying that there is no mind-body problem, no problem of consciousness. Rather, the problem becomes one of discovering and explaining where, in the body –in the organs, cells and bio-chemicals– are the loci of mind-at-the-human-animal-level, of consciousness-as-it-is-like-for-animals

In the case of knowledge, CONFUSION of the concept of the CONCEPT and the concept of the NOUMENON or thing-in-itself leads to the idea that the noumenon, but for practical difficulties, could be seen. The error is that concept and noumenon are, at the level of discourse, different categories. Which implies that there are other levels or slants in which the categorial distinction breaks down as, e.g., in free symbolic creation and as, e.g., in the view of the noumenal aspect of the concept itself

Thus these ‘hard’ problems are result of conceptual confusion or, equivalently, misuse of language. I.e. concepts or, equivalently, words have become unmoored from their context or pattern of use. Note, that it is not being said that there should be no experimentation with novel uses of words or novel words but, simply, that while such experimentation may be a source of growth in understanding, it may also be a source of error. Accordingly, review the title, function and placement of this section

The possibility of POSITIVE JUDGMENT

Notwithstanding the discussion of ERROR, investigate, here, the possibility of POSITIVE JUDGMENT

That this is not a POSITIVISM in the sense that there is some residual positive system of judgment that is the residue when all quality has been eliminated

The capacity to be right presumes the capacity to err; right presumes error; but, in the end, it may be possible to live in the right

REALIZATION: The Journey Continues…

Planning. Considerations similar to those for the earlier section, ON BEING, are pertinent here. I may want to apply the considerations to the topic ‘REALIZATION’ itself

Here just an introduction [see outline;] details for the universal and the generic individual [relation] will be in § ‘JOURNEY IN BEING’

11.16.04. Place –most of– this discussion in an appendix and or in the Introduction to the Journey… or divide it among the appendix and the Introduction to the Journey? Explain that the research topics are continuous with the development in the text

IDEAS: Being and Aspects of Being

The ‘aspects’ are special topics that have intrinsic interest and or contribute to the UNDERSTANDING of being

11.10.04. Introduce the following topics if they have not been entered as yet

 [Where the discussion of a research topic is complete the salient results should, unless they are peripheral, entered into the main text at appropriate points and the details, at least, eliminated from the research topic]

Further considerations on the present THEORY OF BEING as a foundation of QUANTUM MECHANICS – the following may repeat what is already written in this essay and in FOUNDATION. The THEORY OF BEING may provide the following kinds of –related– frameworks; in each case it will be necessary to consider what additional considerations will complete the foundation

A PROBABILISTIC FRAMEWORK

A FOUNDATION in LOGIC e.g. some LOGICAL CALCULUS

A TOPOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION of POSSIBILITY

Every QUANTUM STATE has a CREATOR / ANNIHILATOR operator

Main sources for research topics: DESIGN, JOURNEY

11.27.04. Add to what is already written on RELIGION:

The consequences of the considerations of discussions in this essay and in LETTERS TO MICHAEL GREENBERG, for religion

The functions of religion – MEANING OF FUNCTION; FUNCTION and DESIGNATED FUNCTION, MYTHIC, MORAL, SOCIAL BONDING and POWER, literal interpretations, where to go with LITERAL INTERPRETATION –FUNDAMENTALISM– a greater LEAP OF FAITH implies greater CONTROL and greater likelihood of permanence of CONVERSION [hence the PSEUDO-LOGIC of some fundamentalism,] science, logic

The sway of fundamentalism and associated pseudo-logic is eye-opening: [1] It is important, even though I have ‘shown’ the truth of the fundamentalist positions, to evaluate the nature of that truth. That TRUTH, does not demonstrate the fact in this world; and, the DESIRE or will to FAITH, in some, is so strong that the pseudo-logic is held uncritically. The pseudo-logic is communal and repeated often; it seems novel in the beginning but its apparent novelty soon pales but by that time absurdly uncritical faith has already set in. Of course, the pseudo-logic is elaborate, and anticipates and has answers for criticisms but these answers are in the mode of pseudo-logic. The pseudo-arguments use CARICATURES of the LAWS OF PHYSICS e.g. ‘According to the laws of physics, everything in nature decays’ which is supposed to imply that the presence of order shows ‘GOD’S HAND;’ or caricatures of evolution – its alleged CIRCULARITY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY, the difficulty of evolutionary theory in explaining the origins, or the impossibility of the CHANCE ORIGIN OF FORM which, again, are supposed to show the necessity of the work of God. I have written often of the errors in the arguments of circularity, CHANCE. I have not done sufficient study on the difficulty in explaining the ORIGIN OF LIFE from the PHYSICAL ELEMENTS but, the difficulty thus far –if any– does not imply the NECESSITY OF DIVINE INTERVENTION. In the first place, we do not expect an explanation in terms of standard EVOLUTIONARY THEORY and therefore the difficulty, even if real, is not a mark against the theory. Therefore, and secondly, the explanation should, if and when we get it, should come from some other place: a combination of the understanding of QUANTUM CHEMISTRY, the EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS required for the TRANSITION TO REPLICATING MOLECULES, that the possible and relative or LOCAL SINGULARITY of the event does not require non-NATURAL INTERVENTION, the meaning of local singularity i.e. that the SINGULARITY is or may be relative to the phase-epoch but not absolute or relative to the entire one universe, and analysis of the CONCEPT OF LIFE at the border between living and non-living. The relative singularity may break down in the face of an in principle explanation that is incremental rather than single step; and, note that, in the INCREMENTAL EXPLANATION ‘FUNCTION’ advances incrementally with FORM. Thus, relative to this world, the truth of the fundamentalist position is not robust. A more robust version would depend on a non-literal interpretation and or a more naturalistic story of the way the world is; it would seek to disprove not some specific mechanism –e.g. of the origin of life– but of the principles of the mechanisms in their outline application. It also needs to be noted that the arguments that the fundamentalist position directs toward the naturalist explanation applies even more severely to their own position but apparently their criteria for the literal truth of the scriptures is less exacting than their criteria for anything that argues against scriptural truth. While the fundamentalist is unforgiving with a RELATIVE SINGULARITY –e.g. one whose probability may be low even though it is not impossible, one whose explanation may be difficult to come by in detail though not necessarily in outline– in the arguments against his or her position they are quite willing to accept the ABSOLUTE SINGULARITY of, e.g., ‘God.’ [2] Even more important to me, I should examine my own WILL TO BELIEVE and its possible effect on my relation to my logic. My initial answer to this question is two-fold. First, I have been NON-JUDGMENTAL for many years and with regard to both the LOGIC and ONTOLOGY at the foundation and second, unlike both theologians and metaphysicians, even in the end in which I have allowed my self the judgment of my system, I have not posited an ontology or ontological system. Rather, THE LOGIC –OF BEING AND BECOMING– IS DERIVED RATHER THAN POSITED and goes as follows

THE LOGIC OF THE ONTOLOGICAL SYSTEM. The existence of the void is not posited but, rather, the concept of the VOID examined. It is true that there was no rational necessity to examine the void – I did not prove that the void should be examined[; this approach to ‘proof’ is standard: intuition and reason provide the concepts and positions to be examined while logic proves or disproves what was intuited.] The process is, of course, intuitive and alternates between intuition and logic [which might be better labeled rationality.] At the same time the choice was not altogether random but the outcome of extended REFLECTION ON THE WORLD, on ORIGINS and the kinds of NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION that might lead to understanding of world and its origin; I should note that the system of explanation that I have used has itself evolved and undergone profound change. However, having chosen the void for analysis the clear logic is as follows: [1] DEMONSTRATION OF EXISTENCE of an object, the ACTUAL VOID(s) that correspond to the concept, [2] LOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, guided by –though not dependent on– imagination, OF THE ONTOLOGY –thus, e.g., form, possibility, the actual, and necessity are derived concepts that are interpreted in the theory rather than introduced as ad hoc and unexplained elements of an explanatory ontology– and especially of the equivalence of all being and the void, [3] it may be thought that the development of the ontology is a logical maneuver and has no empirical origin. However there is CONTACT WITH THE EMPIRICAL at two points. First, I often take some immediate fact as given e.g. there is existence and this is self-evident from our being [and in the meaning of being.] The character of our being may also be used and this is Heidegger’s maneuver. [Note: the eliminate reference to Heidegger here but add comment in ‘Influences.’] Second, LOGIC as understood here and as applied in the development of the THEORY OF THE VOID and the THEORY OF BEING, is the abstracted substrate of all experience. Thus the THEORY OF BEING may be regarded as having two points of contact with the empirical – with experience: the immediate and particular and the universal. It is a TWO CONTACT POINT THEORY. Here, ‘point’ is used in a general sense and may include a vast amount of experience that is really many points. Along these lines, two point contact is actually MANY POINT CONTACT across the range and hierarchies of experience – of levels of inclusiveness of being. The notion of point of contact is an approximation based on a desire to know what is given as in ‘all that we have access to is a POINT OF DATA.’ Such concepts of RADICAL CRITICISM are accepted uncritically as part of the APPARATUS OF KNOWING as though the POINT is even an aspect of being. In the theory of being, the two points of contact are the immediate: POWER and the ultimate: LOGIC or THE VOID, and [4] in the fundamental interpretation where the following is found MIND AT THE CORE OF BEING, it is not mind-as-we-have-or-experience-it but an extension of the concept [it is important to also not the extension from mind as relation to mind as being.] Note the emphasis that mind is FOUND and NOT POSITED to be at the core; this requires re-conceptualization or extension of the concept of mind as discussed elsewhere in this essay; also, as discussed, this is a result and therefore not a PAN-PSYCHISM which must be –to be anything– a POSIT-ION in relation to a SPECIFIC KIND or KIND OF MANIFESTATION OF MIND

All this is in contrast to the following TENDENCIES IN CLASSICAL ONTOLOGY:

OVER-SPECIFICATION and PREMATURE SPECIFICATION of the initial fundamental ontology

In new developments, OVER CONCRETIZATION of the ELEMENTS of PRIOR THEORETICAL ONTOLOGIES and of the COMMUNAL ONTOLOGY

11.27.05. The function of FAITH

FILLING IN THE SYMBOLIC UNIVERSE (¹¹the actual universe) that is created by ‘new found’ symbolic power. ‘New found’ is relative to human evolution in which case symbolic power and capability evolve together but, still, the power of the symbol is –at least partly– in the freedom that is created; rationality is limited and therefore ‘stories’ will be invented which does not imply that the stories are untrue or that they contain no truth. ‘New found’ is also relative to individual growth in which case there is an open, unfamiliar space that some individuals may find unsettling or even terrifying. A reaction may be in conceiving the universe to be shrunken to the concept or the imagination – ‘conceiving the universe in one’s image’ [of it]

SHARED FAITH, POWER and SOCIAL BONDING; and MORALS

11.27.04. SELF-ANALYSIS, my MOTIVE to the Journey:

Combine this point with what I have already written on this topic

Attempt to expand my vision to the actual universe [the opposite of conceiving the universe in one’s image; it is admitted that escaping one’s image is not easy and there may be some inherent limitation even though I have argued that this inherence does not obtain in all ways]

ADVENTURE

That I conceive BEING AS A JOURNEY

POWER and WILL: first power is the ability to have an effect, to influence… and this is not inherently ‘control’ … ‘power’ is broad and the idea includes control even though control is not the intended connotation in all uses of ‘power.’ However, ‘power’ does include: the sense of power derived from vision, making a contribution, making a mark, influence, control, ‘in your face’ to the cultural and logical police, my development –my father, working out of expectations– others’, my own, creatively and slavishly and compulsively… The CENTRAL MEANING OF POWER at this level: development and application of one’s abilities and influence according to values [refined or raw]

11.28.2004: even though I have confidence in it, it is important to EXPOSE THE LOGIC – my logic [THEORY OF BEING.] It is years of living in the perceptive mode [Jung] that made emergence of and confidence in the logic possible. And, if the logic is in error or if there are correctible errors in it, or if it is incomplete [which it surely is at least in the sense of elaboration] then it is exposure and the mode of perception [as an arrow and not a mere inert openness] that will show the necessary error, correct the contingent errors, and provide some valuable elaboration of detail and human element

12.16.2004. Refine the discussion of EMOTION in the context of MIND

Transformation

11.10.04. Introduce the following topics if they have not been entered as yet

SOURCES AND INFLUENCES. Elaborate on the fact that the influences are largely re-constructed. It is clear that I derive power from Plato by way of Whitehead. Even here though, it seems as though the idea was already present in my thinking. In most cases it is not clear to me what the origins of my ideas are. Often the origin is not the simple reconstruction. Sometimes, it must be that the ideas have entered the culture and the words are there and once one begins to think about them the intuitive connotations, derived at least in part from the culture, channel thought. At other times, I may have had a transient idea and at yet other times may have carried an idea around for a long time before the magnitude and place of the idea became revealed. What is the process of revelation? I believe that there is a creative process in play. However, creation and discovery are duals. It is reality itself now playing the role that culture played in other cases, channeling creativity into discovery

Comment, in general way, on the influences of the DISCIPLINES – SCIENCE is already mentioned, the influence of LOGIC, PHILOSOPHY, METAPHYSICS, MATHEMATICS obvious –including ART, LITERATURE– especially POETRY, DRAMA – perhaps film, music. Also important: the history of action and exploration [of which the HISTORY OF IDEAS is a part]

The Central Conceptual Issues

Should the summary of the introduction go to the motivation, or an ‘introduction to the introduction?’ What to do with the part of the summary on metaphysics? Should it be treated differently and, if so, should it go to

Summary

Foundation: The Theory of Being

Planning. Review this title.

Possible brief titles: ‘FOUNDATION,’ ‘METAPHYSICS,’ and ‘BEING’

Two word titles: ‘BEING AND ACTION’

Alternatives: ‘FOUNDATION FOR THE JOURNEY,’ ‘FOUNDATION FOR A JOURNEY IN BEING,’ ‘FOUNDATION: ON BEING,’

Alternatives without ‘FOUNDATION:’ ‘THEORY OF BEING,’ ‘THEORY OF BEING AND ACTION,’ and ‘THEORY OF BEING AND BECOMING.’ The word ‘FOUNDATION’ may be entered thus – ‘FOUNDATION:’ e.g. ‘FOUNDATION: THEORY OF BEING AND ACTION’

‘Theory of Being’ indicates the nature of the foundation. ‘Action’ indicates that, in an essential way to be described, the foundation involves more than knowing or knowledge and understanding alone and that for transformation, action or trial or experiment –and correction and learning– is required: trial remains ever in inter-action with knowing and understanding… and that there is occasion for pure action. Without action there is no knowing; without knowing there is –logically– no action: change without awareness is not action. Action also hints at ‘The Journey,’ which, as suggested in the introduction and shown here, is necessary to ‘Being.’ I.e., without ‘Journey,’ there is and can be no Being. Use of ‘becoming’ would be similar to use of ‘action.’

…

It is important to implement this section as a hierarchy of metaphysics with action-embedding as the most fundamental and the symbolic, if non-embedded, as the peak of thought

This chapter develops a theory of being or metaphysics and some of its applications. Although the concern with being as a foundation for the journey was motivated earlier, the theory will itself reveal its foundational nature

INTRODUCTION | OUTLINE

In this outline, items in red were not in the relevant sections at the time I made the outline; the topics may be in the original document, FOUNDATION, but not necessarily at a corresponding location

Introduce being | the concept of being. The meaning of being. Even though motivated, again take up external purpose for the focus on being (as noted just above, the theory reveals intrinsic motivation.) Introduce power as the measure of being: ‘the measure of being is being.’ Already, here, note the elimination of substance. Note the need for further foundation: the nature, variety and necessity of being – ‘fundamental problem of metaphysics’

Preliminary: Principles of thought

This section must be short; and necessarily incomplete in a first order sense

Because of the ‘no foundation’ principle, principles have no end; therefore we must go on… Because of the ‘no limit’ principle, we may go on; and in this is the greatest meaning

First principles

Critical principles – the limitation of knowledge and possibility; assumptions of radical criticism

Construction principles – even if certain knowledge were possible, what would be the point to certain knowledge unless it were possible to use it for transformation. But then what would be the value of the transformation? Certain knowledge of the essentials is not given, therefore action and transformation –of both knowledge and being– are not only necessary but possessed of greater meaning

Sources

My sources – general as in this document and various others; specific as in how to think about mind in JOURNEY IN BEING

History of thought – Socratic method, dialectic, Kant – transcendental analytic and other transcendental methods, Wittgenstein

Outline of the metaphysics and its logic. Optional section. The essential logic and preview

The metaphysics. Begin with outline of the metaphysics if the previous section is to be omitted. The essential divisions are as follows

Outline of the metaphysics… The essential logic and preview… Why co-develop Metaphysics, Logic and Cosmology… Although some separation is necessary note the interweaving of the elements of metaphysics, the logic and the cosmology in what follows. Of this is at least somewhat essential on account of the topics of metaphysics, logic and cosmology not being distinct but rather being different foci

Theory of Being… as executed here, there are regions that may be labeled metaphysics, logic, cosmology and theory of knowledge in whose interaction lies the optimal development of the theory of being. Although these regions of analysis may be identified and may be considered independently, without the interaction in which they constitute a whole, the result is feeble and flat in comparison to the optimal development. Although the independent developments have a tradition in which the interactivity and overlap is recognized, it is only in the interaction that the magnitude of the optimal development is realized

Theory of Knowledge: here, knowledge is recognized as ‘interaction’ and ‘effect’ and the idea of representation is found to be empty. Therefore, symbolic development can be considered as an independent development and it is in this independence that representation has meaning and completeness is at all conceivable

Metaphysics… Being, mind, universe – there is one and only one universe, world, metaphysics, form, universals, truth

Note: Immediately see the interweaving of metaphysics, logic (form,) and cosmology (world, universe.) Here, mind is not restricted to mind-as-we-have-it and here we may say Mind is Being in its Relations or, simply, with the extension of the concept, Mind is Being

Being: when introducing being, also introduce becoming and the necessity of becoming (briefly, from logic and from the void;) then introduce:

Form: a form is the structure of being – review other definitions; explain form in terms of near symmetry, relative stability and selection and that, therefore, forms are dynamic and may be arranged in a hierarchy according to stability; static, perfect forms are idealizations of dynamic forms. Then introduce LOGIC (below)

Details: mind and symbol; symbol and concept, ideal and external object: forms and the categories of intuition and thought; knowledge and epistemology; epistemology

Observation: note the argument that cognition of space etc. is a form – this is similar to the idea that a symbol or sentence is a fact; however, the development of the theory of symbols is deferred to the treatment of language. Because of the incompleteness of the theory of symbols and the simultaneous lack of absolute limits, the importance of the theory of symbols to transformation and realization is diminished and we can do without a satisfactory theory of symbols. However, development of a theory of symbols is still useful and may be a foundation for realization. Note that one theory of symbols outside of the Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, namely the hypothetico-deductive theory –the label is mine– of Omnes has potential as completeness without foundation

Comments on the possibility of metaphysics; and a complete system of the problems of metaphysics. These comments may be placed here or later, for example, in the critical review… or, e.g., just mentioned in one of these locations and amplified in the other

Logic… Logic – the study of necessary form; logic as the form that is common to all members of a class of forms; the [?] blur between logic and natural law. Logos and logic; sometimes use ‘logic’ for ‘logos.’ Laws of logic. Induction and the scientific method. Science and reality. Law. The necessity of being (becoming) –why is there something rather than nothing– or the fundamental problem of metaphysics; the equivalence of the void and the universe. Possibility, necessity and actuality

Logics and their contexts: bivalence, propositional and other calculi, multivalent logic, modal logic, other logics e.g. tensed logic; the contexts… is ‘context’ the appropriate word and concept?

Development of some aspects of logic and truth, e.g. the necessity of reference for the existence of truth value and, perhaps, for meaning… and, perhaps, other topics from the Alternate compound summary section

Logic and, more generally, the theory of form include the Dynamics of Being

Cosmology. General and local cosmologies. General cosmology: ontology as a topic [?]; the concept of the void, existence of the void; law and the necessity of being (becoming;) identity of possibility, actuality and necessity; further properties of the void. Further cosmological consequences: phase-epoch; annihilation; recurrence; being that is the span of all being – of other, sub-being; cosmology, myth, faith and religion: literal or material interpretations: god, soul, articles of faith, karma; origins: possibility and probability – variation and selection, or evolution as a mechanism [should the first consideration of evolution go here or earlier under general cosmology just after the identity of possibility, actuality and necessity]

Planning. Include considerations of space, time and space-time, matter, dynamics, mind, and causation exclusively under normal cosmology or also under general cosmology

Two Divides: origins of a –near symmetric, relatively stable– cosmological system i.e. the origin of a normal cosmological system; origin of the free symbolic capability which is the foundation of free symbolic thought –which may be thought of as including iconic thought– and is, therefore, at the foundation of language, imagination or hypothesis and criticism and so of creation and reason and secondarily of technology, religion and the arts, of humanities, logic, mathematics, and the sciences

Summary of the core of the foundation

Criticism or critical review of the development of the metaphysics, the logic – especially the development of logic from necessary form and the necessity of being from the concepts of logic and law; the cosmology – especially the parallel and equivalent [?] development of the necessity of being from the concept of absence or the void; both arguments are equivalent [?] to ‘essential indeterminism at the core of being;’ the comment regarding essential indeterminism may (also) be placed earlier; and of the arguments for the necessity of sentience and agency

Normal cosmology: the concept of the normal; normality and necessity; normal cosmology; evolution as a normal mechanism; limits; miracles ; magic

Some normal categories and considerations: space, time and matter; causation; dynamics; origin or evolution and integration of the theories of matter in the small and the large i.e. the quantum theory and the theory of large scale interactions or general relativity – to what extent can this be developed and what is its proper location… here or under physical cosmology… perhaps both and here there would be a framework while there would be more detail under ‘our physical cosmology;’ mind and causation

Action and choice: knowledge, ethics and morals

Physical cosmology; including this cosmology; origin and properties of the cosmos including earth and the solar system; evolution of life and of mind-as-we-have-it

Human Being: Mind, Symbol and Value; in talking of ‘human being’ the thought is of a kind of being possessed of similar characteristics; thought is also of actual human being; animal being is not excluded

Human Being: Mind, Symbol and Value

Mind; the nature of mind; mind-as-we-have-it

Psychology. The Elements of Mind. Some dimensions: dimensions of feeling; bound-free and internal-external; perception, concepts and meaning; Wittgenstein’s contribution including use of the analysis of solipsism; feeling-motivation-cognition: an integrated system; state-disposition; memory; center-periphery; integration-independence; modularity-integration (holism;) layering. Aspects of Mind. The Categories of Intuition: space, time, causation… Axes for mental phenomena: Experience, attitude, action. Examples of attitudes: Knowledge, belief, desire… The omnivalent interpretation of belief. Language, icon and thought

Non-literal interpretations of myth, faith and religion and the articles of faith. Note that insofar as the ‘truth’ of religion or myth has depth it is likely to not be fully clear – will seen as through a glass darkly; and, so, it is expected that there will be variant non-literal interpretations as part of the journey of understanding. It is a function of proper religion to identify or have some identification of the essential issues of truth. 1. The significance and impact of the literal interpretation; questioning conventional or normal understanding, reason and knowledge; this may be summed up as ‘mystery,’ e.g. the resurrection may be seen as meaning that death is not what it seems to be as it may do conventionally to the senses, and 2. Truly non-literal interpretations and functions: metaphorical interpretations in which the literal truth is not asserted but, in the lack of knowledge of the magnitude of being, the metaphor creates a realistic feeling of awe or wonder or respect or fear (statement of a function is not a statement of subscription but is statement of what does or has obtained;) moral message; social bonding theory; social control theory – power, control, abuse; power of the story or myth; the comfort theory and the related theory that all religion is a response to a crisis of the cultural system [The Ghost Dance of Weston La Barre.] Classification or typology of interpretations and functions

Classifications or typologies of myth, faith and religion [ this is a new section.] The logic of the classifications; the purpose of this is to be real and not just academic, i.e., the approach is not just that of the anthropologist whose investigations are dispassionate with regard to religion in life but seeks to instill religion; at the same time it is not the intent at the outset to instill some traditional or yet unnamed and undeveloped ‘religion:’ the purpose is to uncover and establish what is true and the path to truth… what are the essential attitudes of religion, and to evaluate religion and traditional religions and other institutions including science relative to this. Discussion of religion…

Growth – development, learning, accomplishment, personality and meaning. Exceptional achievement and disorder. Personality and personality factors; the whole individual: a rationalized study of personality in the context of the individual as a whole. An approach to the psychology of the person as a whole. Factors for the psychology of the person as a whole

Normal psychology

Some topics. The normal and the concept of ontological psychology; it is –within the range of the– normal to live out given meaning and to seek beyond the given to the greatest possible meaning. The principle of meaning also known as the principle of ontological psychology

Language, logic, and culture (although language is repeated, it deserves separate treatment.) Cognition and communication. Uses of language: attitudes… assertive, directive, commissive, expressive, and declarative uses. Metaphor… also see the literal and non-literal interpretations of myth, faith and religion. Concepts

Comment on errors encouraged by language. Wittgenstein wrote, ‘Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.’ I think that this remark includes the idea that naming does not imply the existence of a thing and, consequently, much thought including large parts of philosophy –especially metaphysics– are not merely wrong but do not make sense. I also think that this thought is usually though not invariably taken in a negative sense, i.e., that it is a criticism of what are intended to be constructions but what are in fact nothing but speculations –e.g. the world is pure idea or even pure matter– within metaphysics. On the other hand, language may also bewitch us into taking our critical thoughts too seriously: much of what is taken for real criticism merely has the dress of actual criticism; a trivial example is the so-called problem of reference to ‘non-existent objects’ which is not such reference at all but on the assumption, encouraged by language –the linguistic construct ‘non-existent object’– that it is results in allegedly problematic considerations for the function of language in reference. [What is being referred to is –better thought of as– a mental picture, or concept or the possibility of an object; these things do exist.] The analysis of what constructions are truly valid require analysis of the presumptions of criticism and construction including the examination of construction and the recognition that much criticism applies, not to cognition in general but only to certain of its modes or upon the application of certain models of the cognitive process. What may be validly criticized on one picture of cognition may be immune to that criticism on an alternative model or mode of cognition. Thus the real picture of what is possible requires careful examination of presuppositions –especially implicit ones– and analysis of the individual constructions and criticisms; and it may be noted that the usual thinking on these issues is affected by value over and above those of ‘pure cognition.’ The constructive and critical aspects are a part of the general bewitchment by language: it is as if language creates a universe of its own

Value

Theory of value and group action. Ethics, Law and Legal Theory. More in the section, ‘The Journey’

Being II: The Nature of Being. Alternate titles: Being and Kinds of Being; How to Investigate Being of Any Kind. Comment: having investigated being in its generalities and some particulars, it is possible to make some projection to all kinds of Being. The journey as a whole… the character common to every being. Being as a whole; human or animal being… as central to our journey… and as an example; any being. The ultimate

Outline for this section: introduction

Purpose

Foundation: what foundation may be possible… for there is no foundation of being outside being; therefore, for the journey, foundation is at most illumination

The Approach: METAPHYSICS is the THEORY OF BEING

Note: an ONTOLOGY is a specification of the fundamental elements or kinds of being; a METAPHYSICS is a theory that either founds the ontology or starts with it and elaborates the kinds of being – and, since, relationship is being, metaphysics includes cosmology; a COSMOLOGY is the theory of the kinds, population and relationships among individuals – either in the general case or in a local cosmological system

Extension 1. A theoretical extension: the THEORY OF BEING [already] includes, through, the THEORY OF THE VOID and the LOGIC of the theory of being, the theory of the one universe and the theory of individual, coherent phase-epochs that we may call ‘universes’

METAPHYSICS is the discipline whose only limits are NECESSARY LIMITS. Similarly, PHILOSOPHY is the discipline whose outer limits are necessary. In its outer limits, PHILOSOPHY coincides with METAPHYSICS

Extension 2. ACTION theory: KNOWLEDGE remains in the loop with ACTION; the root function of COGNITION is not knowledge or cognizing

Foundation: a TWO CONTACT POINT THEORY

Note that two point theory is actually ‘many point theory’ as outlined in TWO CONTACT POINT THEORY

LOCAL                                      UNIVERSAL

GIVEN                                       POSSIBLE

POWER                                     VOID

CONCEPT-OBJECT                 THEORY OF MIND AND EMBEDDING

LANGUAGE                              EXPERIENCE

Originally, philosophy was concerned with the UNDERSTANDING of the world. In a reaction to the ENLIGHTENMENT culminating with Kant, philosophy’s explicit concern became more the understanding of the world more than the world itself – the EPISTEMIC TURN in philosophy. The origin of this turn was in the RISE OF SCIENCE which made claim, starting in the enlightenment, to be the sole instrument of true understanding. Consequently, philosophy became concerned with the NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING rather than the OBJECT OF UNDERSTANDING [which assumes separability of concept and object.] That is, philosophy became concerned with ‘the means by which we present the world.’ And, since, THOUGHT is central in PRESENTATION –in addition to perception– thought became central to philosophy. Of course, we are talking of a kind of philosophy. Continental philosophy never quite accepted the ascendance of science as the arbiter of the real. However, this role for science came to be accepted in Britain –what would you expect from a nation of bloody shopkeepers whose motto has been ‘keep buggering on’… much as I love said nation– and consequently in the English speaking world. Analytic philosophy began along the following line. In the first place, the complexities of reality –especially emotion– are rejected or ignored and nature is considered to be reducible to science and logic. Then, since logic and science cover the province of the real, what is left to philosophy is the province of understanding, i.e. cognition and, especially, thought. Not to be out-trivialized, analytic philosophy then fixed LINEAR LANGUAGE as the MEDIUM OF THOUGHT and MODE OF EXPRESSION OF THOUGHT. However, reality intruded and thought –the concept– was found to be too complex for [linear] language. Here is a paradoxical weakness of early to middle analytic thought in its assumption that language is what it appears to be in its dual role of some communication and some thought. I.e. that language is ‘linear.’ As a result of the problems with this view, analytic philosophy retreated to the earlier position that philosophy is not the study of the real but the means of understanding of the real i.e. the study of mind. Thus, c. 2013, the central ‘paradigm’ of analytic philosophy is ‘PHILOSOPHY OF MIND.’ While its approaches have sophistication, analytic philosophy is the philosophy of the obvious. There should be no objection to a study of the obvious; the objection is to the restriction to the obvious. This restriction is simultaneously FREUDIAN and VICTORIAN. If we disallow the obvious human prejudice that linear language –with the dual function of communication and thought– is the only form of language which permits all –including non-linear– representation then other forms, e.g. the icon must be included in ‘language,’ and, then, language may well, in this interpretation, be the medium of thought. But, then, the ‘NATURAL LANGUAGE,’ e.g. English is not the paradigm of language. Just as in India, the BRAHMINS are the FIRST CASTE because it is they who wrote the scriptures i.e. the Brahmin is also the SCRIBE, so, ‘natural language’ writes of itself that it is language. There is nothing necessary to our natural definitions despite songs sung in the praise of use. While the theory of use has an important and excellent function in that nothing ever gets out of it, it also functions as a subterfuge as does common sense philosophy when it directs the focus –usually uncritically– to this use or that use or this or that system of uses. (In talking of systems e.g. language games, sophistication is substituted for real care.) Linear-language as language is an abortion. When this is recognized, analytic philosophy, may be seen as half right; a cup that is half full through grace, half-empty by necessity. For, neither science nor logic [logic is not LOGIC] is the MASTER OF REALITY. Therefore, on the analytic account there is a gap. The analysts are able to not encounter the gap because they are busy analyzing isolated bits of linguistic, phenomenal and logical data with great but IRRELEVANT PRECISION – this is not a statement of essentials but one of actual practice. In any case, in the most permissive, most optimistic interpretation, analytic philosophy has at most one half of reality: the half that is concerned with language or thought. The other half is with the object of thought –assumed in analysis to be simply separable from thought– i.e. reality itself that is often taken to be the province of common sense, of the practical man and of science but that, in its infinitude, has no such final reduction. Therefore, the province of the real is divided among language (thought) and its object which is experience. Although we never escape experience, experience is not so limited as to require escaping. For, ‘knowledge is the effect of the one in the other.’ Thus, the limitation of analytic philosophy may be seen as the restriction of experience to a variety of caricatures of experience e.g. immediate experience, focal experience, non-feeling experience i.e. experience in which INTENSITY OF FEELING is emphasized – it is necessary to say this because all experience is feeling and its elaboration, to communicable experience, to cultural paradigms of what constitutes proper human experience…

Note: the Victorian-Freudian-Rationalist isolation of EMOTION is devastating. As a result there are modern, c. 2013, theories of ‘EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE’ as though feeling were something distinct from cognition. At root cognition and emotion or feeling are one. Every perception and every thought is a feeling or a complex of feelings. Many feelings are bound up with thought. Feeling is universal. The feeling axis of emotion, especially under the Victorian-Freudian-Rationalist isolation, focuses on and the feeling axes of pure feeling are intensity and quality but not shape. The feeling axes of cognition include but do not focus on intensity; they focus on detail and MULTI-DIMENSIONALITY. Thus, COGNITION-EMOTION is a root unity with bifurcation and variety at the outer reaches. Despite its apparently pristine quality, logic is not devoid of and cannot be devoid of feeling; without feeling, nothing is expressed. And, while logic grudgingly accepts this, LOGIC requires it

One ‘half’ of philosophy is the analysis of thought – the thesis underlying the transition in analytic philosophy from language to mind as foundation for philosophy –on the assumption that philosophy is analysis of thought– is ‘half’ right; the other ‘half’ is the examination and analysis of experience or reality

If analysis of language or thought is analysis of everything, why is not analysis of everything an at least implicit analysis of language or thought

Execution for this section: Outline

The purpose is to provide FOUNDATION FOR THE JOURNEY – the knowledge and realization of all being as far as possible –feasible– and good

I pointed out the intent to touch upon and give resolution to every essential problem of being with emphasis on human being. It was seen that METAPHYSICS was sufficient to this task – provided that it is understood to include the study of knowledge. That is, ‘What is the nature of knowledge and what is its role in transformation?’ This includes consideration of the inseparability of knowledge from transformation –action– and the occasional ‘need’ for pure action i.e. RISK. The problems of knowledge have been implicit since the beginning of reflective thought; subsequently, in a turn that peaked with Kant, the problem of knowledge – later and temporarily that of language – came to occupy center stage in philosophy. For reasons given and as revealed by the theory of knowledge itself, knowledge –as knowledge of– must take second place to being. However, METAPHYSICS may be seen as constituted of two aspects of knowledge: the intensional – nature, possibility and status of knowledge and the extensional – knowledge of the world [which implicitly includes the intensional]

When a topic is considered in this section and the next, the treatment here will focus on the fundamentals the place of the topic in or its relation to the THEORY OF BEING – it is emphasized that the fundamental topics form a coherent system that is informed and enhanced by and inform and enhance that theory. The treatment of such topics in the next section may include recapitulation but will focus on elaboration, significance and application

Plan for elimination compound sections of FOUNDATION

The following four sections occur in FOUNDATION. The topics have been placed in the outline and it remains to place the contents

1. Being, Power, and the Elimination of Substance

2. Being and the Void. Necessity of Becoming. Foundation for Cosmology

3. Summary of the Foundation. The Void. Logic, Possibility and Necessity. Recurrence. The Span of ALL BEING. Mind is Being in its Relations. Metaphysics is possible. A Complete System of the Problems of Metaphysics

4. Alternative Foundation. LOGIC. Paradox. Logics. Dynamics of Being. There is exactly one Universe. The Void and the Universe are Equivalent. Essential Indeterminism

BEING

In the beginning, the idea of being may appear to be so general as to be empty. However in developing an understanding of the entire SPAN AND VARIETY OF BEING, the generality is necessary

Although a materialist may argue that matter is coextensive with being, such positions cannot be conceptually necessary and would be, at most, factually contingent. I.e., materialism is an empirical position. Therefore, in more specific approaches such as materialism, understanding is necessarily prejudiced at the outset

It may be seen that the idea of being without restriction and in isolation is empty. However against being without restriction as background, the requirement that being be determinate or have FORM results in an extremely powerful and general yet concrete understanding of the SPAN OF BEING. Given the characteristics of any kind of being or world, the concept of being may be used to develop a powerful and necessary understanding of the origin and nature of that world. In particular, the THEORY OF BEING necessarily provides the most powerful foundation available for the understanding of human and animal being and of this world

What is –the meaning of– BEING?

It is a direct consequence of the absolute level of generality or extension of the concept of being, that the questions ‘What is being?’ and ‘What is the meaning of being?’ are identical. I.e., the ostensive and conceptual definitions of ‘being’ are coextensive

In contrast, it is a problem in the understanding of more specific kinds of being that their ostensive and conceptual definitions are not a priori coextensive. Consider, for example, the idea of a tree or plant. For simple practical purposes, it is not necessary to define the concept of ‘plant.’ However, in order to decide marginal cases, a concept is necessary; the problem, then, is that for a given concept of ‘plant’ that clearly identifies the status of some marginal cases, there may be others whose status is unclear. This is precisely a part of the problem of clearly formulating a concept of such kinds of being as ‘tree,’ ‘plant,’ ‘life,’ and ‘matter’

The foregoing problem does not arise in the case of being or the concept of being which, therefore, have an a priori clarity. This clarity will be used in what follows to determine what things have being. It is usually considered obvious that such things as atoms, trees and teacups exist. However, it is not considered to be similarly clear whether numbers exist. One source of lack of clarity in this question is that the mark of existence is, sometimes implicitly or unconsciously, taken to be that of material existence. Once this confusion has been eliminated, it becomes clear that numbers do not exist-as-simple-material-objects but may and, as it will turn out, do have existence

In determining the existence of some ‘thing’ there is always the issue of whether the thing actually exists or whether the appearance of a thing is due to the projection of a mind upon a relatively formless background [or a selection from a multi-form background of a specific form]

The THEORY OF BEING developed here is instrumental in resolving the problems raised in the immediately foregoing paragraphs

…

There is a FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL or meaning of being – that which exists or has existence

In FURTHER UNDERSTANDING being, we look to examples of being – to life, to human being

There is a sense in which human being is most fundamental to us and it is not a parochial or anthropomorphic sense but, rather, the sense in which, no matter to what degree ‘we’ transcend our perspectives, to what degree we import other perspectives e.g. by understanding other cultures, other species and categories, and even in symbolic freedom, ‘we’ still remain within the human perspective. This is of course conditionally true upon the human form being immutable and upon ‘us’ remaining within unchanged form. The limitation on human –any– being is normal; therefore HUMAN BEING IS MOST FUNDAMENTAL, though true, says nothing more than BEING IS BEING

In looking at the variety of being and, then back at the basic level of being, we can see what ELEMENTS OF BEING are FUNDAMENTAL – have SIGNATURES IN THE FUNDAMENTAL levels and what elements are contingent

It is not being said that THE CONTINGENT is irrelevant; it is the source of much meaning – what is CLOSEST TO THE HEART

In this way it is possible to flesh out a metaphysics

…

Comments on the word ‘BEING’

Planning. Combine content with that of ‘Preliminary comment on Being;’ redistribute the content

The COPULA ‘IS’

Being is what exists; the property of existing – but also suggests the essence of existing and what is most fundamental

Focus on Being

Review title. Alternatives, ‘WHY BEING?’ ‘WHY FOCUS ON BEING?’

The focus on ‘being’ and ‘Journey’ has been motivated in the Introduction. Here, I further establish the significance of being for the understanding of the universe. The significance is inherent in the concepts as used here: being – that which exists or which has existence, and the universe – all that exists

In metaphysics, the understanding of the universe, some aspect of being has often been taken as fundamental. Examples are MATTER – that which is tangible or that which is the subject of modern physics; MIND – the aspect of being that makes it capable of sentience; PROCESS and numerous others. Taking any such aspect of being as fundamental is necessarily an ontological commitment precisely because it is an aspect of being. In practice there is often a further ontological commitment in that not the aspect of being that is taken as fundamental but, rather, the aspect-as-we-know-it. However, since being is that which exists there is no a priori ontological commitment. I.e. in taking being as fundamental there is no original ontological sin. As an example even the most committed materialist will agree that there is a conceptual distinction between being-as-fundamental and matter-as-fundamental. The materialist will argue that, in fact, matter is fundamental and although there may be a conceptual gap between being and matter there is no actual gap. The materialist may further argue philosophically that being must be defined as what is perceived and therefore whatever exists is capable of perception and that is matter. However, in so doing, the materialist continues his or her original ontological error and further compounds it with an epistemological error called empiricism. Empiricism is subject to a conceptual error that is similar to the ontological error and it implies an ontological commitment that is avoided in taking being as fundamental. The materialist could continue to argue, however, that being is too general a ‘category’ and repeat his or her argument that being, although different from matter in concept, conflates to or has the same extension as matter

As it turns out, however, the use of being is extremely powerful and the theory of being, within which the various aspects or categories find fundamental interpretation, enables a fundamental understanding of the possibilities of being, cosmology, and mind and its nature and prediction of a fundamental results that are both surprising and profound. As an example, the theory of being at once deflates the classical mind-body or mind-matter problem and, in so doing, founds the insight into the nature and relation of mind and matter that mind may be seen as an aspect of the relations and mutual effects within matter. This point is not emphasized in the ontology because of the risk of falling back into the use of the prejudiced categories. Further, the insight does not imply that there is no mind-body concern but only that that concern is not part of the fundamental ontology. Instead, there is a problem of showing and conceiving the aspects of human mind – and their mutual relations and relations with the human body and its environment; the problem may be thought of as scientific. Suppose, instead of mind-as-we-experience-it i.e. instead of human or animal mind, the focus turns to MIND. It is here that, in addition to other considerations such as evolutionary biology, that the fundamental ontology provides illumination. The insights that are developed in detail in what follows include a reinterpretation of the traditional functions of emotion, cognition, drive, memory and other elements into a necessary framework of understanding and a reinterpretation of MIND that permits its equation with BEING

This reinterpretation is not a form of pan-psychism which is the ontological position that there is a fundamental substance and that substance is mind-as-we-experience-it or as we conceive it in theory without reinterpretation of the fundamental concepts

‘Being’ is not prejudiced – is neutral with regard to ontological commitment: unlike, e.g. mind or matter, the ontological character of being falls out of the development – it is not posited at the outset. Being lies at the intersection of the known and the unknown – this is, in some ways, our eternal situation. Even what is known and what is unknown are not given. In talking of being as the concept is used here no position is taken with regard to substances, categories, levels – fundamental and universal or local and structured or formed. Neutrality with regard to substance is not only a lack of a priori commitment to any given substance as fundamental; it is also neutrality with respect to the possibility of substance ontology. I.e., in the fundamental ontology it is allowed but not required at the outset that there may be a substance or substances and the these may be chosen from the traditional categories

The theory of being that is developed is that posits no substances or traditional categories such as space, time and causation. Instead, the traditional categories and substances find interpretation in the theory. In this interpretation the traditional system is found to have limited rather than universal application over the span and depth of being

It may seem that the extreme neutrality and generality of the concept of being would make it unsuitable, not only as a foundation for – understanding of – the world or universe, but also as a concept about which anything may be said. However, such a position is a prejudice that is extremely limiting. Simultaneously, being is most fundamental –the common character of all entities or things– and, in talking of the being of specific entities, most formed. In the interaction of understanding – in the Journey of becoming, at the intersection of the known and the unknown – the formed and the formless, the stable and the ephemeral lies the potential for discovery and transformation

In addition to the fundamental character of being as conceived here, there is also an established tradition of a theory of being whose concepts and foci are similar to those of the this essay. Thus the present essay has continuities with and inspiration in the tradition

…

 ‘Why Being?’ has the following responses

Because it is most FUNDAMENTAL

But can we know about it – yes: analogy with [theory of] evolution… TWO OR MULTIPLE POINT THEORY AND KNOWABILITY

And, we discover about our SELVES and ESSENCES in the analysis of ‘TWO POINTS’

Basic use of the word being; ‘ALGEBRA’ and THE UNKNOWN – BEING AT THE CUSP OF THE KNOWN AND THE UNKNOWN

There is a TRADITION to the use of ‘being’

HEIDEGGER’S MANEUVER and the study of the nature and possibility of BEING. [Note: the eliminate reference to Heidegger here but add comment in ‘Influences’]

POWER: the measure of Being

Planning. Incorporate the following comments

The observation, ‘Given the characteristics of any kind of being or world, the concept of being may be used to develop a powerful and necessary understanding of the origin and nature of that world.’ was made above. What is it that enables a particular being to identify other being and so connect the local and specific to the universal and abstract or general?

It is power, the ability to have an effect –it will be seen that ‘having effect’ is more accurate than ‘the ability to have an effect’– that enables this identification or ‘measure of being.’ Power connects individual being to all being

It might seem that power is a special –and therefore restrictive or prejudicial– concept that is deployed to a more general purpose. However, this is not the case for the use of power to identify or measure being is equivalent to saying that ‘the measure of being is being.’ I.e. power is immediate, not an abstract concept

METAPHYSICS

Metaphysics is the study or Theory of Being. As such, it is the study of the most fundamental characteristic of things – the nature of existence. The criticisms of the utility of the concept of being also apply to metaphysics and the response to the criticisms is identical in nature and need not be repeated here. That response may be reformulated as follows: since entities are either simple or compound, the study of what things exist is foundation for the understanding of the nature of things – what makes things the entities that they are

11.10.04. BEING, POWER, NOTHINGNESS, VOID, UNIVERSE, WORLD, ABSENCE, RELATION, BECOMING, DURATION, EXTENSION, ERROR, VARIATION, SELECTION, CAUSE, EFFECT

WORLD, UNIVERSE

This paragraph is repeated below. Although other uses are allowed, the ‘WORLD’ or ‘UNIVERSE’ signifies all being i.e. it is [that which is] SELF-CONTAINED in is being and becoming. Thus, I do not understand the universe to have LAWS OF NATURE [or GOD] on –imposed from– the outside… or MIND or MATTER imported from the outside – there is no outside. Although this appears to be a mere definition, it is fundamental in that there is some –evaluate this– equivalence to LOGIC

What is expected of a Theory of Being?

Use question 6 of TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING

What is expected of a Theory of Being?

A THEORY OF BEING is a system of understanding and transformation that allows knowing and realizing all actual and possible being!

Understanding or knowing and transformation are interwoven. There is a conceptual and necessary relationship in that realization requires awareness or knowledge of the ends which, naturally, include phases of the realizing. There is a practical relation in that understanding and becoming proceed interactively and incrementally; and in so far as complete embedded knowledge is impossible, this interactive process is necessary. The possibility of embedded fore-knowledge depends on the degree of detail required and, in some value-systems, complete embedded fore-knowledge of what is essential is possible

Why is the claim about all being rather than all accessible being? The claim could be about all accessible being and then it would be necessary to assess what is accessible. This is not necessary since the theory will show that all being is accessible to any given being. There is, however, a valid concern with what is desirable or moral and what is feasible

Three elements, PRIMITIVES, methods or APPROACHES, and RESULTS are recognized as essential to a theory of being. The primitives are the basic ideas of the system of understanding and transformation. The approaches are involved in knowing or coming to know and realizing. The word ‘Approach’ is chosen because it emphasizes learning while ‘method’ suggests the possibility of an algorithmic approach. The results are the realization and knowledge of all actual and possible being. The elements are not completely distinct in their nature and with regard to what counts as an element; further, it is in the nature of becoming that the system and the elements are in transition

The SYSTEM OF UNDERSTANDING will include a system of explanation or reason and a system of all actual and possible being. These two systems are not completely independent

The SYSTEM OF EXPLANATORY PRINCIPLES will be real. This means that there will be no pre-reflective hypotheses regarding the nature of being – an example being the substance ontology. Therefore, the ontology will fall out of the theory and have a necessary and minimal character… and, as will be seen, the underlying ontology will be necessary

The SYSTEM OF ACTUAL AND POSSIBLE BEING will include an account of kinds of being – including relationship and becoming. It will include an account of the nature of actuality and possibility; of limits on beings or entities – and the nature and circumstances of such limits. Its elaboration will include a cosmology of kinds and extents of being including a local cosmology of this world – of beings and their properties: bodies, experiences, minds, language, value including all human issues

The Theory of Being reveals its own motivation

Note. The comment regarding motivation is also made in the next section, OUTLINE OF A METAPHYSICS OR THEORY OF BEING: LOGIC, BEING AND COSMOLOGY, AND MIND

Thus, the motivation of the Introduction is not logically necessary to real motivation of the theory

Some issues and problems that any ‘complete’ Theory of Being must address

ABSOLUTE COMPLETENESS; what does ‘absolute completeness’ mean

RELATIVE COMPLETENESS i.e., completeness relative to the issues of CLASSICAL METAPHYSICS and so on… It should be noted that the issues of any system may include (a) CULTURAL ARTIFACTS – artifacts of the cultural environment in which the system is fostered, and (b) problems arising out of a CONFUSION OF SYMBOLS i.e. out of LINGUISTIC CONFUSION. It should also be noted that whereas there are systems of thought in which all problems of philosophy are said to have such origins (except, of course, the problems within the said system) that is clearly an overstatement with many external functions e.g. binding to cultural norms

Metaphysics, Logic and Cosmology

Metaphysics, the theory of form and logic, and cosmology are identical. As disciplines, however, their emphases –discussed below– are different

Outline of the Metaphysics

Note: here it is not necessary to complete the outline of ‘Logic, Being and Cosmology, and Mind’ but only to indicate how the concepts hang together and the importance of their co-development… and to point out the location(s) of that development

Words including some words for headings in the metaphysics: ABSENCE, ACTION, ACTUAL, ACTUALITY, ANNIHILATION, BEING, BEING (ALL), COGNITION, CONSTITUTIVE, CONTINGENT, CONTRADICTION (LAW OF), COSMOLOGY, COSMOLOGY (PHYSICAL), CRITICISMS, DESIRABILITY, DYNAMIC, DYNAMICS, EMPIRICAL, ETHICS, EXISTS, FAITH, FAITH (ARTICLE OF), FATE, FEASIBILITY, FEELING, FINITE, FORM, FORMS, IMPLICATION, IMPORTANCE, INDUCTION, KARMA, KNOWLEDGE, LAW, LAWS, LOGIC, LOGOS, MAGIC, MAGICIAN, MEANING, MECHANICS, METAPHYSICS, MIRACLE, MOTIVATION, NECESSARY, NECESSITY, NORMAL, NORMAL (THE), NOTHINGNESS, OBJECT, PATTERN, PHASE-EPOCH, PHYSICAL, POSSIBILITY, POSSIBLE, POWER, REAL, RECURRENCE, SHAMAN, SPAN, SYMBOLIC SYSTEM, PHYSICS (THEORETICAL), UNIVERSE, UNIVERSE (THE), VOID (THE), WORD, WORLD

Make a note that the theory of being must include an account of its own MOTIVATION. Specify the sense in which the motivation is included. To what extent is the motivation latent? Include an account of the relation of this issue to the meanings of IMPORTANCE, DESIRABILITY, and ETHICS… and their relations to FEASIBILITY

Review the title; the essence of the following may be incorporated into the text which already has the essence of the considerations. Most importantly, why ‘Metaphysics, Logic and Cosmology?’ It is because, the development of the three is integral – although cosmology is implicit in the notion of metaphysics or being. The development is integral in the following ways: (1) at root LOGIC and BEING are identical or, in conceptual terms, logic is at the core of the understanding of being, and (2) cosmology has a dual aspect of being an elaboration of being and its kinds and showing the integral character –there is one and only one universe– of all being; additionally the description of a general and cosmology and the cosmology of a coherent phase i.e. a normal cosmology shows how the normal world and the world of all possibilities may co-exist. Finally, note that it could be pointed out at the end of the section that the development of the section reveals the mutual emergence of metaphysics-logic-being-cosmology-mind

Plan. This is the core of the outline of metaphysics. All the other sections – through LOGIC: THE VOID and CRITIQUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, including those of the same name, are to be appropriately incorporated. Since it is the core outline, I may place the indented comments in a set of notes… The essence of the preliminary sections on logic is to be placed here; other details will be placed, if significant, or eliminated

In this section, the fundamentals of the metaphysics are developed in outline. It is important, for coherence of the system, to develop metaphysics, logic and cosmology together. Being and mind could be included in the title of this section. However, this would be redundant since metaphysics is the study of being and mind is an aspect of being. [It will be seen later that, in an extended conception, being and mind are coextensive]

The development of the system is based on the meanings of the terms

BEING

Use questions 1 and 4 of TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING

Being is that which exists

… or which has existence. The concept of being has been clarified earlier

MIND

The classical concept of MATTER refers to an inert substance which makes no reference to MIND. As a result, there are, in classical MATERIALISM, a number of problems regarding mind which include the questions of its existence and nature and its relation to matter. The latter includes the mind-body or mind-matter problem which is, perhaps, the most well known and most discussed of the problems about mind. The purpose of this section is to make a short analysis of the place of mind in relation to being which will permit a comment on the mind-body problem. A more complete discussion of the problems will come later

The mind-body problem may be stated, ‘Since there is no mind in inert matter which, in materialism, is the substance of all being, how is mind (consciousness) possible, how does it come to be, and how does it interact with matter?’

The resolution contemplated here, whose details are given later, is as follows. The hallmark of mind is in the apprehension of the world – and of its individuals or entities including the being of the apprehender. In apprehension, there is an image of the world in the apprehender or subject. The idea of a detailed and clear picture comes to mind but this is not implied by the use of the word, ‘image;’ all that is implied is some vague capability of discrimination. There is a relation in which the world has an effect or imprint on the subject. In human or animal experience, the imprint acquires the character of a picture. However, at the level of primitive being, there is a primitive imprint or experience. Although primitive experience is vastly simpler than animal experience, the two are of the same kind and the latter is ‘built’ of the former

In this outline resolution, there is no reference to matter and no necessary reference to mind. Thus no substance or substances are implicated. As will be seen later, in the theory of being developed here, there are no fundamental or posited substances. Thus, the theory of being is not an essential pan-psychism. Any substances that enter into consideration are derived, intermediate, contingent, and are part of local and approximate explanatory systems. If desired, the elements of being could be labeled ‘matter.’ In that case there would be a number of provisos whose full clarification will be given later. These are that matter is not ultimate (it is the void that, shortly, is found to be ultimate,) that matter is neither ‘inert’ nor devoid of primitive experience, and that it is extremely improbable that the present physical theories of matter have exhausted the possibilities of such theories

Here, mind is seen as the imprinting aspect of relationship. It will be seen that this interpretation may be projected down to the most primitive elements of being provided that imprint and relationship are interpreted as lacking in –almost– all necessity. Then, with a further extension of the concept of mind, it may be said that mind and being are identical, i.e., MIND IS BEING

This discussion is clarified and extended in SPACE, TIME AND CAUSATION and in further sections

UNIVERSE

The universe is all being. I.e., there is one and only one universe; or, there is exactly one universe

It could be said that the universe is all that there is but ‘all that there is’ may seem to have the meaning, ‘all that there is the present time.’ Instead, ‘all that there is’ means, approximately, ‘all that there is all times.’ The meaning is approximate because it appears to presuppose a single universal time and because it may be thought of as counting entities that have more than ephemeral existence more than once

In its sense as a form of the  verb to be, ‘is’ usually means ‘at the present time.’ However, here, ‘is’ will also be used in the sense of ‘is over at least some time interval’ where the time interval may be an instant. Similarly ‘be’ will be allowed the sense of ‘be over at least some time interval.’ In the same manner ‘is not’ will, in addition to its usual sense, be used, on occasion, to mean ‘is never’

The meaning of ‘universe’ used here, despite its innocuous appearance, entails profound consequences – beginning with the analysis of possibility that follows

It is therefore necessary to avoid confusion of the present meaning with the meanings implicit in terms such as ‘physical universe,’ ‘the known universe,’ ‘a universe,’ ‘alternate universe,’ or ‘parallel universe.’ In these alternate meanings, the universe is a phase of being or one of a number of universes. In the present meaning, there is one and only one universe

WORLD

Plan. Where, previously I have used the word coherent phase-epoch or relatively stable and partially symmetric cosmological system or cosmos, I may use ‘world’

A WORLD is a part of the universe. ‘World’ will usually be used to refer to a coherent phase or phase-epoch of the universe or a consistently defined or specified context. Allowing the special case in which the whole is considered to be a part, the universe is a world. However there are some conclusions that may be true of worlds and that are true of most of the worlds that are of interest that cannot be true of the universe. The universe has no complement, for example it has no before, no after and no exterior

METAPHYSICS

Metaphysics is the study of being

There is a problem of knowledge – that of its faithfulness to the real; this long standing problem in western and other philosophies is one whose importance is such that it may be called the problem of knowledge. The problem may be seen as having two aspects. The first concerns the validity of claims to knowledge which is a concern because such claims can be in error. Examples of errors are in faulty perception and in scientific generalization. The second aspect of the problem concerns the possibility of knowledge. Since knowledge itself is mental content but knowledge is supposed to be of an actual object it is valid to ask how knowledge can have any faithfulness to the object itself. Consider a tree. The tree is seen as roots, trunk, limbs and leaves. However, what is the reality of the situation. Supposing matter to be made up of atoms, it is clear that there is an arbitrariness to the boundary of the tree and its apparent solidity. Clearly the features of the tree are artifacts of cognition as much as they are aspects of the real. There are various approaches to this problem but perhaps the most profound is the one which argues that knowledge of things is possible but only of those kinds of things for which the forms of experience and existence are identical. Thus, some but not all things are knowable. This makes metaphysics especially problematic since an essential significance to metaphysics, over and above more special domains of knowledge, is that in metaphysics the study is of things as they are. Metaphysics is not just the study or science of being – it is the study of being as being, of the real nature of things. It is therefore valid to ask how metaphysics is at all possible. It is important to note, that the difficulty of metaphysics is not due to the physical remoteness of some objects. Rather it is the conceptual remoteness of the nature of knowledge and the nature of objects – even objects that are physically proximate

Some aspects of these problems of knowledge will be considered in detail later. These issues have been central in western philosophy since what may be called the ‘critical turn in philosophy’ that began with the reaction of the British Empiricists to the rationalism of the enlightenment

It is useful to examine the preoccupation with the problem of knowledge. A practical and pertinent source of concern is the problem of validity. However, the theoretical concern arises on account of the idea that the role of cognition is knowing. It might seem absurd to suggest that the essential role of cognition is not knowing for the meaning of cognition is ‘the act or process of knowing.’ A better picture, however, lies the analysis that follows. What is called knowledge affects action – in the cognizing of and choice from possibilities of action. Perhaps, therefore, the essential role of ‘knowing’ is not so much to have knowledge as it is to enhance the possibility and quality of action. Since most knowledge is approximate and, further, since the nature of knowledge as knowledge of an object may be questioned, this thought regarding the role of what we think of as knowledge-of-the-object is eminently reasonable. The picture may be described in an equivalent way. In coming to know, certain processes occur, certain abilities are used. Therefore, the processes are labeled ‘cognition,’ the abilities may be labeled the ‘instruments of cognition.’ However, it does not follow that these are primarily instruments of knowledge; rather they may be seen as instruments of action. Of course, ‘knowledge’ has the role of instrument of action; but what is in question here is the absoluteness of what we think of as knowledge-of-the-object as knowledge. The preoccupation with the problem of knowledge follows from the conflation of ideas of knowledge-of and knowledge-as-impression

It is not being said that knowledge-of is useless or an invalid pursuit. It is useful and highly entertaining. What is being said is that this is not the only role of knowledge-as-impression and it is an open question as to what the most fundamental role of knowledge may be. ‘The most fundamental role of knowledge’ – surely, that is a value laden idea. Perhaps in modern society, in terms of cherished notions of destiny, of notions of the significance of living, knowledge-of is the most fundamental role. Perhaps at the same time, that role will lead up a dead-end path. And perhaps, on the other hand, it is knowledge-as-impression-in-transition-and-in-action that will or may more likely lead to the greatest realization of being… and, perhaps, in that realization, at least since becoming without awareness of becoming has no meaning, knowledge-of will have a critical but not absolute role

Let us come back to consideration of the possibility of metaphysics. It was implied above that metaphysics as knowledge of the real may be generally impossible. However, metaphysics was not seen to be altogether impossible. Metaphysics was seen, preliminarily, to avoid categorial error for ‘those kinds of things for which the forms of experience and existence are identical.’ Consider, now, the symbol. The symbol is a form of experience. However, the symbol is capable of reference to the abstract. Thus, perhaps, metaphysics is possible through symbolic reference. The point may be justified in two ways. First, through analysis – as suggested by the idea that metaphysics is possible through symbolic reference; this approach to justification is considered below. The second justification will be by proceeding as though symbolic reference is possible, obtaining results, and then providing independent justification; this is the approach of the argument already begun and that now continues

FORM

Forms are stable configurations of being

A symmetric configuration is one whose elements are in stable balance. Absolute symmetry is symmetry that would result in absolute stability. However, absolute stability can have no becoming or dissolution. Therefore, actual being does not have perfect symmetry since it cannot have absolute stability. Actual forms are relatively stable and possessed of sufficient symmetry to permit more than ephemeral being

Actual forms are DYNAMIC

LOGIC

Logic is the study of NECESSARY FORM

The only necessities of thought are those of logic

In this meaning, logic is similar to LOGOS, the order present in all being i.e. logic is the study of logos. Logos has a theological meaning; in the present sense, however, any theological sense to logos is coincidental. I will sometimes use logic in the sense of logos. In this sense, LOGIC is logos or necessary form; in the same sense, LOGIC is immanent in being; logic is its reflection in thought

This LOGIC is that form without which a being would not be itself; thus, all being must have the form of LOGIC. A being may have other forms that are not constitutive of it but define its possibilities – the possible transformations that it may undergo without losing its identity; LOGIC is the NECESSARY or CONSTITUTIVE FORM of BEING; or LOGIC is the FORM of BEING IMPLICIT in MEANING. The form of all being is logic

The contingent forms of being include mechanics e.g. the theoretical mechanics of physics. I have used dynamics in the sense of ‘the art of transformation’ which is distinct from one of its traditional meanings as theoretical mechanics. In their present meanings, logic includes dynamics. This expansion of the meaning of logic is analogous to the expansion, above, from the idea of static form to the idea of dynamic form

The meaning of logic introduced is related to the more conventional meaning in which logic is ‘the art of argument’ or ‘the science of deduction.’ In the latter meanings, logics are the perceptions or readings of LOGIC –in restricted realms of being. The traditional forms of logic are sometimes regarded as conventional. It is clear, from the present considerations, that, while convention may be invoked in arriving at the forms, they are not merely traditional. It may also be seen that at least some aspects of logic are built into language

An attempt to provide a complete symbolic specification of LOGIC is an attempt to completely specify LOGOS in terms of a SYMBOLIC SYSTEM in which the collection of sentences is finite or enumerable infinite. That is, it implies an equation of the non-enumerable infinity of logos to an enumeration of a discrete collection i.e. to what is at most an enumerable infinity. Therefore, a complete symbolic specification of LOGIC is impossible; and any assumption that it is must result in a contradiction. That is, there is no complete and consistent specification of LOGIC or logos. It is a mistake to attempt to over specify logic i.e. to do what is clearly impossible

Plan. Note that the preceding paragraph is a ‘thread’ in an approach of the incompleteness of knowledge, logic and of symbolic systems generally. Tie the various approaches (here and elsewhere) together. Refer to the literature on the question of non-contradiction, including systems that allow paradox and contradiction

LAWS OF LOGIC

Plan. To take up the following topics here or later in the more detailed sections on logic. The general topic is the development of the general principles and systems of logic. Include the following and their relationships and their varying roles in bi- and multi-valued logics:

The principle of bivalence that, for all propositions Q, Q is either true or false

The law of non-contradiction also called the LAW OF CONTRADICTION that, for all propositions Q, (Q & ~Q) is false (relate this law to what I have hitherto called the LAW OF CONTRADICTION

The law of the excluded middle that, for all propositions Q, (Q or ~Q) is true

Use the following and related links: Logic and Bivalence and related laws, both from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here, I take up the LAW OF CONTRADICTION as illustrative. Further considerations of the laws of logic will be taken up later as the occasion arises – it is not part of the present purpose to develop formal or systematic logic

Analysis of the LAW OF CONTRADICTION. This law asserts that a being cannot be A and NOT-A which appears to have no premise except that there be beings whose properties do not take on all values i.e. that there be determinate beings i.e. there are distinguishable or distinct entities

Plan. Review the following semantic model of entities and implication. Any being or entity may be said to have all properties. When an entity in question does not have a certain property it may be equivalently said to have that property but that the property does not have any value. Of the properties that it has, in the ‘classical’ case each such property has a single value. In the non-classical case, the properties may have more than one value, e.g. as a superposed range of values. However, there is some restriction to the ranges of properties so that there are entities A and B such that B is NOT-A. Then, implication follows as follows: the meaning of A IS B is that the ranges of A’s properties lie within the ranges of B’s properties; then, if A IS B and B IS C then A IS B

Any necessity of implication must be implicit in the ‘implicator,’ I.e., A IMPLIES B only if B is IMPLICIT in A

INDUCTION AND THE ‘SCIENTIFIC METHOD’

As the science of deduction, logic or logical conclusion is necessary. This is because logic as logos is the science of necessary form, and, especially, insofar as logic is an aspect of meaning. Induction is generalization and is not necessary because, even though one generalization may fit all particulars and no other generalization may be evident, other generalizations are always possible – and may be required in order to fit undiscovered particulars. There have been a number of formal attempts to formulate a ‘logic of induction’ that include use of ideas of economy of concepts, beauty, and probability. None of the attempts can be regarded as adequately capturing the justification of induction whose results necessarily lack certainty even though they may seem to be certain. Thus there is no science of induction. In science, for example, success is the essential but always tentative test of a theory and many of the fundamental theories of science do reveal economy and beauty. Success is always tentative because the measure of success must include prediction and thus the theories are always subject to revision

The main conclusion is that there is no logic of induction that has the apparent necessity of deduction. The generalizations or theories of science do not have logical necessity. They may however have a practical though limited necessity. The practical necessity is that, often, the theory works so well in relation to what came before – predicts new phenomena, unites in symmetry what was previously apparently isolated domains of behavior, eliminates inconsistencies and aberrations, and may have the appearance of elegance. The limitation to the practical necessity is the revisability of science. Note, however, that the revisions or revolutions of science is due to the fact that the theories have had application to limited domains. It does not follow that, as is often taken to be the case, that the theories of the future will be subject to the same limitation; to conclude that they will is necessary only on assumptions about the nature of the real and the regions under study

Induction may occasionally be rendered as deductive if the form of the generalization is specified as a hypothesis. Thus induction does not have the necessity of deduction; however, induction may be thought of as practically, normally, or hypothetically deductive and may be associated with a necessity that arises from minimalism, from aesthetics, and from powers of prediction and ordering

Even though the imagination of all possibilities within the universe may be impossible and is certainly remote, there is a necessity to the collection of configurations of that world. Similarly, if what is taken as necessary is not so, then deduction is only conditionally necessary. Even if the world or ‘universe’ of logic is Platonic, its discovery is experimental. There is an identity between UNIVERSE and LOGOS. Thus, the distinction between induction and deduction is not as clear as it may seem

SCIENCE AND REALITY

What conclusions can be made from science –by induction– about the universe and its nature? There is an immediate and practical necessity to the general theories of science; science shares this practical necessity with common sense. This necessity expresses the following idea, confidence in theory is only possible as long as the realm of prediction is not too far from the realm of experience. That is, although there is no guarantee that the observed regularities of nature are absolute, there is no practical substitute to dependence on those regularities. Two practical limits to this conclusion are (1) as noted above the conclusion does not necessarily project to the universe, and (2) a regularity to both common sense and science is that there are exceptions to –violations of– the regularities. Logical positivism is the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge. However, there are some thinkers who hold the much more restrictive view that there is no reality outside of scientific reality. It is reasonable to think that the future of science is unpredictable –at least unpredicted– and therefore this more restrictive view is equivalent to the view that there is no reality outside of the current view from science. Although logical positivism is generally regarded as having been discredited there are many scientists and others who continue to hold either the original or the more restrictive version

Cast the question as follows, ‘What conclusions can be made from a set of data?’ One conclusion, of course, is that ‘data is possible.’ However, the question is ‘What generalizations are possible?’ As has been seen, practical necessity may yield some law as the most obvious generalization. However, there is no logically necessary generalization since there is generally an infinity of generalizations that fit a finite set of data. Another way of saying this is that an infinity of possible generalizations is consistent with the data. That is, except that this world is possible, there is no projection from this world to the universe. The range of possible conclusions lies between the projection of this world to the universe and the consistency of the universe and this world. Where does reality lie? This is clearly significant in relation to the possibilities of being that is an essential concern of this essay. A resolution is given in what follows

LAW

A law is the expression or formulation of a form that obtains without exception in a world. Often the restriction to a world is not specified and in the case of the most general laws and theories, this is usually the case because the boundaries of the world are not completely known. This is almost invariably true of the major theories of science. The foregoing is one source of error in actual laws. Other sources are accuracy of measurement and accuracy in fit; these sources of error may be conceptually included in the former

Thus, actual laws are approximations to ideal law

The actual form that is expressed in a law may be labeled law-form or, simply, LAW

If a law applies without exception in the universe it is necessary; if a law is necessary, it applies without exception in the universe. A law is necessary if and only if it is universal. The universal and necessary laws are logical

If a law applies without exception in a world but not in the universe, then it is necessary in that world but contingent relative to the universe. Since contingent laws do not apply in the universe, they must have a place of origin which is the boundary of the world in, e.g., extension and duration. In a sense, contingent laws are imposed from the outside. Necessary laws can have no origin because the universe has no boundary and no ‘outside’

The distinction between logic or necessity for a world and its contingent laws is based in the idea of what is constitutive of that world. There is a certain arbitrariness to the distinction between constitution and other characteristics. An example of constitution is found in the division –which may be an approximation– of the description of the world into static form or ‘properties’ and behavior; in this case the static form is the constitution. When specified, constitution may determine what is logical or necessary and what is contingent behavior and law. This issue has also been discussed elsewhere

If something permitted by a necessary law had no instance that would be an enhancement or addition to necessary law. Therefore, anything that is not a violation of necessary law, i.e. of logic, must have an instance; and, it immediately follows that it must have an infinity of instances. There is a seemingly more concrete and distinct derivation of this consequence in the section, below, on cosmology and the void or absence which where various ramifications of the principle are developed. That development might appear to be an alternate co-development of logic and general cosmology but, as has been noted, the ‘alternates’ are not truly distinct

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS

[WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?]

Use questions 2 and 3 of TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING

The question, ‘Why is there something when eternal nothingness is possible?’ has been called the fundamental problem of metaphysics

The resolution of this problem is trivial: eternal nothingness, as discussed immediately above, would violate necessity

Thus, it is more interesting to regard the questions, ‘Why is there sentience or awareness?’ and ‘Why is there agency?’ as fundamental. That ‘mind is being’ discussed above, provides a resolution

These issues and other alternative candidates, and an analysis of what the fundamental problem of metaphysics should be, are resolved later

POSSIBILITY, NECESSITY and ACTUALITY

The idea of the possible has a number of shades of meaning. Relative to the universe – the one universe, what could it mean that ‘something’ is possible but not –never– actual? If something is possible it must be actual; and if something is actual it is possible. Therefore, if something is possible an occurrence is necessary; and if the occurrence of something is necessary it is possible. In the one universe, there is no distinction between contingent happening and necessary happening; i.e. possibility and necessity are identical

Relative to the universe, actuality, possibility and necessity are identical

What is possible is materially or factually necessary

In the absence of access to the –entire one– universe, what measure of possibility may there be? If something is actual in the known universe, it is possible; but if something is not actual in the known universe, it does not follow that it is not possible. Something is possible if it is possible according to the true laws of physics of this phase of the universe; but, since those laws are not known to project to the entire universe – it is not known whether any laws except those of logic such projection, violation of the laws does not imply knowledge of impossibility. However, whatever is logically impossible regardless of context is impossible. Whatever is logically possible, is not necessarily possible in this phase of the universe. However, if something is logically possible is it then possible in –some phase or phases– of the –entire– universe? If that is the case, then the logically possible and the possible are identical. Since logic is –the study of– the necessary form of being, it is tempting to conclude that logical possibility implies possibility

Is the reasonable conclusion that possibility is identical to logical possibility true?

From the equivalence of possibility and material necessity, what is possible will and must occur. Note that it is not being said that all possibilities will occur in this world. Thus, LOGIC appears as the ‘physics’ of all being or of being as being

COSMOLOGY

Use questions 4 and 5 of TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING

COSMOLOGY has already been introduced, earlier, in considering ‘universe’ and ‘world’

[THE VOID    |    THE VOID EXISTS    |    IDENTITY OF POSSIBILITY, ACTUALITY AND NECESSITY    |    FURTHER PROPERTIES OF THE VOID]

Cosmology, i.e. general cosmology, is the study of the universe in its kinds and interactions, in all dimensions including extent and duration. Cosmology includes but is not limited to the physical cosmology of the known universe

It is reasonable to suppose that there is a connection between general cosmology and the ‘laws’ of all phases or contexts of the universe. The only laws that surely apply to all phases are the laws of logic i.e. of necessary form. It is significant to ask and determine an answer to the question ‘Are logical possibility and possibility identical?’

the void

A consideration of the void –which may also be referred to as the ABSENCE or NOTHINGNESS– enables disentanglement of the issue of the identity of possibility and logical possibility

THE VOID EXISTS

This follows from the equation, VOID = THE UNIVERSE – THE UNIVERSE

I.e. the void is what results when ‘everything’ is taken away –in concept– from the universe. The void is similar to what has been called the quantum vacuum which is what is supposed to result when all objects are removed from the physical ‘universe.’ However, in order to allow the quantum vacuum some predictable behavior, some physical law must remain. In the void, however, since the entire universe is removed, all laws and patterns of behavior must also be removed. It is necessary to be careful as to what is meant by ‘law.’ Laws are expressed in symbols. However, the symbolic expression refers to a pattern that or regularity that is immanent in being. It is this regularity in its actual and immanent manifestation that is LAW. All such regularities must be immanent in the universe because, if they were not immanent they would be imposed. However, there is no outside of the universe to make an imposition. Therefore, in the void, there is no thing or law or pattern; we may think that a LAW or PATTERN is a complex thing. This is the distinction between the void and the quantum vacuum. In the latter, only ‘simple objects’ are removed – and in not removing the complex objects such as laws, there is a tacit assumption that the laws project to the entire universe; in the void, all objects have been removed. Of course, in the void, logic, or logos, remains to condition any becoming from the void

The distinction between LAW and law is parallel to the distinction between LOGIC and logic. LAW is immanent in being; law is the rendering of LAW in cognition. LOGIC is necessary LAW; both are immanent in being but whereas laws may change, the laws of logic do not change. However, both are subject to revision

IDENTITY OF POSSIBILITY, ACTUALITY AND NECESSITY

Now consider the proposition that something that is logically possible does not become from the void. The not-becoming would be a contingent law immanent in the void and is therefore impossible. Therefore, whatever is logically possible is actual and therefore possible and necessary. That is

Possibility, actuality, necessity and logical possibility are identical

What is logically possible is necessary; what is logically impossible is simply impossible. This is a repetition of what was said above that logic is the physics of the entire one universe. Thus, for example, the LAW OF CONTRADICTION has a ‘physical’ interpretation: that which does not involve contradiction is possible

FURTHER PROPERTIES OF the VOID

Given a being, A, a ‘local void’ may be defined as follows: VOID_A = A – A. This appears to introduce an infinity of voids or nothingnesses. However, it may be seen that a local void is identical to the void. Therefore, the number of voids that exist is not determinate but does not have significance. The number of voids or nothingnesses may be taken to be one. The existence of a local void makes it clear the every entity is capable of self-annihilation

FURTHER COSMOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

Use question 7 of TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING

[PHASE-EPOCH    |    ANNIHILATION    |    RECURRENCE    |    GOD    |    SOUL    |    ARTICLES OF FAITH]

It immediately follows that:

THE VOID º EACH BEING º EVERY BEING º ALL BEING

Whatever is logically possible i.e. not a logical contradiction or impossibility is actual i.e. ‘must’ occur

Therefore, beings have no limits except logical limits

PHASE-EPOCH

A coherent space-time region of the universe with coherent laws and a single dominant time will be called a (coherent) phase-epoch of the universe

ANNIHILATION

Instantaneous annihilation of the entire actual universe, including this phase-epoch is possible and actual i.e. must occur. Note, though, that possibility and necessity of occurrence do not imply probability. That a large scale annihilation of this phase-epoch of the universe is possible follows; a discussion of its normal (below) but not essential probability or improbability follows later.

RECURRENCE

If the possible under review refers to discrete being, that possibility must not only occur but it must occur with infinite repetition. In repetition, what is possible is necessary and must be; and, what is possible in a limited phase of being is necessary in infinite repetition – or, every limited phase of being, including limited spans of lesser being, recurs infinitely

Being as the span of lesser being

It follows from recurrence that there is a progression of beings that, in their being, span lesser beings including the recurrences of such beings. The issue of karma will be taken up later; however it is already possible to view the concept of karma as a connection within a higher being or entity of the lesser beings that it spans

‘Higher’ and ‘lesser’ are analogous to more and less compound or complex and their meaning here does not connote intrinsic value

GOD

Clearly, god has an interpretation as a high level span of lesser being. Another interpretation is as the imposition of conditions from the ‘outside’ on a normal cosmology (below)

From the literal viewpoint the following are in question: the probability of the being and manifestation of a god like being in a given normal cosmology, especially of a god as described in any one of the various scriptures. Since the different traditions vary with regard to detail and projection of local particulars in the concept of the traditional god, the probabilities are vastly different among the traditions

SOUL

Clearly, various concepts and analogs of ‘soul’ have interpretation in recurrence and in higher being that spans lesser being. However, the essential significance of these concepts is already manifest in the discussion above of recurrence

ARTICLES OF FAITH

It is now possible to see that ‘Jesus Christ is raised from the dead’ is not absurd, even if normally improbable and obtains in countless actual cosmological systems i.e. coherent phase-epochs of the –entire one– universe. This follows since the claim, though it appears to violate common sense and perhaps the laws of physics and principles of biology, is not a logical contradiction. I have not introduced the claim for any shock value but because the for potential shock underlines the power of the cosmology also illustrated in the discussion of miracles below. Details the meaning and literal interpretation of religion, the articles of faith, myth are discussed later

THE CONCEPT OF THE NORMAL… NORMAL COSMOLOGY

[THE NORMAL    |    NORMALITY AND NECESSITY    |    NORMAL COSMOLOGY    |    EVOLUTION AS A MECHANISM    |    LIMITS    |    MIRACLES     |    MAGIC]

THE NORMAL

Is the foregoing discussion an invitation to reject the regularities and laws of this world, to reject common sense? It is not. Clearly, a violation of the normal regularities of the phase-epoch within its own domain, while possible has a limited probability. This behavior is normal behavior

It is normal, in larger domains to expect violation of the locally normal

NORMALITY AND NECESSITY

It was seen above, that the only necessities of thought are those of logic. All other ‘necessities’ are, as part of the ‘material’ constitution of this world, normal or practical but not absolute necessities. These practical necessities include the material constitution and physical laws of this world and observed regularities such as ‘the sun will rise tomorrow.’ The practical ‘necessities’ are not absolute necessities and are subject to correction as a result of improved observation, improved theories, and due to changes i.e. the observed regularities including physical laws may appear to be unchanging but are not necessarily so

NORMAL COSMOLOGY

The physical cosmology of this phase-epoch may be thought of as a normal cosmology

The theory of being developed here, relates normal cosmologies to the universe, shows that the normal cosmology of this world: loses in importance and the necessity of its normal behavior, gains in meaning and foundation; and shows that goals within the normal cosmology are more realizable but less important than might otherwise be thought to be the case

EVOLUTION AS A MECHANISM

Plan. Comments on evolution as a normal but not necessary ‘mechanism’ and applicable to the origin of any cosmological  system and its ‘chain’ (alternate word?) of being. Combine with comments on probability

Where to place this section? Note that there is a similar section in the detailed comments that follow this introductory section on Metaphysics, Logic and Cosmology.

LIMITS

It was observed above, that beings have no limits. The observed limits of beings are probable or, more accurately, normal – they are the probabilistic-normal conditions of existence of a coherent phase-epoch of being such as this world

MIRACLES

An objective, taken up later, is to find approaches to transform the improbable into the probable, the infeasible into the feasible. If a MIRACLE is a violation of the normal order then miracles are actual and necessary

MAGIC

Plan. Question appropriateness of the word, ‘magic’

In modern anthropology, magic or magical thinking has been defined as confusion or conflation of WORD and object. Alternatively, MAGIC could be defined as violation of the normal order. Then, a MAGICIAN is a being or individual with the ability to effect magic as though it were normal. A SHAMAN is an individual who, among other things, is believed to have magical power

The boundaries of the normal are not fixed. What may be thought to be magic at one time may be found to be normal at another; and what is normal at a given time in one context may exceptional in another context

SPACE, TIME AND CAUSATION

[SPACE, TIME AND MATTER    |    CAUSATION    |    DYNAMICS    |    MIND AND CAUSATION]

Plan. CAUSE, CAUSATION, or CAUSALITY

Plan. The topic is included for completeness; the development of the topics is later &OR in FOUNDATION. TIME, SPACE, and SPACE-TIME in the universe and in LOCAL COSMOLOGIES. 12.15.2004. Combine with similar discussions. It has been seen that:

SPACE, TIME, AND MATTER

In the becoming from the void, the origin of EXTENSION [space or spaces] and DURATION [time or times] are intertwined with one another and with being or ‘matter.’ A dynamic but local –approximate– description in which matter-time-space interact is possible; this description may be labeled ‘ENTITY-PROCESS-RELATIONSHIP’

In a local cosmology there may be coherent and DOMINANT SPACE, DOMINANT TIME or DOMINANT SPACE-TIME, and DOMINANT MODES OF BEING or matter; it is possible to talk about the origin of these

Whereas, in the entire realm of being – of the one universe – space/time/matter are not coherently related and there would seem to be no absolute space/time/matter

…in a local cosmology, depending on its effective relations with other cosmologies or the whole – or the lack of such relations, both relative and absolute space/time/matter may obtain. However, the coherent case might appear to be likely associated with practically isolated origin and therefore with relative or embedded space-time

CAUSATION

In the becoming from the void, there is a selection of relatively stable, near symmetric forms. The stability resides in the selection of coherently related elements of being. The relations are ‘forces’ that also manifest as ‘cause.’ However, this shows causation to be restricted to coherent worlds or phase-epochs. Thus, causation is not and cannot be universal. Even where it is manifest, causation is at most normal

DYNAMICS

What is the origin of dynamics

MIND AND CAUSATION

Thus, with reference to the earlier discussion, the causal aspect of mind –higher, human-animal, or primitive– is restricted to causal domains. The exception to normal behavior within normally causal domains will, later, be seen to be a source –necessary for– of essentially new ideas and concepts, i.e., of discovery and concept creation. What is the place of mind in extra-causal regions of the universe? Although a consistent extension of the concept of mind to such regions is possible, it bears little of the significance of mind as animal experience or the primitive mind of causal domains. Yet, the extension down to the void may be the most consistent extension of any single substantial concept. In that sense, the extension may be regarded as necessary. However, any such extension would not be the introduction of a substance since it an extension that may be consistent with the theory of being and not a projection

ACTION

Consider the problem of transcending the normal. Given some possibility, there may be no algorithm by which it may be achieved. Additionally, much of what is possible is not explicitly known. Therefore, while knowledge is sufficient to some realizations, action –experiments in knowing and transformation– is necessary

KNOWLEDGE

Plan. The following has been discussed in some manner elsewhere. There are also other considerations of knowledge. Bring all developments into cohesion; place appropriately

The consideration of action has an implication for the nature of knowledge. To say that the purpose of knowing –of the instruments of cognition– is knowledge is equivalent to saying that knowledge is an end in itself

When knowledge is regarded as an end in itself, various problems arise. What is the actual and possible completeness of knowledge with regard to its uses? What justification may there be of the faithfulness of knowledge? These questions are important – practically and in the history of thought

However, the consideration of action shows that faithfulness and completeness are designated but not absolute functions. Knowledge also functions dynamically in interaction with action and becoming. From this more inclusive perspective, the problems of faithfulness and completeness, though not unimportant, lose the absolute importance that has sometimes been assigned to them. The quest for realization need not wait for resolution of the issues of knowledge or epistemology; and if realization is a value there are will be times and occasions where experiments in transformation of being –of the being of the individual– are necessary

Although action is normally necessary for realization, the forms (theories) of knowledge, action and becoming are part of a theory of form

PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY

Some implications of the general cosmology for the local physical cosmology and theoretical physics including the theories of small and large scale structure and interactions are taken up later

Many laws and constants of physics are known with great precision and this is often found to be remarkable. It has also been found to be remarkable that some phase of nature is analyzable as expressed in the laws. However, what is also remarkable is that the constants and laws of physics obtain over vast domains. That these domains mark the practical or empirical limits of current knowledge does not make this less remarkable. As seen above, however, there is a limit to the universality the domain over which the laws of physics have reign. The universe is infinitely more vast and varied than the domains of studied physical law. The following interesting question arises, ‘How does it happen that the domain of physical law comes into being?’

Plan. The details from the following may be incorporated in the foregoing outline of cosmology andor placed in separate sections in the development of the metaphysics

Plan. The details from the following may be incorporated in the foregoing outline of cosmology andor placed in separate sections in the development of the metaphysics

CRITICISM

The first criticism of the developments is based in the absence of all law in the void. In saying that ‘every possibility must occur from the void’ it seems that  a law is being attributed to the void. However, it is not being claimed that ‘every possibility must occur.’ What is being said is that the fact of non-occurrence would be a law. That every possibility will occur is a consequence of the absence of such a law

Another criticism is that since, clearly, the void can annihilate every object including the universe in its extension and duration, why does this not happen? A generic response is that it would not be normal or probable. However, this is not an explanation. An explanation is necessary. The response first notes the stability of the phase-epoch as the condition of its existence as such. I.e. it is not in the character of the phase-epoch to normally [without intervention of the void] self-annihilate. The second part of the response is to examine the mechanism of the annihilating mechanism of the void. Annihilation is not magical and therefore the void would, in terms of mechanism, first generate an annihilating phase which would perform the annihilation. However, the generation of an annihilating universe is unlikely. Therefore, it is not true that ‘annihilation does not happen’ but it is true that the annihilation is extremely improbable

A more serious criticism is that, seemingly, the arguments are based in necessary principles but not in fact and observation. There would be an especial truth to this criticism if a distinction had not been made between the general or universal and the normal. The developments in this essay have been subject to numerous critical standpoints of which not all are manifest in the final narrative. Knowledge has been subject to numerous criticisms of which some are manifest above. These criticisms concern the nature, validity and role of knowledge. The issue of the role of knowing is especially important. It is often taken for granted, especially in what may be called the knowledge enterprises, e.g. the academic environment that the function of knowledge is to know. Granted that it is the function of knowledge to know, numerous criticisms and responses arise that trace the history of philosophy and thought. However, knowing is not the only function of knowledge; there is a criticism of the independence of all thought and, especially, academic thought. Being and becoming have significance over and above independent knowing. This means that the ideal of knowledge is not an absolute ideal; therefore ‘certainty’ is two times removed from being an ideal of knowing. That knowledge is not the only function of knowing may appear to be paradoxical but the potential paradox has been discussed and resolved above. The resolution was that the capacities that have been labeled ‘the instruments of knowing’ is not at all a necessary labeling. The capacities originated in the adaptation of the organism and the mutual adaptation of the society of organisms to the world – to this world. That adaptation appears to involve interaction between what is abstracted as knowing and action or becoming. This implies a limit to all criticism. Is the final objective knowledge or transformation and becoming? At the same time, knowledge as knowledge is not at all lacking in significance. There are practical significances that include the conviction of certainty, the deployment of science, and the luxury of being able to stand back and appreciate the magnificence of the endeavor – in this case, the progress of humankind. However, from the standpoint of what may be realized, these temporary senses of achievement are diversions. Knowledge itself, the instruments of culture are diversions. They are essentially poised between being diversions and being essential since the outcome is not given. Therefore, except in the case of essential or egregious criticism, there is an importance to deployment of thought toward action rather than mere certainty of conviction

Plan. Consolidation

The developments from this point to the next ‘Heading 2’ topic (form) are to be consolidated in the above Outline of Metaphysics

Outline of the Metaphysics: A System of Necessary Explanatory Principles

Review title. Alternates: ‘Outline of the Metaphysics – Logic: A System of Necessary Explanatory Principles’

Words. EXPLANATION, KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING, CONTRADICTION

What is possible is materially or factually necessary

It is conceptually necessary that there is exactly one universe. Therefore, possibility and actuality are identical – actuality is the only possible measure of possibility; it is the actual-in-this-world that is distinct from the possible. Since the possible and the actual are identical, what is known to be possible is realizable

I.e. actuality º possibility º material necessity

The only necessities of thought are those of logic

This defines logic – as distinct from LOGIC. LOGIC is immanent in being; logic is its reflection in thought

The distinction between LOGIC and logic is parallel to the distinction between LAW and law. LAW is immanent in being; law is the rendering of law in cognition. LOGIC is necessary LAW; LOGIC is immanent in being; logic is its reflection in cognition as the necessities of cognition and, most commonly, of thought

All other ‘necessities’ are, as part of the ‘material’ constitution of this world, normal or practical but not absolute necessities. These practical necessities include the material constitution of our bodies and observed regularities such as ‘the sun will rise tomorrow’ which is subject to factual error and extrapolations as in science which is further subject to error of extrapolation

What are the necessities of cognition and, more specifically, of thought? The LAW OF CONTRADICTION: that which does not involve contradiction is possible

Analyze the law of contradiction. Is that it, above? Or, is it that a being cannot be A and NOT-A which appears to have no premise except that there be beings whose properties do not take on all values i.e. that there be determinate beings. [Any being or entity may be said to have all properties. When an entity in question does not have a certain property it may be equivalently said to have that property but that the property does not have any value. Of the properties that it has, in the ‘classical’ case each such property has a single value. In the non-classical case, the properties may have more than one value, e.g. as a superposition. However, there is some restriction to the ranges of properties so that there are entities A and B such that B is NOT-A. Then, implication follows as follows: the meaning of A IS B is that the ranges of A’S properties lie within the ranges of B’S properties; then, if A IS B and B IS C then A IS B. Show that this defines implies implication]

From the equivalence of possibility and material necessity, what is possible will and must occur. [It is not being said that it will occur in this world.] In this way, LOGIC appears as the ‘physics’ of being

Outline of the Metaphysics: The Logic of the Void

Review title. Alternates: ‘Outline of the Metaphysics – The Logic of the Void’

The logic of the void is in two steps

The existence and nature of the void. Given a being, A, the definition of the void is as follows: VOID_A = A – A. Similarly, VOID = UNIVERSE – UNIVERSE; consider this formulation. In removing the universe, all pattern and law is removed; this is because LAW and PATTERN are immanent in being even though law and pattern are not similarly immanent [the form of law and pattern are immanent in the compound being of sentient being and object.] Consider, now, a factual situation in which the void never becomes some object, A. or another factual situation in which some non-contradiction [possibility] does not occur. Every such situation defines a LAW. Therefore, the situation mentioned is not possible. I.e., the void ‘will become’ every object; and every non-contradiction will occur. Every possibility will occur. [This shows the equivalence between ‘non-contraction’ and ‘possible.’] The void is equivalent to every object including the universe and every VOID_A. [All voids are equivalent and the number of voids is without significance.]

Therefore, beings have no limits. The observed limits of beings are probable – the conditions of existence of a coherent phase-epoch of being such as this world

We immediately have cosmology [details for cosmology follow later]

Void º every being º all being

Each being º every being º ALL BEING

Thus any being can transform into every other being. This is seen from the foregoing and can also be seen from the attachment of the void to every being or entity. Although this appears absurd because, if true, it would seemingly disrupt the normal regularities of this world. However, the absurdity condition does not follow. Since ‘this world’ evolved as a relatively stable, near-symmetric phase-epoch fluctuations from ‘normal’ behavior are improbable – and, as we know from experience, in some sense extremely improbable. [Part of the development to follow is to analyze the sense of this improbability, possible exemptions or exceptions from normal behavior, and to seek approaches to making the improbable feasible, and seeing value in the less feasible but more desirable]

There exists exactly one universe. This is more than a definition, for it has been shown that any normally non-interacting systems must interact

POSSIBILITY º ACTUALITY

RECURRENCE: every object, every possibility repeats infinitely in the universe [including infinite repetition relative to parameters of extension and duration]

GENERAL and SPECIFIC COSMOLOGIES. The regularities of a cosmological system occur in the selection of relatively-stable, near-symmetric states

Two Criticisms

The first criticism is based in the absence of all law in the void. In saying that ‘every possibility must occur from the void’ a law is being attributed to the void. However, it is not being claimed that ‘every possibility must occur.’ What is being said is that the fact of non-occurrence would be a law. That every possibility will occur is a consequence of the absence of such a law

The second criticism is that since, clearly, the void can annihilate every object including the universe in its extension and duration, why does this not happen? The response first notes the stability of the phase-epoch as the condition of its existence as such. I.e. it is not in the character of the phase-epoch to normally [without intervention of the void] self-annihilate. The second part of the response is to examine the mechanism of the annihilating mechanism of the void. Annihilation is not magical and therefore the void would, in terms of mechanism, first generate an annihilating phase which would perform the annihilation. However, the generation of an annihilating universe is unlikely. Therefore, it is not true that ‘annihilation does not happen’ but it is true that the annihilation is extremely improbable

The Status of the Logic

Review item. Analyze and respond to the criticism:

The crux of the logic without the theory of the void is this: [1] Since the possible and actual are identical, the possible must occur [in fact, in a extension-duration space has infinitely many occurrences not only in the space but also as a parameter of extension or of duration assumes its different values.] [2] The possible is defined conceptually to be what does not involve a contradiction. The criticism is as follows: do not items 1 and 2 contain distinct meanings of ‘possible’ that are being conflated? The criticism is valid in that the two uses of ‘possible’ do appear to have distinct meanings. This criticism requires analysis to see whether the distinct meanings are identical in their extension; and if not, is the distinction sufficient to invalidate the drawing of the conclusion. Although the drawing of the conclusion may be invalidated, the conclusion itself is not since it follows in the theory of the void or absence which may also show that the two meanings of ‘possible’ are equivalent. It is also important to carefully review the theory of the absence in light of the present criticism to see if, despite the latest verification of that theory

Development of the Metaphysics

Planning. Details are no longer necessary since they are in subsequent Heading 2 sections. Here, introduce and or motivate the development. What to do with the Heading 4 sub-sections of this section?

Metaphysics

METAPHYSICS is the THEORY OF BEING

The PROBLEMS OF METAPHYSICS. A primary objective of the METAPHYSICS or THEORY OF BEING

To SPECIFY, touch and give RESOLUTION to ALL PROBLEMS IN METAPHYSICS. This requires an analysis of the SYSTEM of problems. I.e. the list of problems is a problem. This has been begun upon in §2 and is made possible by the theory of being itself; similarly, the PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY receive illumination but, since, in its inner regions philosophy is more context dependent it is not possible to treat the problems of philosophy as definitively as the problems of metaphysics. However, the theory of being is still useful in illuminating the problems of philosophy in great measure. The problems include the following disciplines and theories and their problems

METAPHYSICS; CLASSICAL METAPHYSICS

ALL BEING; ANY BEING

HUMAN BEING

Additional comments on metaphysics

What is metaphysics? I treat of this in detail in this essay. Here, the formula, ‘Metaphysics is the study of being as being.’ It is the study of the most fundamental ASPECTS of being but also of the entirety of being

An error that is often made is to assert that, therefore, metaphysics is the most trivial and uninteresting of studies. Absolute metaphysics must be the study of being and non-being where, in the algebraic sense, non-being is being. But about being as being and non-being, nothing definite can be said that characterizes as a unit, as a whole – which is not at all to say that nothing can be said about it. That it includes all being and the void is one thing that can be said and anything that can be correctly said about any phase of being is a part of that absolute metaphysics. If that is all that metaphysics was, it would be rather uninteresting in that nothing can be said of it as a unit. However, metaphysics includes but is not identical to that absolute metaphysics. In its most general practical sense, metaphysics includes the study of determinate being as in general cosmology. This topic is highly interesting and in combination with special cosmologies, that are not yet as specific as the theoretical physics of this world, much that is deep and of consequence for the general possibilities of being and of this world can be said; much is illuminated. In combination with the disciplines, although knowledge does not yet become complete – even if we should have held that as a goal, there is an enormous amount of [1] emergent or new knowledge and understanding, [2] cross illumination, and [3] emergent consistency even if absolute consistency is not obtained – especially with respect to concrete detail

A further error is that while the more special disciplines have definite and practical interest, those studies are not other than metaphysics – the SPECIAL DISCIPLINES AS WITHIN METAPHYSICS. While they may make restriction in scope, while they may entertain conceptual positions that would be disallowed in fundamentals, they still remain within metaphysics in the factual relatedness of the subject matters, in the potential for illumination among the subject matters, and in the potential for conceptual unity, coherence and entirety

Another error is the assertion that ‘metaphysics is impossible.’ Practical issues with the assertion are, first, that –even if the assertion were true– it may result in the abortion of studies and explorations that take us to places unimagined. A more serious error regarding the assertion is that it is based on the idea that the function of cognition is –merely– knowing and not action. Thus the assertion ‘metaphysics is impossible’ is self-disbarment from ‘paradise.’ By paradise, I mean, of course, the infinite potential of being and not a mythic kingdom; and, it is necessary to acknowledge that paradise must include ‘hell’ whose meaning, here, is similarly not mythic. Finally, it is to be remembered, that any assertion such as ‘metaphysics is impossible’ is necessarily perspective-driven and it is in the nature of such perspectives they fill out perception so as to seem like a world; I have argued in detail the case that metaphysics is possible from certain perspectives – even the embedded perspective [symbols are not essentially non-iconic, non-embedded] provided that there is sufficient abstraction [it should be remembered that abstract does not necessarily mean not-real but, rather, has meaning as the essence of the real]

Along these lines, I have demonstrated intrinsic interest in the fundamental study of being or ontology; and a derived interest in this study for all beings, especially human being and society – in the present and in the potential

… and have argued the case for an extended but not exclusive interpretation of ‘knowing’ and ‘metaphysics’ to be interpreted as part of a chain or loop which also contains action and, thus, to an irreducible experimental aspect to this interpretation

While the form or style of the study may appeal only to some, I will now demonstrate the universality of the interest in the content

Metaphysics, Logic and Cosmology

New title for section ‘Being, Mind and Logic’

Alternative title, ‘Being, Logic and Cosmology’

This is the integrated outline development. Needs outline of fundamental problems. Needs mention of mind?

Metaphysics, Logic and Cosmology: Some Details

LOGIC, METAPHYSICS, DYNAMICS… this topic is especially important. Include a discussion that the conventional ‘logic is the science or art of argument’ is included while it is gone far beyond not only in quantity but also in meaning. Is the LAW OF CONTRADICTION the one essential law of logic? Is the essence of logic equivalent to what is applicable even in essential indeterminism; and would that be because essential indeterminism is what underlies all contexts? Is the ESSENCE OF LOGIC that which applies to ALL CONTEXTS or, perhaps, all contexts where there at least one distinction is identifiable?

The following point regarding METAPHYSICS, not emphasized in the present FOUNDATION –check this– but that I have made in other writing, should be made. In thinking through a fundamental question such as, for example, the relation between language and thought it is necessary to first specify carefully what are language and thought. However, unless a complete system of METAPHYSICS is available no definite specification can be given. Of course, even given a definite METAPHYSICS a definite answer does not follow; rather, the METAPHYSICS allows a meaningful definite specification. Once a definite specification is given, a clear cut discussion of the relation between language and thought is possible but this, too, requires the METAPHYSICS. This is one advantage of fixing a METAPHYSICS. However, a final specification of the metaphysics may not be possible and therefore the iterative and open ended answering of all questions may the best that is available. Even though this may be true, the specification of a METAPHYSICS is useful for the iterative and open ended approach at all levels i.e. that of the METAPHYSICS as well as the regions of METAPHYSICS is better than the mere treatment of specific questions or the final fixing of a METAPHYSICS

Perhaps the THEORY OF BEING of the FOUNDATION is a final METAPHYSICS but it may be so general as to not sufficiently fix the ontology of a given phase-epoch of the universe so as to be able to give definite answers to ‘philosophical questions within that phase-epoch’

In the practical sense just specified, we may think of an ontology as specifying the working operation of a particular environment e.g. that of an epoch while the practical metaphysics is the working out of the ontology. The common elements of all ontologies is ONTOLOGY and its working out is METAPHYSICS

Metaphysics, Logic and Cosmology

11.08.04

On Logic and Cosmology. LOGIC and COSMOLOGY may be thought to be distinct

However, in consideration of what ‘laws’ are common to all cosmological systems within the one universe, it is logic that emerges as the essential law or system of laws

Therefore, within the usual or conventional understanding, there is a root convergence of logic and cosmology and, within the same understanding, a divergence according to kind of cosmological system. I.e., the laws of a specific cosmological system may be seen as special laws superposed on ‘universal logic.’ Alternatively, the special laws e.g. the laws of physics may be seen as logic

Whereas human institutions are artifactual –have an artifactual aspect– relative to biology and human psychology, so a cosmological system and its laws may be seen as artifactual relative to absence –the void– or to earlier or less formed epochs [in the text, introduce: ‘phase-epoch’ but then abbreviate it to ‘epoch’]

11.21.04

Metaphysics, Logic, and Cosmology: these topics should be placed –or, at least introduced– together

GENERAL COSMOLOGY

In placing METAPHYSICS, LOGIC and COSMOLOGY together, I am thinking, primarily, of GENERAL COSMOLOGY

In view of the EQUIVALENCE OF LOGIC AND COSMOLOGY, as discussed in this essay, it follows that, to that extent, LOGIC and GENERAL COSMOLOGY are the same subject although the emphasis may be different

While QUANTUM THEORY is a theory of behavior in the present phase-epoch, we have seen a NORMAL probability interpretation of general cosmology

LOGIC or LANGUAGE e.g. the language of ‘STATES OF AFFAIRS’ i.e. of PROTO-PROPOSITIONS is – with qualification – at the root of GENERAL COSMOLOGY and, perhaps, also at the root of the QUANTUM or WAVE MECHANICS of this phase-epoch and of the ‘QUANTUM VACUUM’

General cosmology should be developed first, together with metaphysics and logic – with generic applications and, possibly, some reference to the specific case. The development of descriptions or theories of specific cosmologies should come later. In the specialized development, interpretation may be given in terms of the general

Epistemology as part of Metaphysics

Details under topic KNOWLEDGE

1. Object =DF. concept or idea ¹ noumenon or external object…

2. But knowledge i.e. KNOWLEDGE-OF is not the general FUNCTION OF COGNITION…

3. Therefore, concept-object does not even have meaning (in the embedded sense?)

4. However, in the symbolic sense concept-object may have meaning and with, e.g., sufficient abstraction, may have embedding

Topics in Classical Metaphysics

Alternative titles, ‘Metaphysics,’ ‘Topics in Metaphysics’

Details of the development are in subsequent sections

Motive for this sub-section:

The purposes to the development of classical metaphysics include: [1] Illustration of the power of the THEORY OF BEING developed here. [2] The framework of classical metaphysics, even though it appears to be an incomplete metaphysics and a fragment of the present THEORY OF BEING, is a guide to development of the THEORY OF BEING as a complete and comprehensive system of metaphysics

It will not be necessary to consider more than the essentials of classical metaphysics in outline. I.e. it will be useful to first develop an outline of the classical theory as a system

Planning. What shall I do with this section and the next?

Dynamics of Being and Process

BEING, PROCESS, RELATIONSHIP

Include a discussion of BPR, the meanings including new meanings of the terms – especially of RELATIONSHIP, where they are found and their significance in / to Journey in Being. One place that relationship is found is in the idea of the journey about the individual and universal journeys and their relationship

Re-introduce relationship (individual-universal) to (1) The introductory two-line description of the journey, and (2) The multi-line description of the journey in §2

Does the existence of CHANGE or changing imply that there is a THING that is changing? Or, is the ‘thing’ a convenient FICTION that is an APPROXIMATION of what is REAL? If there is no REAL behind the idea, what is fiction?

On PROCESS or BECOMING

PROCESS is, of course, fundamental:

As ontic, i.e. as a fundamental element of some or all being

As –at least partially– explanatory of the nature and origin of being

Part and Whole; Fluidity of Concepts

Planning. Where do the comments on fluidity of concepts go? The comments may be perhaps just a reference to this point as an example

PART, WHOLE, MALE, FEMALE, MASCULINE, FEMININE

The analysis of part and whole is intrinsically important. The analysis of male, female… is important for a number of reasons. In the first place, it is important in showing that the whole is made up of complements. This shows that the identification of either as superior is mistaken in principle i.e. that, at least in this context, ‘superior’ has no final meaning even if men and women place importance in it. That does not mean that cultivation actual or assigned values must always be ‘equal’ or ‘democratic.’ Nor can the previous sentence be taken as a justification of unequal treatment or status. Male / masculine, female / feminine is interesting in bringing out the nature of ‘roles’ and ‘assignments’ – or stereotyping. Even though ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ are flush with the assignments of a culture that does not mean that the roles are arbitrary. And the cultural assignments do not mean that ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ cover the range of modalities of being [human] or that only males are, can or should be masculine or that only females are, can or should be feminine. Underlying that even the male / female distinction is not as absolute as one might think it to be – even if one looks only at homo sapiens and this can be seen by considering the XO, XX, XY, XYY… and the continuum of possibilities of PHENOTYPE. What is it to be female? Is the female the one who bears the ‘egg’ or the one who bears the young? Even if EGG and child bearing usually go together, there is no logical reason for that to be the case and it is not always true in nature i.e. in a minority of species the ‘male’ bears the young [in a many if not a majority of sexual species, neither SEX bears the offspring.] This discussion is useful in pointing out the fluidity of concepts and actualities that we think of as fixed and in pointing out the relative lack of meaning to debates on ‘male vs. female.’ However, the most important specific point here has not yet been made and it is this: it is the power of DIFFERENTIATION and RECOMBINATION in producing VARIETY, FLEXIBILITY, ADAPTABILITY, ABUNDANCE and RICHNESS in the realization of form and possibility

The Nature of Process

PROCESS as explanatory

In the THEORY OF BEING it is shown how the nature of being is determined in becoming; thus, the THEORY OF BEING explains structure, stability, symmetry and variety of being. Additionally, it is becoming that is the fundamental source of meaning because it is in becoming that there is experience and, therefore, learning, growth and the ability to cultivate the ‘interests’ and ‘goals’ of a life. it is clear that process is explanatory regardless of its ontic status

PROCESS as ONTIC

In the THEORY OF BEING, it is becoming of the ephemera and selection of the stable ephemera that constitute the becoming of being. Therefore, although the void is fundamental in that the THEORY OF BEING is an ontology and system of understanding that terminate and that has no fundamental substance or element, the fundamental element of inception is the initial element of being in becoming. I.e. PROCESS, SUBSTANCE and RELATIONSHIP are co-fundamental not only because of their mutual origins but also because there is essential intertwinement in those origins

It is necessary, for completeness, to note that the theory of the void makes all elements unnecessary from the absolute point of view – since one step origins of all systems, regardless of origin, is possible. Therefore, that PROCESS, SUBSTANCE and RELATIONSHIP are co-fundamentally ontic is a practical perspective in that its application is all phases beyond the absolute void; but – and review this – may be absolutely fundamental from the relative viewpoint of determinate being

LOGIC

Planning. Include concept, LOGOS. Include LOGOS in the title? Comment on LOGIC as LOGOS vs. logic

LOGIC

It is necessary to think through the following points as part of the consolidation:

As understood, here, logic is not as is traditionally defined e.g. ‘The study of PROPOSITIONS and their use in ARGUMENTATION, PROOF and so on.’ However, as defined here, logic has immediate bearing upon the traditional definition

Logic, as conceived here, is closely related to the LOGOS, the essential or fundamental reason or form implicit in the cosmos of all forms… and to the logic-grammar of Wittgenstein

Logic is the ONE LAW OF THE UNIVERSE. Logic is that law which is common to all phases of the universe. If we allow consideration of the faulty concept or construction of ‘many universes’ or ‘alternate universes,’ then the universal law that covers all universes is logic which bifurcates into the local laws – CONSTITUTIVE or NECESSARY or logical and CONTINGENT or ‘MATERIAL’ laws;. i.e., the local laws are examples of logic; i.e., the local laws are the law(s) of logic plus additional local laws

The question arises, ‘Does logic as the one law of the entire universe exist?’ I.e., is this definition one of an empty set of laws? Or, in order to be significant, to be non-empty, is it necessary to have DETERMINATE BEING such that there are individuals that are not of the form A and NOT-A? This point needs careful consideration

Then, A LOGIC is the set of laws that are UNIVERSAL or NECESSARY TO A CLASS OF CONTEXTS. In order to distinguish between logic and material laws, it will be useful to specify that the logic of a context is CONSTITUTIVE of the context. I.e., if the material laws are violated the context is not necessarily changed; if the laws of logic are violated, the ‘context of the violation’ is not the original context – it is another context and this includes the empty context i.e. no context at all. These considerations require careful consideration. Is there a distinction between the laws of logic of a context and its material laws? In questioning the distinction between analytic and synthetic truth – W. V. O. Quine questioned the distinction

The following is crucial to the equivalence of the THEORY OF BEING and LOGIC or LOGOS

One TYPICAL PROBLEM or question in THEORETICAL PHYSICS is, ‘Given (some) CONDITIONS and laws, what are the consequences?’ It is typical, though not necessary, that there is one consequence [UNIQUENESS.] I.e. part of the understanding of the laws is knowledge of what conditions make for uniqueness. This requirement is necessary for the laws to describe real behavior – on the condition, of course, that the world is deterministic! Even when the world is non-deterministic, there may still be deterministic laws as, for example, in QUANTUM MECHANICS where the DETERMINISTIC SCHRÖDINGER EQUATION applies to a ‘PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE.’ Even in this case, although the evolution of a PHYSICAL SYSTEM is INDETERMINISTIC, it is unique; however the actual TRAJECTORY is not given by the Schrödinger equation – except in certain cases or limits. [The MANY-WORLDS INTERPRETATION of quantum mechanics is an attempt to address this NON-PREDICTABILITY.] In the unique case, the conditions and laws provide a set of conditions e.g. equations that have a unique solution. What results if we replace ‘theoretical physics’ in the foregoing by ‘logic?’ In that case ‘some laws’ are the laws of logic and ‘some conditions’ may be some facts. A particular case of ‘some facts’ is ‘no facts.’ In that case the only conditions are the laws of logic. We ask, what are the solutions to the ‘equations’ i.e. what further facts are consistent with logic and the facts? In the case of ‘no facts,’ the answer is ‘all possibilities;’ and in the case of ‘some facts,’ it is ‘all possibilities that are consistent with the given facts.’ [An elaboration of the discussion is to consider the logic of some context.] The laws of logic are not typically taken as implying the necessity of all possibilities i.e. of all states that are consistent with those laws. However, if we were to think of the laws of logic as a system of theoretical physics, that is what would be the outcome. Further, that is the outcome that is equivalent to the THEORY OF BEING from the void. In what way can we see the system of the laws to be equivalent to the THEORY OF BEING without further condition or assumption? In this way there is a break-down between the distinction between material and contingent or physical law and contextual or necessary or logical law

LOGIC: THE VOID

A central issue that, since it is crucial to the development, deserves most careful scrutiny is the LOGIC of the THEORY OF BEING. A second basic concern is that of the consequences of the theory. The level of its generality or abstraction is such that its ability to have consequences in this world could be questioned. I have attempted to show that that the theory of being illuminates the question of ‘What is important or desirable?’ and helps to address every significant issue of being

CRITIQUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOGIC

FORM

Place here. Possibly place critical review of the nature of pattern and law here. Consider FORM, PATTERN and LAW vs. form, pattern and law

Logic is a form

The logics constitute a set of forms. Logic is a fundamental form. Logic [LOGOS] is constitutive of determinate being

Cognitions are forms

The content of a cognition may be seen as approximate –in a variety of ways– to a form

To suppose an absolute divide –in kind or territory, in intension or extension­– between emotion or feeling and cognition would be to make a false supposition. It is important to become used to this idea early. The remark remark is explained, emphasized, developed and elaborated later

Comments on Form

10.06.04. Place the following comment at the end of the §FORM

The discussion on FORM comes before those on MIND, SYMBOL AND OBJECT. This is because symbol and object come together in form. Without form, it may be questioned whether symbol and object have any structure or whether they are shadows of the REAL. There are forms and PERCEPTS or PERCEPTIONS OF FORMS but perceptions of forms are forms. And in all form there is perception or PROTO-PERCEPTION i.e. the effect of the one in the other that is RELATION. The general case is PERCEPTION-IN from which, there speciates or develops PERCEPTION-OF which is experienced as isolated perception. This generalizes to the speciation of COGNITION-IN which includes COGNITION-OF

In the case of LANGUAGE there is a CONTEXT, already set up, within which there are crisp boundaries that encourage the notion of definiteness of language and its REFERENCE. The critics of the notion of DEFINITENESS IN LANGUAGE have attempted to dissuade us of its guile and charm. That charm is not altogether misplaced in context –institution, culture– but an error in the use of language is its indefinite projection beyond its context even to the ultimate. The form resolves the distinction of symbol and object and the misleading definiteness of and language

MIND AND SYMBOL

The Infinitely Many Attributes Theory

Planning. This section has the following functions; accordingly enter some of items 1 and 2 into the text. [1] To emphasize that the general cosmology has interpretation as one without categories or substances, [2] That the local ontology may be regarded as a monism which is clearly not a materialism but, even though it finds mind at the elemental level, is neither an idealism nor a pan-psychism since what is found at the elemental is an extension of – the concept of – mind-as-we-have-it

The INFINITELY MANY ATTRIBUTES THEORY of Spinoza [eliminate reference here but add comment in ‘Influences.’] A comment on MIND. Spinoza argued that whereas the attributes we recognize in nature are two –mind and matter– nature may in fact have an infinite number of attributes. In FOUNDATION, I stated that this is a ‘is a useful reminder on the limitation of our embedded categories of thought.’ Here, I want to revaluate the infinite attribute theory

MIND can be seen as the nature of being as viewed by the PARTICIPANT

MATTER can be seen as the nature of being as viewed by a SPECTATOR – from the outside

Therefore, there cannot be further attributes in this sense except for the sophistry that may be involved in considering multiple relations e.g. the world as viewed in communication among individuals. [Even if we accept this view as establishing further attributes, they are not the attributes of a higher being; this does not demonstrate that there could be no attributes of this kind that are not available to us]

However, if we consider that the MODALITIES OF NATURE that we admit e.g. in science are the SENSORY MODALITIES then we recognize the classical five and other modalities. In that other modalities may be possible, at least in other phase-epochs, it would appear that ‘nature’ does have an infinite number of attributes. I say ‘does have’ rather than ‘may have’ because this follows from the THEORY OF BEING i.e. all possibilities are material necessities

SYMBOL, IDEAL AND EXTERNAL OBJECT

Forms and the Categories of Intuition and Thought

10.07.04. Place after the previous comment:

Thus, while SPACE, TIME, and CAUSATION may or may not be forms, the COGNITIONS of space, time and causation are forms. While HUMOR may or may not be a form, the EXPERIENCE i.e. the COGNITION-FEELING of humor and its cultivation is a form. Behind the forms of cognition or cognition-feeling, lie what might be called the unspecialized or UNSPECIATED FORMS of ABSOLUTE MATERIAL OBJECT (space,) ABSOLUTE BECOMING (time,) QUASI-CAUSATION or pre-causal ‘effect’ (defined, give page reference,) and ABSOLUTE TERMINATION or DISSOLUTION (humor.) The forms of cognition including human cognition are instances or speciations of the unspecialized forms

Ideal and External Object

The issue of OBJECT-EXTERNAL OBJECT, MAP-TERRITORY, FUNCTION-DESIGNATED FUNCTION and its variants: collect the sub-issues together under the overall issue

…

KNOWLEDGE

Planning. Add a section, knowledge, or incorporate it to the previous section

Emphasize that the original meaning of ‘Whereof one cannot speak…’ was about the limits of language –and thought– and about what it is not merely difficult to know or empirically possible to know but what is logically impossible to know. This is relevant to the thought of Kant and of Wittgenstein

Comments on mind or knowledge as ‘The Effect of the One in the Other’

This identification appears to be limited. Following are some apparent limits and responses

The idea is CONCRETE with regard to objects. Response: the ‘one’ could be PATTERN, LAW, FORM, CONCEPT, the WHOLE

The idea excludes SUBJECTIVITY. Response: there is no exclusion. In the discussion of mind, subjectivity is referred down to the atom – i.e. whatever may be ELEMENTAL or atomic including, perhaps, an INFINITE SERIES or CONTINUUM of levels. This point and various objections and ramifications have been discussed in detail

The idea excludes the INTENSIONAL nature of mind, AWARENESS, CONSCIOUSNESS and KNOWLEDGE. Response: while elemental mind, awareness, consciousness, knowledge… are referred to the elemental, atomic or primal level, intensionality does indeed require explanation. While the idea of mind as the effect of the one in the other does not logically entail intensionality, it does not rule it out. I.e., to understand the locus or source of intensionality, an separate explanation or derivation is required. Further, in order to be able to accept mind and its aspects as ‘the effect of the one…’ the explanation must start from an elemental level where intensionality is absent. While this is not necessarily easy, the gap between the elements –e.g. the constituents of the brain– and the phenomenon of intensionality is not a CATEGORIAL CONCEPTUAL DIVIDE. Rather, the explanation will require a sufficiently elaborate picture or model of e.g. the brain to allow an explanation of what might be called ‘the ELEMENTS OF INTENSIONALITY.’ Note that while the conditions of existence require every particle of a stable phase of being to have an ‘aboutness’ regarding the remainder of the phase, the feeling is, simply, not sufficiently elaborate to recongnize itself – which appears to be the requirment of ACUTE INTENSIONALITY which is usually in the background when talking of intensionality even when, in the service of explanation, attempts are made to explicitly exclude it. It appears clear that a primary ingredient of acute intensionality is REFLEXIVITY, the awareness of the fact that we know…

Error as Potential for Knowledge

The saying, attributed to ancient Chinese wisdom, ‘Crisis is Opportunity’ is pertinent to the error in the indefinite projection of language –thought– beyond its context. Although the arbitrary projection is likely to be in factual error –there is a necessary conceptual error in that even coincidental validity cannot be distinguished from error– such projection can be viewed as the erroneous end of a process or as the beginning of a series toward knowing

Epistemology as part of Metaphysics

Topics: FACT, CONCEPT, PERCEPT, KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, FAITH, VALUE, TRUTH, THEORY, LAW, HYPOTHESIS, SCIENCE, SYMBOL, LANGUAGE, LOGIC, INDUCTION, MATHEMATICS

Think out the EPISTEMOLOGY as part of the metaphysics. Here, epistemology does not require an extensive analysis beyond what is implied by the metaphysics, especially the THEORY OF BEING and mind which includes feeling, motivation and cognition. It is important, however, to integrate CONCEPT and EXTERNAL OBJECT, to avoid repetition of this topic and, except for criticism of the ideas to not be hesitant about the integration

‘The concept is not the external object’ has many forms of statement with varying degrees of ‘metaphoricality.’ Examples include ‘the map is not the territory.’ I have not read the works of Eric Bell or Alfred Korzybski [SEE THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY] in detail. However, the idea is similar to Kant’s distinction between object and NOUMENON and Wittgenstein’s idea that there is NO ULTIMATE REAL but that all sentience is in negotiation at all levels of understanding including the question of what understanding is or may be

Idea ¹ noumenon… I see a mountain and ‘I have a visual experience of a mountain that is not the mountain.’ I.e., the image is not the object… But this in-equation is there at all levels including the in-equation of the concept of thing and thing… including the question of whether the IMAGE [concept] creates the IDEAL OBJECT… But ‘the map is not the territory’ is also a map at both naïve and sophisticated levels and may and sometimes does ignore the practical and theoretical equation of the ‘image and the mountain’

While CONCEPT-OBJECT THEORY is important, it needs recognition that it is not ultimate – epistemologically because ‘knowledge’ is not the general FUNCTION OF COGNITION… and, further, suppose we have concept-object theory down even to the point of showing ‘exact’ correspondence –which we do not expect on logical grounds– then what? The computation of the consequences does not follow and this is, of course, more or less the same as saying that we do not expect concept-object correspondence to even have meaning (in the embedded sense?) let alone realization

However, in the symbolic sense concept-object may have meaning and with, e.g., sufficient abstraction, may have embedding

It would be nice if, instead of having to repeat the preliminaries of investigation each time the investigation is begun, we could start with the ‘closest map.’ This is a good idea except when re-analysis is needed. A close map is provided in the history of understanding, the text that spares the reader unnecessary details, and through selection

The Status and Applicability of Ideas

It is important to consider the nature of IDEAS –CONCEPTS– and their APPLICATION or applicability for otherwise, how is it possible to have CONFIDENCE IN CLAIMS TO KNOWLEDGE?

The issue occupies a central position in both eastern and western thought and is considered in some detail, later, FOUNDATION. There is one sense in which excessive weight is assigned to the issue and that is that to the extent that concepts –knowledge– have no ultimate foundation, the need no ultimate foundation

If we consider that EXPERIENCE, symbols, have ORIGIN –CO-ORIGIN– in ACTION: INDIVIDUAL ACTION and GROUP ACTION, it is seen to be clear that the ORIGINAL FUNCTION of IMAGERY, SYMBOL, and THOUGHT is in –proper, good, successful– action and not, intrinsically, in MAPPING, REPRESENTATION, DEPICTION, imagery, or ‘FAITHFULNESS TO THE OBJECT.’ Certainly, the apparent clarity, immediacy, and ‘success-in-action,’ of PERCEPTION and LINGUISTIC COMMUNICATION lend to the idea of depiction as FUNCTION. Simultaneously, however, the measure of every depiction is another depiction. It is not as though the use of a –scientific– instrument is outside the world

This CRITICAL ATTITUDE has been evaluated in foundation, where the conclusion regarding the faithfulness of imagery and symbolic representation is more sanguine, the possibility even infinite, if abstract or not embedded

However, it remains true that, in a significant sense, depiction and faithfulness are ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS. [The image is not the EXTERNAL OBJECT or even ISOMORPHIC to it.] Even the idea of ‘function’ is in the present use, assigned – in the sense of ‘the function of legs is to walk,’ function is assigned, but in ‘legs function –work– in walking’ it is not assigned

It may be noted, however, that although depiction may be an assigned function of imagery, it may also be cultivated to pragmatic ends or in action [the cultivated ‘function’ may be the original working.] This is double-edged since ‘success’ in depiction makes us –individuals, society– dependent on and committed to it

UNIVERSALS

TRUTH

LOGIC / LOGICS

Logic

Planning. Given that there are earlier sections on the concept of logic, this section should be elaboration of the concept, development of logic and its kinds and so on. Where should this section go? Should it be placed with the earlier developments? Should it and the other sections on logic be incorporated with form?

Modal Logic

POSSIBILITY, NECESSITY and MODAL LOGIC – these concepts are repeated below: it is important to emphasize that the distinction between the possible and the ACTUAL is based on the idea of an alternate universe. There is no alternate universe because anything that is possible is actual somewhere-when. I.e. it the idea of the possible can be approximated by thinking of a part of the universe, e.g. our phase which is an infinitesimal part, as the universe and the other parts as ‘possible’ universes. Therefore the domain of the POSSIBLE and of the ACTUAL are identical and the distinction in the concepts is based on an ‘approximation’

Distinction between LOGICAL and MATERIAL NECESSITY – they are different concepts and apply to different objects. Something that is logically necessary over a domain of contexts is something that ‘must’ be true in all the contexts. What is materially necessary over that domain must be true in at least one occurrence of a context i.e. in at least one phase-epoch. There is some conflation between logical and material necessity in considering the whole universe where what it is logically necessary that what is not a violation of logic is possible, that what is possible is materially necessary, and that what is possible –and, therefore, materially necessary– will occur in an infinity of (coherent or other) phase-epochs but not in all phase-epochs or sub-domains

The PROBABILITY of occurrence of something that is not a contradiction i.e. that does not entail a contradiction in a kind of domain is the likelihood of its occurrence in a domain of that kind selected at random; it = the number of occurrences ¸ the number of domains. It is not the case that probability is always determinate

What are often regarded as COMMON NECESSITIES in day-to-day life or as laws that are determinate in form or deterministic in content are probabilities of a high degree; and even the high degree of probability is only ‘NORMAL.’ Further, the low probability of certain occurrences is also ‘NORMAL.’ Thus, while one may attach high probability –to the point of holding them as necessary– to the laws of physics, the laws are not necessary even in our phase-epoch; and, while the atheistic or agnostic might regard god and the articles of faith as impossible they are in fact, even in our phase-epoch, possessed of a low degree of probability in the NORMAL sense. The normality of the low probability means that there is some doubt as to the assignment of a low probability even in our phase-epoch and that there are and must be phase-epochs substantially similar to ours in which, if complete knowledge were had, the probability of some or all articles of faith –subject to the requirement of consistency– would be high or certain in the NORMAL sense

Despite the probabilistic interpretation in literal extension and duration, there must be a kind of space within which the language of probability is not applicable. Such a space or spaces would be of infinite complexity in the sense that no more complex space is possible

p28, ¶2: The first occurrence of ‘What is possible is necessary’ occurs in the form, ‘What is possible is materially necessary.’ Make sure all occurrences of the phrase include the word ‘materially.’ Explain the meaning of the phrase and the use of the word ‘materially.’ Some consolidation of the occurrences may be good. If there remain two or more occurrences, explain the meaning at –preferably– the first occurrence. Add at the appropriate occurrence, ‘What is possible may happen in this coherent phase-epoch of the universe unless there is some restriction of logic involved in the narrowing of context.’ Perhaps this consideration and the discussion of recurrence should be placed in the future §‘Cosmology’… Add the following comments

ETHICS / MORALS

Action

Use question 10 of TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING

Plan. A possible new section. Location

Review title. Alternates: BECOMING, TRANSFORMATION, PROCESS

…

Two Divides

Origins of a Cosmological System

Origin of the Free Symbolic Capability

Evolution as a Mechanism

Plan. Comments on evolution as a normal but not necessary ‘mechanism’ and applicable to the origin of any cosmological  system and its ‘chain’ (alternate word?) of being

Cosmology

Plan. Some topics to include: recurrence, span of being, religion and its ontological and epistemic categories, truth, journey

Emphasize: the general cosmology is far, far deeper and founds modern physical cosmology both with regard to the special dynamics of modern cosmology – a research project – and with regard to range of being and extent with regard to [e.g.,] extension and duration. Similar comments for the entire range of being revealed in classical metaphysics, religions, mythologies from the entire history of humankind. Note that the greater breadth and depth is not merely factual and contingent but also conceptual and necessary

UNIVERSE, WORLD, VOID, RELATION, BECOMING, DURATION, EXTENSION, ERROR, VARIATION, SELECTION, CAUSE, EFFECT

WORLD, UNIVERSE

Although other uses are allowed, the ‘WORLD’ or ‘UNIVERSE’ signifies all being i.e. it is [that which is] SELF-CONTAINED in is being and becoming. Thus, I do not understand the universe to have LAWS OF NATURE [or GOD] on –imposed from– the outside… or MIND or MATTER imported from the outside – there is no outside. Although this appears to be a mere definition, it is fundamental in that there is some –evaluate this– equivalence to LOGIC

That there is a ‘HIGHER POWER’ or GOD that created and guides the world or that there are LAWS OF NATURE imposed from the outside is not an explanation at all. Assigning explanation to higher power or to laws is not explanation at all but admission of ignorance and, dually, the occasion for faith or revelation or the positivist assertion of laws as ultimate; and just as any explanation of the world based in higher power including laws from the outside stops at the power, so truth of revelation or laws stops short at the point where the believer asserts, ‘I judge this to be the word of god.’ For, despite sophistry, if the believer is not god, how can he or she know? Certainly this is not all that can be said regarding a literal interpretation of the ARTICLES OF FAITH including law, and it may be noted that the THEORY OF BEING, here, clarifies the character of their literal truth: I will subsequently re-evaluate the character of the literal –and, from other considerations, other– truth of the ARTICLES OF FAITH including law. It is better to admit ignorance – except however, that, in the THEORY OF BEING, here, it is shown there is explanation in the theory of the void and, perhaps, essential logic. Admission of ignorance is not essential but due to ignorance. [In the immediate world there is a significant distinction between GOD and LAWS but as an absolute system of explanation, both are equally lacking.] Despite the tentative character of INTRINSIC EXPLANATION – the world as all being and therefore self-contained with regard to being and becoming / origins; all LAW – at least, all contingent law – must be part of being, not only because to posit law is no explanation but also because if the LAWS [GOD] were not part of the ‘world,’ it would not be the WORLD

Although, world as including law may appear to be a mere definition or attitude, I show in the foundation to this essay, that the following obtains: the UNIVERSE has origin, or is equivalent to having origin, in the VOID, and to the extent that they obtain, LAW, GOD, MIND, TIME, MATTER, are created in that origin

At once, a host of questions arises. What do I mean – what is meant, here – by LAW, MIND, TIME? What does – can – it mean that ‘TIME’ has ORIGINS? SELF-CONTAINMENT may appear to imply COMPLETEDNESS of being / understanding and, therefore, the question, ‘What can completeness in understanding mean and what completeness is possible?’ These questions and others (you are likely to have yet other questions) are considered and answers provided and evaluated in the FOUNDATION in the context of a complete system of METAPHYSICS

There are many situations in which, when the word LAW is used, the word GOD –either in specific or generic sense– would be appropriate. This may be kept in mind for my propensity has been to use LAW rather than GOD

The foregoing comment, i.e. that there is a certain equivalence between law and god, the equivalence is not absolute e.g. as in particulars associated with the terms. Psychologically, however, there may be a significant difference and the, as a result, the terms imply significantly different metaphysics. What is the nature of the difference? In terms of specific interpretations of law of nature or god of religion –in contrast to LAW OF NATURE and GOD OF RELIGION– there are clear, even if detailed, ontological differences. However, there is also an immense difference for feeling. I write that as though ‘feeling’ has no ontological component and this is how metaphysics and ontology are normally signified and carried out – how I have signified and carried out the activities or execution of the disciplines. However, 12/13/2004, I have recently been arguing that cognition and feeling are bound to one another in ‘COGNITION-FEELING’ and, despite their differences, both lose their significance if a detachment is made. In this sense, law and god signify vastly different –cognitive-feeling– ontologies

However, when talking of beings that, together and in their relations, constitute higher being it may be appropriate to think of ‘GOD’ in a generic sense. In this case, ‘LAW’ is sometimes an appropriate substitution for ‘GOD’

As far as GENERAL COSMOLOGY is concerned, LAW –or GOD– must be INTRINSIC

As far as SPECIAL COSMOLOGIES, e.g. the present phase-epoch of the one universe, are concerned, LAW –or GOD– may be ‘IMPOSED,’ INTRINSIC or a combination: IMPOSED–INTRINSIC

General and Local Cosmologies

General and Local Cosmologies

A repetition of the distinction between ONTOLOGY, METAPHYSICS and COSMOLOGY is in order. An ontology is a specification of the fundamental kinds or elements of being. A metaphysics is a working out of a theory of being from the ontology. It includes such fundamental questions –inasmuch as they are not given in the ontology– as the nature of mind and matter, the questions of substances and attributes, the possible kinds of being, the relation between being and logic, the issues of determinism and causation and of mechanism and teleology, the nature of god, law and nature and their substantial and attributive nature; and cosmology. A cosmology is a working out of a theory of the universe: the kinds of being, the population of the universe, its extent and duration, and – if any – origins and endings

General cosmology is the working out of cosmology without restriction e.g. with regard to extent and duration. Unless otherwise specified, cosmology is general cosmology. The distinctions among metaphysics, general cosmology, and ontology are arbitrary; this arbitrariness is similar to the arbitrariness to the distinctions among axiom, theorem, primitive and derived concepts in mathematics. A specific or local cosmology is the cosmology of a specific part of the universe such as the ‘known’ universe. What is special about the known universe? It is not so much that it is ‘ours’ but that it appears to have a coherent character in that certain laws appear to be universal, in that there are certain fundamental elements of being – matter – out of which everything in it is constituted; it appears to have had a beginning; it appears to be coherent in that, on the large scale, space is a continuum and there is a single dominant time

The concept of NORMALITY may be elucidated within the framework of a LOCAL and COHERENT COSMOLOGY. It is seen in the present writings that there are certain normal expectations in our universe. The character of these expectations has been spelt out in a number of ways. Once outside the local setting these normal behaviors may have little application; in they have no application to all or general cosmology – except the specific scenes in which they apply; the specific scenes are ‘infinitesimal.’ Note that outside and inside do not refer only to extension-duration but also to the microscopic and, perhaps – at least in some cases, to aggregate and to complex behavior. Thus, even within a local cosmology it is normal to expect deviations from the normal. Although, deviations seem to be uncommon, on a sufficiently large scale, perhaps still within the local cosmology, they are certain and the local gives way to the universal

Although non normal behavior may enter into a local cosmological system, thus calling into question the definiteness of the idea of the concept of normal behavior, the concept of NORMALITY stands alone apart from the idea of a local system to which it may be equated for some practical purposes. Where I have used the words ‘PRACTICAL’ and ‘EFFECTIVE’, I may consistently replace them by ‘NORMAL’

A similar concept of normality applies, with qualification, in psychology

General Cosmology

What is the population of cosmologies similar to this one in the universe? Is it sparse or dense? The density of the population is a product of frequency or probability of origination and longevity. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the density is extremely low or that the origin of such a cosmology is a singular incident

ONTOLOGY as a Topic

11.24.04

Planning. Why is this section here? What should it be named? Should it – its paragraphs be individually – placed elsewhere? Where?

The following consideration arises

How many kinds of thing are there? ‘MONISM is the theory that there is one kind of thing.’ However, if no hypothesis is made and a consequence of monism is derived from e.g. the fact of being, would that be called a monism? Inherent in the use of words such as monism, and dualism is that they are positions rather than facts. Therefore, if it is shown rather than posited that there is exactly one substance, the consequence is not monism as a POSITION or PROPOSED THEORY but as a FACT. I.e. it is not a monism in the usual use. Similarly, if it is shown that the existence and foundational character of the void follows from, e.g. the facts of being, then the result is not a true voidism [as a position or a proposed theory.]

[Strictly, the foregoing monism is ‘ATTRIBUTIVE MONISM’ whereas the position that there is one thing is ‘SUBSTANTIVAL MONISM.’ What is the SUBSTANTIVAL ONTOLOGY that follows from my THEORY OF BEING? This is not an important question as the answer depends on one’s point of view and there is no factual answer.]

Similarly, it may not necessary to have an ontology as a theory

Similar comments may be made about RELIGION. The following is taken from a letter to my brother and sister-in-law: ‘One thought, pertinent to the supposed separation of CHURCH and STATE in America, is that real religion, to me, is about what is most real –whatever that might be– and actual religions, relative to that ideal, function as ways, perhaps told as myth or parable…, to express the content of religion in accessible and, perhaps charismatic form. Anyway, since religion is about WHAT IS MOST REAL, while there may be validity to the exclusion of particular religions from matters of state, what is the relation between state and what is most real?’

Also see LOGIC OF THE ONTOLOGICAL SYSTEM

Space, time and SPACE-TIME

The discussion has been placed THE NORMAL. NORMAL COSMOLOGY

11.10.04

Faith, Myth and Religion and related topics

Planning. The purposes are (1) to illustrate the theory of being, and (2) to illuminate faith, and religion including the articles of faith, the spiritual, the miraculous, the ideas of God and higher being, recurrence and karma. Although the discussion could be placed anywhere under the theory of being, it is convenient to place under cosmology

Use LETTERS TO MICHAEL GREENBERG

10.06.04

Planning. Distribute the following Heading 4 topics between locations in foundation and narrative for the journey. What is the best placement of the various considerations under karma, faith and religion, faith, myth, and faith and religion? Should new sections be created? In the final version of the essay, it will not be necessary to retain the heading styles

COSMOLOGY, FAITH and RELIGION

FAITH and KARMA, 11.10.04, SIMPLE FAITH involves confidence in being – FAITH VS. DOGMA, RELIGION, BELIEF, RATIONALITY, REASON, and KNOWLEDGE. On DOGMA AND DOCTRINE; on MYTH, HISTORY, REVELATION, SIGNIFICANCE and IDIOSYNCRASY in the SCRIPTURE or the SRUTI

There are distinctions among what one believes, what one thinks one believes, and what one says one believes. The distinction between what one says and what one thinks is not merely a question of ‘honesty’ – there is an effect of the presence of others upon what one thinks. The distinction between what one believes and what one thinks one believes is not merely a question of suppression or knowing oneself – the framework of thought or cognition, e.g. the categories of cognition-feeling, are part of one’s beliefs but may not be accessible directly to perception and, therefore, the cognition of the framework, if it exists at all, may be hypothetical in nature

A comment on NAMING: the words ‘faith,’ ‘religion,’ ‘science’ and so on are in common use. However, it is not necessary to use the word ‘faith’ to have faith, ‘religion’ to be religious, or ‘science’ to do science. What then is the contribution to life of naming the states or activities of being? It seems that naming has the potential to contribute to understanding and that may be good for more than one reason e.g. understanding is giving context and may enhance negotiation of our lives-in-the-world. However, naming may also detract i.e. having named some concrete system as ‘faith’ it then stands in place of faith, encourages stasis. What is detraction, however, is not absolutely so: evolution is a balance between stasis and change… ‘Science’ has been a rallying point and is positive in this regard but is also a symbol of status for the disciplines and so the attempts of something that is not science to mimic science, or the attempt of one discipline within science to duplicate the methods of a more established discipline…

Karma

10.07.04

The following discussion of KARMA may be relevant in the sections on ethics and or cosmology

Positive acts create a positive sense of being and appreciation, while negative acts may result in shame and anger, and this results in a kind of karma in this life. This sort of karma is a POTENTIAL KARMA rather than a deterministic result of actions

It is interesting that the ANTISOCIAL individual does not feel shame –while the NARCISSIST denies it– and, may avoid anger through deceit and superficial charm and avoids this kind of karma

However, is not the overcoming of or compensation for GUILT and SHAME, especially ORIGINAL SHAME or SHAME OF BEING, a source of CREATIVITY and of SERVICE?

As an ethic, UNIVERSAL KARMA –that action deterministically and invariably affects the individual’s future status in proportion to the quality of the action– may have positive value in encouraging moral action. However, there is also a negative value in the potential to detract from initiative. Additionally, the doctrine of universal karma, if false, detracts from truth. While there may be hesitation to reject an untrue doctrine – or to accept one, if the consequence of belief is action, then what is THE LOCUS OF TRUTH of a doctrine?

Does the PRACTICAL KARMA –PSYCHOLOGICAL KARMA and CAUSAL KARMA but not NECESSARY KARMA or DETERMINISTIC KARMA– of this life PROJECT to the universal? Further, if it did not would there be any function to belief in universal karma?

Obviously, the THEORY OF BEING as developed here lends support to ‘life beyond this life’ and to a degree of karma but obviously not to a necessary and deterministic karma of universal application. It appears that, in absolute DISSOLUTION and RE-CREATION, there can be no karma of any kind

Although there may be practical reasons to believe in a karma that does not obtain, the same may be said of numerous beliefs. Therefore, it cannot be said, in truth, that there is universal karma

However, ‘there are countless cosmological systems in which there is a karmic influence among instances of individuals.’ Even if these are a small minority, the significance is not correspondingly small

As seen in the discussion of recurrence, it may be more accurate to view the karmic connection as the phases of a Being that spans lesser being

11.16.2004

Thus, in concept, the karma of the ‘individual’ may be seen, simply, as TRANS-INDIVIDUAL CAUSATION i.e. as the life process of a being with greater integration. From a local perspective, this karma may appear to have universal qualities but this appearance is from a limited perspective. Thus, karma, as it obtains, is a propensity rather than a necessity. It is not universal but when it obtains it is immediate and concrete and not a remote metaphysical condition

Faith and religion

The discussions on FAITH and RELIGION are bound together. However, there are distinctions. Faith is unquestioned belief or trust. There are two senses of faith: in one, COMMON FAITH, the faith is unquestioned because there is no reason to question; in the second, DOGMA, there is a choice to not question faith, to live with belief even if there might be reasons for doubt. Of course, what is unquestioned may be questioned i.e. faith may be questioned but when questioned it ceases, in a sense and at least for a time, to be faith. Occasionally, faith may be questioned in order to be worthy of trust. It may be thought that this is not faith. However, it is possible for one individual to question faith –just as Jesus is said to have questioned his own trust– so that others need not have question. COMMON FAITH is belief that would not normally be questioned – it might be questioned if there is an occasion to do so as when DOUBT arises or in philosophic discussion. RELIGION is the orientation of or that which orients the whole individual or group to the entire universe. Alternatively, religion is the understanding [COGNITIVE-CONATIVE-FEELING] that is instrumental in the orientation. A specific religion, is a specific system of orientation. Even though there is a difference between FUNCTION and DESIGNATED FUNCTION, the definition excludes no FUNCTIONAL MODALITY since the orientation in question is that of the whole individual and group to the entire universe

Here and there, we find a dimension or function of religion interpreted as religion. These interpretations are not completely invalid for they may be regarded as being the case where the ‘other’ dimensions have been suppressed. An example is the interpretation of religion in terms of some psychological function. While such interpretations have truth that truth is not whole. This point and its significance is elaborated in the following paragraphs

It is often said that ‘all religions have the same essential message.’ While there is truth to this, it is noteworthy that the ‘truth’ is a somewhat PERSONAL TRUTH. Thus, for some persons, the essential message is ‘the BROTHERHOOD OF MAN,’ while for others it may the truth of human nature as revealed by psychological insight – ancient or modern e.g. JUNGIAN PSYCHOLOGY; these two examples do not exhaust the possibilities and it is a research project to catalog the possibilities and their –potential– uses. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the truth is partial. RELIGION is that which orients the whole being to entire being. The psychology of the individual is a part of her or his being and concerns ‘that which is oriented’ or INNER truth rather than ‘that which the orientation is toward.’ The latter is the universe as a whole in, shall we say, its objective or ‘EXTERNAL’ aspect. Our vision of the universe – the kind of universe we see ourselves as inhabiting, is massively significant for the QUALITY of the lives we live. Thus, despite the criticisms of the literal interpretations of some scriptural faiths, the quality of their depicted universes may function to enrich the life of the individual. [This is not intended, as will shortly become clear, as a justification or religions or their scriptures. Further, the moral or other message such as the personal aspect of nature or god –in contrast to the literal interpretation– is not taken, here, as a justification of scripture or faith; and, while I admit as obvious the significance of such messages, the significance to them is not at all the point to the present paragraph and its argument. It may also be noted that I am not even arguing that JUSTIFICATION is supremely important even in the cognitive-feeling sense for, while justification is significant, (embedded) rationality has both contingent and necessary limits and therefore a final judgment regarding justification is not made here.] A problem –perhaps the primary modern problem– of SCRIPTURAL FAITH is the CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE. It is the syndrome announced by Nietzsche, ‘GOD IS DEAD.’ One of the arguments of the present THEORY OF BEING is a partial rehabilitation of the articles of faith. The REHABILITATION OF FAITH is ‘LITERAL’ and not just, e.g. the shock to ‘common belief,’ and therefore opening up to truth, implied by an article such as ‘Jesus Christ is risen from the dead’ – regardless of the literal truth of the article. In terms of the THEORY OF BEING, the ‘criticism’ of the literal content of the article would be its significance when compared against the infinity of contingent truth. The essential point that I make here is:

The SIGNIFICANCE OF THE THEORY OF BEING in relation to RELIGION is the REHABILITATION OF THE MAGNITUDE OF BEING…

…in all its dimensions –participatory and external– without conflict among the dimensions, i.e., in particular, without conflict between truth and science

Specifically, there is a TRIVIALIZATION OF BEING –of the universe– that is often the result of the IMPACT OF SCIENCE upon faith. Here, I mean faith in general without restriction e.g. to SCRIPTURAL FAITH. Science may function as a substitute but a poor one. The SECULAR MIND argues, in return, that it is a true substitute and therefore cannot be poor since it is the truth and what it replaces is untrue. I.e., the truth from the secular or scientific view, though BARREN on some accounts, is the truth and, therefore necessary even if barren and ALIENATING

There is also a kind of beauty to this necessity. It is like the desert of West Texas: many years ago I lived in Central Texas and used to travel to the West, passing through the dust-laden, dirty brown and barren desert that is not picturesque like the ‘painted desert’ of Arizona. My first experience of the Texas Desert was one of barrenness. After I traveled there often, on my way to other adventures and beauty, the Texas Desert acquired, for me, its own beauty and adventure. The beauty of the universe as revealed by science may be like this. In the beginning it is barren; but, then, because that is the way the universe, and in the way that the individual may love his or her home regardless of whether it is magnificent or ugly we begin to love the universe as revealed by science. [That universe has its own grandeur; and any criticism of it would be that it is not spiritual and not personal. However, even if these criticisms are true to the individual they cannot hold as criticisms if the truth of science is granted. And, further, while there is a certain heroism in countering the bleakness of existence that heroism is also empty as far as realism is concerned because ‘bleakness’ is not at all objective in the scientific sense but, in that sense, something subjective which could equally be grandeur or hospitability and that a significant source of the triviality or inhospitability, in addition to subjectivity, is the displacement of the previous faith based rendering of magnificence and hospitability.]

However, these considerations are beside the point to the view revealed by the THEORY OF BEING. The view revealed is one whose magnitude and magnificence, in the complete story, infinitely exceeds anything revealed by the traditional scripture or by philosophy or science and does so ‘in logic:’ with necessity, without contradiction. Nor is that view without hospitability or devoid of the richness of human experience; it admits of such qualities without exalting them to absolute or universal status. It allows those qualities even ‘INFINITE’ status but without, except in metaphor or in potential, making them the HIGHEST OF INFINITIES. The outline of the THEORY OF BEING itself does not reveal these qualities but it permits them – and their derivation may be directly from the theory and the simple empirical facts of our being including the quality of our given experience [which is not to say that what our experience may appear to depict is given as real]

It is not being said that the THEORY OF BEING, especially in the form given here, is necessary to what I have found it to reveal. There is a cognitive-feeling notion of LOGIC, that I am moving toward, that is accessible to any being –since it is at the core of being and may be ‘educated out’ of or repressed by the individual and not necessarily as a result of trauma but simply in individuation– that provides the same truth revealed. It is the self-same revelation that is implied by being-in-the-present, by immersion of the ego [rather than humility]

Simultaneously, the THEORY OF BEING does not reveal all being and all experience as magnificent, as grand, as hospitable, as warm, as exquisite. Imagine a leper. Visualize the leper, sitting near a stinking gutter, to the side of a filthy, dusty street. See, in your imagination, the stubs of limbs – their ends pink, sore, festering. Imagine the inner life of the leper – imagine it to be horrible: one of shame, torment, pain, loneliness. Visualize the people go about their business: some see the leper with revulsion, some even call out in derision, others have pity, and still others merely ignore the leper – perhaps afraid to allow the reality of the being of the leper enter their own consciousness lest they fall into the vortex of their own fears; be aware that the leper’s predicament is no protection against harm and violence. Imagine again. Imagine the most ‘horrible’ thing that may come to pass – nuclear war or slow degradation of human life and environment, attendant with ills and misery. Or imagine a flat existence with not even ‘grand suffering’ but only nausea. According to the THEORY OF BEING everything that may be visualized will come, not only to pass, but to be the reality of your experience. Therefore, the theory provides NO ABSOLUTE COMFORT. Perhaps, the theory calls for heroism. One thinks, the capacity of the universe for evil is infinite but the capacity of being to experience pain is also infinite; and, perhaps, this is all ‘balanced’ by the infinite capacity for good and adventure. However, the theory denies even the ultimacy of this ‘paradox.’ Heroism of the ultimate magnitude is permitted but so are pain and cowardice and running away from truth. The theory permits and requires all absolutes. The realization of all fears and all hopes. The necessity of all strivings and all acquiescence. In the end we are where we began – except that the awareness is temporarily enhanced; we sit where we began but we sit in realization. We realize truth, we see the infinity of good and evil, of adventure and suffering – and we are temporarily silent

A comment on the ‘EVIL’ of religion. That religions have been the occasion for violence, manipulation and control is not an argument against the religions. Religions are multi-dimensional and the evil is an aspect of a limited dimension. Thus the argument would, insofar as it holds, be against limited dimension. Further, the argument, while it holds regarding religions does not seem to hold regarding religion

Faith, Myth and Religion

FAITH, DOGMA, REASON and POWER: LIBERATION and CONTROL

POSSIBILITY, NECESSITY and PROBABILITY… and the significance of the KARMIC LAW, DHARMA, and ‘Jesus Christ has risen from the dead in countless cosmological systems’ [Why would I use this –kind of example– unless I wanted to derive and influence power?]

Add a comment on a probabilistic interpretation of the rising from the dead

RECURRENCE and related concepts including IDENTITY, ATMAN, BRAHMAN, BEING THAT SPANS ALL BEING. It may be appropriate to further discuss the SIGNIFICANCE of RECURRENCE

10.7.04

What is the significance of RECURRENCE FOR the individual? Due to complete lack of MEMORY in SIMPLE RECURRENCE – none. However, in the mix and synthesis of being, there is being that integrates other being. What is the significance of an integration of an individual who symbolizes EVIL with another that symbolizes GOOD? Possible answers: evil and good are not pure; the world of value is not separable into evil and good!

Faith

10.20.04

R / t this discussion add a note on the social bonding and mythic functions over and above the literal function, control and freedom that I emphasize. Add a note on probabilities to this discussion and that of karma

Also important is the issue of designated vs. actual function in all areas of life, especially in language, science, myth, religion, ethics, metaphysics, logic, ritual, the modern professions and institutions

Augment the comment p.30, ¶-1, ‘no principle of logic is violated’ to include that no real principle of science or common sense is violated. Add comment that this is not an invitation to behave as though every expectation from science or common sense should be abandoned –that would be delusional– but only the assertion that the absolute belief in the expectations is unfounded. This augmentation could have been placed in CORRECTIONS AND MINOR ALTERATIONS. However, it is important that the meaning of LOGIC, here, be properly understood. The logic in question is the logic that is the one law of the one universe. Therefore, it is important [1] that this reference be made, and [2] perhaps, that when the discussions on logic are consolidated, this discussion on faith should come after or make reference to the discussion on logic

Myth

Religion

Planning note. At present the discussion of religion is distributed over this document – religion links: ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, and SIX

11.28.2004

RELIGION is the orientation of or that which orients the whole individual or group to the entire universe

As noted in the discussion of faith, religion is cognitive-conative-feeling orientation or understanding. Therefore, the functions of cognition, of faith, and of shared belief and persuasion are included

It is not implied by use of the word ‘whole’ that differentiation within the individual is not the object of and does not contribute to religion

[I formulated this ‘definition’ around 1987-1989; and is quite different –at least superficially– from some of the traditional definitions that are concerned too much with the institution and its distinction from the secular

E.g. from the Encyclopedia Britannica: human beings’ relation to that which they regard as HOLY, SACRED, SPIRITUAL, or DIVINE. Religion is commonly regarded as consisting of a person's relation to God or to gods or spirits. Worship is probably the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are generally also constituent elements of the religious life as practiced by believers and worshipers and as commanded by religious sages and scriptures

I am hearing the response: but we must be concerned with the institutions! Of course we must, but we must not let that limit our imagination, our understanding of and journey into the real]

Too much of the discussion of religion and faith consists, not so much in the issue of DOGMA, but in the elaboration and justification of a ‘THEOLOGICAL COSMOLOGY.’ Feeling is important ‘Jesus removed my emptiness’ but is distinct from the cosmology. Even saying that ‘God loves you’ connects but does not integrate cognition and feeling. I am tempted to say that feeling is more important but that is not the case – but nor is it the case that cognition is more important: each is empty without the other. Without feeling, a universe of infinite possibility has no significance – the individual might as well be a robot, a zombie or a computer. Without cognition, there is no universe about which to have feeling; and without the free symbol [imagination] the world is merely that of the immediate actual and possibility has no significance. [Often, the function of the theological cosmology is to placate doubts in a rationalistic era which then permits the ‘healing of feeling’ and communal identity and bonding – this is so true of a number of modern Christian communities.] Imagine, then, the attraction and separation of cognition and feeling [emotion] in a cycle, helix or spiral

[A function of cognition: it is not altogether meaningless to say ‘I believe in God’ even without a clear idea of what God may be. That is so because of the feeling component in belief. An individual may stop at that point but for the human race to stop there is an arrest. It is similarly not altogether meaningless to say ‘I do not believe in God.’ However, feeling base meaning is incomplete relative to possibility – possibility of becoming, possibility of knowledge of what is real, and, consequently, possibility of feeling itself. The individual who says ‘I do not believe in God’ and stops there, and similarly, the individual who says ‘I believe only in the world of experience’ and stops there limits her or his own possibility and therefore the possibility of becoming and feeling. [While the limitation encourages seeking –and actualizing– enrichment of the present, the freedom from limitation is a form of enrichment of the present. However, to say ‘I believe only in the world of experience’ is to effectively say ‘I believe only in experience I have had so far’ and this is often further limited to ‘external experience.’ Without experiments or adventure in ideas, there is an enormous limitation on growth, enrichment and possibility. The model is: idea ® exploration ® confirmation or disconformation [of which both necessarily have a tentative character.] However, cognition is not self-sustaining it is feeling that sustains cognition and binds the exploration to the person the individual]

Thus a religion is not necessarily –full or whole– RELIGION. ‘Demonstration’ is needed. Although religions have ‘function’ in various ways – security, community, possibility… and detraction –abuse of power but note that this abuse is a characteristic of human being and not of religion per se– it is important that these, though significant, do not promote or detract from the intrinsic character of religion which is, as stated, the orientation of or that which orients the individual as a whole to the entire universe

The INTRINSIC CRITICISM of a religion would include:

General – DILUTION OF TRUTH

Specific – arrest of the evolution of belief and cognitive-feeling understanding; premature FIXING OF BELIEF –perhaps an unavoidable element of psychology but unavoidability is not justification and does not require cultivation– so that the individual fixes on a THEISM, an ATHEISM or AN ANTI-THEISM instead of an open, perhaps receptive, AGNOSTICISM. I say that, while there is value to judgment in the sense of Jung, there is also value to open agnosticism until the time and occasion when the power of the real, and of perception and thought itself flow into rather than force truth

Note on PSYCHOLOGISM, inserted p15, after ¶1: which should, perhaps, be combined with this discussion on faith / religion. Add to this note: ‘However, psychology –perhaps, together with sociology– might explain how an individual might choose one of two apparently equally valid arguments or why some individuals prefer to believe what appears to be patently untrue to others.’

There is, no doubt, truth to the hypothesis of Weston La Barre [omit reference here; place where?] – that the origin of religion is in CRISIS; but, in so far as this the truth, the origin is also in power and crisis and power interact

However, this, as we have seen is not the only truth – nor is any psychologism applied to religion and faith

On TRANSFINITE VISION. ¶3, l-10: insert ‘There are criticisms of TRANS-INDIVIDUAL or trans-finite vision that amount to asserting that such vision is false because it is sought as a solace. However, depending on the psychological orientation of the individual, the strictly finite vision may also be experienced as solace; further true transfinite vision provides MEANING rather than SOLACE. Every world view appeals to some psychological orientation… but its truth should stand or stumble on the test of reason –which does not exclude experience– and not its appeal

Additional comments on religion

It is inevitable that the word ‘religion’ will draw reaction. However, in order to understand the present discussion, it will be necessary to hold the reaction –positive or negative– in at least temporary abeyance while asking ‘What is religion?’

I have made the important point that when we embark on fundamental discovery, we seek to expand our world. Our world is mediated by our system of concepts. There is, therefore, the potential for the profound revision, growth in meaning of every essential idea – every concept in the field or ring of concepts by which we mediate the world. Therefore, if one is not ready to reserve judgment, such growth will be at least limited, perhaps impossible. The significance of such growth, especially for those who see no intrinsic interest in it, is its illumination of this world and its possibilities. Of course, there is no ultimate distinction between practical and ideal reasons because the practical cannot be anything other than the realization of the ideal

What is RELIGION? It is important to distinguish RELIGION from the religions. Any actual religion may fall short of the concept, may emphasize only certain dimensions of religion, may use either factual or mythic language – or both, may be used to further abuse, may come to emphasize tradition rather than truth – a condition to which any human institution may be subject. It is often said that there is a common core to all religions –perhaps expressed in mythic form– ‘the community of humankind,’ ‘the existence of a higher power,’ ‘illumination of the inner being e.g. of its light and shadow areas’ and so on. Here, I repeat my formula

RELIGION IS THAT WHICH ORIENTS THE ENTIRE BEING TO ALL BEING

That is individuals are oriented to others, to society, to the world of universe… as are groups and societies

Note the similarity to metaphysics as the study of all being in its entirety which, naturally, entails an emphasis on fundamentals – which due to the tendency to definition by exclusion results in the idea of metaphysics as a study only of the fundamentals

In this essay, I [re-]conceptualize RELIGION and interpret religion and dogma within this framework

11.23.04

Further comments on religion

Although religion –religion itself and the religions– is interesting to me, the original purpose to the comments was as illustration of the system of metaphysics that I have developed. However, the thoughts on religion have been multiplying. One thought, pertinent to the supposed separation of CHURCH and STATE in America, is that REAL RELIGION, to me, is about what is most real –whatever that might be– and actual religions, relative to that ideal, function as ways, perhaps told as MYTH or PARABLE… ways to express the content of religion in accessible and, perhaps CHARISMATIC FORM. Anyway, since religion is about what is most REAL, while there may be validity to the exclusion of particular religions from MATTERS OF STATE, what is the relation between state and what is most real?

Note: there is discussion elsewhere of the distinction between DESIGNATED FUNCTION including IDEAL FUNCTION and ACTUAL FUNCTION; and that actual function necessarily includes what is ideally, though not impractically, labeled ABUSE. This is a form of LOGICAL MACHIAVELLIANISM

Local and Physical Cosmology

Include mention – here or in the section ‘Journey in Being’ – of space-time-matter, quantum theory, life and mind

Evolution as a Mechanism

Plan. Comments on evolution as a normal but not necessary ‘mechanism’ and applicable to the origin of any cosmological  system and its ‘chain’ (alternate word?) of being. Combine with comments on probability

Where to place this section? Note that there is a similar section in the introductory section on Metaphysics, Logic and Cosmology.

Human Being: Mind, Symbol and Value

This section was titled ‘Symbol and Value for Human Being’

Add considerations on all value including ‘Group Value…,’ politics, economics…

Review the following subsections:

Mind

Plan. After incorporation into WHEREOF ONE CANNOT SPEAK incorporate appropriate aspects from JOURNEY IN BEING

The Nature of Mind

The nature of mind has been discussed earlier in METAPHYSICS. In this section, certain aspects may be elaborated. The manifestation of mind after the ‘divides’ is the focus and, so, the following topics are emphasized: human and animal mind; the elements of human and animal mind and behavior, especially the fundamental nature of feeling, the bound vs. free and inner vs. outer distinctions, the categories of intuition, memory, development and learning, personality, and exceptional achievement

The Elements of Mind or Psychology

Planning. Should the title include mind and psychology or just one of the terms? Should the title be Heading 3 or 4? Distribute the following Heading 4 topics between locations in foundation and narrative for the journey. What is the best placement of the various considerations? Should new sections be created? In the final version of the essay, it will not be necessary to retain the heading styles

The purpose of this section in this supplement is twofold. Mind is discussed in a generic sense above and in FOUNDATION with passing reference to particulars; the first purpose is to get the particulars relatively complete, right and coherently so: the various dimensions below, bound-free… , serve this end well. The second purpose is as a counter to Anglo-American academic and folk psychologies; the claim, here, is not so much that those psychologies are ‘wrong’ but, rather, that they are slanted and incomplete

11.28.2004. It is significant that ‘psychology’ comes after ‘Ethics, Faith…’ the psychology of faith is significant to the Journey – I am not saying, however, that faith is merely a psychological phenomenon

11.28.2004. I decided against a thought to name this section, ‘The Elements of Human Psychology’

11.15.2004 – Elaborate the following

Dimensions of FEELING

The following dimensions show already that feeling, emotion and cognition are not disjunct aspects of mind

Quality and intensity

Shape and quantity

BOUND-FREE and INTERNAL-EXTERNAL

The objective is to cover modalities of experience, especially of thinking, emotion or feeling, and motivation and drive i.e. of cognition, emotion and conation

Bound

Internal: feeling, DRIVE

External: SENSE, PERCEPTION

Comment – as noted above, sense and perception involve feeling. ‘Internal feeling’ is a particular kind of feeling in the more general sense

Free

The free element typically has basis in and occurs in combination with bound elements

Internal: free + bound – PRIMITIVE EMOTION

External: free + bound – PURE THOUGHT

External + internal & free + bound: COGNITION-EMOTION… It is implied that cognition and emotion do not occur in isolation

EMOTION: this is an occasion to get the THEORY OF EMOTION right; see my various writings on mind as well as A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, ed. Samuel Guttenplan, 1994

STATE-DISPOSITION

The distinction is brought out by an example. It is natural for emotions to fluctuate. In a healthy individual, there will be a fluctuation of emotion that is driven by internal and external factors. In a depressed individual the emotions are ‘forced’ toward the negative and FLAT end of the spectrum of emotion. In this example, the state is the current EMOTIONAL STATE and the disposition is DEPRESSION

Depression is an example of a mood as is MANIA. EUTHYMIA is the term for the mood of a ‘healthy’ individual

It is possible, but not common in practice, to view other dimensions of mental state as having dispositions

CENTER-PERIPHERY

This may be more useful than and may (help) explain the CONSCIOUS-UNCONSCIOUS CONTINUUM

INTEGRATION-INDEPENDENCE

Individual as an INTEGRAL system of CENTERS OF AWARENESS AND CONTROL – with PRIMARY CONSCIOUSNESS as, perhaps, an integrated selection of the more central

INDIVIDUAL-SOCIETY

Aspects of Mind. The Categories of Intuition

The CATEGORIES OF INTUITION and the CATEGORIES OF BEING… and

The NORMAL CATEGORIES

LANGUAGE, ICON and THOUGHT

The analysis in Colin McGinn, The Character of Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind, 1983, 2^nd ed., 1997, is a useful start

Thesis: not all thought is in LINEAR LANGUAGE; and, perhaps, thought whose dimension does not lend itself to communication is not thought in any language… i.e. there is no universal language of thought that is sufficient to all thinking

Thesis: NATURAL LANGUAGE exemplifies but does not define language; the functions of language are THOUGHT and COMMUNICATION; for any given CONCEPT of language –defined in both INTENSION and EXTENSION– not all communication will be in language; there is a concept of language for which all thought and communication are in language; in that concept, the different aspects of thought and communication do not lie in a language – non-language continuum but, rather, in a LINGUISTIC SPACE whose DIMENSIONS are kinds of language or LANGUAGE MODES. Another way of viewing what is being said here is that it questions the significance of language as a fundamental concept. Instead, the fundamental concept is the SPACE OF COGNITION AND COMMUNICATION – where cognition is understood to include feeling

Also see COGNITION AND COMMUNICATION

p63, ¶-1: toward the end of the paragraph, I have argued that ‘Absolute identification of ‘language’ as its linear spoken version without reason is unfounded metaphysical positivism.’ I continue to agree with this assertion but it is important to distinguish the linear version whose primitive symbols are structure-less entities and any non-linear version that permits complex symbols that admit of no linear form. [It is important to address whether such complex symbols exist and whether linearization is possible in embedded i.e. real-time thought or at all]

GROWTH – DEVELOPMENT, LEARNING, ACCOMPLISHMENT, PERSONALITY and MEANING

Plan. Include: Journey – growth, development, trial, learning, transformation and projects. Heidegger: Companion

The PRINCIPLE OF MEANING [previously called ‘The PRINCIPLE OF ONTOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY’]

PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH that are of interest include: biological principles – epigenesis and on; foundation –to the extent that is actual– of psychology in biology; Piaget and sequence; the principle of meaning; some ideas from theories such as those of Freud, Adler, Jung, and Erik H. Erikson; criticism of determinism in growth

Comments on Erikson’s work – for possible summary / entry – from Encyclopedia Britannica: Freud's emphasis on the developmental unfolding of the sexual, aggressive, and self-preservative motives in personality was modified by the American psychoanalyst Erik H. Erikson, who integrated psychological, social, and biological factors. Erikson's scheme proposed eight stages of the development of drives, which continue past Freud's five stages of childhood (oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital) and through three stages of adulthood. The stages proceed in leaps according to what is called an epigenetic process. The term epigenesis, borrowed from embryology, refers to the predetermined developmental sequence of parts of an organism. Each part has a special time for its emergence and for its progressive integration within the functioning whole. Each phase of emergence depends upon the successful completion of the preceding phase. According to Erikson, environmental forces exercise their greatest effect on development at the earliest stages of growth, because anything that disturbs one stage affects all of the following stages. As if controlled by a biological timetable, each given stage must be superseded by a new one, receding in significance as the new stage assumes dominance. A constant interleaving at critical periods—in which some parts emerge while others are suppressed—must proceed smoothly if personality problems are to be avoided

The Freudian theory of development with Erikson's modifications provides for a succession of drive-control (inner and environmental) interactions. These can be fit into a schema of polar attitudes that develop in progressive stages of a person's life, creating a conflict at each stage which should be resolved to avoid extremes of personality development. Erikson thus evolved his eight stages of development, which he described as: (1) infancy: trust versus mistrust; (2) early childhood: autonomy versus shame and doubt; (3) preschool: initiative versus guilt; (4) school age: industry versus inferiority; (5) puberty: identity versus identity confusion; (6) young adulthood: intimacy versus isolation; (7) middle adulthood: generativity versus stagnation; and (8) late adulthood: integrity versus despair

Exceptional achievement and DISORDER

Psycology of EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

PSYCHIATRY: I will consider DISORDERS at most insofar as they illustrate ‘NORMAL’ and ‘exceptional’ psychology

Disorder is better defined by SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA, e.g. distress and FUNCTIONAL CRITERIA, e.g. within society rather than on an NORMAL-ABNORMAL AXIS. A TRAIT is a characteristic; a disorder produces severe distress or inability to function that require TREATMENT. Clearly, ‘disorder’ must have a SOCIAL COMPONENT

The kinds of exceptional achievement and disorder will be enumerated by [1] the elements of mind or being – the PRIMARY DIMENSIONS of achievement and disorder… these include the disorders of mood, and of perception and thought; and [2] aspects of quality of life that sustain enjoyment and health of the elements

It is therefore obvious that there will be a TAXONOMIC similarity between achievement and disorder. There will also be ETIOLOGIC RELATIONS between achievement and disorder. Two generic kinds of etiologic relation may be described: the first is LATERAL and is due to the fact that both disorder and achievement have basis in UNUSUAL PHYSIOLOGY or CAPACITIES; in the second, which is CAUSAL, achievement is driven by the force of exceptional mental states or dispositions – either directly or in compensation or as substitution. Such etiologic relations are tendencies rather than necessities

There are a number of approaches to psychiatry that include the PSYCHOANALYTIC and the HUMANISTIC-EXISTENTIAL. The PHYSIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL BASES OF FUNCTION are also useful in understanding and TREATING disorders and in understanding and CULTIVATING EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT. It may be useful to also include the systems from other cultures. The DSM –Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders– is not based in a theoretical or etiological framework; it is a system of classification based in symptoms. The strength of the DSM is that it promotes uniformity of diagnosis and communication among clinicians regardless of orientation

Note that the subsequent sections provide basis for a dynamic framework for disorder that is none the less not theoretical in the traditional sense. This might provide a superstructure for DSM which, in its grouping of symptoms is already not altogether non-theoretical

I believe that all approaches may be enhanced by augmenting the approach through disorder –or any valuational approach including wellness and recovery– by PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILING according to the elements of psychology or mind. A profile will be in the form of a TWO-DIMENSIONAL MATRIX whose INDICES are element of mind and quality

PERSONALITY AND PERSONALITY FACTORS; the whole individual

The discussion has these objectives. [1] Investigate the individual as a –developing– whole. This, of course, cannot be separate from some understanding of ‘factorization’ of the individual. [2] Incorporate the concept of personality into an investigation of the individual as a whole; this will entail a rationalization of the meaning and understanding of personality. [3] Investigate the rationalized understanding of the individual or person and personality. A part of this investigation will be an evaluation of the traditional concept and the classical theories of personality

The issue of personality and the whole individual. Personality involves a set of built in and developed predisposition to action, feeling-cognition, and cultivation of the individual or self and its commitments. The following questions arise: what is the relation of personality to the whole individual, should personality be separated out from the other traditional elements of psychology or should there be a parametric revaluation of psychology or, perhaps a mean between tradition and valuation-revaluation e.g. a revaluation of the tradition, what data and approaches (methods) might figure in revaluation

AN APPROACH TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE PERSON AS A WHOLE

The approach is (1) list various aspects, elements and systems of psychology and personality, (2) introduce conceptual ordering – traditional or matrix style, and (3) estimate ‘parameters’ and variety of states, behavior and development of individuals. An alternate terminology may be introduced: constants and variables where the constants are the parameters and the variables are the states, dispositions, behaviors and development…

FACTORS FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE PERSON AS A WHOLE

These factors are a generalization of ‘personality factors’ and include those listed above: dimensions of feeling, bound-free…

Traditional personality factors

Freudian, Eriksonian…

Jungian

Perceiving vs. Judging

Intuitive vs. Sensing

Analytic vs. Synthetic – this is related to intuition vs. sensing but was not one of Jung’s factors; here, analysis refers to cognition in terms of the parts while synthesis refers to cognition in terms of the whole

Feeling vs. Thinking

Introvert vs. Extravert

Ayurvedic

 Inertia vs. mobility

‘Hardwiring’ issues: biological including neurological and endocrine

Group and social factors

Exceptional Achievement and Disorder

The variety of disorder corresponds approximately to the elements or dimensions of mind. Therefore, a system of disorders provides clues to and is informed by the factors

NORMAL PSYCHOLOGY

I use ‘NORMAL psychology’ to refer to an actual individual of this world. I.e., the individual does not normally violate the limits associated with the conditions of becoming and being of this coherent phase-epoch [thus ‘NORMAL’ is not used in contrast to the ‘abnormal’ psychology of the individual with a mental disorder]

However, it is NORMAL for the individual to possess an ability to violate or transcend at least some putative limits

It is an objective of the experimental or transformational phase of ‘Journey in Being’ to experiment with the limits, to see what transcendence I may accomplish, what may be accomplished. I hope to demonstrate experimentally the ‘PRINCIPLE OF BEING’ that every being is ‘equivalent’ to every other being

A complete psychology does not exclude the body in the analysis of mind. The body is not and cannot be excluded since, as has been shown, the mind includes the body

In NORMAL psychology, the body and the implied NORMAL limits are included and among the topics that are emphasized

Language, Logic, Culture

Cognition and Communication

COGNITION and COMMUNICATION. It is good to discuss cognition and communication together because they are interwoven, especially in the [possible] relation of PERCEPTION, ICONIC THOUGHT, ART and DRAMA; SYMBOLIC THOUGHT and LANGUAGE; and, consistent with the BINDING: COGNITION-FEELING as discussed in THE ELEMENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY, in the communication of FEELING and INFLUENCE. Two points may be noted: first, the integration of cognition and feeling which is so essential in its nature and its constituents that ‘disservice’ is done to the constituents by the under-recognition of the integration and that the integral function is deserving of a name [or names.] The name could be EXPERIENCE but this does not recognize the integration of cognition-feeling. The second point is that the recognition of the importance of integration in COMMUNICATION and cognition-feeling does not imply that ANALYSIS is not valuable but that analysis alone is [severely] deficient. [The following is an aside on the importance of the cognition-feeling integration. In the analysis of the question of the identity of the SPEECH ACT and the PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDE, such attitudes as BELIEF are susceptible to easy analysis but what kind of speech act corresponds to desire? Because of the FEELING COMPONENT of DESIRE, it is clear that the cognition-feeling integration may shed light on this question and of whether all propositional attitudes are speech acts]

The relation between LANGUAGE and THOUGHT: the question arises, ‘Is all thought in language?’ This is an important question in philosophy, not only for the intrinsic interest of the question but also because the answer has implications for the nature of philosophy. Since analysis of thought plays a central role in philosophy – some would say it is all of philosophy, it follows that if all thought is in language then there is weight to the position known as LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY that dominated ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY in the middle of the twentieth century. Before discussing the issue at hand, I should mention an aside and a caveat. The aside: the example of communication among bees seems to imply that not all communication requires or is the expression of thought; but this raises a question regarding the nature of thought. The caveat: obviously, imagery and perception are not linguistic, it follows that when claiming that all thought is in language, the claimer is thinking of a particular kind of thought. The kind of thought that, is claimed to be entirely linguistic, is propositional thought i.e. the propositional attitudes. The term is somewhat prejudicial since in the original meaning, a proposition is an assertive sentence and therefore the choice of the term ‘propositional attitude,’ even though its motivation may have been to get away from the necessity of the sentential form, lends implicit weight to the idea that all thought is in language. It is a later development that a proposition need not be a sentence, and a still later generalization from the proposition to propositional attitudes. A proposition asserts that a certain STATE OF AFFAIRS obtains: it is a kind of relation between ‘MENTAL CONTENT’ and the WORLD and the generalization is that a propositional attitude is just that: a kind of relation –but not necessarily the assertive relation– between mental content and a state of affairs. What are the possible kinds of relations: there is the assertive relation in which it is asserted that the state of affairs obtains; there is BELIEF in which it is believed that the state obtains; and in desire it is desired that the state of affairs would obtain. [This perhaps overstating the case regarding DESIRE – for desire may be thought of as a feeling that moves one toward certain ends rather than a desire for the end itself. Note also, that speech-act theory and classification may be analyzed along these lines.] The mental function involved, then, is that of representation of possible states of affairs. Therefore, I suggest that the term ‘propositional attitude’ be replaced by REPRESENTATION of possible states. It is now appropriate to analyze the question at the beginning of this paragraph

Is all thought in language? [If the answer is ‘no,’ then the question, ‘Can all thought be expressed in language?’ arises and here ‘expression’ is significant for the internal aspect of representation and the external one of communication.]

There are two fundamental considerations that illuminate the nature of language – what language is and what it is not:

1. The dual role and, perhaps, origin of language in thought and communication

Additionally, language is not just any [medium of] communication. It encourages more than immediate communication but also transmissibility e.g. among generations and thus enables accumulation of learning. This is no doubt connected to its final –though not absolute– form: definite but conventional and LINEAR rather than MULTIDIMENSIONAL [space] and MULTIMODAL [e.g. the sensory modalities.] This also makes for different languages [and that, perhaps, not only do humans have the human language ability but also the human language generation ability;] for WRITING, written communication and storage; and for, through linearity, the fact that language lends itself to logic –even constitutively– and algorithmic processing

It should be noted that among those who argue that all thought is in language, some argue that each individual thinks in her or his native language and others argue that there is a language of thought, perhaps universal, perhaps even perfect, that is the medium of thought

Since language creates its ‘own world’ – especially the social world, and since it is the instrument of CRITICAL THOUGHT and COMMUNICATIVE THOUGHT, the world created by language is ‘self-promoting.’ Thus, it may seem to the individual –to some individuals– that we inhabit a LINGUISTIC WORLD. This, and its entailments, is a fundamental and interesting facet of human society and culture. It may also serve to explain the impulse to think that all thought is in language, which impulse is furthered by the original sentential form of the proposition. Note, though that imputing a motive to a position neither proves nor disproves the position; it may, however, explain recalcitrance regarding the position

2. The individual has a degree of AUTONOMY IN LANGUAGE PRODUCTION

However, what is the nature of thought? Clearly there is ICONIC THOUGHT which is a form of REPRESENTATION. It could then be argued that an ICONIC REPRESENTATION combined with an assertion of its TRUTH is a PROPOSITION. For COMMUNICATION, the representation could be approximately rendered in LINEAR LANGUAGE or ACTED OUT. A FEELING-ATTACHMENT to an icon would be a BELIEF. And so on. This is not to say that all representations are iconic but that some are. Note, parenthetically, Wittgenstein’s icon or picture theory of language. Can iconic thought be represented in linear language? Perhaps we should refer to the MOLAL version of the content of thought, the CONCEPT. An icon is a concept though not the only kind. However, the significant question is can every concept be expressed in language? Is the [human] mind capable of translating all of its concepts into linear language? These questions are at the crux of the matter

It seems fairly obvious that just as not all communication is linear-linguistic, not all conceptual thought is algorithmically reducible to linear-representation. However, is all conceptual thought at all reducible to such representation – by an ALGORITHM or otherwise? If all thought is to be known to be so reducible the reduction would have to be algorithmic. Is the IDEAL UNIVERSE –thought-universe– algorithmically reducible to linear representation? This may be even asking whether the ideal universe is COMPUTABLE. Even theoretically, this is highly doubtful but hinges on the nature of the ideal universe. If it is anything like, even, some of the simpler scientific models of reality then the answer must be ‘no’ even though there may be a extremely important subset of the universe that nearly populates the entire ideal universe for which the theoretical answer is ‘yes.’ It is crucial, however, whether, even given inexhaustible but otherwise real resources, the translation can be done in real time

Thus the conclusions are

No, not all thought is in any language – either a natural spoken language or a language of thought

Theoretically, not all thought is reducible to linear form. This would seem to imply that not all KNOWLEDGE can be so expressed. However, this does not rule out SYMBOLIC ENCAPSULATION. It is reasonable to claim that there are important SUB-UNIVERSES that can be reduced to linear linguistic form and, so, in these cases, linguistic thought is potentially possible even though not necessary and not the only MODE OF THOUGHT

However, the linear LINGUISTIC MODES cannot be regarded as EMBEDDED and therefore it seems likely that the range of application of EMBEDDED THOUGHT is limited –at least practically limited– relative to the range of possible linear thought

However, note that if the distinction between linguistic and NON-LINGUISTIC COMMUNICATION, even though practically significant, is absolutely or conceptually arbitrary, then, perhaps, the original question is moot. Thus, the question of the NATURE OF LANGUAGE is raised again; and, in reflecting on this question, the tendency of linear-language to create its own universe to the apparent exclusion of non-linear forms must be considered. The consideration tends in the direction of the conclusion that the concept of LINEAR-CONVENTIONAL LANGUAGE as all language is arbitrary and this conclusion must stand even if the brain centers and processing modalities for the variety of REPRESENTATION-COMMUNICATION forms are distinct. That follows since the distinction is practical –and perhaps PRACTICALLY NECESSARY– but not LOGICALLY NECESSARY

If we allow the concept as the mode of thought and generalize from linear-language communication to all communication, including ACTING-DRAMA-LITERATURE-ART-MUSIC, as language, then it seems to become possible that this GENERALIZED CONCEPT OF LANGUAGE is associated with the following characteristics:

It is dual in its function as medium of thought and of communication

All communication and thought is in language i.e. in the generalized concept of language

The individual has a degree of autonomy in language production

There may be hesitation in regarding this generalized concept as language since it is non-linear and therefore not available for ‘algorithmic processing’ but remember, also, that the linear form ‘creates its own universe’ which, in addition to the real function, makes possible the illusion of completeness

The possibility of complete and perfect knowledge remains but not in an embedded [REAL-TIME] form. The possibility in question is a theoretical one and not necessarily feasible or useful one. However, the approach to that state may find application that is useful and even profound in both practical and conceptual senses

Note, here, the essential concepts of art, drama and so on as MEDIUM OF THOUGHT and MEDIUM OF COMMUNICATION rather than a specialized cultural function – the stylized forms may be regarded as such but not the essential forms

LANGUAGE. Note the social function and the issue of designated function vs. function. Also see the brief example, above, concerning LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

Note added later, 12.26.2004. Some confusion regarding language, what it is, may be cleared up by considering the distinction between LANGUAGE and languages. If we take ‘NATURAL LANGUAGE’ –English, French, Latin, Bengali, Sanskrit, Mandarin– as prototypical then we end up with one de facto concept which emphasizes the traditional understanding and its focuses on words and their groups and the function of some communication and some thought. This makes it possible to formulate the question ‘is all thought in language?’ And, it is within this framework that the question may be puzzling. However, and even though the implicit concept specified by focusing on the ‘natural languages’ is not without significance it could not be argued that that represents the ultimate potential of the idea of language

Every CONCEPT IS FLUID and not for arbitrary reasons, not because fluidity is an intrinsic value, certainly not because ‘any term can be defined any way one wants to.’ The latter is patently false. DISCONTINUITY OF MEANING is usually exceptional and must usually occur within a framework of CONTINUITY; absolute discontinuity is a cessation of meaning and would have value in special circumstances

Thus the idea, above, that in the generalization of the thought to the concept and of language to all communication, it becomes possible to see how all THOUGHT is in LANGUAGE while not all thought is in language. In arriving at this position, respect has been paid to needs of both fluidity and CONTINUITY OF MEANING – as well as other requirements such as COHERENCE AMONG CONCEPTS and treating concepts as concepts rather than as objects which may result from definition by example [language = natural language]

Concepts

Planning. The following comments are appropriate here but would also be fundamental in the §§Reading the essay and ‘What is – the meaning of – being?’ and, more generally, any section where the field of concepts and the idea of a field of concepts are being set up. Determine the most appropriate placement; for all other locations, refer to the actual placement

11.10.04. CONCEPTS – SLACK, FLAT, PRIMAL, AS-INTUITED, and the issues of MEANING, SENSE, REFERENCE, USE, CHANGE and PROJECTION-TO-THE-ULTIMATE

That meaning is found –defined by– and evolves in use, rather than in a dictionary or authority is a simple consequence of the fact that there is no getting outside the world. Those cases in which meaning may be defined by dictionary or authority are either trivial or static

Value

Ethics, Law and Legal Theory

Planning. Distribute between locations in foundation and narrative for the journey. Create a section for law, legal theory? Where?

Some laws appear to be based in morals, some in POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY e.g. how laws are made, and others in a need to streamline SOCIAL FUNCTION – including the APPLICATION OF LAW. That is, law appears to be based in VALUE. However value does not make law

LEGAL POSITIVISM is the view that the origin of law is merely and necessarily in SOCIAL TRANSACTION and not in value; on this view it makes no sense to say that law should or should not have basis in value. I have made this comment, not to endorse or debate the position but to emphasize the range of opinion regarding the connection between law and value. (While some arguments appear to lend weight to Legal Positivism, it is clear its only justification can be apologetic.) The antithesis of Legal Positivism is the idea that law should have no force apart from value

Law exists when there is SANCTION (thus in the antithesis of Legal Positivism, there should be no law.) This is its essential distinction from morals. Morals may derive force from sanctions but the sanction is not constitutive of morality. Sanction makes the law

In the interest of efficiency, determinateness, and ‘JUSTICE,’ there may be rules of procedure and uniformity of sanction but law exists in the absence of justice and efficiency

There are various views on the actual and desirable connection between law and value. This is not the issue of concern here

Here, I am concerned with the NECESSITY OF THE LAW, of laws and in the nature of COMPULSION

On the view of Legal Positivism, law is CONTINGENT and not necessary. However, on that view the law is not subject to arbitrary manipulation – this may be regarded as a practical rather than theoretical necessity. On this view there can be no MORAL OBLIGATION to follow the law. The law is followed merely to avoid consequences of actions i.e. because the law –sanction– is enforced

If this argument is combined with the discussion, above, it follows that there is absolute no moral compulsion to follow the law – at all. The LEGAL IMPERATIVE is the SENSE OF IMPERATIVE. This does not mean that the law has no moral force but only that it is not absolute. It does not mean that a decision to not follow the law should be made lightly or that there are or should be no consequences of such decisions or acts based in those decisions

Value

THEORY OF GROUP ACTION AND VALUE and the abbreviated form, GROUP ACTION: AXIOLOGY, VALUE, EFFICIENCY, MEANING, ETHICS, AESTHETICS, and POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

In this connection –and others– it should be noted that the designated function(s) is not identical to the function

Similarly, theory is not THEORY and law is not LAW – despite depth, profundity, beauty, scope, and power of theory and law

10.7.04

Somewhere in the practical considerations regarding ‘GROUP ACTION AND VALUE’ add the following. In a RATIONAL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES to the different TASKS or PROJECTS of an individual or a group, some effort should be applied to ULTIMATE CONCERNS. [Check to see whether I have commented on this in Foundation; I know I have done so in Journey in Being.] This is because the products PAYOFF x PROBABILITY or PAYOFF x FEASIBILITY are not low even though the probability of ‘success’ may be low. The actual amount of resources allocated will depend on the URGENCY of more IMMEDIATE CONCERNS. It could be argued that this is the PROVINCE OF RELIGION and that, therefore, some resources are already allocated to the ultimate concern. For the present concern, however, religion is taken to include the address of ultimate concerns through faith or dogma… and this includes the denial of any significance to ultimate concerns as in some forms of Buddhism. That is, when it is said that, in society, some resources are already allocated to ultimate concerns via religion, reference is being made to established INSTITUTIONS OF RELIGION e.g. to CHURCH, FAITH and DOGMA. However, the analysis of being here is not based in religion as defined – the basis is in logic, specifically the LOGIC OF ABSENCE which, as has been seen, does not exclude the ACTUAL or ‘FEELING.’

Being II: The Nature of Being

Planning. Is this the proper location for the following discussion of ‘the Character Common to Every Being?’ Should (parts of) the discussion be placed elsewhere? Should new sections be created?

The Journey as a Whole… the Character Common to Every Being

10.06.04

Being as a Whole

Requires elimination of all CONTEXTUAL RESTRICTIONS and RULES… PRIMAL LOGIC has no rules

ABSOLUTE INDETERMINISM, essential LOGIC as the CONSTITUTION OF ALL CONTEXTS [… being as context? … a context º a logic?]

SUBJECT / OBJECT… the facts of mind as a subset of facts may eliminate the need to talk of subject and object

STRUCTURE and NECESSITY

NECESSITY OF TEMPORALITY

TIME and TIMES

ORIGIN OF TIME and ORIGIN OF BEING

Interwoven with ATEMPORALITY… that temporality is necessary does not mean that it is ‘dominant’ or that there is no significance to atemporality

Origin of coherent phase-epochs

QUASI DOMINANT TIME

QUASI CAUSATION

QUASI / PARTIAL DETERMINISM

QUASI DETERMINATE OBJECTS

QUASI MONADIC BEING with MONADIC MIND

QUASI TEMPORALITY AS ESSENCE, occasional QUASI MECHANISM

Human or Animal Being… as central to our Journey… and as an example

HUMAN BEING as being

Human being – what is its CONTEXT? There have been many suggestions and often these have the objective of showing superiority rather than actuality. And often, the suggestion is ad hoc. Examples include bipedalism, neoteny, the opposable thumb, the habitual creation and use of tools. I suggest the FREE-SYMBOL as that which makes it possible to appreciate and cultivate ‘humanness’ what one is… However, while there may be a number of PREREQUISITES to that cultivation, the free symbol is the cultivation… [Note the similarity to Heidegger’s suggestion regarding the nature of Dasein] [Note: the eliminate reference to Heidegger here but add comment in ‘Influences.’]

ANIMAL BEING – what is its context? LIFE? MOTILITY? MOTILE LIFE? Should we define life? Should it be a one-dimensional definition such as the potential definitions given in the Companion to Metaphysics which are, individually, easy to ‘shoot down?’

The Companion, lazily and stupidly, [Note: the eliminate the phrase, ‘lazily and stupidly’]  does not even think of or consider a weighted definition; what is one to expect of a professor anyway? This is a lament regarding much academic and analytic philosophy. I often wonder whether it would benefit philosophy and the academic disciplines if ‘publish or perish’ were eliminated. If that were done, there might be many lazy professors who acted out their laziness. However, that would have two possible effects. First, those whose powers of thought were the prime mover would be the ones who attempted to publish. Thus, generally, publication would be real. There would, of course, also be some a-real publication but these would be motivated by some kind of power. Thus, first, there would not be the huge diluting deluge of the academic publication and, second, even these other publications would have significance and the potential to affect the real…

Perhaps we should simply say that life is [1] an INTUITIVE FORM, and [2] life is or may be an essentially slack or fluid concept with regard to boundary cases and therefore a sharp demarcation between ‘life’ and ‘non-life’ should not exist and is a mistake to expect or to use as a criterion of judgment for the ‘nature’ of life

BACKGROUND: ENTIRE HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND ACTION

STRUCTURING HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND ACTION

PRINCIPLES

Examples the BRITANNICA PLUS SYSTEM [Journey in Being and New Ideas]

Also see: THE ELEMENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY

JOURNEY IN BEING

Phases

Possibility

The next phase: beyond temporality [?] / atemporality… the experimental approach from Atman [see Design.html]

Any Being

How may ‘any given being’ be characterized? How may its constitution be specified?

Cue: the restriction of ‘all being’ or ‘any being’ to ‘human or animal being’ as an example

BEING ITSELF: transformation… the being-in-itself defines the scope of its being and possibilities

The Ultimate

Journey in Being

Use question 8 of TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING

… A SKETCH OF THE JOURNEY

Planning. Review this title. Alternatives: ‘JOURNEY,’ ‘(THE) JOURNEY IN BEING,’ ‘A SKETCH OF THE JOURNEY IN BEING;’ the point to the term ‘sketch’ is that it is [a] outline, and [b] in process. Further alternatives: ‘JOURNEY IN BEING: A MAP (OF THE JOURNEY)’… Is the subtitle, ‘… a sketch of the journey’ necessary or should there be a comment but no title?

Make this section more ‘narrative-like’ i.e. develop the journey as a story or plot – but without giving up the rigor, comprehensiveness and detail. To this end, details may be indented, made in smaller print, placed in footnotes or appendices

INTRODUCTION | OUTLINE

This outline is a modification of and needs incorporating to the existing structure. In this outline, items in red were not in the relevant sections at the time I made the outline; the topics may be in the original document, FOUNDATION, but not necessarily at a corresponding location

10.06.04

This part, Journey in Being, is an outline; the sources contain much more detail but are older. The combined function of METAPHYSICS and TRANSFORMATION is (a) UNDERSTANDING, REALIZATION of and TRANSFORMATION to ALL BEING, and (b) understanding, realization and transformation to the DIMENSIONS and POSSIBILITIES of HUMAN BEING

Purpose of the section. Relation to the foundation.

Purposes: Illustration of being as becoming – as a Journey. [Note that any understanding of being or of becoming includes the other; the reference to becoming, here, emphasizes the mutual inclusiveness of the concepts that might otherwise be forgotten or suppressed.] Three journeys – that of the individual, of human being, of all being – the universe; their interwoven character; their narrative. [Whereas the foundation and preface include a personal account, the individual here is not personal although the personal may be used e.g. to generate hypotheses to test.] Narrative and development for the journey in understanding and realization or transformation – in detail: the understanding of all being – the universe which includes an elaboration of the foundation; and an essential account of the cumulative understanding from human culture and animal being with an evaluation based in and of foundation; and a narrative of transformation, of approaches to and experiments transformation for individual and group – as understood in the logic of the foundation

Relation to foundation. Whereas the foundation section is a formal account of the theory of being as foundation for the journey, this section is a narrative of the journey(s). Since the present division includes ‘understanding’ it includes, in principle, the content of the foundation; however, details will not be unnecessarily repeated. Foundation is brief; the present division is detailed. Foundation includes the concept of the journey (becoming) in the logic; this division is the narrative of the journey

Purposes continued: Mutual review of the foundation and the traditions – since the theory of being and the traditions are presented here as a continuous account, mutual review is not only possible but natural. Review the potential assessment of my theory of being in terms of current schools especially the analytic tradition with critical assessment of the implications of the theory for that tradition. Collect and refine the criticisms of the typical analytic approach. Evaluate what is real in the theory of being and analysis, and what is mere sophistry and posturing. Evaluate the system of disciplines for completeness and validity but not for the traditional boundaries which have an arbitrary character

What is the ‘Journey in Being’?

Accumulate the different aspects and concepts

A Map of the Journey

Alternate for ‘map:’ atlas…

Understanding

Comment: ‘understanding’ includes knowledge and understanding; to include being, logic, mind, knowledge – in extension and intension

Background; the history of knowledge (ideas) and exploration. The history of exploration to include ‘experiments in realization and transformation,’ e.g. yoga, mysticism, the trance-like states of reception and charisma… Note that this is currently a separate section

Metaphysics. Metaphysics is understood in the inclusive sense and includes the regional disciplines even though it is essentially the theory of being. Repetition of some aspects of foundation, e.g., metaphysics, logic and cosmology; mind and symbol; language, logic and culture

10.24.04

pp61… §§ ‘Metaphysics, philosophy and The Journey in Being’ ‘Characterizing metaphysics and philosophy’ – add comments

Integrate CONTINENTAL, ANALYTIC, EASTERN (and other) CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS (philosophies)… i.e. ‘On the integration of…’ or ‘The conceptual mesh / synthesis of…’ Show how each is a projection from a cultural ideal to the real… and how each creates a world: the impression of a world – the feeling of immersion in a world … and how the mesh approaches or may approach ‘the real’

The traditions of knowledge and the western system of disciplines. The western system: its history; philosophy (a sub-section) and humanities; science, technology and the arts… (details below.) Other traditions. Evaluations; where we are now

Metaphysics. Discuss this here or before ‘the traditions’ as done above?

Some topics to incorporate. Unity in understanding: metaphysics and the Journey in Being. The Disciplines; learning from the Disciplines. Metaphysics and philosophy in light of the Theory of Being

Catalog of fundamental problems touched – essentials here (problems, accomplishments, needs and plans) with reference to ‘Fundamental Problems’

Transformation

Longer, alternative title: Journey to the Ultimate: Transformation of Being

Realization. Dynamics of Transformation. Note that the background sub-section for ‘understanding’ includes the history of experiments in realization which may be linked from here or, alternately, placed here and linked from there. Experiments in Transformation. The Journey Continues… After the Journey

Evaluation. What has been accomplished so far; what remains. Significance of the individual journey

What is the logical place to include these considerations?

12.16.2004. While the Introduction will include the personal account as NARRATIVE, motivation and introduction, this section may include, the impersonal conclusions for the nature of DISCOVERY, submersion of EGO –being in the present and its meaning– in the power and FORCE AND FLOW OF THOUGHT or LOGIC… conclusions for the INDIVIDUAL in general and the individual-universe relation – the relation between the individual and ALL BEING

JOURNEY IN BEING

When the newer outline above is incorporated, this title will not be necessary

What is the ‘Journey in Being’?

Planning. State again that there is an emphasis on the relation between the two aspects of the journey

Background: History of Knowledge and Exploration

Add emphasis: all cultures

Understanding

Unity in understanding: metaphysics and the Journey in Being

Absorb the section: Metaphysics, philosophy and the Journey in Being

The Disciplines

Planning. Essential aspects of the following should go to §Foundation

The DISCIPLINES – from science and the SCIENCES and TECHNOLOGY and the technologies, to the HUMANITIES and PHILOSOPHY, the ARTS, LANGUAGE, LANGUAGES and LITERATURE, to HISTORY and RELIGION, and the study of SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS e.g. LANGUAGE, LOGIC, MATHEMATICS – and key learning from the disciplines

Make a brief list of the ESSENTIAL DISCIPLINES – use a standard reference e.g. NEW IDEAS. In addition to those noted immediately above, it is important to include: PHYSICS, MATTER… QUANTUM and WAVE MECHANICS, the theory of SPACE-TIME-GRAVITATION; BIOLOGY and LIFE…the theory of EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION; PSYCHOLOGY, MIND and MENTAL FUNCTION; SOCIOLOGY, SOCIETY and CULTURE; AXIOLOGY or THEORY OF GROUP ACTION AND VALUE, ETHICS, EFFICIENCY and ECONOMICS, POLITICS and POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Social systems theory and examples of applications including immediate, day-to-day ones. Applications of empirical approach and results

See the section, THE ELEMENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY, below for further discussion of mind. In a revised outline to the section, FOUNDATION, from FOUNDATION, add, perhaps somewhere between the two divides, SOCIETY and its theory [SOCIOLOGY – what are its main issues and theoretical approaches; what critiques – this implies search and expression of my embedded theory] and ECONOMICS as, in a first meaning, the material basis of [human] being and groups of human beings [society]

Learning from the Disciplines

List and reconsider key elements of LEARNING, especially learning from the DISCIPLINES. Examples:

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY –and of CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM and CONSERVATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM– permits ‘SOMETHING FROM NOTHING’

LOCAL EMERGENCE OF ORDER does not violate the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS even as a DETERMINISTIC MACROSCOPIC LAW; GLOBAL EMERGENCE OF ORDER does not violate the statistical character of order which, however, but makes it ‘absurdly improbable’ for NORMAL events on the ‘LOCAL SCALE’

The ERGODIC THEOREM for DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS and conditions for its applicability –ergodicity– MIXING SYSTEMS. PHASE-SPACE FILLING; implications for RECURRENCE

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; VARIATION and SELECTION… the problems of the logic: ORIGIN OF COMPLEX FUNCTION; issue of probability and chance… significance of the ‘variation and selection’ paradigm

Theories of MENTAL FUNCTION, INDIVIDUAL-SOCIETY, DEVELOPMENT, MEANING and nurture of the SELF, PERSONALITY, DISORDER and EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT and– cognition-feeling

Metaphysics and philosophy in light of the Theory of Being

The previous name of this section: Characterizing metaphysics and philosophy

Journey to the Ultimate: Transformation of Being

[The Experiments]

Planning. Review the titles, ‘JOURNEY TO…,’ ‘REALIZATION,’ ‘THE EXPERIMENTS,’ and ‘DYNAMICS…’ Should the ‘REALIZATION’ title be Heading 1 or 2? Alternatives are, ‘DOCUMENT, RESEARCH AND STUDY PLANS,’ ‘PROSPECT,’ ‘FUTURE,’ ‘THE FUTURE,’ ‘ and ‘THE FUTURE OF THE JOURNEY.’ The basic concept is that it is the continuation of the journey including the later phases; the plans for the document, for research and study are but a part of this. The section is to emphasize the phase of Experiments

This section may be combined with the sub-section of the same title in § JOURNEY

Although tentatively placed here, may be placed in INTRODUCTION TO THE ESSAY or preface – or, alternatively, this section may be one of a number of appendices

09.20.04. Introduce the essence of Journey in Being outline of experiments.html. This may require modification of p.65 h Transformation

Realization

Emphasize that while the KNOWLEDGE PHASE continues and that ‘AFTER’ looms and is important, the emphasis is realization by transformation of what is suggested in the knowledge phase, especially FOUNDATION. Also emphasize that the phase of transformation is already begun but is now taken up as the main focus

Emphasize that the goal is the connection of the present – individual, social, this world – and the ultimate; and the balance of openness and method or dynamics

Dynamics of Transformation

… includes SELF-TRANSFORMATION – begins with experiments in self-transformation, and with transformation and related stories –myth– designed for general use and appeal from the INDIVIDUAL LIFE, to the WALKS OF LIFE –read SOCIAL ROLES from formal to informal– and INSTITUTIONAL ROLES; GENERAL TRANSFORMATION OF BEING or objects; and

Experiments in Transformation

Emphasize that the dynamics is ‘method’ so far; however, it is not an algorithm or pre-determined but is OPEN TO LEARNING, to WAITING, to PATIENT and INCREMENTAL ACTION, to REFLECTION, to RISK, to ABRUPT ACTION, to intuition and the ‘UNCONSCIOUS,’ to the FEELING OF FAILURE

The Journey Continues…

Planning. Here, relatively brief comments. Plans are elaborated [1] above in §2.1 KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING and especially in §2.2 TRANSFORMATION, and [2] below in § The Fundamental Problems

Replace ‘Ulysses’ by ‘Tennyson’s Ulysses’

After the Journey

The Fundamental Problems

Planning. Review this title. Sources: key essays including this one; and TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE THEORY OF BEING

Design of the section. In addition to the following systematic lists of problems, the section will contain an assessment of the resolution of issues and research plans

The purpose of this section is to systematically list, in one place, THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS formulated and addressed in the text. For the purposes of the essay, the problems fall into two broad classes that may overlap:

Issues that must be addressed in order to develop the foundation as consistent, coherent and complete with regard to certain key issues that arise naturally in the history of thought; these are primarily in the Introduction and the Foundation. The key issues are among the problems and include the NATURE and NECESSITY OF BEING and the problems of THE INDIVIDUAL – the nature, IDENTITY and BEING OF THE INDIVIDUAL and the relation of the individual to the world including the problems of KNOWLEDGE and of EXPERIENCE vs. OBJECTIVE BEING [MIND-BODY.] The problem of knowledge includes its EMBEDDING in ACTION and TRANSFORMATION and the question of the true FUNCTION OF COGNITION

To systematically touch every essential problem and issue of BEING –METAPHYSICS– including those of HUMAN BEING. Included are problems that are addressed as significant aspects or ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT; these are distributed throughout the text but are concentrated in the sections on metaphysics and transformation. This set includes an emphasis on the classical problems of metaphysics, transformation, ethics-value and philosophy but and considerations of variety of problems of the disciplines and other endeavors of being. A central problem, at least latent in the main development, is the issue of what the fundamental problems are. This intersects the problem of the concept of IMPORTANCE i.e. of DESIRABILITY or ETHICS.

Program of Study, Conceptual and Experimental Investigation

Add comment: the research plans are continuous with the journey and, therefore, details are included in §§ 2 and The Fundamental Problems. However, research plans impact the future of the essay and are, therefore, relevant here

Some information, from Design for a Journey in Being, on study sources has been included. Expand this?

Add comment: ‘Research Plans’ include conceptual investigation and transformation through action and experiment – which has foundation in the conceptual or theoretical side. Change title to reflect this?

Add comment: most plans are at various stages of completion, some essentially complete except for the formal expression. Every work is a process in the stream. No sooner do I arrive and enjoy than I begin to question

Planning. Which of the following sections are necessary? Where should they go? Perhaps this entire section, ‘STATUS and FUTURE’ should go to the end. If this is done, add a note in the Outline in the Preface. Eliminate heading status? Add a heading ‘Internet Version / Electronic networking and the future of literature’

Status and Future of the Essay

While the foundation is relatively complete the journey continues and so the essay must be open ended. There is also a necessary open-endedness – any appearance that the essay could be closed is an illusion: the journey must be open ended and revision of the foundation cannot be ruled out

Planning and design

This essay is a brief outline of the Journey and, especially, of its foundation. Further details of planning and content are in the sources. The section, ‘Document Plans’ of FOUNDATION is relevant. DESIGN contains planning for the Journey. In a new version of the Website, the contents of the main essays including the histories and the design will be rendered as two: a brief essay e.g. FOUNDATION and a NARRATIVE

A number of topics require further investigation. DESIGN contains a program for the Journey including a program of study. Additionally, in developing the next version of the Website, works of other writers relevant to the various topics may be researched for correction, completion or illumination of my thought

Since the being of the individual is intimately bound to the individual’s understanding of being, the topic of BEING is ever fresh

Structure of Subsequent Editions

Emphasis on experiment has been expanded. Further expansion may be indicated

Structure of the next edition: The next edition will encompass the entire journey in two volumes

Volume 1: Introduction and Foundation

The introduction will include: biography but no more than is pertinent to the journey; the nature, origins and necessity of the journey

The foundation is part of the journey and will contain the essentials of the journey and its theoretical support i.e. the THEORY OF BEING and its dynamics. The precise distribution of topics among the volumes is open but the foundation will contain essentials of the THEORY OF BEING while details of the metaphysics will be developed in the second volume

Volume 2: The Journey

Metaphysics: the relation and possible identity of metaphysics and logic which suggests and is implied by metaphysics as the discipline whose only limits are necessary limits and by logic as the discipline that expresses the outer limits of possibility. A logic as the outer limits as a kind of possibility and the implications of this consideration for a general or context free logic. The equivalence – or otherwise – of these conceptions of metaphysics and logic to the theory of the void and its consequences. The concept and resolution of a complete system of metaphysics. Classical, analytical and other recent metaphysics – including learning from the metaphysics of Africa, China, India, Latin America and non-industrialized cultures. General and physical cosmology, the place of mind in cosmology, an account of mind at the primal and the animal and human level including consideration of the categories, the functions and their integration, and the neurological support of categories, functions, and integration. Symbol, language and thought. Epistemology. The theory of group action and value

Experiments in transformation: dynamics and the theory of experiments in transformation. The theory of a complete, minimal set of experiments. General experiments, theory and experimentation with machines [computation,] and social action and theory of value [ethics and political theory and philosophy]

Biographical elements that enhance the understanding of place of the individual, the story of all being, and the relevance of individual motivation and doubt in discovery

A note on ‘psychologism:’ although the author does not subscribe to the view that the study of mental processes can provide foundation of logic, metaphysics, the dynamics, or their divisions, there is little doubt that psychology –among other factors– influences the beliefs of the individual

Lexicon

Planning. Review this title and its purpose and development. Alternative titles include ‘GLOSSARY OF TERMS.’ Combine with the INDEX?

The functions of the LEXICON include reference and having the IMPORTANT CONCEPTS identified and explained in one place. In the service of these functions, there is some repetition. Additionally, [1] In the essay EVERY ESSENTIAL IDEA RECEIVES NEW MEANING – this is inherent in ‘every’ endeavor but especially so here, in fact and by design. Specifically, the THEORY OF BEING or metaphysics that is developed in this essay informs all meanings; simultaneously every insight into meaning informs the metaphysics and this, in turn, ripples through the system of concepts. The use of eight point capitals in all caps often distinguishes the general –e.g. the absolute, most general, most abstract in the one universe or a coherent phase-epoch thereof– from the immediate and the as-we-experience-it version of the concept or object. [2] The capital version may mark the first use in the essay, in a section, in a paragraph… its first use in a context, in a certain sense, or after a significant expanse of text. [3] The ideas are not independent but constitute a FIELD OF CONCEPTS. The field of concepts holds together in a complete but simultaneously transitional metaphysics. In presenting the field as a field, the LEXICON performs a suggestive function in the development of the concepts and the conceptual system. [4] The glossary is a GUIDE but cannot replace the text in bringing out meaning and significance

The Lexicon

Ethics Incorporates desirability and feasibility as dynamic and interactive objects. Ethics is an aspect of axiology, the theory of value. Ethics, aesthetics and political philosophy fields of axiology; however, it is held by some and it there that the different fields of axiology are not essentially distinct; clearly, there is at least some validity to the idea. Morals can exist only when there is choice. Ethics is the study of morals – another term for ethics is moral philosophy. Meta-ethics is the study of the nature of ethical concepts and judgment: are they given or can they be established, are they objective or otherwise, and to what faculties do they appeal? It is inherent in choice that morals are not completely objective and that reason is involved in their determination. However, without emotion or feeling morals and values have no significance. The question of objectivity is more subtle? What can it mean for morals to be objective? For a moral to appear objective it is sufficient that there be consensus – regardless its source; the source could be co-adaptation. For a moral to be objective it must have origin outside its realm of application; therefore, it is inherent in its meaning, that there can be objectivity of morals only for a kind of being (context.) Normative ethics is concerned with norms – the morals by which we live: how are they established or justified and what are the consequences for morals and norms in general. Clearly, the possibility of normative ethics assumes norms are not completely given and that some appeal to reason is possible. Finally, applied ethics is the application of ethical principles to practical moral problems; however, it is an error to suppose that there is a clear and distinct boundary between morals and moral problems

Sources and Influences

The purpose of this section is as currently outlined in the sub-section of the same name in the Introduction. The purpose to placing it here is to MINIMIZE DISTRACTIONS from the main development in the three main sections

Add: a comment on Samuel Alexander as a source – his interpretation of the traditional ontologies and note that says or implies that my interpretation is broader –covers a greater span of being– and deeper i.e. more fundamental

Planning. Review this title and concept. Alternatives are ‘SOURCES OF IDEAS AND INSPIRATION’ but this is pedantic and long; ‘SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY,’ and ‘BIBLIOGRAPHY’ are not pedantic but the latter are rather mundane and, further, there is a point to its not being –not providing– a bibliography. A discussion of the absence of a detailed bibliography should be given [the one that is already there may be modified]

Enter some main documents? If so, comment that the list is illustrative or representative. If I do decide to list some classic texts their function will not be essential but will be to guide the reader

Index

Planning. Use the new LEXICON of words to enhance the INDEX. I may also use the CAPITAL form to eliminate reference to incidental uses of fundamental terms. It will be a good idea to capitalize only the first occurrence in paragraph or other text unit. Exceptions to this may be made when there is a non-incidental but limited use – especially if it is in the same paragraph as the unrestricted use. Possibilities include lower and title cases for the restricted uses

10.24.04. Modify the concordance to reflect changes. Singular / plural e.g. transient, transients. 11.10.04. Add terms from the ‘new’ topics. 10.07.04. Putting the conceptual use of words in ALL CAPS and making the text entry in the concordance also in ALL CAPS will eliminate the references in the index non-conceptual uses of the word. E.g. FORM is used as a significant concept in the metaphysics. However, in a phrase such as ‘the form of the result…’ reference is not being made to the metaphysical concept of form. Without the use of ALL CAPS in the concordance, the index references all occurrences of the word

The Author

Planning. Alternative title: ‘AUTHOR’