A letter to Dr. Haggag

3.1.05

Dear Dr. Haggag

The following points are a response to your difficulties in understanding ‘Journey in Being.’ Although you have stated these difficulties as ‘criticisms’ I see them as difficulties and I interpret your critical formulation as a defense. I am not suggesting that my writing and thought is above stylistic and rational criticism but only that you have not raised your thought to the level at which you might be capable of offering such criticism. This would require that you read through my essay while making a mental note of whatever you perceive as difficulty or criticism but without allowing your perception to divert your focus from understanding. On account of your intelligence the task would not be difficult if you allow yourself openness and time. The openness is necessary because the points of view developed are infinitely removed from our common secular and religious world views. When I was a teacher I noticed that many intelligent students had the following difficulty with understanding: in their impatience to know, they did not give themselves time to understand. The difficulty in understanding comes from a number of places that include, first, that absorbing a concept is not at all the same as retaining facts but requires adjustment in the way one sees and, second, that conceptual understanding requires seeing the system of concepts as a whole. The difficulty may have been exacerbated by general anxiety and the competition associated with being at university… Since you may have anxiety to understand and since you may subconsciously perceive yourself in competition with me, you may have similar difficulties… You may of course respond that I see myself in competition with you; that may of course be true but you may have also noted that I listen to rather than contest your points: if I see myself as being in competition with you or others, I use that competition to improve my thought… Good luck

a. What I say is radical, bold and universal in its depth. It is at odds with the tradition. And, though there are intimations of the ideas, there is no previous development that compares with the precision, clarity and depth of treatment and the breadth of the implications – with the boldness of statement and the universality of its view. Thus, for example, in its line of development it goes far beyond science, myth, religion or art. Therefore, the fundamental question concerns the truth of the view and the claims just made

b. The question is, since it seems to overturn common reality, ‘Is it right?’ and not, ‘Is there a whole picture?’ (In the Theory of Being and in the Cosmology, and other places, there is a full picture) ‘Are there too many details?’ (The details are necessary as development and as examples)

c. It does not overturn common reality (via the concept of the normal) but meshes with it in the normal realm and contains it otherwise…

d. In the major disciplines of knowledge, and the major human issues which are illuminated and improved significantly and fundamentally

e. In doing this, the central theory is illuminated and refined and the disciplines (human knowledge) and human issues are refined, given deeper foundation and advanced – thus the ‘details’ are not only extremely useful but essential

f. The central system itself – the Theory of Being, the cosmology and other elements – provides the overview

g. The form of the narrative is the form of the journey. With regard to the form of the narrative, it is motivated by a dissatisfaction with some common modern modes, to set an example or paradigm of discovery that may be emulated

…

h. ‘The work is specialized; physics is the key.’ This is absurd. ‘Being,’ that which exists, outside of which there is no thing is the extreme antithesis of the special; and the concept of being together with the concept of non-being (nothingness, the void) include, in some way, all concepts… there could be nothing more inclusive. To think that physics is the key is absurd – even if, surely, there is much to be learnt from physics, its history and its future both literally and metaphorically as suggestive

i. Of course, being may seem to be remote or vague but that is because we want to talk about concrete things all the time. We want to crawl, not fly. Both crawling and flying are necessary. Being is not vague because it is right there. But parts of being are unknown. That is what makes the use of the concept of being so powerful – in contrast to matter or mind – as examples. The point is why limit our range of thought by introducing matter etc. right at the outset of investigation. Instead we introduce being, that which exists and beyond which there is no thing… if the world is material – that will fall out of the analysis rather than being imposed on thought. In this way we are always true even because we admit and are even comfortable with our essential ignorance (and not the feigned ignorance of those who commit so prematurely that they do not have a real clue of what it is that they are ignorant even to the extent that clues are available but all that they know is ‘there’s so much that I don’t know…’ in which they are encouraged by modern media, education and politics for which institutions it is economically and politically (influence-wise) to have the masses love their ignorance

j. ‘The work is too detailed, has too many concepts.’ The idea is that a few simple concepts permit understanding of the whole universe. Two things are and must be shown. First, that the central system of concepts is a framework for all being outside of which there is no thing and no concept. Second, the system subsumes all being in all its variety and all attempts at understanding. For each such attempt, it must be shown that it may be subsumed or that it is in error. To do this with any degree of concepts requires marshalling a vast system of ideas and concepts at many levels of generality

k. Nothingness. A problem for you. A problem, also, for many of my friends. A problem also for me. For many years, I struggled with the idea and related ideas holding to them as a result of my intuitions – some from an internal source, some from nature, some from logic and science… until the logic of being –where intuition and logic meet– became revealed and the power of the use of the concept of being then slowly asserted itself… a process in which I was as if discovering a new landscape of infinity, and as if guided by revelation rather in a state of effort… but all still both intuitive and logical

l. I wager that you will learn much from my work, the solution to your mysteries both the details and the order. You will most by being disciplined and directed – you are already an expert in the art of un-discipline and misdirection. However, if you feel too tired to undertake your own independent journey, you will have no better guide than my thought, experience and work – I admit the real problems of penetrating my work but that may even be why the work may guide you

m. In summary of the foregoing thoughts it is clear that you have not understood my writing. Regardless where the cause of this lies, I think you would benefit, would resolve many of the central puzzles of your existence if you were to put in the effort… Perhaps the ‘edition’ on which I am currently working may help

n. In order to understand ‘Theory of Being’ a variety of concepts and thoughts and their interrelations must be held in mind simultaneously. These may be divided into two classes. (1) The why and the how i.e. why are we focusing on certain concepts and how do we arrive at the core conclusions and the importance of the concepts to these conclusions. (2) The meaning of the concepts – individually and as a system; a number of observations are important in this regard

First, that the meanings are interlinked and interactive: this is part of what it means that there is a system of concepts

Second, if the system of understanding is to be new then concepts must also be new; this, of course, does not mean that the concepts and the system makes a complete break with the past – the fact of the existence of concepts necessarily entails some validity to previous systems. Thus, there must – should – be some continuity with previous systems. This is one reason, obviously, that the previous systems are important and at least some understanding of them is a prerequisite for ‘progress.’ This does not mean that there are no clean breaks but note that for an absolutely clean break, our world must cease to exist and being must start afresh. The point may be summarized by saying that while a new system of understanding may benefit from continuity with the past, every concept as well as the system will acquire new meaning; this includes the case of ‘new’ concepts. This must be especially so in the system of that I seek which I have defined to be the understanding and realization of all being. While the extent to which this goal is realized may be properly judged only after understanding the system, it may seem somewhat paradoxical that, if achieved, there is no understanding outside the system. Is that at all possible? Yes, in the following ways, (1) complete understanding and realization will likely be only at a general or abstract level and (2) the system will not necessarily be unique

Third, the concepts will be designated by words. Should new words be coined? The source of the virtue of coinage is also the source of its weakness, i.e. that there is a break with the past systems. As a result of the break the new system may be rid of both the insight and the confusions of the past… I have adopted the following course of action. Occasionally, I have adopted new words such as ‘presence.’ Of course, presence is a word in the English language but its use as a philosophical-metaphysical term is new (in this case it is coincidental that there is an unrelated metaphysical use.) Generally, I have used existing words but have taken pains to point out – especially in the upcoming revision – when the meanings are new, what is the new meaning, how does it relate to the old, and how are the strengths of the old included. This is analogous to science, from which numerous examples can be given, where revolutionary theories do not so much invalidate old ones as to show range of validity and their limitations and, especially, when the concepts of the new theories are abstract the concrete concepts of the older theories are essential in interpreting the new meanings of concepts. While ‘Being’ is so fundamental that it would be difficult to overturn the old meaning, I have able to –I avoid delusion by not being dogmatic about this– plumb new depth, show new significance, and to demonstrate the power of the theory of being. (While I refer to the theory of being, I should point out that the developments are new to a significant degree and incorporate what is valid of the old. The truth, of course, is more complex and the theory is multifaceted and the advance is clear in some dimensions while not so clear in others – especially the technical developments)

o. Some terms and related ideas that acquire new meaning:

Being, power, mind, universe, world, metaphysics; form, logos and logic, law, laws of logic, natural law, induction and the ‘scientific method,’ possibility, necessity and actuality; the void – and its existence or being (nothing, nothingness, absence;) the concept of the normal, general (new in some ways) and normal (new, includes physical) cosmology, phase-epoch (new,) annihilation and recurrence (both old;) God, soul, faith, articles of faith, religion, poetry, art and literature, myth, evolution, limits, miracles, magic; physical cosmology, space, time, (space-time,) matter, causation (not assumed to be universal but shown to be a phenomenon that is local with respect to extension and magnitude, relation of causation and mind) dynamics (and causation;) human being and human mind, symbol and language, knowledge, value and ethics

The points to this rather long list: they tie together, the special interest is best understood in the context of the general

p. Why the title ‘Journey in Being?’ Although the meaning of the word being can be specified at any point in time the significance of being, especially the inner significance (as participant rather than spectator) is seen as a Journey (relation to existentialism / existential psychiatry.) This assertion regarding significance is true regardless whether one is talking of BEING or of individual being

I am going to permit this rambling paragraph to stand as it is. The same is true of my personal journey of understanding (and, I hope, becoming.) Of the personal journey, there is serendipity and design and of course, in the background, dissipation and the familiar specter of dissolution. Even today the journey continues, sometimes as a struggle and sometimes as wonderful. We talked of why I do this. Is it for the ideas or to communicate. It is not an or. The ideas are in themselves important but not merely as ideas but as instruments of transformation (inner and outer.) Therefore, the ideas always remain as having supreme importance and to prematurely cast as stone would necessarily be untruth. We are old men and perhaps one of the main tasks of an old man is to accept incompletion – which is to accept infinity. Thus the journey. At the same time, it is a gift that I have arrived at some completion. However, not completely a gift. The ‘Journey’ is not that of a single day or year; and sometimes, I look back at my past and am surprised to think that it is the same person whose past I view; the distance confirms and the many transformations constitute the Journey. We have a patient whose mother is having a hard time releasing responsibility of her adult daughter – this release is the developmental task of the stage of parenthood and, probably, necessary for a good relationship. ‘The’ task of an old man is to accept even while continuing to walk. This is my struggle – how can I give a system to others which would be merely a palliative – or emetic – unless it is the truth? I must accept the mix of finitude with the infinite. The infinite exists only in virtue of the finite; and (it may be seen) the finite only in virtue of the infinite. Added to the theoretical limit are the practical limitations of my physical and intellectual resources. (Remark to self: I need space to think without the distraction of the day-to-day. For a period of time)

In view of the radical nature of the system of the understanding, while a technical overview can be given, the actual understanding even for the reader requires a journey. The new ideas are based in the old. The old is rejected and contained at the same time. The intuitive understanding of reality that is the biology and the culture of the individual and is a basis of being cannot be entirely rejected; at the same time its limits are required, not only to be understood, but also to be absorbed. If absorbed, you are on the way to the infinite. Otherwise, you have only a symbol of the infinite. It is the difference between being the light and seeing the light. The transformation from the biological and the cultural, without its cynical rejection, requires not only digestion of the new and the larger picture but also cultivation of the ability to hold in mind systems of ideas and the ability to see and think on multiple levels at the same time. While the view of the infinite is true, the ‘lesser’ view of being-in-our-world is not untrue… all this requires a Journey, requires sweat and we are not yet even on the Journey of transformation

Many years ago as a teacher, I discovered the phenomenon of the reasonably intelligent student who would have immense difficulty with learning the concepts of dynamics (as a branch of physics and engineering and not in the meaning of dynamics as I use the term in my philosophical writing.) The problem was not one of intellect but one of unwillingness or inability to accept ignorance. Perhaps, the idea of ignorance was a source of anxiety for one reason or another…

Where am I going with this? Even retreading the path of understanding requires a Journey in which we must accept ignorance as the precondition for knowledge

Perhaps your cynical friend was right: the most people are not worth the effort. But that is not quite true. ‘Progress’ requires a foundation; the system as it is (with its corruptions) is the foundation. It is not to be expected that all will be interested and all who are interested will understand. My task, as teacher, is to excite and then to guide; I must balance this task with the ongoing task of truth and neither can be sacrificed. You will find in my writing of many years ago, the following understanding. ‘Progress’ (quotes because some consider it to be a dirty word) requires the experimentation of individuals. The experimentation is in ideas and in action (in the scientific version ideas are concepts and action corresponds to the laboratory or the field…) Experiment and error are necessary because what one is seeking is fundamentally new and the definition of the new is that which is not contained in the old. Therefore, experiment is essential – clearly some will ‘fail’ and others ‘succeed.’ In this sense, true effort, i.e. not mere effort but reflective effort which includes the cultivation of energies is ‘success.’ These thoughts were not to give my self solace but educate my self as to the nature of the process undertaken in response to the criticisms (usually, Americans are not overtly critical and it has always been non-Americans especially my Indian friends who have been critical not primarily of the ideas but of the undertaking. My father, a professor of Naval Architecture at a premier institute in India was critical until his death)