|
JOURNEY IN BEING Short Version1 JOURNEY IN BEING HAS GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE
VERSIONS SINCE FALL 2002 Latest Edition September 11, 2012 ANIL MITRA Copyright © Anil Mitra PhD, January 27, 2012—September 11, 2012 CONTENTS Why the Worldview or Metaphysics is Presented in the Introduction Comments on the Meaning of the Principle Substance and Consequence of the Worldview Modes and Means of the Endeavor: Ideas and Action Normal Limits of the Tradition Regarding the Question of The Endeavor A Concrete Version of the Approach A Framework for Morals, History, and Civilization Nature and Envelope of the Journey
A NARRATIVE OF A JOURNEY IN BEING The WorldviewWhy the Worldview or Metaphysics is Presented in the IntroductionOne of the centers of the narrative is a worldview2 whose development and demonstration is part of the narrative flow. This view or metaphysics3 is a pivot to the narrative and knowing what it says and understanding it is essential to understanding the narrative. It will make this Introduction more effective, therefore, if we present the worldview at outset (with the knowledge that fuller understanding will emerge with reading the narrative) The Main PrincipleThe Principle of BeingThe metaphysics of the narrative is defined by its central assertion that I call the Principle of Being which is the demonstrated assertion that There is no limit on what obtains in the Universe Comments on the Meaning of the PrincipleIt is implicit that there is no limit on any framework of said obtaining, i.e. distinction (e.g. extension and duration or space and time). It is further implicit, therefore, that ‘no limit’ shall be such that ‘obtains’ means ‘obtained somewhere’, ‘obtains somewhere’, or ‘will obtain somewhere’—i.e. the spatiotemporal sense of ‘obtains’ as used here is ‘obtains somewhere(s) and somewhen(s)’ The Universal MetaphysicsThis framework will be called the Universal Metaphysics The metaphysicsThis metaphysics will be shown (trivially) to be unique and will also be called, simply, the metaphysics Objection and ResponseIt so happens that we live on a round Earth with five commonly named oceans that constitute one global ocean and seven commonly named continents. Earth is home to roughly 5 billion years of geological evolution, 4 billion years of life, and 2.5 million years since the appearance of genus homo; and human history—its biology, migrations, societies, and cultures—is complex, interesting, and perhaps inspiring. But is the definiteness of the story of Earth a contradiction to the assertion that there is no limit to what obtains? No, it is not for if there is something at all then something, i.e. some states of affairs must obtain; the meaning of ‘no limit’ includes that, e.g. on Earth, it will have a definite history but not that it must have that same history. If we consider some distant planet circling some distant sun then ‘no limit’ suggests that that planet might have two distinct histories (that would be a contradiction). The fact that it has some definite history4 (regardless of whether we know it), then, seems to contradict ‘no limits’. However, there is no contradiction for ruling out simultaneous different histories is ruling out a logical contradiction and logic is a constraint on the freedom of (our) concepts for realism but is not a limit on the Universe Substance and Consequence of the WorldviewNow, however, we face the following concern. If Realism rules out these apparent freedoms that the Principle of Being suggests, is the principle saying anything at all? The answer is ‘Yes’ and ‘Its consequences are enormous’. The full meaning and implication of the principle must await the narrative but a sample of consequences are as follows. (1) There is a sense in what obtains is necessary (2) The Universe as a whole has Identity which has acute and diffuse phases as well as phases of absence (3) While various marvelous and magnificent particulars obtain in our cosmos (what in modern cosmology is sometime called the universe or the known universe), there are cosmoses unlimited whose variety is unlimited and that obtain against a void / transient background (4) The Universe has manifest phases (with acute / diffuse / absent Identity) and non-manifest phases (5) The individual inherits this limitlessness of the Universe (in limited form, the exception to this inheritance is the condition of coexistence with the rest of the Universe; in unlimited form it is the individual becoming the Universe) (6) There is continuity and Identity across the non-manifest phases and this continuity may be said to reside in ‘soul’ The Endeavor5Purposes of section. Initial ground and motive. Initial position to emerge to include explicitness and detail Object, Imperative (Value), The Feasible6, Goal, Means= Being7, Universe; e.g. Object=Individual, Civilization… Goal=Define and target high and immediate endeavor Modes and Means of the Endeavor: Ideas and ActionMeans8= Ideas9 and Action10 (ÉTransformation11) A Principle. 1. Initial Neutrality 2. Not either / or—but hierarchies of detail 3. Emergence and Commitment 4. Iterate and Learn The Ultimate Endeavor(1) Understand and realize the ultimate (limited form: image of Universe, journey; merge into the unlimited but still ever freshness). The metaphysics of this essay is ultimate in foundation, in variety. It shows the Universe to be ultimate in the sense that it could not be greater in extent, duration, and variety (2) Includes, ‘illuminates’ / is immanent in and begins on ground which is object (for enjoyment, improvement) and base (ultimate) Tradition of EndeavorThe human tradition includes ground and aspiration and their values By tradition, I understand cumulative enterprise of life with emphasis on human being—especially culture, knowledge, and action since origins till today The great paradigms are those of conceptual and experiential knowledge—science and philosophy, of expression and communication of depth—art and so on which includes religion without imposed dogma Normal Limits12 of the TraditionThe purpose of this section is to show the impressive range and limits of the tradition. This in turn has consequent functions. First, the tradition is one ground of the developments of the narrative. Second, where it may thought that the tradition closes avenues of experience and thought it will be seen that this conclusion is in serious error; this will open up the possibility of metaphysical developments that, from the tradition, we often think impossible. Finally, it will be seen that a good interpretation of science and experience is that they are facts over domains of validity and that this opens up the road to immensely greater realms of being, e.g. as will be shown in the developments of the metaphysics of this narrative Religion has obvious limits regarding its objective claims to cosmology—i.e., origins or genesis, cosmological variety, and ends or eschatology. These limits concern actual religions and not an ideal conception of Religion. Allegorical meaning and moral systems are significant though not final Received philosophical metaphysics—study of being as such—and cosmology have obvious limits. Plato’s metaphysics was imaginative and reasoned; however Plato emphasized that his ideas were experimental, the beginning of dialogue. The modern trend has been toward idealist metaphysics and the approach, no matter how powerful and imaginative and persuasive, has been characterized by speculation that lacks adequate critical support. In reaction to failures of earlier metaphysics, recent thought has largely abandoned the earlier metaphysics for alternative notions of what metaphysics is about—e.g., metaphysic of Experience, metaphysics as the study of abstract objects, and the study of local narratives. However, it has not been shown that a careful and imaginative metaphysic of Experience and metaphysics as study of being do not have significant overlap. This overlap is demonstrated in this narrative and the resulting metaphysics starts from basic elements of Experience that correspond by abstraction to givens and deduces consequences from these givens Today we often think that science essentially defines the Universe—physics is the realm of the physical (matter and radiation) and its range is from the elementary particles and forces to the cosmos; biology and psychology study life and mind and we think that biology have understanding of life and its origins while psychology and philosophical psychology understand the elements, empirics, and nature of mind. By the end of the nineteenth century science had made inroads into all aspects of nature and in the twentieth century science made further discoveries about nature and tied up many loose ends so that it may now seem that science has revealed essentially all of nature and that the rest is as we already know it in science and what is left is the discovery and understanding of detail13 Is science essentially complete and has it revealed essentially the entire Universe with such definitiveness that there is no crack through which there is or may be much more to Being than is seen in the standard picture? The essential argument against completeness is that theories are projections on data; they are wonderful and beautiful projections but projections nonetheless. Now science continues to encapsulate new data and is consistent with our reflective experience and is the foundation to our technology to such an extent that we may think it complete. However this is not an argument against projection which says, simply, that no matter how reasonable it is, science is not a necessary consequence of experience (all the factors mentioned above and more). Why then does science seem to capture the Universe? It is partly because it has made so many inroads to our part of the Universe that it seems that that is all there is; however, in this seeming science and experience provide both framework and judgment. It is entirely consistent with science that what lies outside its boundary is anywhere from very small to unlimited in extent, duration, and variety (including variety of physical law, cosmos, life, mind… and being). Certainly it is reasonable to think that it does not seem so in our world; however ‘our world’ is limited, for example, with regard to large distances (the edge of the known cosmos), with regard to small distances (elementary particles), empirics (our senses are attuned by adaptation to the world of our interactions but not any non-interactions), and future time (there is absolutely no necessity to projection of science into the future and it is not even reasonable to think, even if we have no alternative, that it projects into the far future). The arguments above do not show that there are worlds outside science so far14, it shows that such worlds are not inconsistent with science so that if we should discover via science or metaphysics that there are such worlds then it shall not be inconsistent with our knowledge so far. If we look at the history of science till today we may regard science tentative with regard to the entire Universe at each stage or as a series of facts each of which pertains to a domain of validity15 The metaphysics of the narrative will require the latter view and will show that a final science of empirical detail for the whole Universe is impossible (for limited forms of being) Regarding the Question of The EndeavorHave we answered the question of the nature and extent of the endeavor of (human) being? We have not yet even understood the meaning of the question. What is the meaning of ‘What is the meaning of Being and its endeavor?’ That is part of the question However I think that answering the question (‘What is the meaning of Being and its endeavor?’ and note of course that ‘its endeavor’ is part of ‘Being’) and the meta-question (What, in particular, is the meaning of the question and, more generally, what is the meaning of questioning?) are not entirely separable Not that we have answered the question yet but at the same time it is true that we do well to not mystify the question at outset even though of course the issues in question do present to us with some degree of mystery It is part of the approach in this narrative to be neutral in the beginning and to allow commitment to positions to emerge first by their dawning then by their perhaps incremental elaboration and demonstration. Of course neutrality is naturally reflexive which implies neutrality about neutrality. A time comes to commit. Or, if you is not predisposed to being neutral then you may begin with commitment but as long as truth is what you seek then you are likely to be led to retreat from commitment. Regardless whether you begin with neutrality or commitment with truth as your light you enter into the incremental process of moving back and forth between commitment and neutrality in an incremental process. In the same spirit of course the process need not and will not be ever merely incremental. And it is important that it is not a block process but it one that has interacting horizontal and vertical components that may interact across the horizontal and vertical ‘boundaries’ so that each component may have its own process which will at some points engage with other processes in constituting a net process which in turn exists before and may have origination of difference and then differentiate into interacting particulars Thus the account will begin with a base meaning of ‘being’ and this will allow further meanings that are not alternate to but are included in the base (which is logically possible on account of the initial neutrality which has analogs to the neutrality of the unknown variable of elementary algebra) Approach to the QuestionWhat does the question mean? How shall we answer it? The questions are interrelated and neither is ultimately prior Let us first consider the second question. What approaches are there to answering it? We can look at the range of the endeavor and see whether this suggests some essence, some kinds, and some boundary. We can each look at ourselves and the world and see what suggestions we can find there. We can look at the traditional answering(s). We can look at extant frameworks for the answering(s)—their boundary is metaphysics which includes epistemology—and regard these as in process and enter into this process A base to the approach is neutral metaphysics. This is our approach and we may find that in addressing neutral metaphysics that we have found a framework for the answering. It is a vertical and horizontal process and we perhaps should not attempt too early specification, i.e. in contrast to the traditional treatise we shall not attempt to over define the endeavor (of the endeavor) at outset What makes the metaphysics neutral? Two elements are the specific conceptions of Being and Universe. The neutrality of Being has been pointed out: Being will be given a neutral definition, one that neither imbues it nor denies the signification of significance or depth; one that is superficially near trivial and therefore, also, one that allows for the features that we may look for in the deepest of concepts to emerge from analysis without being imposed upon it. The concept of Universe will be that of all Being. From the conception of Being as neutral it follows that the mark of Being bears no mark of past-present-future, of here-elsewhere, or even of temporality or spatiality (or their denial). Therefore ‘All Being’ means Being over all distinctions, e.g. kind of Being and importantly over extension and duration. Thus there is no outside to the Universe. Thus, in the present meaning there are no multiple Universes (this does not rule out multiple universes provided that we understand that the term ‘universes’ in ‘multiple universes’ does not refer to what we are calling the Universe). There is no creator of the Universe in the sense of an external creator. There is no external location of the meaning of Being and its endeavor. This is a commentary on formal and informal authority. The reference to informal authority is especially important because in a culture that tends to reject formal authority there may nonetheless be implicit reference and deference to informal authorities. The significance of this is that we are essentially on our own when it comes to seek meaning (in the sense of significance rather than linguistic meaning). If we look outside ourselves for this meaning, we may listen to others including ‘authority’ but we look essentially in the Universe and not to the vague outside that may attend a vague notion of universe. Thus ‘Universe’ gives us a source of meaning that is neutral in the sense that it is not essentially a priori and, specifically, that there is no final authority but meaning is in process until and if determined to be determined Looking in the Universe means that we may look to its processes for meaning (which processes include beings and their processes and the significance that they attach to themselves, their cultures, and their processes). We will see that the Universe goes through manifest and non-manifest phases. It may be argued that the majority of manifestations of structure and meaning and intelligence will be via incremental adaptation, i.e. variation and selection, but that there will be exceptions and, further, that beings (parts of the Universe) may intervene in process. We must know our world (and to the extent that we can we must know our Universe) in seeking and acting out meaning A Concrete Version of the ApproachWhat is our destiny and our endeavor? How can this question be answered? We emerge from the ground. Therefore we do not expect an already built in destiny Therefore we must create our own. But this is a partial answer… For, if we look at our emergence we see the slow increment whose end is the emergence of a sense of purpose Therefore we must also search for our own; and that search will be in our past, the world and in our inner and outer experience We seek our highest being A Framework for Morals, History, and CivilizationThe moral respects the present and aims at the unlimited To suggest that the respect for the present has the purpose of the aim at the unlimited is to not respect the present. However, to suggest that the aim at the unlimited is subservient to all our conceptions of morality is to undermine that aim The present and the unlimited are interwoven and so the separations suggested in the previous paragraph do not obtain Civilization is the matrix across all distinction of beings that participate and co-operate in Being (and especially their own being) Being and OpennessThe question of Being includes the question of its answering(s) and the latter includes the traditions We find a variety of disciplines in the tradition up to recent times. A representation of these disciplines is found in academic divisions of knowledge. That is one approach. Another is to write a metaphysics and find what divisions it may have. The two approaches may be combined It is not given that the combined approach will cover the range of Being. For example we have seen that the approaches to fundamental questions include science, philosophy, and religion. Science is a conceptual representation of the empirical world and it is silent on what and how much lies beyond its boundaries. Metaphysics though the modern era is a series of positions that lie in between speculation and demonstration; even Heidegger’s thought lies there. The religions have numerous functions: comfort is the least of these even if it is the most common; social bonding, morals are others; at the center lies an attempt at truth that goes beyond the secular thought of the day (in this religion and philosophy today cower before the harsh glare of science; today religion withdraws to dogma and philosophy to analysis and the abstract and has not the courage-intelligence to talk of the real). Given these traditions from ancient to recent times do they cover the range of being? Not at all for science is self limiting and the others fear to tread in the open space revealed (or to even see that space) There is no division of academia, no established human practice today that sees the full range. So all our enterprise in its totality tends so much to be so little We define religion according to the religions and therefore we see the failures of the religions as the failure of Religion What shall we call the search by idea and action into the fullness? It does not matter too much. We could call it metaphysics (which would then be more than ancient and modern metaphysics and we shall see this even with metaphysics as an ideational endeavor but metaphysics will be seen to be more than that and to require completion in action-transformation). We could define Religion as the deployment of all dimension of Being (individual nature and more) and beings (group) engaged in the realization of All Being; that of course is but Being Openness is dual or even triadic; it concerns Being, our systems of ideas, and our language (language because the thought that language is completed even if only in form and principle is a deviant and stymieing position for our thoughts on Being and language lie in a circle of co-dependence) Journey in BeingOrigins and SourcesExternal—World, Civilization, Tradition (É today, science…) Individual—Endeavor, experience, reflection16, experiments Ideas—Unique, ultimate, Universal Metaphysics (‘the metaphysics’) that I demonstrated: The Universe is ultimate17 whose consequence includes that for Limited forms realization is journey without Limit in variety, extension, and duration Nature and Envelope of the JourneyFrom the metaphysics—all beings realize the ultimate. In contingently limited form realization is an endless journey without limit on variety, extent, and duration; ideas are efficient and the place of enjoyment Origin of the Title Journey—the multiplicity of paths, experiences and its modes in learning-society-nature, sources, halts and restarts, worldviews and paradigms leading to the present form of this process, essential incompleteness of ideas and completion only in action, led me to think in terms of a journey Origin of the use of the term Being—as conceived here, ultimate in neutrality \ pivotal for the metaphysics (É possibility of metaphysics) and container for the journey BeingBeing18º marked by a single distinguishing quality, i.e. Existence Object (e.g. a being)º possesses Being Experienceºsubjective awareness, e.g., in perception, thought, memory, and their structures Experience per se is perfectly known via abstraction in Experience; it is a given, named by ‘Experience’ Experience has Being, is an Object; it occurs as subject and Object Some Experience clearly has the intention of referring to Objects; however a claim that Experience has no Objects, even if only projectively, is either (1) Relabeling of the world or (2) The claim that the psyche of the subject has capacity far greater than all earth-life together; this is either reference to ‘universal mind’ or mistaken, perhaps delusional. I.e., for Limited—e.g. human—psyche there is a robust Real World (‘external world’ is a confused label) sometimes called the external world), i.e. the Object of Experience The Real World has Being (we do not similarly know at outset which of the particular apparent Objects of Experience have Being) While, in its present meaning, Experience is not all things, it is the theater of our Being and all significance It is most directly in Experience that our Being has significance, that we are animal and human, that we are agents; Experience is our Real connection to (Being in) the Universe; and it is through Experience that the abstract metaphysics that follows is filled out and becomes luminous and has significance to (human) being Universe (U)º All Being; so has Being, is an ObjectÉ all Objects A Law is a pattern; is an Object (has Being) U É All Objects including Laws No actual Existing Object lies outside the Universe; there is no other world The Universe can have no cause (as outside or prior to the Universe) or creator; for the Universe all cause and creation is internal The idea of the possible is context relative. We say X is possible relative to a context A if it is consistent with the constitution of A for X to obtain. If a context= earth with only logic, then it is possible for elephants to fly; if the context is enhanced to include the physical laws of our cosmos then it is not possible for elephants to fly (it is regarded as given that earth’s gravity is not suspended etc). For the Universe, there is no other context—to be possible some state Y must obtain. However, for any context, if Y obtains it is possible. For the Universe, therefore, possibility and obtaining (actuality) are identical Domain (D)º part of or whole Universe. Complement (abbr. comp) (C)º C and D = U All Domains have Being, i.e. are Objects Given a D, it has a C (i.e., if D is an Object—exists—it has a C that is an Object) Domains may be causal or creative with respect to other domains; for Domains other than the Universe, causality and creation may be external and or internal Voidº comp (Universe)Þ the Void contains no Being—i.e., no Object (or Law)—except itself UniverseEssentials transferred WorldEssential Elements1. The method and the field ¬ extremely brief recap of the detailed development 2. Essence: freedom versus necessity (terms) 3. Human Endeavor and its realms of person, culture, society, civilization, world, and universe DiscussionSome versions of Journey in Being have a systematic and extensive treatment of ‘our world’… in itself and as an example of worlds. The shortest of versions emphasizes (1) The method (2) The essence of (human) endeavor as (a) Ideas and Action and (b) Tension between necessity and freedom where ‘necessity’ is not logical necessity but lies in our contingent form that often gives the appearance of necessity but harbors elements of freedom to be discovered and won (3) A brief discussion of the human endeavor in relation to the journey MethodProcess—method as discussed above Structure—the phenomena and the framework; i.e. phenomena, elements, and explanatory or conceptual framework Freedom v. DeterminismIn this short version we address what we feel is the most significant question in the human endeavor. First, we must ask what it is that is most important. An initial question is whether there is in fact an endeavor at all. If all is determined there is no endeavor even if there is a sense of one. On any reasonable account there should not be a sense of endeavor even there is no actual endeavor for why should a sense of endeavor be adaptive without endeavor itself? To make us more productive? In fact it is hard to see how any future oriented aspect of our being could be functional without choice. There is an unreasonable explanation for the sense of endeavor: it was implanted in us—e.g., by God Freedom is prerequisite for being human. However, human being is not defined by freedom alone but by the nature and use of that freedom. If we think of what is difficult and what is rewarding we find that that is a function of freedom and its exercise: seeing what options there are (difficult whether of the world or—especially—of self), choosing, acting, comparing actual and intended outcome, modifying understanding and action, repeating, learning, taking understanding and action to new levels… Some natural scientists see matter and nature as deterministic. As a result some psychologists see human behavior (including thought) as deterministic. However it is not only the material and organic substrate that suggests determinism. Freud was impressed by fixities of behavioral response and especially difficulty of escape from patterns of limitation and neurosis. From the fact that there was no reason in conscious thought for neurosis, Freud concluded that there must be an unconscious (however, inasmuch as this is reasonable, it is easy to be misled into conceiving the nature of the unconscious which could for example as seen in our discussion of human mind, be conscious but not as focal as central consciousness and not in clear communication with it). This is of course all reasonable. There is and must be significant determinism in the material, organic, and psychic worlds—without it there would be no structure or regularity Thinkers such as Freud see (saw) human behavior as essentially determined. Freud was impressed by (a) biological givenness and determinism and (b) the fixities of behavior and processes especially the difficulty of escape from patterns of limitation and neurosis We have seen however, how determinism is inadequate to the emergence of structure at all and how absolute indeterminism allows and requires novel structure (a physical theory with indeterminism may allow and occasion structure by selection of near symmetric structures by their relative stability and therefore frequency and this is not only an explanation of structures in the cosmos but a possible explanation of the emergence of the physical laws of our cosmos) The existentialist and some analytic thinkers who have held expression of freedom as essential response to nihilism have had an unrealistic attitude to how freedom is to be understood and expressed. The crux, they see, is that of the lonely alienated individual expressing freedom courageously and absolutely. Sartre’s position included that “Since we are all ultimately alone, isolated islands of subjectivity in an objective world, we have absolute freedom over our internal nature, and the source of our value can only be internal” Universal Metaphysics reveals in the necessity of realization. However, its specification of the process is in the broadest of strokes. It does not show or address the difficulties, first, of conception of what is feasible and of value, second in acting upon this conception, third in comparing outcome with intent and so learning and repetition, and fourth in that the process is therefore incremental with feasibilities / possibilities opening up that were not even imagined. Also not shown is the difficulty in terms of emotional cost and selection from among alternatives (which therefore involves not selecting some feasible and apparently attractive ways) The determinists have mistaken the difficulty for impossibility, the pain for neurosis (there is neurosis but not all pain is neurosis and not all neurosis is unproductive); they have mistaken general behavior for human behavior and have ignored the singular. On the other hand the liberals with regard to freedom have mistaken the fact of freedom and the ease of trivial exertion of it for ease in real exertion of freedom and they have mistaken their easy secular view for essence; they have taken the singular for the universal and have mistaken the difficulty of the singular as being simply one of courage and not of insight, understanding, action and being aware of the intrusive elements of determinism Human EndeavorSee the sections Death—What Does it Teach Us… What Can We Learn From It? Transferred
3 In this narrative ‘metaphysics’ will correspond roughly to philosophical metaphysics rather than to other meanings which covers topics such as alchemy and focus on the occult. The present meaning of metaphysics is the study of Being as Being, i.e. knowledge and study of things as they are. Anyone with a critical sense or moderate exposure to critical thought will recognize that the possibility of metaphysics has been and should be in question. Here, however we demonstrate the metaphysics and this will more than be a proof of possibility 4 Readers familiar with quantum theory may respond here that a quantum system (and if quantum theory is universal then the Universe is a quantum system) is not in a definite state until the state of the system has been observed, e.g. measured. Now if quantum theory is truly universal then it must also apply equally and symmetrically to systems (i.e. the object of the theory) and observers. However, the role of measurement in this particular interpretation of quantum theory is asymmetric with regard to observer and observed. Therefore either quantum theory is wrong or the interpretation is wrong (even if provisionally useful). Refer back to the distant planet circling some distant sun. If that system is never in contact with our part of the Universe then its state has no significance to us. Thus, if correct, the interpretation regarding measurement is properly regarded as an interpretation regarding being-in-interaction and of course this interpretation is not an interpretation in the sense that it is not and need not be something added on to quantum theory even as we know it (this does not imply that quantum theory is complete or that it is a / the final theory for obviously there are other ways in which it may be incomplete) 5 Human 6 From feasible to goal requires choice. The ‘means’ will include choice making, and conceiving action toward goals. At a more general level it includes conceiving and acting upon or within the entire range of endeavor 7 When a concept has multiple meanings Capitalization designates the use in this narrative 8 For agent, e.g. human being—i.e., over and above mere process or mechanism 9 Idea is used here as a general term for perceptions, conceptions, understanding, theories, emotions and motivations which may be received and reflective values, foresight and goals and so on; the entire range of human (and other as accessed) knowledge and ideational elements of culture falls under ‘idea’ 10 Under Ideas we have and conceive Objects, Imperatives, Goals, and Means. Specifically, action is activity—means—toward goals. Generally, action includes ideation. In the more general sense means=action. Action is more than process. It involves, first, understanding and knowing the world and values and foresight, seeing alternative outcomes from the present (futures and acts), making choices according to value and working toward what is chosen; then learning from the foregoing and making changes in these elements (knowledge, value…); and repetition of this process which, depending on knowledge, will combine elements of the incremental and significant transformation 11 And transformation (of Being which is significant and emphasized in this narrative). Explanation—in the process there may be transformation of Being; therefore action includes transformation 12 It is positive about religion that it has not given up the search. Philosophy has today given it up under the ‘harsh glare’ of science and it has taken up the example and light of analysis and logic. Religion has however gone seriously astray and especially by reaction to science. Science under the sway of positivism (logical positivism was given up in the later half of the twentieth century but science and secularism continue under the implicit sway of positivism) is blind. Spiritualism under the separation of the material and spirit and the privatization of spirit (partly by reaction to religion, partly by individualism) is largely without content 13 This is of course not the first time in the history of science that we have thought this. In the last part of the nineteenth century many scientists felt that physics was complete except for details. Two of these areas of detail that concerned some physicists were gaps that led to the development of relativity and quantum mechanics 14 Such arguments are part of the substance of the metaphysics developed in later chapters and one of the functions to the present argument is to show that such developments are not at odds with science (in fact the metaphysics will ground and require science and reflective experience) 15 This view is developed in detail later 16 Imagination and criticism 17 It has no Limit. The only condition on knowledge is Realism. 1. Logical Realism of concepts 2. Empirical Realism of Fact, i.e. agreement with science (É experience) where valid 3. Existential Realism in face of bounds to reason for (contingently) limited form 18 Numerous concerns arise. Here I mention only that ‘Being’ has numerous uses and is sometimes associated with mystery. Why this use? (1) It is part of an effective metaphysics (2) It is a container for all other meanings and this is effective for rather than constraining development with a posited meaning, no matter how deep, we allow whatever is valid in those meanings to emerge. With Heidegger it makes no a priori commitment to materialism or idealism; in contrast to Heidegger it makes no ontological commitment to ‘Human Being’, i.e. to ‘Dasein’ (अस्तित्व). Heidegger mystifies Being; this is not altogether a negative move for our being, though we have some knowledge of it, has opaqueness to us. Further, Heidegger distinguishes material existence from Being; again not altogether a negative move for we are something more than what is explicit in the material. However, Heidegger’s fundamental move is to move beyond (below) substances but in distinguishing material existence from Being he turns against his own prescription in making a commitment (the distinction). We do not know that there is a distinction for we know neither our own being nor material existence at outset: we do not know the depth behind the term ‘material existence’. Our approach is therefore to start with a neutral conception of Being and allow the natures (such as there may be) of ‘material existence’ and Being and their distinctions and depths to emerge The power of the concept of Being as introduced here is its neutrality; and we would lose nothing but gain a sophistication of false generality by not even distinguishing between Existence and non-Existence. Thinkers often undermine thought by positing too much too soon (and the equally undermining opposite—not making assertions of substance when sufficient clarity and realism are obtained. The modern philosopher is especially burdened by an uncritical acceptance of critical traditions, is blinded by the unquestioned power of science—factual in its valid domains (D)—without recognizing its limits—i.e., neutral therefore open with regard to the duration, extent, and variety of complements to D. The true philosopher of the future will, in addition to deep grounding in his or her discipline, acquire breadth of understanding and of knowledge of the range of human knowledge (with penetrating knowledge of select disciplines). Given sufficient ability, this will open up the occasion for reflexive development of universal understanding. The philosophers will not instruct anyone for the power of their thought, such as it may be, will be manifest in their word Naturally, there will be other concerns regarding Being, other concepts and the structure and logic of the account. Since this is the briefest of accounts, many topics and concerns are omitted. The reader should turn to other versions and essays for this information and is referred to the sites of footnote 1 |