THE REALIZATIONS OF BEING
PREVIOUSLY ‘JOURNEY IN BEING’

ESSENTIAL EDITION

ANIL MITRA

OTHER EDITIONS
Précis | Academic | Complete | In Process | Axiomatic

THIS EDITION
Contents | Narrative | Contact | Home

This edition narrates essentials for realization.
It incorporates some newer ideas (for example from the template of 2014).

Contents

REALIZATIONS IN BEING

Preface

The preface is overview. It explains but is not essential to the narrative. For an introduction, see the § Aim (§ stands for part or section).

The main sections of the preface are (1) Overview (2) Ideas (3) Realization (4) Reading the work and (5) Audience.

§ The author, after the main text, describes my background.

Overview

The aim of the realizations (§ Aim) includes ‘to realize the highest immediate and ultimate forms’ of being (definitions are given in the narrative).

This aim is enhanced by ideas, especially a worldview or metaphysics—i.e., knowledge of the universe and our relations to it.
§ Prologue introduces the concept of a worldview and ‘standard’ secular and trans-secular worldviews.

The main narrative, § Realizations of being, has two emphases, ideas and realization (action). Ideas inform action; and actions complete and confirm ideas; ideas and realization remain in interaction.. The ideas are developed through § A perfect, unique, ultimate, and practical metaphysics. Action or realization occupies the remaining sections.

Some terms

Definition is not the province of the preface but there are two terms that it will be useful to explain here.

One term is civilization which, in the sense used here, is not about particular phases of history or culture, is not about superiority of a culture, and it is not about humankind against the rest of life or the universe. Of course it emphasizes humanity but it is about the entire stream of being seeking higher immediate and ultimate life. Concepts of civilization are discussed in § Civilization and realization.

The second term is tradition which we usually associate with history continuous, established, and commonly accepted ways of thinking and living. The narrative will employ the term tradition to refer to the cumulative system of ideas and action, primal through modern, including the modern academic, practical, and spiritual or religious disciplines. Of course, there are errors and closed ends in the tradition. For brevity, I will sometimes use ‘tradition’ for ‘what is valid in the tradition’.

Ideas

The ideas are developed in §§ Experience and foundation through A perfect, unique, ultimate, and practical metaphysics.

The core of the ideas is a worldview or metaphysics called the universal metaphysics or, simply, the metaphysics.

Metaphysics is knowledge of being which for the purpose of the preface is knowledge of the world-as-it-is. Because the knower contributes to the form of knowledge the possibility of metaphysics has been in doubt in the modern west, especially since Immanuel Kant who used the contribution of the knower to develop a critical and constructive philosophy. However, the argument in the narrative is that we know that there is experience (e.g. consciousness). This cannot be doubted (doubt is a form of experience) and it is the beginning of a system of also perfectly known concepts (§§ Experience and foundation—Meaning of the metaphysics) that is used to build a metaphysical framework which is filled in by ‘imprecise’ knowledge which, it is shown, cannot and does not need to be precise and which, it is shown, by a criterion of utility rather than perfect faithfulness is also perfect. There is a realm of perfect knowledge which though mediated by the knower is perfectly of the known; and there is a realm where the knower contributes to the known.

Can this contribution be eliminated? From the developments in the narrative the answer is ‘yes’, in some cases of significance, but also ‘no’ in many other cases of significance. But ‘significance’ has the following ambiguity—its greatest import occurs in views prior to that developed here and (while it does not lose all importance) its significance is here seen to be greatly diminished regarding knowledge of the vast detail of the more immediate that is a fill-in for the metaphysical framework. In other words a ‘critical realism’ in which knowledge points to the world rather than being precisely of the world retains an importance but, relative to ‘standard’ modern western epistemology, the importance is diminished.

In § The real there is an example of perfect understanding in a local realm, that of the ideas of mind and matter, that is traditionally seen as problematic. This results from an analysis of concepts from the tradition in light of reason and the metaphysics. Other examples of such cross ‘perfection’ can be found at my website http://www.horizons-2000.org.

The following comments on the metaphysics are pertinent. (1) Its central assertion is that the universe is the universe of possibility (this is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics). It is crucial that this is demonstrated. There is doubt but the exposition and resolution of doubt are left to the narrative. (2) Therefore the metaphysics-worldview shows the universe to have limitless extension, duration, and variety and to be limitlessly greater than the universe shown in the standard worldviews including science, traditional speculative metaphysics, and ancient through modern religion. (3) The universe has identity and the individual partakes of its power and identity. (4) The universe is universal process (this may be perspectival in that process and absoluteness may be equivalent but different perspectives). In any case, while in limited form the individual approach to the universal is process—a journey—without limit to extension, duration, and variety in its forms and peaks of realization.

Is the universal metaphysics new?

Is this metaphysics and its related worldview new? Many elements have been seen before. The idea of ‘Being’ goes back at least to Plato. Perhaps, however, that I have insisted that it refers to existence and only existence is new—for thinkers are invariably finding deep meaning or understanding being in terms of our world. Of course there are deep meanings but they are within being and not of all being; this insistence, which could be seen as trivializing being empowers it and, since depth is allowed within being, there is no trivialization. Similarly, the features of our world should not be used to characterize being because it is not known in advance that those features characterize the universe outside our empirical cosmos.

The central feature of the view is that the universe is the realization of all possibility (the fundamental principle). To interpret ‘possibility’ as physical possibility (allowed by the theoretical or everyday physics of our world), would be to import the features of our world to the metaphysics. How is this prevented? In the first place, regarding being as existence means that it has only the features that are common to all worlds. Then, it may be expected and it turns out from the demonstration of the fundamental principle, that it is logical possibility that is pertinent. A well known interpretation of logic versus science is that logic is valid in all worlds while science is valid only in some worlds (and our science is not known to be valid beyond our cosmos). However, the all worlds interpretation is an interpretation and involves no demonstration; further the worlds, even for those who regard them as real are not thought of as constituting connected universe or part thereof (and the reason for this is in part the lack of demonstration). This feature of the metaphysics and the consequent immense power, which includes both method and application, are new.

There is, however, a historical idea, the ‘principle of plenitude’, that has similarity to the fundamental principle. This principle goes back to Plato and has various interpretations in the history of philosophy and religion. All earlier interpretations suffer from lack of foundation (proof) but let us look at specific contents of plenitude. In religion it has referred to the ‘chain of being’ whose highest expression in Neo-Platonism “details a strict, religious hierarchical structure of all matter and life, believed to have been decreed by God. The chain starts from God and progresses downward to angels, demons (fallen or renegade angels), stars, moon, kings, princes, nobles, men, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals, and other minerals” (from Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great chain of being). The view is limited by taking as its ‘elements’ just some elements of our world and of a hypothetical religious cosmology. A philosophical statement of the view is that given an infinite time all possibilities occur. This version was known to Kant who believed it true but thought it impossible to prove. Of course it seems obvious in terms of probability theory but a probability interpretation can be seen false in a world where time is a continuum (order of infinity that of the real number system) but some of the possibilities constitute a countable collection, finite or infinite. In any case, lack of proof apparently prevented development of the principle of plenitude beyond being an interesting idea. Thus, in its most fundamental aspect the fundamental principle of metaphysics of this narrative is essentially new and this newness lies in the demonstration, interpretations, and consequences that it entails.

In looking to see what consequences the fundamental principle has, I have employed secular and non-secular thought as suggestive. That we and our science see our world in terms of cosmos, space, and time suggests that these features should be part of the new cosmology but not universal. The new cosmology requires a larger system that ‘transcends’ space, time, cosmos, matter, mind, and energy while it includes their valid aspects. Perhaps the being of mind andor matter are logically necessary but if that is the case it requires logical demonstration and not the speculative thought that ‘matter (mind) is obviously the nature of the world’ The proof of this transcendence, its nature, interpretation, and some of its features are new.

In the Indian philosopher Shankara’s Advaita system, the universe is seen in neutral terms, Brahman, whose manifestations include the ‘physical’ (physical is a modern western term) cosmoses and individual selves (Atman) as realizations of the potential of Brahman. Therefore, the Atman (plural) are, when they come to see and experience, Brahman itself. Further manifestation and dissolution are recurrent (but not necessarily simply cyclic). Of course, even if not stated in original Advaita, the fundamental principle requires that there be many levels and threads of manifestation and Atman and that ignorance (the Eastern idea) and guilt and shame (Western), to the extent that they survive particular atman, are shared and therefore not corrosive of the strands. However, ‘good’ is important to the individual and death is a reminder of the preciousness of time in this regard (this point has been emphasized across a range of cultures) and the good is significant and shared across the strands (in ‘this life and the rest’).

Yet Brahman is perhaps too vast to be corrupted or improved by our thought and action whose importance lies in our world and (perhaps) beyond but not all the way up to Brahman. Yet that does not mean that the good is unimportant in the universal and, as seen in the narrative, the effectiveness and enjoyment and possibility of good are functions of intelligent and passionate commitment. I have used these ideas in their general form. Still, the fundamental principle enables demonstration (new) and new interpretation and elaboration (some just given).

Realization

The discussion of action in light of the metaphysics is in §§ Civilization and realization through Transience and arrival. Discussion in the preface will be brief.

The ideas show the ultimate nature of what will and may be achieved, its existential meaning, and suggest means of achievement.

The discussion in the narrative is an open template that I am using in my process and that others may adapt to their process. I thought that this would be more useful to readers than a current in process narrative. That narrative may come later. Meanwhile there is further specific (template) information at template.html and general information linked from my site http://www.horizons-2000.org.

Personal origins of the work

One origin of this work is personal. I have long sought understanding of the world and my place in it. Writing enhanced the process. But I also seek to communicate and share in the ‘stream’ and this is a motive to publication.

Sources in the world

Perhaps the system of the narrative is has newness in human history (see the first paragraph of § Aim, for what may be new and what elements are not new). In any case I have felt I am a partial author: it has often felt to me that the ideas possessed their own force (over and above generation by ‘ego’ and what I have absorbed by reading and by being part of a number of cultures). It is interesting that the metaphysics implies that this system of ideas has occurred times without limit before and after (and it justifies the phrase ‘has occurred after’).

In addition to the general acknowledgements above, I acknowledge the world of nature. I have enjoyed time spent in ‘wilderness’ I recently recounted over a hundred week-to-month-long wilderness trips, most of them sojourns, in places across the United States and Mexico. Nature has been a multiple source of inspiration. I have long experienced it a portal and motive to and ‘ground’ for the real and the ultimate. In this connection I have recently (2008) learned of the Tibetan Buddhist notion of Beyul—remote places regarding which ‘In the Buddhist tradition, the goal … is not so much to reach a particular destination as to awaken within oneself the qualities and energies of the sacred site, which ultimately lie within our own minds’ (from the XIV Dalai Lama of Tibet’s introduction to Ian Baker’s The Heart of the World, 2004). And it is in nature that I have had many of the central ideas and intuitions of my thought.

The photographs

The aim of the nature pictures in the text is to symbolize nature inspiration (currently, pictures appear only in print versions). Some pictures are more than symbolic—they show places of specific and significant inspiration.

Other sources

The main sources in developing the framework and the ‘fill in’ for the metaphysics have been the traditions, experience, and reason. I have learned directly and indirectly. I have learned from the secular and the transsecular; and from western, eastern (mostly South Asian), and ‘primal’ (especially Native North American) cultures.

For longer essays, sources, slide shows, photographs, and contact details, readers may browse my ‘Journey in Being’ website http://www.horizons-2000.org. Readers interested in my background may refer to the description at the end of the narrative on The author.

Evolution of my worldview

It will be useful to be explicit about my positions relative to the worldviews (see § Standard cosmologies). My (non-dogmatic) education and upbringing included secular as well as trans-secular elements and exposure but the secular dominated—I was moved to naturalism, the view that the essence of the universe is the world of nature. (I now think it clear that this position does not have definite meaning since the discovery of nature cannot be said to be complete; see also § The Real and other §§ to see that this discovery can never be complete even if there is no supra-natural.) However, I maintained a window of doubt (the possible incompleteness). At the same time, I found the idea of the trans-secular and some parts of some trans-secular systems to have emotional and moral beauty and appeal; I appreciated the suggestiveness of what may be significant in this life and thrilled to the mystic suggestion of worlds beyond. I pursued the partial paradox until the discovery—a story in itself—of the metaphysics. This revealed (1) essentially all tradition to have literal or symbolic truth and, importantly, limit and error (again, see §§ The void through A perfect, unique, ultimate, and practical metaphysics and others) and (2) distortion in our secondary interpretations and renderings of these systems—especially but not only the trans-secular. However, by this time, beginning around 2000, this mattered less for the metaphysics not only went far beyond the systems but also integrated with what is valid in them (primarily literal for the secular and significantly symbolic for the trans-secular). Explicitly, I find significant though limited truth, beauty, and power in the secular and trans-secular systems, framed by ultimate though in process power in the metaphysics (§ Standard cosmologies and §§ The universal metaphysics through The Real).

An in-process narrative

I do not regard this work as complete. I sometimes think that the ideas are complete but I am ever seeing new meaning and interpretation, new approaches and new applications, having new insights, new doubts—and new responses to doubt. The process revealed by the metaphysics is without end. In my present life, my engagement in this process continues. All this may lead to modification of this work, additions in the form of reports of process and thought, and perhaps new works. This explains my use of the term ‘narrative’ to describe the work even though narration is not its only mode of discourse.

My process, which I regard as modest so far, lies in the combination of nature immersion as ground and as inspiration, experience with psychic catalysts (non drug), modest spiritual endeavor, learning from the tradition, and the ideas of this work.

Audience

There are three classes of audience or interest—general, academic, and ultimate.

The general interest is in the main ideas and implications for immediate life.

The academic, scholarly, or intellectual interest is in the metaphysics, its demonstration (and therefore possibility), its development and elaboration, and application to a range of disciplines and topics and problems within philosophy (especially metaphysics). The academic interest should be in the entire narrative but is particularly in §§ Prologue through A perfect, unique, ultimate, and practical metaphysics.

Finally, the ultimate interest is that of entering into the universal process shown by the metaphysics and for which an approach is laid out in §§ Civilization and realization through Transience and arrival. Regarding process, these sections present a template rather than details. This form is suitable for adaptation by others to their own process.

Reading the work

The some concepts and the system as a whole may be unfamiliar to readers. The main problems of understanding will be those of intuition and of meaning. There may be problems of intuition—even though the system is internally and factually consistent, the metaphysics may seem at dissonance with reader’s worldviews. The problem of intuition should be resolved by recognizing that counter-intuitiveness is natural when encountering an unfamiliar worldview or paradigm and by attention to meaning. And problems of meaning are likely—many of the terms such as being, experience, universe, and realism are familiar but are used with specific and often new meaning (sense). Attention to definition will address this problem. There is another problem of meaning—the meaning of the system of ideas and action depends on the relations among the terms (concepts) and is greater than the collection of individual meanings. It will take time and perhaps more than one reading to see the relationships and to build up a ‘picture’ of the system as a whole. The result will be the understanding, analytic and intuitive, of a new and powerful worldview.

It may be useful for readers for me to recount my informal and intuitive experience with the view. What I am going to emphasize is (a) feeling comfortable with and effective use of the new view is enhanced by intuitive understanding and (b) it is useful to explicitly undertake to reeducate one’s intuition, especially in situations such as the present one in which one is confronted by a view that challenges both formal understanding and intuitive appreciation.

In the ‘beginning’ my worldview was implicitly that of ‘naturalism’—i.e., the universe is rather like our natural world but, again implicitly, this was not entirely uncritical because I held several ‘windows’ of doubt. The evolution of the formal aspect of the new view, from doubt to intuition to speculation to proof and to working out the implications, occupies several years (the explicit phase began around 1991 and continues). However, the formal story parallels an intuitive process. The intuitive process was multifold. It required feeling toward the ‘correct’ meaning of various concepts such as being, experience, law, universe, void, logic and science. I was used, for example, to thinking in terms of many universes. I used the phrase ‘in another universe’. However, it was critical that some term be reserved for all being and the term I chose was ‘universe’; therefore there can be many worlds, there can at least logically be worlds and gods and creations of worlds—however these are all part of the universe which therefore is not created. The intuition of this idea took time to sink in. However, intuition was not the only concern.

Perhaps this idea of universe is problematic. What if there are distinct worlds each with their own space and time but the worlds do not interact and cannot interact—they do not even belong to the same space-time (or lack thereof). Are the worlds then as good as universes (even on the definition as all being)? There appears to be no logical reason to choose between them as different universes or part of the one universe. However, the metaphysics entails that there can be worlds that are separate for ‘periods of time’ but that in the ultimate there is interaction. And is this interaction a logical or material principle. I now prefer to see it as the former but the details and implications of the ‘logic’ remain in need of working out.

Today, in my everyday thinking I often revert to older habits of thought and of course this is fine for many day to day activities but the reversion often occurs even with regard to cosmic matters. But this happens less and less frequently and when I noticed the reversion I made a conscious decision to consciously not revert. I found it particularly important to guard my thought and speech when interacting with others even though a difficulty is that many would not know of what I spoke. My resolution is that I outline my thought to close acquaintances and let them know that one reason is reinforcement of my habits of thought (but also not to be overbearing or crusading or too rigidly consistent with the practice). The old habits are attenuating. But there is more than just transition to a new view. Fact implies and the new view requires that the old and the new should coexist and this requires care; this too becomes part of the intuition.

An upshot of the transition of my view is that it is not merely a passive process. I have had to realize a need to reeducate myself and, alongside the subconscious process, to consciously undertake a reeducation.

Aim

The aim of the realizations—so far as it is good—is to
Know and experience the range of being and to
Realize its highest immediate and ultimate forms.

The aim is understood and empowered by showing (proving)
An ultimate view of sentient, especially human, and universal
Process as limitless in variety, extension, and duration.

Elements of the view occur in previous thought. However, the
Articulation, understanding, elaboration, application to ideas and
Living, and the magnitude and range of consequences is new. And
Since proof is altogether new, so is confidence in the view.

In discovery, many ideas narrated were experienced as received—
As if a primal vision of a landscape of real but alien beauty and form.
An aim of the narrative is effective presentation of these ideas.

In new contexts of meaning, care is crucial. Without a concept,
A symbolic-iconic image, there can be no recognition of an object—
No meaning. Synthesis of meaning as concept-object has enabled
Development of a framework that envelops all knowing and being.

Synthesis is essential to this framework. Though meaning is often
Experienced and analyzed as set, it is determined only in process.
Meaning must have form to encode experience. New experience
Requires new form to meaning and so meaning is fluid.

Since new contexts have some continuity with the old, new
Meaning often employs established terms and ideas as its
Vehicles. Transition is a balance of stable and fluid meaning.

Many concepts of the text are familiar. However, here their
Meanings are carefully chosen and often significantly changed.

Understanding will be further enhanced in appreciating that
The ideas form an articulated system with new net meaning
That is greater than any collection of the individual meanings.

Prologue

Worldviews or cosmologies

To know the utmost reach of being requires faithful depiction of
The universe and our relations to it. Metaphysics, cosmology,
And worldview are terms for such depiction.

Standard cosmologies

Common cosmologies are secular and trans-secular. The secular
Appeal to experience—especially science. The trans-secular refer
Also to trans-experience; the mythic-holism of oral traditions and
Religion (as fact, as allegory, and as intuition) are among its kinds.

David Hume showed that theories that capture experience on limited
Regions need not extend to the universe. When secularism sees science
Reach into the known realms and concludes that essentially all realms
And things are known, it violates the principle of Hume’s argument.

History illustrates this: since Newton's synthesis many unforeseen
Realms have been uncovered—especially the quantum, space-time-
Gravity, and evolutionary. An error of ‘secular positivism’ is to
Conflate what is known with what is there.

So, science allows wide open metaphysics beyond its border. What
Is the most liberal yet realistic metaphysics? An answer lies in ‘logic’.
Logic is most abundant in what it allows because it is minimal in what
It requires. In a sense to emerge, the universe will be found ultimate.

Mythic cosmology, even where it conflicts realism, offers intuition of an
Ultimate: secularism and science are complemented by the intuition of
Mythic-holist traditions. The truth of such traditions is considered later,
Beginning with the § The universal metaphysics.

A metaphysics that agrees with explicit cosmologies and their
Principles of reason, in their domains of validity, is allowed
Though not required by those cosmologies and principles.

An aspect of secular thought is significant—valid metaphysics
Begins in experience and does not outreach the active
Experience that constitutes knowledge and understanding.

Realizations of being

The world of narrative has no beginning or end but a discrete
Text has a nominal beginning. Experience is the place of our
Relation to the universe: it will be natural and effective to
Begin the narrative of realization with experience.

Experience and foundation

Experience is subjective awareness. That there is experience
Has been doubted. That experience has significance has been
Doubted. These issues will be addressed because it clarifies
Experience which is important to the development.

Experience is the core and theater of our human
Being. So understood, its forms are pure, receptive, seeking, in
Action, and in conceiving; it is of the world and of the inner—of
Experience itself, by which we know the pure case.

Experience is the rock of knowledge of things—knowledge that
Something is ‘there’. For even if all is illusion, there is illusion—
Which is experience. This ‘proof’ that there is experience on
Modeled on Descartes’ famous ‘I think therefore I am’ argument.

In reality it is not an argument at all. There is no ‘therefore’.
In essence the ‘argument’ is that experience is so basic
That it needs only naming, not proof. One point to the argument,
Then, is the establishment that experience is fundamental.

We will continue to exemplify the significance of careful argument.

If there is only experience then it either does or does not range over
Its conception of what the world is. The former is just another labeling—
For a real world; the latter entails a contradiction.
Therefore there is a real world which includes experience.

The proof of the reality of the world is more than of theoretical
Interest. Many thinkers have held that there is nothing but
Experience. Here, the values of the proof are the preliminary to a
Robust worldview (metaphysics) and the sharpening of analytic skill.

That the world is real does not imply it is as experienced: given
Illusion the world may be far less or more than experienced. Being
Open to both possibilities is openness to truth. Care in foundation
Will yield immense return, e.g., as later, in a precise metaphysics.

Further return is as follows. Experience mediates ‘objects’. Meaning
As experience (concept) and object is essential to meaning, to
Clarifying meaning, to resolving paradoxes due to poor concept
Formation; and to seeing knowledge present but implicit in meaning.

It has been said that growth of knowledge is analysis of meaning.
However analysis cannot do more than reveal implicit knowledge.
It can be seen that growth of knowledge is essentially analysis
And synthesis of meaning.

It will also be seen that realization of new
Forms of being is analysis and synthesis of being.

These thoughts show a value to care in foundation.

Foundation does not emerge in a single step. New insights reveal
New problems. Care proceeds slowly. Here, as is typical,
Foundations have emerged in small increments.

There are also major increments such as, here, insights into the
Significance and conception of the central ideas, especially
Experience, being, universe, Law, void, realism, and identity.

On definition

‘Experience is subjective awareness’ is not a word definition
In terms of something more basic because experience and
Subjective awareness are essentially the same.

Comments on definition and the verb ‘to be’ will be useful.

The definition of experience above was not truly a definition
In other terms—in terms more basic—but a pointing to
Something so fundamental that a definition ‘in other words’
Is neither forthcoming nor needed.

It was a definition by pointing and naming, also called ‘ostension’.
This is pertinent because familiarity with axiomatic and related
Systems suggests that foundations invariably begin with
Undefined terms and postulated axioms.

In clarifying ‘experience’ we saw that ‘there is experience’.
It was not an argument of proof from premises more basic
But a showing in the sense that the fact is so fundamental
As to be evident in itself.

In this case the self evidence is clear—experience is part
Of the condition of human life. It is a naming (‘experience’’)
Rather than a proof in steps. But for those who doubt this,
The proof is that doubt is a form of experience.

From familiarity with use of an axiomatic approach we might
Hesitate to accept such definition and argument. Here, however,
We have clarified a meaning (experience) and a fact
(There is experience) by showing.

Perhaps the meaning of ‘is’ in ‘there is experience’
Is open to doubt. In the statement ‘there is an electron’,
Since the nature of the electron is not precisely known,
The meaning of the factual claim is not perfectly clear.

However, the ‘showing’, above, was a simultaneous showing of
The meanings of ‘experience’, ‘is’ in that context.
Consequently the meaning of ‘there is experience’ was
Perfectly clear and its facticity was definite.

In what follows, this perfect clarity and facticity will
Extend to concepts such as ‘universe’, ‘natural Law’,
‘Void’, and ‘realism’.

In common situations (‘there is an electron’) meanings are
Not perfectly clear and so the facts are
Not perfectly certain.

Therefore, when we admit common experience or science
Into the development—combined with the perfect or not—
We will acknowledge imperfection or have to use
Alternate—perhaps functional—criteria of perfection.

Consider uses of the verb ‘is’. ‘A planet is a wandering star’
Defines ‘planet’. In contrast, ‘Earth is’ a planet says Earth is
Actually there—this is the sense of ‘is’ in explaining the
Meanings of existence and being below.

In standard use, ‘is’ is the present tense singular form of the
Verb ‘to be’. It will be useful to generalize as follows.

In what follows ‘is’ may denote any mix or neutrality of verb
Form according as duration or time has or lacks local
Significance. There is need for this use but there is no
Common English word that has this sense unequivocally.

Discussion now turns to existence and being which are
Closely related to one another and ‘is’. It is useful to
Discuss existence and being separately because their
Associations and problems have been seen differently.

Existence

When we say there is a planet Earth we mean that Earth
Exists. This defines what it means to exist.

From reflections above, existence is not an empty concept.
Its foundation in experience is robust and discriminating.

However, ‘existence’ has been seen as problematic. Addressing its
Problematic character will to continue to develop analytic skill and
Provide for a robust foundation for the concept of being. It is
Effective to resolve technical issues before discussion of being.

A concern: given illusion, existence may empty—but we saw that
World and experience exist. Still, we may wonder whether that is
All existence. A broad and detailed response is found in §§ Being—
A perfect, unique, ultimate, and practical metaphysics.

Consider, now, the negative form ‘Unicorns do not exist.’ If it is true,
Then to what does the term ‘unicorn’ refer? This is the well known
Problem of negative existentials.

The resolution is that ‘unicorn’ is, first, a concept (defined, for example,
By words or pictures in books). Then, ‘unicorns do not exist’ means that
There are no objects that correspond to the concept of a unicorn. Note
How the resolution is an application of meaning as defined above.

Finally, contemplate ‘everything exists’—this suggests existence is too
Broad to be useful. But, we find below that this ‘trans-categorialism’
Is crucial to the power of existence.

(Note that the conceptual analysis of existence, above, renders
‘Everything exists’ as trivially false and the thought that it is true
To be based on mistaken understanding of ‘everything’. What would
Be true is the trivial ‘Everything that exists does exist.’)

Being

Something has being if we may say that it is, i.e. that it exists.
Thus Being is not a being. Comments on temporality at the
End of the previous section apply also to being.

‘Existence’ has been used to mean ‘the mode of being in
Interaction with other things’. In this work distinction
Between being and existence has no substantial significance.

In its source in the basic term ‘is’, being is utterly simple.
This is essential in what follows. But being has been used in
‘Deep’ ways. This has made being seem deep, mysterious.
Here, being is not mysterious—but it may contain mystery.

As we have already seen in relation to existence, such
Simplicity does not mean that the analysis of being does
Not present difficulty. To be simple is not to be easy.

Ideas such as ‘non-being’, ‘neither being nor non-being’, and
‘Beyond being and non-being’ are often metaphorical—frequently
Reminders of difficulties in thinking of all or ultimate things.
However, where they have reference, they are not other than being.

Being is neutral to kinds such as space, time, matter, mind, spirit
And word (and to distinctions such as implied by entity, process,
Relation, and property or quality). Though potent, these kinds
Are not known to be universal or perfectly real.

This neutrality is an essential part of the power of being.
University and perfect realism result from its neutrality.
(The development will distinguish universality and
Perfection from local andor imperfect reference.)

Sometimes such concepts (non-being etc) are a sophist result of
Forgetting or being unaware of the basic all that is has being. Still, the
Term ‘non-being’ can be assigned meaning such as potential for
Being. Here, to avoid confusion, such meaning is not employed.

The kinds are useful, even essential, as kinds of being. Analysis shows
What aspects may be made perfect and universal. Then, the perfect
And the imperfect may (and will) be joined in practical metaphysics
That has perfection in pragmatic and ‘being-in-the-world’ meanings:

From the reflections on experience, the core of metaphysics that
Follows may be seen to stand above questions of knowledge as
Representation, versus pragmatic or ‘being-in-the-world’.

Universe

The universe is all being. There is one and only one universe.
Whatever has being is in the universe. A hypothetical being
That is not in the universe does not exist.

‘Being’ discriminates only existence from non-existence.
It does not distinguish kinds. Whatever is real is in universe.
There is no other universe of fact or kind or idea or form.

Discussion so far shows robustness to the world—the world
Is real, is not illusion, and is more than just experience. And
Experience itself is real. There is being, there is a world (universe).

But what can we tell of the variety of being? And why is there
being—must there be? The questions are significant, for variety
Is cosmology and the ‘why’ or ‘must’ is a central mystery of the
World. These questions are addressed in what follows.

The universe contains all creation but is not created.
Any creator and all creating are part of the universe—
The universe can have no external creator.

Laws

Knowledge of the natural world is coded in laws and natural
Histories. Natural history may be written as law, legend,
Myth, or ancient cosmology.

The laws of natural science are familiar
Modern examples of natural law.

A law is a reading of a pattern; the pattern itself
Is the immanent Law (capitalized). All Laws have
Being. The universe contains all Laws.

This ‘realism’ may be extended. Morality, civil law, and value
Judgment have immanent local forms we may name Ethics,
Justice, and Value. All such form lies in the universe.

The void

The void is the absence of being—null being; as complement to every
Part of the universe relative to itself, it exists; and as null, it has no
Law. A void may be held to associate with all parts of the universe.

There is no inconsistency to existence of the void. Yet, despite proof
(Below), the magnitude of the consequences will underline doubt. But
There is doubt for all significant propositions. We act in existential
Doubt for the quality of the process and promise of outcome (below).

The universal metaphysics

From the void (and therefore from the universe and every part of it)
All possible states will emerge for the contrary would be a Law.
Here, possibility must be the most liberal (roughly logical and factual).
In this sense, the universe has no limits.

That the universe has no limits is named the fundamental principle
of metaphysics (abbreviated ‘fundamental principle’).

If power is degree of limitlessness, the universe is ultimate
Power. Every state of being (including the void) has this power,
For otherwise would be a limit on the universe.
Ultimate power is implicit in the present. Those forms are
Limited for which ultimate realization is only in endless process.

The worldview that results below
Called the universal metaphysics
Or, simply, the metaphysics.

It is crucial to use of the metaphysics that its meaning shall
Be understood. Let us now further develop requisite
Understanding, first taking up explicit meaning.

Meaning of the metaphysics

In this section ‘concept’ will refer to referential concepts—i.e.,
Concepts that purport to have objects. Free concept
Formation is immensely useful in the progress of knowledge.

This useful freedom allows formation of concepts inconsistent
With fact (‘science’) or one with another (‘logic’)—that is, it
Allows concepts for which it is impossible to have objects.

From limitlessness of the universe the only concepts without
Objects are the impossible concepts. Realism, the constraint
For concepts to have objects, is not a limit on the universe.

This minimal realism constitutes an explicit meaning of
The metaphysics: given realism, concepts have objects.
For the universe, the possible and the Real are identical.

Another term for realism is logic: the universe is the object of logic—
Roughly of word or logos—now interpreted to include agreement with
Fact (science). In this conception logic is not a limit on the real but the
Constraint of realism on freedom concept formation.

Realism resolves doubt that should arise about conceptual-
Logical and empirical-scientific consistency of the metaphysics.

The object of realism (logic) is the universe. All valid science and
Systems of logic lie within logic so conceived. Universal metaphysics,
Logic, and science have no conflict. As the universe is all being, so
The metaphysics envelops all knowledge including science.

Agreement with fact includes agreement with the knowledge
Claims of human culture, for example science, religion, and lore
In their valid domains. Consistency among concepts includes
Agreement with systems of logic where they are valid.

The vastness and forms of realism (logic) await discovery—
The theories of science and known logics are but forms of and
Within logic. And while the forms may be seen as rough and
Constraining this logic is the true and most liberal realism.

The vastness of form is immensely greater than the concrete alone:
‘Universe as realization of logic’ resolves central issues of the abstract
Objects: i.e., they are real; they are in the one (supra-Platonic) universe;
And, if atemporal, it is due to omission of temporality in the abstraction.

Thus there is no real divide between the concrete and the abstract.

As realism, logic has been reconceived and is near the very
Beginning of discovery of the universe and its forms.

This account of explicit meaning should be complemented
By discussion of implicit meaning which lies in implications,
Which are the focus of sections beginning with Cosmology.

Cosmology

The universal metaphysics implies what follows.
It is especially the implications that
Bring out its meaning. From the form
Of realism, the proofs are trivial.

Natural science and human experience have domains of
Validity but the universe—the object of the metaphysics—
Is greater without limit than those domains.
The universe is limitlessly greater than our cosmos.

The universe has neither beginning nor end. In a sense
Of ‘is’ that accords with earlier remarks on ‘exists’—
The universe is.

The universe has cosmoses without limit to number or variety
Against a background where extension-duration does not measure
All being. ‘All cosmoses are finite’ or ‘all are infinite’ are constraints
Over and above logic and therefore neither case obtains.

Logic is not a Law. A universal Law over and above logic would
Be a limit on the universe. There are no universal Laws.

That a cosmos such as ours shall exist is given by the metaphysics. Still, we
Would like to know how it came to be and what determines the population
Of cosmoses. A general speculation begins: most sufficiently and naturally
Formed systems result from increments through relatively stable states.

To continue, near symmetry is a source of stability or self-adaptation—of
Durability and so of population. Manifestations of stability include local
Physical-like law, life, and sentience (§ The Real). So what the
Sentient forms see, are, overwhelmingly, the durable systems.

The universal metaphysics requires the being of realms—far larger than
Our cosmos but far smaller than the universe—where such ‘pictures’
Are realized. What would be speculative then, is a claim that all realms
Are of this stable type. That such realms must be is not speculation.

The background remains on the border of the sensible and beyond.

Subject to realism the metaphysics entails the being of all mythical
Cosmologies—but not that the universe’s population by such cosmoses
Shall be numerically or sensibly significant. However, even if sensibly
Insignificant, a mythic cosmology may evoke a true sense of The Real.

Every state or element of being is equivalent to every other.
That something must come from nothing is a trivial corollary.
At the deepest and most general level the question of
Foundation of being is forever resolved and closed.

Relative to the void (or other manifest state), all Laws and manifest
States are emergent—as is extension-duration or spacetime.

However breadth is ever open—the extension, duration, variety,
Summit, and dissolution of manifest being have no limit.
Subject to realism, systems of physical law are without limit.
One mystery, depth, is resolved. Another emerges.

Every Law, every cosmos is repeated without limit.
‘Ghost’ systems are ever passing through our cosmos.
In comparison to the limitlessness of possibility
Our cosmos is infinitesimal in quantity and variety.

Every atom is a cosmos, every cosmos an atom.
There are no indivisible particles.

The universe has and must have manifestation and identity
In acute, diffuse and absent phases.

It can now be reemphasized that realism redefines the concept and
Future of Logic-and-science regarded as one and differentiated only
By the universality of their truths. Particularly, it is implied that we
Are always close to the beginning of discovery in these realms.

Individual and identity

Individual identity shares these powers with the universe—
Else there would be a limit on the universe. In merging identity,
Individuals realize all being, its identity, its extension, duration,
Variety, summits, and dissolutions.

The new mystery reveals endless adventure of ideas and being.

Though real, individual and group are relative (every atom is
A cosmos…). The distinction is not relative.

Apparent and experienced limits are part of the constitution
Of the forms of being—of human being and limits.
Though temporary, limits are of the form of beings,
Normally a result of origin and adaptation.

Realization is given. Still, effectiveness is enhanced in engaging the
Whole individual (heart-mind-body). Givenness does not negate
The value and challenge of endeavor which enhances enjoyment,
Gives meaning to pain, death and challenge.

While in limited form realization is endless process—
And ever freshness in variety—a journey in being.
For limited being the forms of knowledge and being
Are ever open—an eternal challenge.

The oneness, connection, and continuity
Of these forms lie in identity—
In experience, idea and action.

In unlimited form, realization is the Aeternitas—the eternity in a
Moment—of Thomas Aquinas, the Brahman of Indian thought—
Which transcend but are not beyond space and time and to and
From which life and death and pain and joy are gateways.

The idea of the abstract object as discussed earlier shows a
Way for Brahman and Aeternitas to transcend but not be
Beyond space and time.

Aeternitas has no further experience—Aeternitas creation is closed.
But our world—clearly limited—is not the Aeternitas. See the universe
As an object stretching over history. Then, time is motion from one
‘Place’ to another. Aeternitas is not in time but contains time.

That realization for limited form is endless requires that
The empirical and symbolic sciences forms remain ever in
Process and be complemented by immersion of beings—
E.g., human being—in the world for their full realization.

But Aeternitas as one, only, final, absolute object is fiction: it would
Be a law of the void. It is, like us, eternal process—except that from
Abstraction, as above, it has a timeless perspective. Still, intuition,
E.g. mystic, that we are on the way to the ultimate is now seen true.

Does the experience of matter vs. experience itself reveal distinct
Categories? What of the ‘natural’ vs. ‘supra-natural’?
The foregoing suggests and the metaphysics shows (§ The Real) that
These distinctions result from no more than limited knowledge.

The real

The Real (‘The’ capitalized) is the ultimate in its true nature. It has
Been called truly ineffable. However the words ‘the ineffable’
Do and cannot refer to anything. It has been said that The Real
And the instruments by which we know it stand outside the natural.

Let us reflect on the possible divide between the natural and The Real.
To do this, it will be useful consider, first, ‘mind-matter’ relations,
Which is interesting and significant in its own right.

Begin with the metaphysical concept of substance. A function of substance
Is to explain world complexity from utter simplicity. Therefore, take a
Substance to be a pure (exclusive), fixed, eternal kind. Purity means that
One substance does not mix with or emerge from another.

In monism the universe has (is) one substance.

A substance is eternal so disallowed by the metaphysics. However,
So as to gain insight into the actual universe, it will be useful to
Reflect on a hypothetical universe of substance.

It was seen earlier that experience is real and that it is relationship.

Mind tentatively names the substance of experience. In pure monist
Materialism, matter is the one substance and excludes mind: the only
Mind is ‘as if’ mind. Since experience is real, monism cannot be pure.
In a materialist substance universe, mind and matter have root identity.

‘Matter’ and ‘mind’ name being-as-being and being-in relationship.

In the universal case there is no substance and ‘matter-mind’ relations
Are fluid. However, mind-as-experience requires form and form is
Being (as-being) and so either ‘original’ or a ‘new’ form of matter.

The contrary would be a Law, so the metaphysics requires interaction
Of matter like forms, and so mind-matter interaction. Mind-matter
Interaction will not always go to the root, but even where not,
Universal interaction will result in its sometime root occurrence.

The common, adaptive, case is so well formed as to be substance-like
Mind-matter interaction is constitutive—i.e., stronger than causal.

In trying to enhance understanding via the metaphysics we have found
An example of some perfect understanding in realms of tradition that
Are traditionally regarded as problematic.

Also illuminated is substance: there is none. From the metaphysics the void
Functions as substance: it generates all change and complexity. But we
Make no hypothesis about its existence or nature: the void is necessary and
Ultimately simple; substance, seemingly, pure is complex, impossible.

As with mind-matter, so it is with nature and The Real, and knowledge of
Them. There cannot be final foreignness among them; they are not of
Different kinds. We, in the immediate, are of The Real and its process,
Of which there is neither limit nor final end.

Emotion or passion is critical and its complexities are addressed in secular
And religious platforms. Though alleviation of pain and suffering
Are important, a perspective on ‘salvation’ from the metaphysics (and
Adaptation) is that pain and joy are a mosaic.

The mosaic, its necessity, gives meaning to pain. If we are to be in the
Ultimate we cannot wait for (or minimize) local perfection. So, we
Engage with the ultimate as we work, in the immediate, to move from
Pain to joy. These give existential meaning to one another.

What is engagement with the ultimate? It has been seen that
It is intelligent and engaged entry into process without limit to extension,
Duration, variety, and peaks. It involves all dimensions of experience or
Mind—cognition, commitment (will), and feeling (pain to joy).

In a perspective that there is a merciful god, pain seems paradoxical.
In The Real, where there is no evident god-as-person, the mosaic of
Pain and joy (evil and good) is part of the good. It is not paradoxical.

In the perspective of the universal metaphysics The Real and the
Ultimate are identical. Any personal god would be a movement of
Which beings such as the human are part. The metaphysics does allow
Remote personal gods but adaptation minimizes their significance.

Knowledge and emotion, realization and being are ever in process.
There are peaks of being—individual and universal and their merging.
And there is dissolution. This is not a limit but the way of being.

Death and the limitless

Georg Cantor founded ‘transfinite numbers’ larger than all finite
Finite numbers. Sets of transfinite numbers, even if infinitely many,
Are, even collectively, not necessarily absolutely is also infinite.
Therefore, I prefer the terms limited and limitless in this text.

Obviously, absolute death is a ‘limit’. However, the metaphysics
Requires that death is transcended. Death is real but not absolute.

What is the ‘beyond death’? The realization of all possibility
Implies a scenario that is real but may not be universal: our
Identities are strands that recur, mutate, join others—immediate to
Ultimate—and remember, forget. But even the ultimate is not static.

Identity is eternal adventure, ever fresh, of joy and pain, of
Merging in larger streams, of plans and hopes and acceptance,
Of peaks and dissolutions and new beginnings.

If remembered, ignorance, shame, ‘evil’ are shared—so not corrosive
Of the strands. However, ‘good’ is important to the individual and this
World. Death is a reminder of the preciousness of time in this regard.
And the good is shared across the strands. ‘Karma’ is shared.

Yet Brahman is perhaps too vast to be corrupted or improved by our
Good. Still, the attempt at the good is important in the universal—
Especially as, even though there is forgetting, identity (the good)
And its form (in this case, the attempting) are eternal.

We can let imagination run but imagination is limited. There are
Sources for imagination: secular thought, art and fiction; and the
Trans-secular accounts of the immediate and the ultimate up to
The Aeternitas and Brahman.

The Real includes but is beyond what is real in the secular
And trans-secular. The range of the beyond will be lived but
Is beyond present imagination of which the function is
Interesting but probably limited.

Can anything definitive be said of this realm? Perhaps the
Most suggestive summation comes from earlier comments:

The idea of the abstract object shows a way for Brahman
Aeternitas to transcend but not be beyond space and time.
And the abstract, it can be added, may be the framework
For the investigation of the death and the limitless.

A perfect, unique, ultimate, and practical metaphysics

The meaning of the metaphysics has been given clarity;
Its power has received illustration. An effective summation
And characterization of the metaphysics may now be given.

In foundation in experience and being the metaphysics is perfect. From
Expression as logic it is unique; and ultimate—in complete but partially
Implicit capture of the variety, extent, and duration of being.

The universal metaphysics resolves foundation of being but
Shows the variety of experience and being to be ever open:
While in limited form the variety of realization is
Unbounded, experience is limitless and eternal.

Though logic is ultimate, its forms continue to emerge. Except
In dreams of certainty, security, and control, there can be no
Final foundation of logic, Ethics or Value outside context. For
Limited form logic, ethics, and value remain in process.

Being and experience—world and knowledge—are known in
Experience. Variety of being and fields of knowledge—unities
And distinctions—merge in experience. The ultimate metaphysics
Is a metaphysics of experience.

The metaphysics has foundation in concepts so devoid of detail
That knowledge of them is perfectly faithful—there is no doubt of
The being of being, of experience, Law and universe. Consequently this
Framework has empirical and instrumental remoteness.

There is significant ‘tradition’—part of traditional knowledge from literal-
Scientific to mythic-holist that is not perfectly faithful but is
Perfect in the sense of ‘good enough’ or ‘being-in-the-world’.

Where the metaphysics is complete if remote, the tradition is
Immediate but incomplete. The metaphysics contains and may
Illuminate tradition; the tradition illustrates the metaphysics.

The two main be joined and each compensates the other’s lack. The
Metaphysics is precise but lacks detail and instrumental power.
The traditions provide this lack but are imprecise—but the metaphysics
Shows that the traditions cannot and need not have precision.

The union is a practical metaphysics—perfect in that limited forms in
Transition need have no final perfection. The metaphysics guarantees
Realization of the ultimate; tradition-in-process is part of the instrument.

Civilization and realization

Our civilization is the web of human culture over time and
Continents (space). Greater Civilization is the matrix and
Interconnections of civilizations (being) across the universe.

The metaphysics reveals a limitless universe open to
Individual and Civilization. It is appropriate and now possible
To address negotiation of the normal limits of our world.
The practical address of this concern is now taken up.

Individuals foster Civilization;
Civilization nurtures the individual.
Civilization is the hearth of realization;
Individuals manifest realization.

Politics, values and morals, and economics are essential in the idea
Of civilization. Values represent the integration of the immediate
And the ultimate; and it is important that they should merge with the
Realities of politics and economics

Civilization provides ways, rough methods, of ideation and
Action—disciplines of thought, discovery, and transformation.
In culture, emergence of disciplines, too, has rough discipline.

The standard forms of the disciplines—
Secular and trans-secular—
Are marked by incompleteness and error
But their core constitutes ground on which to build.

Our apparent limits are Laws or
Expressions of Law
Which also constitute initial ground on which to
Transcend limits on the way to universal realization.

The apparently stable initial ground
Is transient and incomplete,
But knowing and living its transient incompleteness
Is on the way to the ultimate.

It is worth repeating: ultimate realization for all beings is
Given by the metaphysics. However, efficiency and
Enjoyment are immensely enhanced in occurrence and
Quality by commitment and engagement.

Sacred scriptures speak of divine magnificence. An example:
The Indian Bhagavad-Gita compares the splendor of being
To the radiance of a thousand suns. Yet its prescribed means
Of realization anchored in practice in the present.

The universe and the place of individuals in it are limitlessly
Greater than in common secular and trans-secular cosmologies.
Especially on this knowledge, realization for limited forms
Begins in the present, touched and illuminated by the ultimate.

A way of realization

Action is not ‘mere’ process—ideas are a partial guide: Ideas
And action are the means of realization. Realization begins
With ideas; transformation requires action.

The ultimate is not fully immanent in limited form: realization must
Be indeterministic, have process. The way of engaged action lies
In risk—in small and large steps—and in selective consolidation.

This is the core mechanics of realization. Change may begin with
Reason; risk—to take a step—is essential to transformation.
Outcome, where adapted, is captured in being or artifact.

Development of ideas above is in breakdown, creation, and
And rebuilding. The way of realization lies in break down,
Imagination and experiential rebuilding of ideas and being.

This is the analysis and synthesis of being; it includes seeing,
Thought, risk (action), change, learning, and correction. The
Way is not essentially prescriptive: prescription emerges on the
Way and is ever subject to revision and enhancement.

Risk emphasizes acting even in the presence of (existential) doubt.

Therefore from the significance of what it reveals there is
Immense value to the metaphysics as a principle of action.
This situation is as for the doubt and value that attend
Essentially all significant endeavor.

At the front of realization the final resource is to take a step of
Thought andor action. To share learning is effective; there are
Ways; there are accomplished-charismatic teachers but in the
Endless process there is no perfect master, no final discipline.

The vehicles of realization are individual and group—
Being and Civilization and their transformations are
Among the dimensions of realization.

The places of realization are ground—nature, and fabric—
Individual: heart-mind-body, society and culture—of being
And civilization which link the immediate and the ultimate.

Modes of transformation are intrinsic and extensive. Yoga,
As way to and in the universal, appropriately names the intrinsic.
The extensive or instrumental emphasizes science and technology.
The distinction between the intrinsic and extensive is not sharp.

Transformation of being was seen to be via ideas and action.
Transformation of Civilization is intrinsic—via transformation of
Being; and extensive—inhabitation and population of the
Universe via exploration and instrument or technology.

The metaphysics shows inevitability of this population. ‘Now’
Is the time for insight and developing and living mechanics
Of inner and instrumental transformation.

Realization is inspired by powers of being and thought
Revealed above… and by the disciplines. It derives
Effectuality from the interaction.

The disciplines offer catalysts of mind-body change—such as
Yogas, meditation, shamanic way, and hypnosis. Transient
Change in being, disciplines, and ways is stabilized by reason
In experience and recollection—in memory, culture, and artifact.

Disciplines, East to West, may all have use in transformation.
However, even eclectic commitment would be premature.
Understanding of human being—organism and psyche—
Should continue to emerge in interaction with experience.

In summary, these ways cycle through be-ing (sustaining) and
Transformation (ideas-individual-civilization-artifact-technology).
Elements include means-vehicles-places-modes-disciplines.
The mechanics is risk, learning, and consolidation.

Transience and arrival

Realization begins in the present, perhaps with the disciplines,
But requires risk—reflection and experiment—and consolidation
In culture-artifact and individual form of heart-mind-body.

Living in transience—in joy and anxiety—is on the way… is
Essential in realization, ever a flux of transience and arrival.
While limited realization is endless process—ever freshness
In variety and depth in a journey of realizations of being.

— END —

The author

My approach in this narrative is from experience and ideas with inspiration from tradition, including science, and metaphysics as understood in philosophy.

Earlier, philosophy was one of my central and passionate interests. I remain interested in philosophical thought and process but the earlier central interest has been replaced by thought and action as in this narrative. Thus while I have learned so much from ancient through modern and eastern and western philosophy, my interest has grown to become wider than philosophy as process or content, especially in its modern analytic and continental forms.

My learning in philosophy and related topics comes primarily from imaginative and analytic thought, experience, extended reading in the ‘literature’ over a lifetime, writing, criticism, and interaction with others. I have also benefited from humanities courses including a year of undergraduate philosophy.

I have read and thought widely in the science, philosophy, and history of biology, especially evolutionary biology. The paradigms of evolutionary biology have been immensely suggestive to my thought, generally and for this narrative. Other major academic interests include mathematics, logic, and theoretical physics.

I owe a debt to the history of ideas. The main page and a number of essays on the website http://www.horizons-2000.org have or link to sources.

I am especially interested in the lifestyles of ‘primal’ peoples. The interest is personal—the truth of such styles, the contact and knowledge of nature for its practical and aesthetic interest. What is especially interesting academically is the mesh of primal knowledge in the narrative form, which includes ‘myth’, and our religious and formal systems.

For me, nature has been a ground of being and inspiration. The inspiration is general—nature as portal to the ultimate—and specific: many ideas and intuitions recorded here occurred over the years on trips to and in America and Mexico’s ‘wilderness’ areas.

My education is in engineering (Bachelors, PhD), science, mathematics (Masters), and computation. I have done research and taught in these subjects as a professor at undergraduate through graduate university level. At university I took a wide range of doctoral level courses in engineering, physics, and mathematics.

I worked in mental health for a number of years. Here, I was fortunate to learn much about mind. Direct learning was enhanced by reading, study, reflection, and conversation.

I enjoy cooking for myself and friends. I was responsible for an establishment serving South Asian Indian food in the late 1980's.

I live on the Pacific Coast in Northwest California. I backpack in the nearby Trinity Alps (the website above links to photographs). The towns of Eureka and Arcata have friends, entertainment, and culture. I enjoy playing musical instruments. Access to nature allows bicycle rides through lovely natural areas. I go on a long ride three to five times a week. At home I have books, access to information via the Internet, and my computer at which write and convert my writing and graphics to web format.

My plans for the future include the process described in the essay.

Friday, December 19, 2014