The aim of this essay is (a) to show by analysis the limits of our systems of secular and trans-secular thought and action, especially in the magnitude and variety of the universe and our prospect in it, (b) demonstrating alternative to these systems of thought and action—one that is ultimate as a framework but ever open in variety, (c) showing the connection of thought and action in immediate and ultimate worlds, (d) providing a template for entry of individual and civilization into and sharing this process.

Arrangement

The preview is a plan view of content and aims; it contains no proof, explanation, elaboration, or example.

The introduction shows origins, motivation, and context; anticipates readers’ concerns; and introduces themes. The introduction is background but not part of the main narrative.

The main narrative has two emphases, ideas—experience through cosmology, and realization—the way of Being through template.

The resources are for readers who would enter into the process of ideas and or realization.

Conventions

Definitions are marked by SMALL CAPITALS. The concept of definition is discussed under meaning.

This is the format of text for a summary version.

This is the format of normal text.

This is the format of select critical statements.

Abbreviations

FP The fundamental principle of metaphysics also abbreviated the ‘fundamental principle’.

MU The universal metaphysics also abbreviated ‘the metaphysics’.

Immediate plan

This document is a framework for a current manual for and future versions of the way of being.

A. Essential version

Maintain two versions, one with micro heads, long term plans, resource documents… and one—essential version—without.

B. Make and print manual and program

Make and print manual and program from the essential version.

C. Eliminate the immediate plan

Eliminate the immediate plan.

Long term plan

This document is a framework for a current manual for and future versions of the way of being.

D. Two versions

When complete two versions will be maintained one with micro heads, plans, resource documents… and one without—which will omit this plan.

E. Reflect on, enter points and comments

The Big Picture—The Main Points: Flow.

Headings to change.

Points to make / clarify / improve / shorten.

Arguments to clarify / improve / shorten.

Implement styles.

F. Writing a final version of the way of being

Write the final version during and after transformation of being.

Further information

This is a short account of the way of being. There are details at http://www.horizons-2000.org and, particularly, The way of being.html and the realizations-resource version.html.

THE WAY OF BEING

Preview of the way

The following is a selection of main statements from the narrative.

Introduction

The ORIGIN of the work is an attempt to be in a process of discovery and realization of ultimate being.

The greatest MOTIVE has always been the beauty in the worlds of nature, ideas, people, and culture. The wonder I feel is impulse to cultivate and sustain the loveliness, to any ultimate beyond the immediate.

This essay demonstrates and presents a new metaphysics—the UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS.

The purpose of the ideational content of the work is not to stand by itself but to be in interaction with realization. The metaphysics is applied to range of topics selected for the purpose of realization, to reveal the nature of being and universe, and so to show the power of the metaphysics. However, the work is not intended to be a compilation of established ideas or application to the range of such ideas.

I anticipate the following AUDIENCE INTERESTS:

A GENERAL interest in the development and main implications of the new metaphysics.

An interest in the IDEAS (the narrative from experience through cosmology). Because the ideas are pivotal to the aim, I hope they will be of at least practical interest to readers who do not define themselves as intellectual or academic.

An interest in REALIZATION (the narrative from the way of being through the template for realization).

It will be seen that the VEHICLES of knowledge and realization are the individual and psyche; civilization (and culture and society); nature as ground; and openness to the universal and its conception and realization.

(Human) CIVILIZATION will be understood to be the web of (human) cultures across time and continents.

A number of TOPICS from the history of thought arise naturally in the narrative. Where the historical development is incomplete, the universal metaphysics enhances completeness and definitiveness. Some topics are experience and the real world, meaning, being, universe, cause and creation, first cause, possibility, meaning of ‘beyond space and time’, natural law, the void, efficient and final causes, the fundamental problem of metaphysics, theory of objects, general cosmology and the stable cosmologies, and the way of being.

The THEMES are topics whose development emerges naturally over the course of the narrative. The following themes are selected for significance: metaphysics; theory of knowledge; logic and science; identity, space, and time; mind and matter; the aim of being; on certainty, meaning, and the aims of knowledge; ways of thought; secular and trans-secular world views; the way of the ordinary—a way out of the secular / trans-secular divide; the ordinary is extra-ordinary.

METAPHYSICS is the main theme for the ideas. The metaphysics of the narrative is the universal metaphysics—the universe is the realization of all possibility. The purpose of the metaphysics is foundation for knowledge and realization of ultimate being as such and in the immediate.

Jointly the secular as REDUCTIONIST-ELITIST the trans-secular as FUNDAMENTALIST-EXCLUSIVE are limiting in all realms. However, even in their open approaches they are beset by constraints of styles of thought and attitudes toward the possible and the potential; and, particularly, by an unrealized potential from the power of the idea of being. Open, initially neutral, and critical thought and action—metaphysics—is an approach to the ultimate as such and the ultimate in the immediate.

In going BEYOND THE ORDINARY—beyond ordinary ordinariness, we will arrive at the extraordinary extra-ordinary. The NEUTRAL experience as experience and being and being MAKE ONLY ONE DISTINCTION—the REAL VERSUS THE UNREAL. The narrative therefore begins with experience of and as being.

1. Experience

EXPERIENCE is awareness in all its forms.

OSTENSIVE definition is definition by showing or pointing to what is defined. In some fundamental kinds or cases ostensive definition collapses definition and proof that there is such a kind or case.

That THERE IS EXPERIENCE as such has been established by ostensive definition.

Descartes’ COGITO has been criticized for assuming that the doubt of the argument is had by an ‘I”. Provided the ‘I’ conceived appropriately as a relatively AUTONOMOUS LOCUS of experience, WILL, and AGENCY, establishment that there is an ‘I’ for the already established experience is not difficult.

The term IDEAS will refer all forms of experience but especially to knowledge and knowing, to designing and planning, and in relation to practice and action. ACTION is process under the guidance of ideas—particularly, intentional ideas.

Where there is apparently structured experience there must be FORM. The metaphysics to be developed posits neither substance nor form as fundamental; however, in a SUBSTANCE ONTOLOGY or cosmos, where there is form there must be substance.

2. Meaning

A CONCEPT is the content of an experience.

A REFERENTIAL CONCEPT is a concept that has an object in the world (the reference may be ‘empty’).

CONCEPT MEANING is constituted of a concept and its objects.

WORD MEANING is a word associated with concept meaning.

A non-conceptual word in association with a concept is the most elementary LINGUISTIC MEANING.

Linguistic meaning also obtains by grammatical convention from an arrangement of words depicting features of the structure of an object—in a generalized sense that includes states of affairs.

The word-structure-concept-object conception of linguistic meaning will be referred to as the THEORY OF MEANING.

3. World

Something EXISTS if it obtains as it is known (e.g. as I know it).

The assertion about existence above does not make existence dependent on being known. What is the case is that WHAT DOES NOT IN AFFECT US IN ANY WAY IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE PART OF THE WORLD. The metaphysics developed later will show that the object that can have no effect on our world does not exist.

From the foregoing remarks on existence, then, A NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CRITERION OF EXISTENCE IS POWER—power as the ability to have an effect (it will turn out that there is no ability to have an effect without actually having an effect). It is interesting that this suggestion was made by Plato. Consequently, the following may be marks of existence but are not necessary for it: matter, mind, process, and intrinsic quality. If something has an effect it would be causal and so causality is necessary for existence. However, it does not follow that physical or material causation is necessary for existence. Later we will see that the void is causal but not material; and though it is irregular and not traditionally recognized, its causal type is universal while the kind of physical causation that we recognize in our cosmos is not universal.

There is a REAL WORLD that, as a whole, is an object of and contains experience.

Experience is the place of BEING ALIVE AND PRESENT to the world. SIGNIFICANCE is of the world and occurs in experience.

ENTIRETY is the whole world in all its degrees of pervasion from null to full by space, time, and any other dimension (so far as such dimensions obtain).

4. Being

BEING is that which is.

Being is that which occurs as ANY COLLECTION of regions of entirety.

5. Universe

The UNIVERSE is all being.

There is precisely ONE UNIVERSE.

If CAUSE or CREATION are the effect of one thing on another, then because the universe has no other, it is neither caused nor created.

Any god is part of the universe. No god is creator of all being.

A DOMAIN is part of or the whole universe.

ONE DOMAIN may be part of or IMPLICATED IN CREATION or causation of another.

However, from the metaphysics to be developed, best explanation of most form and structure will be seen to occur via INCREMENTAL SELF ADAPTATION—and may be taken ultimately to emerge from the void.

A COSMOS is a closed causal domain.

‘Cosmos’ is an UTTERLY DIFFERENT concept than that of ‘universe’.

6. Possibility

For a defined context, something is POSSIBLE if it satisfies the definition.

PHYSICAL POSSIBILITY is defined by satisfaction physical law (and is particularly pertinent in our cosmos).

COSMOLOGICAL POSSIBILITY seems to be a restraint specific to a cosmos, e.g. total energy and other boundary issues, over and above the physical. It is conceivable, however, that cosmological and physical possibility intertwine to form one.

ONLY CONCEPTS in relation to ‘objects’ can SATISFY or violate logic. Logic does not pertain to the world as such.

LOGICAL POSSIBILITY is DEFINED as satisfaction of logic.

Logical possibility pertains to concepts: logically impossible concepts cannot have objects.

For UNIVERSAL POSSIBILITY, i.e. with the universe as context, the actual and the possible are identical.

In a universe MAXIMALLY PERMISSIVE with respect to being, universal possibility is logical possibility.

7. Identity, space, and time

DIFFERENCE is the most elementary PATTERN.

SAMENESS is sense of sameness of an object.

Sameness with difference refers to IDENTITY of PERSON or OBJECT and marks TIME or DURATION.

Difference without identity marks SPACE or (spatial) EXTENSION.

EXTENSIONALITY refers to modes of difference—with or without sameness.

Space and time—extension and duration—are the ONLY MODES OF EXTENSIONALITY.

8. Natural law

A NATURAL LAW is a reading of a pattern. The pattern itself is the LAW that is read.

Laws and patterns have being. They are LIMITS: under a law or pattern only some arrangements obtain.

9. The void

THE VOID is the NULL domain.

The void HAS being.

There is at least one void.

The void has neither space, nor time, nor law, nor pattern (nor thing, nor POSITIVE kind).

The void has NO LAW.

10. An appraisal of metaphysics

In this essay, METAPHYSICS is knowledge of being as such (i.e. ‘being as being’).

11. Appraising metaphysics

The present sense of metaphysics is VALID and POTENT.

12. The fundamental principle

The FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF METAPHYSICS, also the fundamental principle (FP) is the assertion that the universe is the realization of all possibility.

The PROOF is simple: if there is a state that does not emerge from the void that would be a law of the void. Thus every state must emerge from the void (and consequently from every state of being).

Under the fundamental principle ALL STATES OF BEING ARE EQUIVALENT. Any state may emerge from any state (same or other). This apparently clear VIOLATION OF CAUSALITY calls for address and will be taken up later.

LOGIC AND SCIENCE constitute a continuum. Logic occupies the universal end of this continuum; science occupies what remains and possessed of patterning.

Since the universe is the realization of all possibility, logics and sciences are ever under discovery. The fundamental principle forces a reconceptualization: SCIENCE and, especially, of LOGIC.

A void may be regarded as being attached to every domain. Except that THERE IS AT LEAST ONE void, there is no particular relevance to the number of voids.

The POWER OF THE VOID IS WITHOUT LIMIT. It can create and destroy ‘all objects’ particularly, atoms, cosmoses, arrays of cosmoses, men and women and gods.

But since a void may be regarded as attached to every domain or state, EVERY DOMAIN AND STATE HAS POWER WITHOUT LIMIT.

Earlier, in the main narrative, it was said that there is no universal causation in the common sense. It is necessary to be clear that this refers to causation understood as efficient physical causation. However, the attachment of the void to every domain or particle implies that there is a universal efficient causation over and above every other kind or example, e.g. the physical causation of our cosmos. This causation has no regularities. Yet it is universal though not physical. It is clear that physical causation is not universal. Why then does the universal type not show up? Some answers are (a) we have not been observing for very long and (b) maybe it has and is. The real answer, I think, is that cosmological causation is a special case of the universal and irregular but no non-interaction type causation.

The void is not the quantum vacuum for the latter has a law or laws; the void has greater power than the quantum vacuum; still, there is an analogy between the void and the vacuum state.

13. Realism

The continuum from science to logic is named REALISM. The fundamental principle implies that realism (logic and science) are ever under discovery.

The AIM of this experiment in thought is to evaluate the relation between partial determinism in our local history and the vast openness of the universe—briefly, the aim is to understand the relation between determinism and openness (‘absolute indeterminism’).

WHAT IS THE RELATION BETWEEN CAUSAL AND OPEN PHASES OF SENTIENT BEING IN THE UNIVERSE? The relation between causation such as we experience and the openness of absolute indeterminism includes that the universe itself passes through phases of limit, cause, and definition—of which we and our cosmos are a manifestation; and it passes through phases of full openness when the once determinate are in open transition. That not all memory is erased—that there is a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BEINGS IN DIFFERENT CAUSAL PHASES IS GIVEN by, i.e. follows from the fundamental principle; a mechanism for the preservation of memory across individual and cosmological death is later developed from the theory of objects.

The universe RECURS through phases—phases from limited to ultimate possibility; which is ultimate possibility. But the recurrence is not mere repetition or determined repetition because possibility is ever open and so being must be EVER FRESH (for limited being; it would be deterministic in the eyes of limitless being).

While in LIMITED FORM, approach to the ultimate must be ever in process and ever fresh.

The universe is realization CONSTRAINED only by realism (a constraint is not a limit; it is the requirement on ‘freely formed’ concepts for them to have objects).

Many implications of realism, though significant, are TRIVIAL AS DEDUCTION. There is no proof needed other than to check for realism, i.e. satisfaction of logic and local non violation of local science. There will of course be difficult proofs.

The fundamental principle solves what has been called the fundamental problem of metaphysics: WHY THERE IS BEING at all rather than nothing. Under realism, the universe must exist in both manifest and non manifest states.

The FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS now becomes the question What has being?

While proof and other reasons have been given, doubt remains about the fundamental principle. An ‘optimal’ EXISTENTIAL ATTITUDE is to adopt the principle as fundamental in a program of action.

Even under the truth of the fundamental principle, realization is ever open and failure in balance with success, pleasure with pain. The existential attitude retains its significance.

14. Extension of the metaphysics

TRADITION is what is valid in the history of (human) knowledge and practice from origins to the present day.

That all possibility is realized implies that DEATH is and must be real (not just empirical) but is not and cannot be ABSOLUTE.

The metaphysics so far shows what may be realized; and it may be joined with tradition as an instrument of action. Though necessarily imperfect with regard to precision, completeness, and certainty this is the best expected or desired of tradition. In the join, some significant general features of tradition—local metaphysics—are capable of perfect precision. This join could be called ‘PRACTICAL METAPHYSICS’ which would be another term for the entire system of knowledge to which is attached the foregoing positive interpretation of its potency (the fact of limitlessness means of course eternal ‘failure’ and ‘pain’ together with ‘success’ and ‘enjoyment’: being is a mosaic; and this is the general ‘meaning’ of the negative; this existential meaning will be enhanced in stable cosmologies). This entire system may also be called the universal metaphysics or the metaphysics provided that the two meanings are not confused.

The ultimate metaphysical framework and tradition join in a practical metaphysics that is PERFECT IN RELATION TO THE AIM that it reveals (below).

15. The universal metaphysics

The fundamental principle is the basis of a metaphysics that will be called the UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS or, simply, THE METAPHYSICS. These terms may be used to refer to the metaphysical framework as well as to the mesh with tradition.

16. Objects

An OBJECT is the referent of a concept.

We conclude: (a) all objects are in the one universe, (b) all except the completely abstract have some degree of concreteness and it would seem that there are no completely abstract objects, (c) there is no essential distinction between the abstract and the concrete, (d) the difference is better sought in the nature of the concept (without which: no object)—the CONCRETE are more effectively studied empirically or perceptually; the ABSTRACT are better understood in terms of (higher) concepts (‘rationally’), and (e) that, partially or wholly, an abstract object seems to not be located in space or time or that it seems to lack causation is the result of these features being omitted in the abstraction. This is here called the THEORY OF OBJECTS.

The abstract objects that are selected with (and perhaps for) form are the PLATONIC FORMS.

The present theory of objects, particularly the statements that ALL OBJECTS ARE IN THE ONE UNIVERSE and that there is NO ESSENTIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ABSTRACT AND THE CONCRETE, derived from the universal metaphysics, enables understanding of objects in general and is, via definiteness and clarity, a contribution to the modern theory.

It opens up the possibility / actuality that we can inhabit abstract objects.

MEMORY across death and COSMIC DISSOLUTION may be preserved in abstract objects or DISPOSITIONS or FORMS.

Logic, science, and MATHEMATICS are brought under a UNITY. The mathematics (plural) are the SCIENCES OF ABSTRACT FORM and the natural sciences are the SCIENCES OF CONCRETE form; the two merge in logic at the universal end of a continuum as constraint on thought rather than law of the real.

Can METAPHOR and ART be brought under this unity? On one hand in so far as they have objects in some interpretation the answer must be yes. On the other hand, one of the ‘functions’ of art is that we are not dealing with concreta or forms that are (yet) capable or perhaps even in need of precise conceptualization; and the intent may be to evoke rather than refer.

17. Cosmology

The object of COSMOLOGY is the variety, extension, and duration of being in the universe.

The GENERAL PRINCIPLE of cosmology is the fundamental principle of metaphysics.

Our EMPIRICAL COSMOS is but one example of one kind of form. There is an infinite number of infinitely varied cosmoses; a background void; and a continuum from transience to stability in between. Every cosmos is an atom, every atom is a cosmos.

A GENERAL CONCLUSION of cosmology is that manifestation and identity in the universe are limitless in variety, extension, and duration. Particularly, there must be phases of presence and absence of manifestation. The phases of presence are marked by peaks of being which themselves are without limit in variety and magnitude.

The abstract forms may approach the eternal. Here resides memory across individual death and cosmological dissolution. The ultimate form may be called Brahman or Aeternitas.

The CENTRAL QUESTION about Brahman or God, under the universal metaphysics, must be, not whether it exists or why it may seem to not care, but what and of WHAT KIND OF BEING it is—what kind of process. Reverting to our intuition of the ‘good’ the metaphysics implies that there is a peak form of good and that our good is part of its process. That is, we do not expect ‘God’ to do good for us; rather, our process attempt at knowing-PERFORMING GOOD IS OF THE PROCESS OF BRAHMAN.

The PEAKS of form are not blind in general. They must include intelligence and commitment applied to form. The greatest significance occurs in experience.

Given any ‘blind and remote’ peak of being, there is a significant peak (one known in consciousness) that is higher and a conscious peak that is higher. There is NO LIMIT TO REALIZATION by sentient (e.g. human) forms.

However, while in limited form the approach to the ultimate is eternal process which from the fundamental principle must contain ever freshness.

The POPULATION the universe by cosmological systems should be dominated by a product of frequency of formation and longevity. We therefore anticipate that MOST COSMOSES ARE STABLE ones formed by incremental adaptation.

In a stable cosmology with living, experiential forms it is expected from adaptation that for the greatest population of experiential beings (a) in the mosaic of pain and joy, pain will be bounded by joy and understood as essential to adaptation (allowing for the possibility of its overcoming) and (b) INTELLIGENT AND COMMITTED action (i.e. thinking and feeling) aimed at knowing, creating, and realizing local and ultimate values WILL BE MOST PRODUCTIVE of enjoyment and peaks of form.

There is no doubt that there is FREEDOM OF WILL. But this freedom does not mean total control. It allows that expression of freedom is often a struggle to know what is desirable and feasible and to act incrementally toward it. The argument from materialism and determinism is false because that is not in the character of even what is called the material substrate; those who argue from such materialism, e.g. that social offenders have no choice in their acts, should recognize that, if their argument is true, they too have no choice in their ‘judgment’ or the processes leading to it. It may well be, however, that virtue is a high expression of individual freedom while antisocial behavior is the result of an absence of freedom of will (and other factors) in the particular individual (this should have no particular bearing on any philosophy of ‘punishment’ based in prevention of such individual behavior and general dissuasion rather than retribution or justice).

In summary, while we anticipate that the HIGHEST REACHES OF FORM may be dominated by civilizations of committed intelligent forms, it remains true that there is no limit to the reach of such form.

The magnitude (variety, extension, duration) of SIGNIFICANT AND CONSCIOUS FORM is WITHOUT LIMIT.

18. The way of Being

The AIM of the way of being is to know the range of being and to realize its highest immediate and ultimate forms.

THE WAY OF BEING is the use of all dimensions of being in knowing the range of being and realizing its highest immediate and ultimate forms—especially in negotiating the weave of the intermediate-ultimate.

THE WAY. The mechanics is choice-risk-consolidation (in light of the metaphysics).

The DIMENSIONS of the way are nature, psyche, civilization and artifact, and ‘universal process’.

The ELEMENTS OF PROCESS are means (ideas and action), mechanics (above), ways and catalysts, disciplines and practices (intrinsic and external), and modes (intrinsic and external).

19. Path

The path has three interacting PHASES—IDEAS, BECOMING, and PURE BEING. Sub phases are identified for the ideas and becoming.

20. Template

EVERYDAY PRACTICE. Times, places, and other phases. All. Intended as adaptable to rhythm, activity, day, season, year, circumstance, and phase.

Rise before the sun—begin with dedication of my life and the day to the way of being, to focus on essence; and affirmation of commitment..

Review and meditate on realization and other priorities and means (priorities).

Realization—work, care and meditation (below); action and experiment; ideas; and writing—in process journal (field notes), essays, and publishing (networked and printed).

Regular and occasional tasks—everyday, weekly.

Meditate: focus and focal issues; quieting—spaciousness of being; death as spur and transition; pain and resentment—their defusion in relinquishing ego to ‘being’; meditation-in-action. Incorporate yogic elements—e.g., of the Gita, the Tantra…

Exercise—posture, general (aerobic, flexibility, hiking fitness and strength), and yogic.

Evening—realization / renewal; review the next day, plans (and special events); realization if energy-time; evening chores; meditate; sleep early.

A TEMPLATE for the phases of realization is (1) Ideas—knowledge, design, ideas for the phases of becoming, (2) Becoming—everyday practice, nature, civilization, and artifact, and (3) Pure being—the ultimate in the present.

Some topics for study and development. (1) The metaphysics, metaphysics, foundation and development, language, logic, mereology, adequacy and minimal arrangement of the dimensions, processes, and phases of being and becoming. (2) Abstract sciences and sciences of symbolic systems—logic, mathematics and set theory and its foundations, linguistics and grammar, topics such as self-representation, computation and finite mathematics. (3) Sciences of the concrete—physics and physical cosmology, geosciences, biology; psychology and social sciences with focus on immersion. (4) Science as defined by principles—descriptive, elementary, and adaptive with focus on origins, form, and adaptive systems. (5) Foundations of ethics and value with special focus on implications of the metaphysics and the way of being. (6) Design and planning. (7) Narrative mode and philosophy. (8) Ways and design; catalysts. Select focus on trans-secular and intrinsic modes of being and transformation—principles of special metaphysics and religion, yoga, Tantra and so on. (9) Special focus on catalysts—dreams, hypnosis, meditative states; altered states and catalytic factors. (8) Civilization as process and nurture—the concepts of human and universal civilization; physics, cosmology, sociology, psychology, for universal civilization; immersion in natural, social and cultural, psychic and universal process; shared endeavor (see TranscommunityDesign.html: http://www.horizons-2000.org/1. World and Being/realization/being-elements/2010/2011-2012 jib in-process/TranscommunityDesign.html); artifactual and technological enhancement—support, synthetic, and stand alone.

Introduction

Origins and aim

The ORIGIN of the work is an attempt to be in a process of discovery and realization of ultimate being.

In the beginning the aim was tacit. The explicit aim arose in process.

My cultural sources are reading and discussion in interaction with reflection, experience and sharing (publishing) my thoughts.

The process has been one of passion and intuition in interaction with critical and dispassionate expression. The former is essential to significance, the latter to truth.

This process in a ‘universal metaphysics’ which framed further process. This metaphysics is a picture of the universe as realization of all possibility. It shows, particularly, the immediate as ground for the ultimate and the ultimate as illuminating the immediate.

To my audience

In understanding a work it is useful to anticipate its nature.

The nature of this essay

This essay demonstrates and presents a new metaphysics—the UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS.

This metaphysics is ultimate (a) as a perfect framework for the universe (b) in showing the universe to be the realization of all possibility. That is, while the universe is shown to be the realization of all possibility, this does not provide local detail which requires local experience (e.g., science) which it is shown cannot be universal and precise. However, the metaphysics implies that imprecise or ‘good enough’ knowledge is the desirable local instrument of action.

Understanding the narrative

A new metaphysics will typically use some older terms but it must give its terms new meaning; some terms given new meanings are being, universe, the void, realism, logic, and science; and it is important to recognize that the meanings obtain fullness as part of the system of meaning—the ‘picture’. Consequently understanding will be enhanced by putting aside other meanings and uses, attention to definitions, and patience while absorbing the whole picture.

Most readers should anticipate that they will find the new metaphysics counter to their intuition and counter to worldviews from modern science or religion. The metaphysics may even seem to contradict experience and science; however the metaphysics is shown to be consistent with what is valid in experience, intuition, science, and ancient through modern worldviews.

Reading the narrative

One of the implications of the metaphysics is that as a system of ideas, even supplemented by local knowledge, it must be essentially incomplete; completion requires acting upon the ideas.

Therefore the main narrative is divided roughly into two parts—the first, through cosmology, focuses on the ideas; in the remainder the focus is on ‘process’.

Readers are of course encouraged to follow their interest in reading the essay. Finally, however, the best understanding may be obtained by a linear reading.

The intended audience

I anticipate the following AUDIENCE INTERESTS:

1.	A GENERAL interest in the development and main implications of the new metaphysics.
2.	An interest in the IDEAS (the narrative from experience through cosmology). Because the ideas are pivotal to the aim, I hope they will be of at least practical interest to readers who do not define themselves as intellectual or academic.
3.	An interest in REALIZATION (the narrative from the way of being through the template for realization).

Resources for readers

Readers who wish to enter the process narrated may find the supplement on resources useful.

Vehicles of knowledge and realization

Note:

(Human) CIVILIZATION will be understood to be the web of (human) cultures across time and continents.

Topics and themes

Topics

Most of these topics appear in the contents. Some important topics that have novelty in their presentation are experience and the real world, meaning, adherence to being as meaning no more than be-ing (the ‘more’ is in but not of being as such), universe, cause and creation, first cause (the universe as all being is not created or caused, there is no first cause), possibility, the meaning of ‘beyond space and time’, natural law, the concept and power of the void (in showing the universe to be realization of all possibility and that there is no universal causation in any modern or traditional sense of causation and that both efficient and final causes have local significance but are different and should not be confused), resolution of what has been called the fundamental problem of metaphysics (why there is being at all) and replacement by a new fundamental problem (identifying what has being), theory of abstract and concrete objects that eliminates the distinction as essential, significant expansion and analysis of general cosmology including mechanism of generation of stable cosmologies (e.g. ours) without end, development of a way of being.

Themes

The themes occupy the rest of the introduction.

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the main theme of the ideas. Emergence of the other themes parallel development of the metaphysics.

The introduction discusses a number of preliminaries to metaphysics. Metaphysics begins with experience but without explicit mention of the term ‘metaphysics’. A preliminary discussion of metaphysics in general is in metaphysics and appraising metaphysics. In these discussions a number of meanings of ‘metaphysics’ are considered and one is selected for importance to the narrative (this is not a denial of the significance of other meanings). This meaning has been criticized in the history of thought, therefore it is justified.

Then the particular metaphysics of the narrative, the universal metaphysics, is developed, given interpretation, elaborated and deployed interactively to enhancement of the traditions of knowledge and practice (the fundamental principle of the metaphysics is that the universe is the realization of all possibility, i.e. its power is unbounded and therefore conferred on individuals). This system is used as a basis for realization. The universal metaphysics unfolds from experience through cosmology. Its foundation is experience through possibility, and law and the void. The framework is developed in the fundamental principle and realism. A practical system—the join of tradition, experience, and the universal metaphysics—is developed in extension of the metaphysics. The metaphysics is further developed and applied in objects cosmology.

Theory of knowledge

The development of the metaphysics contains a parallel implicit account of knowledge—a theory of knowledge.

The outline of this theory is (a) as framework the metaphysics is ultimate in what it shows of the universe and perfect as ‘depiction’ but it is incomplete in concrete particulars which are referred to (b) the human tradition of knowledge and practice in parallel with reflection and experience; (c) the metaphysics and tradition together form a perfect instrument of knowledge and realization; (d) it is understood that for the ‘tradition’ perfection is understood as ‘good enough for the ultimate purpose’ (and also in that final perfection as certain perfect depiction is neither possible nor desirable); however (e) traditional epistemology, so far as it diverges from the present account, retains its practical and local value but many of its final or ideal aims which were pertinent to a view of the universe as relatively closed are no longer pertinent in the ultimate and open view of the universe.

Logic and science

These notions are re-conceptualized and the traditional systems are elements within the revised frames. In particular, along with Quine and in consequence of the universal metaphysics, logic and science form a continuum from the universal to the local.

The main developments are in the following sections: experience, meaning, possibility, and the fundamental principle through cosmology.

Identity, space, and time

The main initial development is in identity, space, and time. This discussion begins with experience. Since the discussion of fundamental aspects of the world cannot be complete without at least a framework of understanding of the universe (e.g. via metaphysics) the discussion here remains ambivalent regarding some fundamental issues such as universality and relative versus absolute character of space and time. Space and time is revisited, primarily in general cosmology, where the ambivalence is significantly eliminated.

Mind and matter

The main initial development is in experience, world, and being. Much of this development is interspersed with the main discussion without explicit mention of mind and matter (the terms are to be understood relative to being rather than as fundamental in there own right as found and understood in our cosmos). As for identity, space, and time, the initial discussion is intentionally and necessarily left ambivalent. The topic is revisited, primarily in general cosmology, where the ambivalence is significantly eliminated.

The aim of being

The aim of the way of being is stated in general terms at the beginning of this introduction. The development of the metaphysics enables precise statements later in the way of Being > the way > aim.

On certainty, meaning, and the aims of knowledge

Let radical skepticism name a range of views from there is no such thing as knowledge—the very concept is without meaning (for the claim to make sense a concept of knowledge would have to be specified) to there is no certain knowledge.

There are persons who label themselves ‘radical skeptics’. However, I will argue that the significance of such views is to clarify the nature and aims of knowledge and so the aim here will not be to disprove the skeptics claims. The aim is constructive. It will be to address the skeptics claims so as to show that it is in the meaning of ‘knowledge’ that there is reliable knowledge that is a basis for action. Here, there will be shown to be some certain knowledge but its certainty will not lie so much in ‘fact’ as in the nature of ‘experience’. Later in the narrative a system of certain as well as not so certain knowledge will be built up (and we will show that certainty is not always a possible or desirable goal).

I hold that knowledge-in-itself is an ideal but that knowledge-by-itself—without action—is empty (if coming to know is action then unless it has existed forever, knowledge-by-itself is logically impossible).

So at outset there is an interest in certainty but we do not want to be bound by it. The most liberal outset view is that there are degrees of possible and actual certainty and that each is appropriate to some situation. So a problem with the skeptic’s ‘challenge’ and responses would be to think that there should be a single universal criterion for (‘perfection’ in) knowledge.

Descartes’ response to his program of radical doubt was to find and start with the certain: doubt that I am thinking is thinking; so there is thinking; so there is a thinker; and so the famous ‘I think therefore I am’. One criticism is the assumption of an ‘I’. A response is to say ‘there is awareness’ for doubting it involves awareness and to later argue for the ‘I’. But these arguments call into question what our terms mean. We might question the meaning of ‘I think therefore I am’ or ‘there is awareness therefore there is being or existence’. Are they truly conclusions from premises or are they, instead, disguised definitions or explanations of meanings of ‘I’ and ‘am’ and ‘awareness’ and ‘existence’. Suppose I wonder what I mean by ‘I’. When I do not find a concrete thing it occurs that ‘I’ may be a construct, metaphorical. But I could also think I was looking for the wrong thing. But what could a ‘wrong thing’ be? It must be that I had an idea of something (concept) but found nothing (object); i.e. I had been trying to match concepts (ideas) with objects (in the world)—i.e., I have also been questioning the meaning of ‘meaning’ which we now see as the activity of matching concepts (ideas) and objects (in the world).

This discussion has raised but not answered some issues about certainty and knowledge. What are their roles? How much do we need or should be value certainty perhaps the insistence on certainty in view of certainty is pre-mature and acceptance of certainty is a virtue rather than a fault. Clearly the discussion suggests there is a give and take between the roles of certainty and meaning: if we do not know our meanings, certainty loses relevance; and to the extent that meanings are rough, there is no point to absolute certainty.

The line of thinking so far in this section suggests that we have or should have a clear and definite answer to all the issues raised before we get into the act of (i.e. a priori to) knowing and using knowledge. That is, we should know about knowing before we know about the world. Put in the way of the first sentence of this paragraph there is no reason to expect the a priori answer; put in the way of the second sentence we should expect to not have or be able to have the a prior answer. There is a third way of putting the point: since knowing and knowledge of the world is part of the world, the most useful or optimal a priori attitude is to expect the two levels of knowing (if indeed we should consider them separate) to emerge together.

That is the approach and one reason for the structure of the narrative—especially the beginning with experience and the emphasis on meaning. What we will find is (a) an ultimate and secure metaphysical framework (‘secure’ means that any uncertainty is no more than is given as part of being with intent and desire to be in becoming) (b) the metaphysics frames the remainder of knowledge including what is valid in ‘tradition’ (our ancient through modern cultures and ongoing endeavors) which ranges from less than certain to certain (c) individual and civilization realizes the revealed ultimates (in which process individual and civilization are likely to undergo transformation) (d) for limited form realization is endless endeavor of variety and extension without limit, and (e) the absence of perfect security is an existential challenge that adds to the quality of the process—i.e., of living in the immediate.

Certainty as a theme

When we approach knowledge we begin with the thought that perhaps all knowledge is suspect.

In beginning with experience, we find that there is a real world that is the object of and contains experience. This is seen to be certain. Understanding the importance of experience, leads to the theory of meaning of this document (anticipated by others).

This enables certain and precise knowledge of being as being, universe as universe, natural law as a feature of being, the void as the void, and realism as realism (to mention some elements of the certain). Thus the certainty of the universal metaphysics as framework (subject to the discussion of doubt which, to the extent that it holds up, adds to the existential challenge of realization). And so the certainty of realization of the ultimate.

However, local knowledge of detail is imprecise and uncertain in that we do not know its full range (but to demand precision within its range is unreasonable and to therefore think it is uncertain within that range if precision is not met is without meaning). But this imprecision is impossible but unnecessary and not desirable to overcome: it is the mark of what is, in its way, the perfect instrument in realization. The join of the precise and certain with the less than precise is the universal metaphysics in its inclusive sense.

Ways of thought

The aim of the work is part of and derives from the process of civilization, especially its disciplines of knowledge and practice.

This process has evolved a range of ways—habits, paradigms, and practices—of thought, visited and revisited, reinforcing and opposing, that are may be seen as thematic and guiding. However, the ways have also been reductionist and unnecessarily constraining. A goal of this theme is to identify, understand, use, and critique the ways.

Some of these ways are (a) isolation of knowledge from action, (b) emphasis on certainty, (c) emphasis on uniformity of criteria—e.g. that all knowledge is or must be certain, that all knowledge is uncertain, that all knowledge is or includes projection of the knower, that no knowledge is entirely of the object, (c) the themes of form and ideals, substance and matter, (d) refractory a priori elements, (e) the opposites and oppositions of empiricism and rationalism, (f) that metaphysics as knowledge of being is to be taken as depictive knowledge of all being in all its detail and that certain and perfect knowledge of this is impossible (it is indeed found impossible to limited forms of intelligence but ‘pure’ metaphysics need and should not be knowledge of all being in all detail).

The ‘ways’ will be visited in the narrative. However, attention to the ways is not a main purpose. The purposes of the visitation is (a) to illustrate the power of the universal metaphysics (b) to show some important cases where the ways have been unnecessarily restraining and in what ways they may have ongoing validity.

Secular and trans-secular world views

Knowledge of the world is invariably incomplete and so the supernatural arises perhaps in an attempt at explaining the world. In primal civilizations the natural and supernatural are fused. Anthropological analysis finds the fused picture of the world to be empirical and adaptive in a style of life in which humanity sees itself as part of rather than primarily as attempting to control the world.

In modernity there are two main modes of seeing and being in the world which are significantly split. The secular emphasizes the world of common experience and tends to a foundation in science. The trans-secular holds that there is more than is emphasized in the secular and tends to foundation in religious or secular metaphysics.

Thus the secular and the trans-secular are not exclusive. However they are often seen as in opposition due to secular reductionist positivism and or trans-secular fundamentalism. Though those who hold such views explicitly are not a majority, they are the widespread modern default.

A metaphor for the exclusive faces of secularism and trans-secularism is that of two small tangentially connected spheres in an infinite space of the real.

But since these tacit views are widespread the existential attitude of modernity suffers from impoverishment and conflict. If the universe is the realization of all possibility, modern humanity rejects the great opportunity of being (the secular position) or rests in the thought that all is already known (the trans-secular default).

The way of the ordinary—a way out of the secular / trans-secular divide

Whereas some metaphysics of the past is fantastic, another approach starts with the ordinary.

Would that mean starting with the immediate? That would ignore what we do not know. To start with the ordinary and without prejudice is to start with all ‘things’.

But that would be too detailed and its knowledge too imprecise to be a good place to start.

Instead the ordinary should be That which is common to all things. What is that? Consider that what is not common is what is different—e.g. one object is green, another is red; one is an entity, another a process, a third is a relation. What is common must transcend properties that differentiate. What does not differentiate is that an object is there, i.e. that it exists, i.e. that it has being.

However, the development begins with experience. The reasons for this are (a) talk of being in the abstract is so devoid of meaning as to lead to paradox, (b) it is in experience that being is registered, and (c) as the place of our being and as relationship to the universe, experience is a prime example of being and the place of connection to what would otherwise be an abstract understanding of being.

This discussion could now talk of the power of these ideas but that and more is developed in the narrative to which readers are now referred.

In the development of the ideas and the power, we never get truly outside the ordinary.

The ordinary is extra-ordinary

1. Experience

EXPERIENCE is awareness in all its forms.

This meaning of ‘experience’ is different from common meanings such as ‘cumulative experience’. It is more general than its meaning in philosophy where ‘experience’ is typically restricted to the perceptual and so, typically, experience is (perception) of the world. Here, the meaning is broader; as examples, thinking and an awareness of an experience are experiential.

The definition of experience above is not a verbal definition in terms of different concepts for awareness is at least roughly synonymous with experience (consciousness is another word with similar but not precisely the same use). The definition is that of a fundamental feature of the world which is pointed out and named. It is an ‘ostensive’ definition—a way of defining by direct demonstration, e.g. by pointing. In a child’s first language, much learning must be is ostensive (you cannot define ‘mother’ as ‘female parent’ when the child does not yet understand or know the words ‘female’ or ‘parent’). However, the same is true for adults regarding definition of fundamental entities, processes, qualities and so on. A verbal definition uses other words; if we used only verbal definitions then all definition would require infinite regress. So, for some things the definition must be by pointing or somehow ‘showing’ rather than ‘saying’ what they are. The world seems to have at least two basic kinds—material and experience. How can I explain to another person what experience is? I cannot; instead I have to evoke in that person his or her own sense of experience. I cannot explain experience in material terms for matter seems inert. On the other hand there are no even more basic terms for experience (though not identical in their uses, of experience, consciousness, and awareness none is more fundamental than the others). But we are so used to verbal definitions that the idea of ostensive showing causes difficulty when first explicitly encountered by people who have already acquires some sophistication with the use of language.

OSTENSIVE definition is definition by showing or pointing to what is defined. In some fundamental kinds or cases ostensive definition collapses definition and proof that there is such a kind or case.

Doubts about experience

Perhaps this difficulty with explaining experience is the source of doubts that some people have regarding whether there is experience. Other reasons for this doubt are taken up below.

When I first think about experience I may think, I have experience and my experience reveals the real world (sometimes called the ‘external world’). However, that too has been doubted. While some skeptics doubt that there is experience others doubt that there is a real world—they suggest that there is nothing but experience (this position is called solipsism).

Some people will consider such doubting neurotic or absurd or a waste of time. Robust reasons for doubt are taken up below. Generally, some good reasons for doubt are (1) there are good reasons to doubt the material existence of something (2) we are not sure about the nature of something we think familiar and there is consequent doubt about it. Thus addressing doubt not only establishes (or disconfirms) what we doubt but may also clarify its nature. There is perhaps another reason for doubt. When we have doubted and neither established nor disconfirmed, then of course we are not sure. In such situations (1) we must live with the doubt and if it is true doubt it may add to the quality of our lives as ‘existential doubt’ and (2) if we need to act on an issue regarding which there is doubt we should recognize this and so make judgments regarding action; and this action under uncertainty, undertaken judiciously and consciously, may improve the quality of our lives materially and existentially.

There is experience

It can be questioned whether various kinds or forms of experience—emotion, thought, seeing, willing, receptive, active, pure and so on—exist as given in descriptions of them. However, questioning experience is (an) experience. Thus experience as no more than experience itself is a precise term that refers to something real. There is experience of experience even if there is experience of nothing else.

It is worth elaborating the argument.

That you are having some awareness as you read these words is indubitable. You cannot validly explain it away by saying it is something else because all that that is saying is that it is also something else (and not that it is not awareness). You cannot argue that the awareness is illusion for it might be but illusion itself is an example of awareness. Thus there is awareness and experience is another name that I give it. What this has done is to combine definition by pointing out and proof—which works here, even if you really want to doubt experience, because to doubt it is an example of what you doubt. It is important to point out (again) that what has been shown is that there is experience as experience; if I should experience a ‘real world’ (other than experience itself), emotion, thought, willing, perception of color and so on the demonstration does not apply to these particular kinds or examples of experience.

That THERE IS EXPERIENCE as such has been established by ostensive definition.

Doubt that there is experience

Yet the assertion that there is (such a ‘thing’ as) experience has been questioned.

Some thinkers coming from materialism and related positions argue that experience has no place in a material world. However, that argument is not a good one for even if the world is nothing but matter it does not follow that there is no experience for it is not a given that experience is non material.

However, there are other more significant reasons for the doubt. Experience is a fundamental aspect of being in the world. It subsumes knowledge and by extension, the world. So we are concerned not only to know that there is experience but what it is (that is, we are concerned with ‘meaning’ which is taken up shortly). Arguing that there is experience requires us to clarify the concept. In this case clarification will (a) reveal the nature of the experience-world relationship and later help (b) show the power in the world and so help show (c) the real power of experience itself.

Additionally, as part of the process we also learn something about the nature of concepts, definitions, meaning, truth and proof (here the proof has been to show that at least one experienced kind of thing—experience itself—is there; later there is extension to other kinds and then to proof in the sense of derivation).

Descartes: conttibution and criticism

These are roughly Descartes’ arguments without depending on an ‘I’. The latter has been one source of criticism of Descartes’ argument but the ‘I’ is not essential to the part of the argument concluding ‘existence’; and the ‘I’ can be introduced later. In fact Descartes’ argument is or suggests a meditation on ‘I’.

One reason the notion of the ‘I’ has been questioned is that when an individual looks ‘inside’ for it they do not find anything concrete or permanent. Despite that I can be happy; true happiness, is not under may control; but why should I assume the ‘I’ is more than I find? If control, permanence, and so on are not found, the error would be in not calling what we do find ‘I’: that is, the criticism is based on assuming (without basis) a concrete ‘I’ and then denying it on finding no concreteness.

A second criticism, not of the ‘I’ itself but of its potency and reality is this apparent non-concreteness. However, that the ‘I’ is not concrete does not imply that it is not potent; we will find immense potency. And to question ‘reality’ on account of non concreteness is to question the nature of the real, the object, and the concrete; this concern is addressed later in discussing objects (where we find that that ‘concrete’ and ‘abstract’ are not absolute terms but lie on a continuum of which any particular interpretation is relative to an experiencer).

Another criticism is the dependence on experience rather than action due, for example, to the Scottish philosopher John Macmurray (1891-1976). However, it is only in experience that action registers. The criticism from action is one that minimizes experience without justification. However, emphasis on experience is not only also emphasis on the entire world but it in no further particular way minimizes the significance of action.

Ideas and action

Thus ideas and action are the essential means and ways of choosing, planning, and effecting change for change without ideas is mere process.

Experience and form

A system of complex experience cannot be mere formlessness. In a ‘substance metaphysics’ a fundamental kind such as experience must go to the root of being (and so even ‘pure’ experience is relationship). Our cosmos is a ‘one substance cosmos’ for some practical purposes. The demonstrated ‘universal metaphysics’ of the narrative will not be a substance metaphysics; from the metaphysics, all form may be seen as originating from the void. Here, i.e. ‘under’ the universal metaphysics, kinds of form can be temporary duals but must be ultimately one (the word ‘under’ occurs in quotes to indicate that the metaphysics is the most liberal possible and therefore under indicates no true restriction).

2. Meaning

Though implicit use of the following conception of meaning has been made it is convenient to have deferred explicit discussion to the present point.

Concepts and reference

A CONCEPT is the content of an experience.

A ‘HIGHER’ concept', e.g. unit of meaning, is somewhat different in its sense (but is a concept or equivalent to a concept in the present sense); since the context will indicate the meaning I have chosen to not use separate words.

A REFERENTIAL CONCEPT is a concept that has an object in the world (the reference may be ‘empty’).

In the following ‘concept’ will generally mean ‘referential concept’; the development will not depend on non referential concepts but we can talk referentially about non referential concepts; and it seems possible that most concepts that are not explicitly reference may have implicit reference. In what follows ‘meaning’ means ‘referential meaning’.

Concept, word, and language meaning

CONCEPT MEANING is constituted of a concept and its objects.

Gottlob Frege, 1848-1925, is my main source for this concept of meaning.

WORD MEANING is a word associated with concept meaning.

Words may be but generally are not concepts: words may be simple—pure signs that have meaning only by association with a concept; or iconic—some part of their meaning is given by the shape or sound of the word, and compound—two words or a word and suffix whose net meaning is in part determined by structure and perhaps a convention about how structure is conceptual). In an atomic theory of meaning there are ultimately ‘simple’ objects whose names are preferred to be simple. It is not clear that there are such simples and the metaphysics to be developed implies that there no simple objects.

A non-conceptual word in association with a concept is the most elementary LINGUISTIC MEANING.

Linguistic meaning also obtains by grammatical convention from an arrangement of words depicting features of the structure of an object—in a generalized sense that includes states of affairs.

Grammar is typically more than convention; the standard linguistic structures intend to capture some aspects of world structure (‘metaphysics’). An example of a relationship between metaphysics and grammar concerns the validity and adequacy of the subject-predicate form of propositions as faithful to reality.

The word-structure-concept-object conception of linguistic meaning will be referred to as the THEORY OF MEANING.

Concept as necessary and sufficient to meaning

The concept is necessary to meaning. We are in the forest when I say ‘tiger’. If you do not have in your stored memory a visual (or other) recollection of a large fearsome black-yellow striped cat you will not feel fear. But is there an object without a concept? I am not suggesting that things need to be known to exist. But can I communicate an object without a concept (the object may stand in for the concept as its own symbol)? Does the object exist for which there can be no concept? If the object does affect me I do have a (at least) vague concept of it; if it never affects me, I need no concept of it; if I cannot have a concept of it, I cannot specify it. Therefore: no concept, no object.

Effective ness of linguistic meaning

Is the word necessary? I need to externalize the concept, to have at least some token of it, to communicate it. In language this is done with words.

Language (spoken, written, and imagined) is an effective means of communication and thought. It is particularly effective in critical thought.

Use, stability and fluidity of meaning

Generally, meaning is set by use and agreement which may be reified in dictionaries (and rules of grammar). An essential source of indefiniteness in meaning is the approximate capture of the whole or part of reality in use. Thus while use stabilizes meaning it also implies that meaning will have fluidity (with changing context which includes better understanding of the world).

Literal versus non-literal meaning

Literal

Perfect ‘literal’ meaning is possible only where the world is ‘atomized’. However, the meaning of ‘atom’, here, is not that of an ultimate particle that is indivisible because it has no parts. Thus if ‘universe’ is defined as entirety, and used in reference to all detail it is non atomic; on the other hand if the reference or sense is universe as universe without reference to parts then the sense is atomic.

Thus while there is literal meaning, as a fraction of everyday concept and linguistic meaning, very little is perfectly literal. Nonetheless much meaning is at least roughly literal.

If, for example, I say When the shadow of the mountain reaches the edge of the camp we will begin our celebration, the meaning can be taken as literal.

Non literal meaning

Why is metaphor or simile non literal? Surely, many metaphors have a definite meaning in the minds of some speakers and some listeners. The meaning is non literal, however, because metaphor is often culture and context dependent and further because it will not evoke the same definite meaning even for the same listener on different occasions or a definite meaning on any occasion. Something similar could be said for art.

Is the Gospel of Mark, the first written account of the life of Jesus, literally true? Is literal meaning its meaning by intent or fact? Whatever the intent, there is no doubt that some followers take it literally. There are others, some who call themselves Christian (whether or not they are Christian according to edict or consensus) and some who do not, who find non literal meaning in the Gospel (and, in fact, in the Bible and other non canonical texts). What could such non literal meaning be? A general non literal meaning could be (a) there is more in the world than we see; and of that much is good and great and (b) that pervades the universe—the immediate and the ultimate. How would this arise? On reading the Bible many persons have problems with the content as literal. Of these some reject the Bible. Others find appeal, perhaps in the quality of the literature and the Biblical account of history, and for these or other reasons find some general non literal meaning as above. In the case of ‘water from wine’ the non literal meaning might be to reinforce the general ‘power pervades’ and further suggest that that power is available to man. It is further interesting that (i) these meanings may or may not occur consciously and (b) even those who subscribe to the literal meaning may also feel the non literal meaning, even consciously.

What determines whether the Bible is literal or allegorical? I think it is not authorship or the canon alone; it is these but it is also how it has been and is read. The meaning of a linguistic expression—is it literal or allegorical must depend on context. We can write literally but also hope to evoke more than the literal content.

Mythic holism

Mythic holism is a term I use to refer to the kind of meaning immanent in traditions whose systems of referential meaning are not completely literal (at least ‘canonically’).

In primal traditions empirical knowledge of nature and knowledge of the spirit world are interwoven. Modern tradition often calls this ‘superstition’ in a derogatory sense. However, consider the primal context. There is empirical knowledge of nature which includes empirical knowledge of causes. Knowledge of causes is good because the possessor of the knowledge is more effective in the primal economy (hunting etc). However, not all causes are obvious. Therefore super-natural causes are posited. But what is the natural? It must be the empirical (which is relative to context). That is, the distinction between natural and the supernatural is some combination of fact and ignorance (and ignorance of ignorance). And while super-natural ascriptions sometimes assuage fears they are also possessed of material and therefore economic implication. Anthropologists have recorded when a taboo is violated and no ill results, the strength of the taboo weakens. The pejorative significance of superstition can arise, therefore, only when we (hold or believe that we) know better. In any particular tradition there will be ‘true’ causes that are pejoratively superstitious from the point of view of another tradition. Thus the modern who thinks, explicitly or tacitly, that our science has fathomed essentially all of being is superstitious.

The philosopher Paul Feyerabend wrote similarly in Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (1975); in my interpretation, however, his interpretation of different traditions was excessively ‘relativist’ in finding no tradition capable of judging another. That may be true but it misses the essential point that every tradition has its truth and error (over and above explicit lie even in terms of the local canon maintained, e.g., for reasons of internal or external advantage).

There is a general issue of literalism. To what extent is it good (versus, say, poetry and metaphor)? To what extent can we know the truth of the literal? To what extent are we obliged to (try to) be true? What should I do when I ‘know’ that your literal claims are (a) untrue and (b) destructive? The answers are difficult. In the end I have to decide where to take and where it is worth taking a stand (without being rigid).

This narrative

A main concern is with presenting a system intended as transparent and literal—and true; and the claim of truth is not a mere claim: I have attempted to give proof (and while it is true that even standards of proof are relative, that in itself, cannot be used as argument against my proofs because the analysis of proof is part of the general analysis—i.e., I have attempted to analyze ‘out’ the a priori).

However, it is and cannot be my intent to be entirely literal. I occasionally use language intended to arouse an emotional concern with my aims (for example as importance though not as proof of conclusions and aims). And I appeal to what is valid tradition as an element framed by my system regarding which I hope that no obviously ‘superstitious’ meaning is inferred but it is also a fact that I cannot eliminate all immanent and tacit positions from tradition. However, the reader will find later that the in relation to the net aim of the way of being, it is impossible to have complete literal precision but that is also unnecessary in relation to the aim (and the ideal of literal precision is therefore not only not desirable but often counterproductive).

Possibility of precise meaning; examples

It does not follow that no meaning can be precise or fixed.

Thus, as noted earlier, the meaning of ‘experience’ as defined above is precise and ‘real’ (it refers precisely to something in the world) because the term is defined with sufficient abstraction. The fundamental concepts that found the conceptual system of the narrative will be defined similarly. These concepts include experience, meaning, world, being, universe, domain, the void, and realism.

On definition

As noted earlier, definitions or explanations of meaning are marked by SMALL CAPITALS. In a definition or explanation of a concept, ‘is’ after the concept word means ‘is defined to be’ or ‘is conceived as’.

Perhaps the most common kind of definition of a word-concept is definition in terms of other words. If this were the only kind of definition there would have to be an unending chain of definition or words that are undefined in terms of other words (but defined in use).

However, we saw for experience that its definition was not a definition in other terms for ‘awareness’ is a synonym of experience. But, as we saw, experience is so fundamental that it may be defined by pointing it out and naming it. This kind of definition is, as noted earlier, called ostensive. The need for this kind of definition is clear by the explanation just given. However, as for experience, it should be shown that the definition names something definite. The alternative is, as in the case of axiomatic systems, terms may be left undefined (and to be interpreted in application).

Uses of the term ‘is’

The term ‘is’ has other fundamental meanings, e.g. to express existence. It is the third person singular form of the verb to be.

Entirety

There seems to be no English form of the verb to be that refers to any collection of things, anywhere, over any collection of past or present or future times—or not in time or space at all.

Here, ‘is’ will sometimes be used for just that function—i.e. it will mean occurrence in or as any collection of regions of ENTIRETY.

3. World

The main goal of this chapter is to elucidate the nature of the world in which we live. This is the real reason for the doubt that ‘perhaps there is nothing but experience’.

It will first be useful to say something about existence.

Existence

Something EXISTS if it obtains as it is known (e.g. as I know it).

This is not saying that existence depends on being known—to mean that the phrase ‘if it obtains’ would have to be replaced by ‘only if it obtains’. The purpose to the form of the statement is as follows. First, that knowing is the only way of knowing about existence. Secondly, it suggests that everything that exists can be known is some way or other (by some one or other at some time or other). The question, then, is whether this can be used to produce a robust and effective conception of existence. The answer is ‘yes’ and one of the aims of this discussion of existence is to produce a robust conception. At the heart of the discussion is the thought that if something never has any effect on the world its existence has no significance to our lives and it certainly cannot be known. Are there objects that have no effect? Could there be two totally non-interacting universes? The possibility does not seem to be a logical contradiction but the metaphysics that shall be developed will show that such objects and universes do and cannot obtain.

To exist a ‘thing’ need not have any further properties such as being real by some other criterion, being made of matter, or spirit… I could be ignorant of all its possessing all such qualities but, if a know it obtains, it exists. Could the thing lack power—the ability to effect things? No, for if it did I could not know it in any way at all. Thus, if matter is all that has power, then to exist would be to be material.

A relatively minor issue with existence as defined above is that things can be known directly or ‘perceptually’ or indirectly by their effects and so we build up a concept that explains the effect (the hypothesis). But hypotheses can be sharpened by further testing and so on and while in general there are hypotheses of which I can have only degrees of certainty there are others of which I can be certain. I know for example that there is experience (i.e. experience exists and I could call this a hypothesis but it would be a certain hypothesis and so the use of ‘hypothesis’ is inappropriate if the term is used suggest doubt).

A more significant doubt is whether things ‘exist as known’. We often think not. But we already have the example of experience. Now consider atoms. Do they exist as known? It is probably reasonable to say that they do but approximately. Now a physicist or philosopher might object saying that our ability to predict is very precise; and the response would have to be yes but the precision is not perfect but if a time should come when the precision is perfect then I will be justified in saying that atoms exist as known (and not just within limits of precision). Now we may think that the entire world is imbued with just this uncertainty but (1) we have already the example of experience in hand and (2) the program before us is to expand this into an entire metaphysical framework. In fact an entire problem of the metaphysics to be developed will be to divide the universe into things that are precisely as known and ‘thing’s that are not and to then from that build up a system of knowledge that has a perfect side and a not so perfect but still practical or pragmatic side.

An issue that is implicit in the foregoing is the question of direct versus inferred knowledge. Generally, we must depend on both—the perceptual and the conceptual. However, in the case of experience the two coincide. This is crucial. It will be extended to the metaphysical framework just referred to and will include the concepts of experience, real world, being, universe, domain, natural law, the void, and realism.

Having seen that the concept of existence as defined makes perfect sense and is not beyond precise establishment, we should begin to extend the cases for which such precision can be established (cases in which, in Kant’s terms, the phenomenon and the noumenon coincide). This extension will begin below with discussion of the ‘real world’.

However, it will be useful to first discuss some traditional problems of the concept of existence.

Issues concerning existence

Existence is not a concept

The criticism ‘since existence is true of everything, it says nothing of anything’ it is not really a concept or, is at most, a trivial concept. In the first place, since it refers to all things it is a concept. But let us analyze ‘is true of everything’ in terms of the theory of meaning. From the theory, we must talk of ‘things’ in terms of concepts of things (even though we typically and conveniently conflate concept and object). ‘True of everything’ then has a non trivial meaning: every concept has an object which is trivially untrue (self contradictory concepts have no objects unless we wish to consider things such as square circles as objects).

Existence is a trivial concept

In discussing being, we shall see that a power of the concept of existence is precisely its triviality (e.g. that it does not distinguish between things or even apparently different kinds of thing such as matter or experience).

The problem of negative existentials

There is a well known problem concerning being and existence. Consider ‘Sherlock Holmes does not exist’. If ‘he’ does not exist then to what does ‘Sherlock Holmes’ refer? This is the problem of negative existentials. A simple resolution via an analysis of meaning (similar to the analysis of ‘true of everything’) goes as follows. ‘Sherlock Holmes’ is a name but as we have seen a name (word) by itself has no meaning; the meaning arises in association with a concept; and here the concept is supplied by Arthur Conan Doyle’s description ‘A consulting detective who lives at 221 Baker Street, London, and has a friend—Dr. Watson and so on’. Now we can see that ‘Sherlock Homes does not exist’ means that there is no thing (man) that corresponds to the concept ‘Sherlock Holmes’.

Existence of the real world

There is a REAL WORLD that, as a whole, is an object of and contains experience.

To see this consider the assertion that there is nothing but experience. Now that could (conceivably) be true but ask if it is true. If it were true then ‘I’ would be in a world of experience in which ‘I know’ that there is much more information than ‘I know’. Thus the following two assertions are the same (1) Experience is of a real world that contains experience and (2) There is nothing but experience.

Although they are the same assertion the second one would require a very unwieldy relabeling (and associated unwieldy system of acting) of the former unless the various centers of experience are thought of as one center. Thus the ‘proof’ of that there is a real world (a) ‘multiple sentient agents in the real world’ is a most natural mode of description and (b) experience and the experienced are very intertwined.

Experience and significance

Experience is the place of BEING ALIVE AND PRESENT to the world. SIGNIFICANCE is of the world and occurs in experience.

Experience is the place of our significant relationship to the world. Except for pure experience which can have the role of potential relationship, all experience would seem to be relationship (and even pure experience is internal relationship—which can be seen from the requirement from form). The metaphysics to be developed will suggest that experience is not relationship all cases but that it is relationship in most cases of cosmological significance.

Are there objects that have no effect?

Only objects that have some effect in significance at least significant effect (and thus what we cannot know cannot and need not be taken into account; which will also and nicely follow from the metaphysics to be developed).

Is the concept of self metaphorical?

Whether there is an ‘I’ that experiences objects in a relationship between a ‘knower’ and ‘known’ is metaphorical depends on the specificity of location and temporal permanence that is assigned to the I.

Entirety

ENTIRETY is the whole world in all its degrees of pervasion from null to full by space, time, and any other dimension (so far as such dimensions obtain).

Is space-time universal?

That is, it is not insisted a priori that any or all parts of the world are characterized by space, time, or other such dimension. A gradation of characterization from absent to precise is a priori possible (the metaphysics to be developed will imply that this gradation obtains).

4. Being

Being

BEING is that which is.

In is second occurrence, ‘is’ means occurrence in or as any collection of regions of entirety. Thus Being is that which occurs as any collection of regions of entirety. The point to this form of the definition is that it does not assume time, space, and dimensionality or otherwise.

On the nature of being

What kind of a concept is being?

The definition could have read ‘Being is the quality of that which is’ for ‘being’ does not refer to any particular being (e.g. entity, process, relationship). Later, in objects we will see that the difference between quality, entity, process and so on is not as marked as we think (when we are thinking concretely).

Being is identical to existence

We saw that things can be divided into two classes (a) those that are there precisely as we know them and (b) those that are there but only roughly as we know them (and of these perhaps some are ever beyond precise knowing; but those that are not beyond precise knowing essentially have being as known even though we cannot yet use there knowledge as precise). Thus being and existence are identical.

And it is worth repeating what was said for existence, ‘Now we may think that the entire world is imbued with just this uncertainty but (1) we have already the example of experience in hand and (2) the program before us is to expand this into an entire metaphysical framework. In fact an entire problem of the metaphysics to be developed will be to divide the universe into things that are precisely as known and ‘thing’s that are not and to then from that build up a system of knowledge that has a perfect side and a not so perfect but still practical or pragmatic side.’

Being is trivial

As for existence, the conception of being has been called trivial and, since it is ‘true of everything’, that it is hardly even a concept. The objection may be addressed as follows. First, with respect to foundations, triviality is a virtue. Second, consider the meaning of ‘true of everything’ has already been shown erroneous in discussing existence. Finally, as we will see a source of the power of the concept of being is precisely its triviality (e.g. that it does not distinguish between things or even apparently different kinds of thing such as matter or experience).

Being is a shallow concept; this is its power for it contains all depth

Thus ‘being’ is not a deep concept. It is shallow and this shallowness is a source of its power. But while being as being is not deep, it contains or frames all depth.

This is an important point. Readers often approach being with the idea that it is deep beyond comprehension; what is true is that it contains depth. And many writers define being in simple terms but are eager to imbue being with a depth that is not possessed by all but only perhaps by some being. Unfortunately this is true of many writers whose otherwise excellent thought is marred by this lack of clarity.

Being in terms of entirety

Being is that which occurs as ANY COLLECTION of regions of entirety.

5. Universe

The UNIVERSE is all being.

Properties of the universe

The universe is entirety.

There is precisely ONE UNIVERSE.

The universe has being.

Relative to the universe there is no other or outside.

The universe is not created or caused

If CAUSE or CREATION are the effect of one thing on another, then because the universe has no other, it is neither caused nor created.

Any god is part of the universe. No god is creator of all being.

No first cause

Contrary to some intuitions regarding causation, the universe has no first cause and needs no first cause. All causation and creation are part of the universe. There is no a priori universal causation.

Domain: domains have being

A DOMAIN is part of or the whole universe.

Except perhaps for an ‘empty domain’, domains have being.

Where it is necessary to consider only sub-parts, the exception will be noted.

Creation and causation by domains

ONE DOMAIN may be part of or IMPLICATED IN CREATION or causation of another.

This implication will obtain in significant fraction of the cases.

However, from the metaphysics to be developed, best explanation of most form and structure will be seen to occur via INCREMENTAL SELF ADAPTATION—and may be taken ultimately to emerge from the void.

Cosmos

A COSMOS is a closed causal domain.

It is not clear that ‘cosmos’ is a well defined term. Its use will be informal.

Our cosmos is not the universe

‘Cosmos’ is an UTTERLY DIFFERENT concept than that of ‘universe’.

There is nothing in science or experience or reason that requires that our ‘empirical cosmos’, interpreted according to modern physical theory or not, is precisely or even ‘almost’ the entire universe. That is, as far as is known in empirical and scientific terms, the cosmos may be infinitesimal in comparison to the universe.

Relative sizes of the cosmos and the universe

From dual consideration of (a) the history of physics and cosmology and (b) the size of the space of possibility (phenomenologically and not just spatiotemporally), it is likely that the universe is greater than the revealed (empirical, conceptual) cosmos. Note that since possibility is not probability, possibility alone gives no estimate of ‘how much larger’ (but if we were to make the confusion, we would conclude that the universe is infinitely large than the cosmos).

Later, from the metaphysics to be developed, the cosmos will in fact be infinitesimal in comparison to the universe.

6. Possibility

The concept of possibility

For a defined context, something is POSSIBLE if it satisfies the definition.

Physical and cosmological possibility

PHYSICAL POSSIBILITY is defined by satisfaction physical law (and is particularly pertinent in our cosmos).

Regarding the empirical cosmos as defined by today’s physical laws as context, an event that violated physical law would be physically impossible. If an event obeys physical law it is physically possible. If the cosmos from its initial conditions is headed to implode out of existence at some point in the future then our survival beyond that point would be cosmologically impossible even if physically possible. Whatever does obtain in the cosmos is of course cosmologically possible.

Possibility in terms of logic

The world does not violate logic. I could define a world that would violate logic (e.g. a world that contains square circles) but such a world would not exist.

ONLY CONCEPTS in relation to ‘objects’ can SATISFY or violate logic. Logic does not pertain to the world as such.

Concepts violate logic in that (a) they violate logical principle (b) that therefore there such concepts can have no object (unless some spurious ‘object’ is posited such as ‘the concept is the object’ or ‘the non existent object is an object’).

LOGICAL POSSIBILITY is DEFINED as satisfaction of logic.

Logical possibility pertains to concepts: logically impossible concepts cannot have objects.

Regarding ‘logic’ as context, a square circle is impossible (assuming a geometry in which circles and squares are definable such that a circle is not a square). Whatever does not violate logic is logically possible. Logical possibility is the most liberal kind of possibility. Physical possibility presumes logical possibility but a logically possible state of affairs my violate physical law. Thus ‘levitation’, i.e. hovering above ground without any means of support, is physically impossible but logically possible.

Possibility for the universe

Many other kinds of possibility could be formulated and considered. However, we shall need but one.

Regard the universe as context. What obtains, i.e. what is actual, is obviously possible. What does not obtain (over entirety), i.e. what is not actual, is out of context and so impossible or, equivalently, not possible. Therefore:

For UNIVERSAL POSSIBILITY, i.e. with the universe as context, the actual and the possible are identical.

But what is possibility for the universe—i.e. what kind is it? It is not necessarily any of the kinds considered so far. Clearly it is not divine possibility for any divinity would be part of the universe. But the thought is suggestive. It may be far fetched to think that humanity can create laws of physics but perhaps if we were able to ‘lever’ enough energy we could begin something along those lines. Let us look at the kinds considered above in a search for ‘universal possibility’.

In a universe MAXIMALLY PERMISSIVE with respect to being, universal possibility is logical possibility.

Physical versus logical possibility

Physical and cosmological (scientific) possibilities seem too restrictive: surely there may be myriad other cosmoses with perhaps laws that are different from ours in ways not imagined yet in our history (“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”) But logic seems too liberal: there are gold mountains (infinitely repeated too). And, with some philosophers, there are illogical objects that obtain nowhere but as concepts (the theory of meaning developed earlier rules this out and in any case it enriches being in no way for the illogical concepts already exist as concepts).

The tension between logic and science

Perhaps what we need is to redefine ‘logic’ or ‘science’. But this brings us to the issue of the nature these concepts. Our understandings of logic and science have labored too long under the idea that one of their differences is that inference under logical systems is deductive while inference of scientific theories is inductive.

Reconceptualization of logic and science

The proper comparison is that inference of the systems is highly inductive in both cases and under the systems is deductive for both. The similarity is seen as further enhanced when we consider (with thanks to WVO Quine) logic and science are both coded experience of our use of concepts but logic is or tends to be universal while science is local (thus it is that Quine argues that logic is revisable which is the case in finding logics that apply to broader contexts than so far).

The tension remains that if we make redefinitions as suggested, logic seems too broad to define the universe while our sciences seem too narrow.

Some contradictions

‘It is possible that the possible is impossible’ can be given precise meaning; however without such precision it is a contradiction whose source is confusion of meaning (a confusion of objects).

‘All possibilities occur.’ What does that mean? It would seem to mean that I do and do not drink my morning coffee. Again, that seems contradictory. For ‘I do and do not drink my morning coffee’ to have meaning it is necessary for it to refer to some compound object, e.g. ‘I drink my morning coffee on Mondays but not on other days’.

The paradoxes above are trivial but will be important to avoid in using the idea of possibility in what follows.

7. Identity, space, and time

Difference

DIFFERENCE is the most elementary PATTERN.

An object named ‘x’ and an object named ‘y’ can be identical in all their properties and yet not be identical. I.e., there may be physical laws that would require that they be identical but this does not follow on logical grounds (unless ‘being this object’ can be somehow be a property).

SAMENESS is sense of sameness of an object.

An object can be seen as different and in different perspectives yet the same. It is not claimed that there are never difficulties with this notion but that the difficulties are not universal (in fact, that there are difficulties but that difficulties are not universal, is related to essential problems of a continuum of ill to well definition of identity-hood, space, and time, and their interwoven character).

Identity and time

Sameness with difference refers to IDENTITY of PERSON or OBJECT and marks TIME or DURATION.

The definition of identity appears circular. However, it points out a fundamental characteristic of being and therefore is not circular.

This conception of identity is emphatically not that of identity of properties.

Object and personal identity are not essentially different.

Only objects experienced at least indirectly have significance (later we find that existence implies indirect experience).

Space

Difference without identity marks SPACE or (spatial) EXTENSION.

Extensionality and its kinds—space and time

EXTENSIONALITY refers to modes of difference—with or without sameness.

Since sameness is sameness either with or without difference, space and time are the only kinds of extensionality (this does not fix their dimensionality).

Space and time—extension and duration—are the ONLY MODES OF EXTENSIONALITY.

Immanence of space and time

Space and time are immanent in to the universe—that is, they are relative rather than absolute.

Space and time are not absolute

But one domain can set up an as if external space and time grid for another (for example, a cosmos for its galaxies). Except for this there is not even as if absolute space and time. If our cosmos is isolated, its space and time are and cannot be other than immanent.

Space and time are not universal

There is no implication from the derivation of space and time that they are universal (later, from the metaphysics, it will follow that they are not and cannot be universal); or that they invariably be precisely definable and measurable; imagine, for example, a cosmos such as ours where space and time have quite precise measures precise, a background that lacks difference, and a continuum in between that ranges form vague to precise difference (again, from the metaphysics to be developed it will follow that such situations exist in a significant fraction of the cases).

Degrees of vagueness and interwoven-ness

Insofar as the modes of difference are vague or lack differentiation, space and time may be vague and interwoven (which will be true in a significant fraction of the cases).

Beyond extensionality?

The example shows one way of being beyond extensionality (thus far it is a priori possible, but the case will follow from the metaphysics to be developed). Another way is via abstraction. Where the concrete is spatiotemporal, the immanent abstract may be atemporal; and the immanent abstract may connect the concrete spatiotemporal to the concrete non spatiotemporal (from the metaphysics to be developed ‘may’ above can be replaced by ‘will in a significant fraction of cases’).

Must space and time obtain?

It may seem as though space and time have been derived from prior principles. However, the derivation assumes ‘difference’. Must there be space and time? The metaphysics to be developed will imply that there must be but that they cannot be universal.

8. Natural law

Natural law

A NATURAL LAW is a reading of a pattern. The pattern itself is the LAW that is read.

‘Law’ will not be capitalized in the sequel.

Properties of laws

Laws and patterns have being. They are LIMITS: under a law or pattern only some arrangements obtain.

9. The void

The concept of the void

THE VOID is the NULL domain.

Properties of the void

The void may be regarded as non manifestation. Consequently the void exists (doubt will be taken up later).

The void HAS being.

There is at least one void.

The void has neither space, nor time, nor law, nor pattern (nor thing, nor POSITIVE kind).

The point to saying that the void has no positive kind is that ‘absence’ might be considered to be a kind (but the void would be rather than have absence).

The void has NO LAW.

10. An appraisal of metaphysics

What is metaphysics?

‘Metaphysics’ will be understood in the family of meanings it has in philosophy. However, in philosophy it is not perfectly understood or uniquely defined. I will use an older meaning. It is a meaning that has been criticized in the modern but I will justify the meaning.

In this essay metaphysics is knowledge of being as being

In this essay, METAPHYSICS is knowledge of being as such (i.e. ‘being as being’).

11. Appraising metaphysics

It is easy to see why this meaning has been criticized. In the following I will raise and respond to criticisms of the conception of metaphysics as knowledge of being as being.

Criticism I: Experience is not the object

In the first place, since experience is not the object it would seem that perfect depiction is or at least may be impossible.

Response

The objection is valid when it comes to knowing the details of the world in which perfection is at least contentious. Thus Kant, in answering to this criticism, argued that perfect perceptual knowledge of natural categories of the world is built into our intuition (Kant called this the ‘transcendental aesthetic’). Kant took those categories to be those of Euclidean Geometry and Newtonian Mechanics which we now know to not be the world categories (and we have no reason to think modern science provides us with world categories). However, we have already seen and remarked that we know experience as such (and knowing something entails that we know that that something exists); and that we know the real world as such (whose existence is also known perfectly). Thus we know being as such and already know definite examples of it (the being of experience and the world); and we also know universe, identity, space and time, law, and the void (which are all examples of being). It is important that these are not known precisely in all detail but that is not the claim; rather the claim is that we know the being of these things as such (and whether the knowledge is trivial or not remains to be determined).

Criticism II: The question of perfect faithfulness

Another point is significant: the objection takes for granted as do realms of critical and constructive thought that perfect precision is the criterion that we should be using.

Response

It is important to point that perfect depiction is a tacit but often unstated criterion for knowledge because it is often unstated. I am not going to universally reject this important criterion—there is no reason to do so. However, once stated it can be considered as to where it is appropriate and where not.

It is important that the core of a metaphysical system that I call ‘knowledge of being as being’ should satisfy some criterion regarding depiction. But can it satisfy perfect depiction? Error and illusion in knowledge and perception suggest not. But here the new categories (relative to the Kantian and other categorial systems) have been chosen for perfection. Experience as experience, real world as real world, being as being, universe as universe, natural law as natural law are all perfectly known. As stated earlier, this perfect knowing does not refer to particulars of the categories such as types of experience or details within the universe. In the case of experience where I know that I am having some particular experience it is not a claim about the kind of particular experience or, generally, about the object of the experience. However, in the case of experience as experience or being as being and so on as the object of experience

We have satisfied this criterion of perfect depiction for the new categories (experience etc) but, crucially, we will find out via proof that this cannot and should not be the criterion for all knowledge (for all purposes). This will be significant in extending the metaphysics under development from the realm of perfect precision to another realm that will be found perfect via proof in another and appropriate sense.

Criticism III: Special metaphysics

There is a host of metaphysical systems from the history of ideas that speculate special kinds of being. These include (a) the imaginative systems of the Greeks (b) the scholastic-theological systems of Christianity between Greece and Rome and the modern era (c) various systems of European, British, and American idealism. Though some of these are useful as richly suggestive, their speculative character was part of what led in the twentieth to near wholesale abandonment of metaphysics.

Response

However, the twentieth century also saw the rise of ‘metaphysics of experience’. This is the useful attempt to understand our entire range of experience in terms of fundamental aspects of experience itself. This is useful because (a) it may lead to enhanced understanding not only of experience as such but also to integration of what is valid in experience itself and religion and science and (b) while natural science is useful in understanding experience what they have taught us is limited and often misleading (the fault is not of science itself but of faulty conclusions from it).

This is not and cannot be an a priori justification of particular systems of metaphysics of experience. That justification, for example in the case of A.N. Whitehead’s Process and Reality of 1929, can only come from painstaking examination (and regarding such examination we should distinguish the main theses and themes from particular conclusions).

Criticism IV A: critical theory and the meta narrativeystem

In the twentieth century the term ‘grand narrative’ or ‘meta narrative’ has been pejoratively applied to metaphysical systems and other ‘meta narratives’ of the past.

Response

This criticism has come from critical theory which holds that our ‘narratives’ should be relevant to the condition of humankind but that meta narratives offer legitimization via an incomplete-able master idea. A variety of responses could be given. Perhaps the most important one is that truth is necessary to relevance and therefore truth and relevance should be evaluated case by case rather than by a meta-meta narrative such as critical theory. It is common counter-criticism of the grand narrative idea that Jean-François Lyotard who brought the term grand narrative into prominence (in the 1984 translation of The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, 1979) has himself has ironically spoken of “the great narrative of the end of great narratives” (such as progress, enlightenment emancipation, and Marxism) (in his The Differend, 1988). That is, the idea that the grand should be globally replaced by local more modest singular narratives is itself grand.

Criticism IV B: System

The problem of special metaphysics is significantly the problem of ‘system’—i.e. castles of ideas whose foundations are shaky. This is similar to but more general than and predates the criticism from critical theory. It is one of the main reasons for the twentieth century abandonment of metaphysics (the other being a failure of imagination and criticism in the face of science).

Response

A response has already been made that failures of particular systems do not imply failure of all systems.

Why is system important at all? It is because without coherence we cannot be sure that we are saying anything at all.

Of course that some system is systematic is necessary but not sufficient to its having meaning and then to its validity. Justification must be given in particular cases or classes.

Responses to criticisms: The metaphysics of this essay

In this essay, as the reader may see so far, the metaphysical ideas are being built up ‘one by one’ from experience. The ‘one by one’ character is not quite true—it reflects the unfolding of the essay but, in fact, the system emerged as a whole from years of trying, reflection, and improvement.

Thus the system is not systematic just so as to have a system. It is systematic in the first place because it began to emerge as such in response to self-correction and then because I began to see the importance of this system to coherence and, therefore, to its actually being able to say something which could then be criticized for acceptance or rejection and further improvement

Justification of the present sense of ‘metaphysics’

The discussion so far has justified the reintroduction of an old sense of ‘metaphysics’. It does not attempt or intend to show that other senses have no use or validity and it need and should not. In fact it cannot for the various senses of ‘metaphysics’ are different symbols and so there is no issue of primacy or privilege (these issues arise particularly when a thinker would appropriate a symbol by appropriating a sign).

But to introduce some particular meaning, old or new, that meaning should not be merely justified logically and epistemologically for these two conditions do not by themselves imply significance. The narrative itself will show the significance of the meaning of ‘metaphysics’ used and for the metaphysics to be developed.

The present sense of metaphysics is VALID and POTENT.

It is not claimed to be the only valid use of ‘metaphysics’. However, some other valid uses are so different as to have the same sign ‘metaphysics’ but be different symbols (in that even family resemblance is absent).

12. The fundamental principle

The principle

The FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF METAPHYSICS, also the fundamental principle (FP) is the assertion that the universe is the realization of all possibility.

Proof

Note that the statement does not specify to what kind of possibility it refers. This is because the proof below will enable determination of the kind.

The PROOF is simple: if there is a state that does not emerge from the void that would be a law of the void. Thus every state must emerge from the void (and consequently from every state of being).

The address is that while causality is (some would insist ‘may be’) very real for most behavior in our cosmos and similar phases of being, to think that the entire universe must behave causally (in the common senses of causality) is in error. That is, if causality were universal (in the common sense) there would be a violation but we have no empirical knowledge of (‘common’) universal causation (and we now have conceptual demonstration that it is impossible).

The conclusion is midway between the skeptical position of Hume (causation is merely the perceived succession of events that have no real connection) and the notion that causation is a very real phenomenon. Events are connected but it is a contingent fact of our cosmos (that its laws are the way they are) and not necessary for the cosmos (and certainly not for the universe). Hume’s point was correct in that causation and law are not logical consequences of ‘data’ but was incorrect in thinking that only data and logical consequence are pertinent.

Clarifying the statement of the principle: concepts

Of course ‘every state’ is vague just as is the phrase ‘all objects’. This can be cleared up from the theory of meaning (earlier). To talk of—to deal with—states, the concept is necessary. What the proof (so far) suggests is that if I have a concept it can be realized.

Constraints on the concepts

But this is going too far, for the square circle (i.e. the illogical concept) is not realized. So the concepts in question must be logically possible. Must they be physically possible or satisfy some more restrictive possibility? No, for if they must be then that kind of possibility would be a law of the void. But is not logical possibility a law? It is part of the freedom of concept formation that we can conceive impossible concepts (those whose realization is impossible). I can imagine (a) a square circle and (b) that our cosmos is not what it is. That these concepts are not realized is not a law or limit: they are constraints on the freedom of concept formation (which constraints it is sometimes useful to imagine being violated, e.g. in the creation of new scientific and logical hypotheses).

Logic and science

In the first place, these considerations show that the concepts (of states for the fundamental principle) must be logical. In the second place they show that they must satisfy science where it is valid (the cosmos cannot be other than it is). But as we have seen logic and science can be brought under the same umbrella. Logic is universal while science is local. That is a preliminary approximation for we might find that some of our supposed logics are not universal. Similarly, our local sciences may be more than local but, from the fundamental principle, they cannot be universal—if they were universal there would be laws of the void.

Continuum from science to logic

So we revise: there is a continuum from the local to the universal of applicability of conceptual systems (this has been seen earlier in the introduction > topics and themes > logic and science). The more universal we label ‘logical’ the more local are ‘science’. What should we name this?

LOGIC AND SCIENCE constitute a continuum. Logic occupies the universal end of this continuum; science occupies what remains and possessed of patterning.

Since the universe is the realization of all possibility, logics and sciences are ever under discovery. The fundamental principle forces a reconceptualization: SCIENCE and, especially, of LOGIC.

The capitalized forms SCIENCE and LOGIC will not be used hereafter: they will be combined as realism.

Logic or science?

I have considered naming it Logic or Universal Science. I would prefer Logic as shorter. I would call it logic with the understanding that it is still under discovery. The name suggests what we have inferred: that there are constraints on our concepts for realism but that there are no limits on the universe (e.g. to its extension, duration, and variety of being).

Further properties of the void

A void may be regarded as being attached to every domain. Except that THERE IS AT LEAST ONE void, there is no particular relevance to the number of voids.

The POWER OF THE VOID IS WITHOUT LIMIT. It can create and destroy ‘all objects’ particularly, atoms, cosmoses, arrays of cosmoses, men and women and gods.

But since a void may be regarded as attached to every domain or state, EVERY DOMAIN AND STATE HAS POWER WITHOUT LIMIT.

The void is not the quantum vacuum for the latter has a law or laws; the void has greater power than the quantum vacuum; still, there is an analogy between the void and the vacuum state.

13. Realism

The thought suggests a name: realism. But ‘realism’ is natural for it integrates, in a natural way, two main elements of reason: conceptual and empirical consistency (to which imagination and experiment are subject; note that empirical consistency can be seen as a case of conceptual consistency for the empirical data is a percept which is a special case of a concept as mental content).

The continuum from science to logic is named REALISM. The fundamental principle implies that realism (logic and science) are ever under discovery.

Let us flesh out ‘realism’.

An expirement in thought—a being who perceives all things

Given a state of being, its form is consistent with predictability. However, the universal metaphysics requires this consistence for some realizations of that state but openness—that successive states are not at all determined—for other realizations. This defines ABSOLUTE INDETERMINISM: given a state, successive states cannot be predicted (in general). On the other hand given a state, all states may and will follow. That is, absolute indeterminism is also an atemporal kind of ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM.

Aim

The aim of the section is to find relations between determinism and regular causality on the one hand and absolute indeterminism on the other.

Although it is not completely determined, the history of our cosmos and our history on earth are causal. Past and present process and choice influences but does not determine the future. Against this, the metaphysics informs us that the universe which is so much more than our cosmos is ‘infinitely’ open.

Imagine a being who ‘sees’ (perceives) everything. To know facts it may but will never need to make inferences. We on the other hand do not know everything as fact. We live in a causal domain; we can, within the realm of causal physical law, infer some facts from others (this can be restated: from particulars and generalities we can derive other particulars; for certainty the derivation would be deductive therefore tautologous). Outside the domain the rest of the universe is somewhat disconnected (by being only in some kind of weak, past, or future causal-type relation). Imagine as a first thought that this is the realm of the logically possible. From realism such phases must obtain within the expanse of the temporal and the atemporal.

Now recall the relation of the concept and object (from discussion of meaning). A far improved thought is to consider the extremes of universality of concept. The all knowing phase corresponds to the universe in a fully realized phase, compact, defined, without further significant possibility (because as fully realized all significant possibility is realized). The partially knowing phase (us etc) corresponds to an open phase, great possibility. It is significant to ask what the relationship is between beings in two different causal phases.

The limitless phases of the universe

This power is of course inherited by domains, states, men and women and gods.

While in LIMITED FORM, approach to the ultimate must be ever in process and ever fresh.

It will be worthwhile repeating the above later.

Brahman

Two further thoughts. The question of ‘God’, ‘Brahman’, ‘Aeternitas’ (the all knowingness of Thomas Aquinas conceived as a single eternal moment) is not whether they are but what they are. And the fact of our being is not that we face eternal nothingness but an eternity of ever freshness in which, if God etc have meaning it is that we are part of that process.

The fundamental principle in terms of realism

The fundamental principle can now be restated in conceptual terms of realism (understood, not as a definite and complete prescription, but as remaining under discovery):

The universe is realization CONSTRAINED only by realism (a constraint is not a limit; it is the requirement on ‘freely formed’ concepts for them to have objects).

It is important to remember that realism is logic and science understood as follows. Both are experimental. We often take our logics as a priori but if they were truly a priori, i.e. following from nothing, they would be truly arbitrary. For example, some aspects of logic and experience (very local science) are coded in language and therefore their formation, the result of the evolutionary emergence of language, may be opaque to us. The ‘logic’ side is what we have found universal; the ‘science’ side is particular and therefore local. Most importantly, both are under discovery. If our science is local, say to our cosmos, realism (logic as universally constraining and science as no more than locally constraining) then the rest of the universe is wide open subject only to the constraints of logic and the fact that the cosmos is the way it is.

Proof under realism

It follows that the universe is without limit in extension (space), duration, and variety of being (a particular case: the scenario of the all knowing being above is necessary). Thus:

The difficult proofs will emphasize advances in logic and science. Such advance will be (1) the development of logic (for modes of expression) and sciences (of modes of being—the ‘matter’, ‘life’, and ‘mind’ of other cosmological systems and the ‘great’ background from the formlessness of the void and the continuum from the void to the cosmoses) and (2) application of logic and science.

This will not complete the development. Realism implies that for us death is real but not absolute and that we are part of ultimate process (‘Brahman, the acme of being’). While in limited form, however, that process is ever lasting and must occur not only via in-formation (knowledge) but also by formation (becoming). That becoming will not be guided only by knowing but also by immersion and discovery.

The fundamental problem of metaphysics

There is a more direct solution: if the universe is in a non manifest state there are no laws. Non emergence of something would be a law which would violate the condition of non manifestation. Therefore there must be phases of ‘something’.

That there must be (phases of) being is resolved. The question of What has being remains. Since it is not only things (entities, process, relations, qualities) that have being but also patterns and laws and instances of the satisfaction of laws, resolving the issue of what has being is fundamental to knowing and being in the universe. We have begun to answer this question with the notions of experience and being through realism. An outline of a detailed answer is given in extension of the metaphysics. Cosmology is concerned with the detailed answer—of course it will be possible to given only some details. However, as will be seen a full and detailed account is not as interesting as might seem. What is interesting—an essential aim of being—is being in the process of realization.

The FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS now becomes the question What has being?

Doubt and existential attitude

Are there any doubts about ‘realism’ as understood above? Yes but before getting to the important doubt reflect that realism has been set up so as to be consistent with experience and science; it has been set up so as to be logically consistent. Thus the potential criticism that experience etc are violated has already been addressed and shown void.

Of course, realism will violate common sense. It is not adequate to respond ‘so much the worse for common sense’ for it is important for common sense to be important. And it is not adequate to respond that common sense contains much or some nonsense for what we are concerned with is sound common sense. We need some measure of sound common sense if our lives are to avoid neuroses. This is because we cannot or should not be doubting every moment that the immediate world is the way it is. That is because the immediate world has regularities. One of the regularities is the unexpected. So even if we deem only the immediate world important common sense is sometimes going to be wrong; it needs to be occasionally questioned for immediate purposes. And if you think that post-immediate purposes are important then you will of course question common sense in that regard.

But the main criticism of the proof of realism lies in treating the void and / or the non manifest as being real (as existing). It is not a logical doubt: the void does not lack an object due to inconsistency; it is not a physical doubt: the void does not violate physical law (physical law does not apply to it). In fact the concept of the void has a ‘logical object’, i.e. absence, but are we justified in thinking of this as a real object? I think so but am not sure. But I think I am more sure of it than I am sure that there will be a tomorrow on earth for that can be doubted on logical as well as physical as well as real grounds (tomorrow is not real). We doubt anything that, even if it violates no principle and even if we have excellent reasons to hold it, is materially significant. But the doubt about the void is not the doubt of material significance for the claim is not a material claim. However, the claim has material consequences of great magnitude (perhaps there is another point of view in which realization of absolutes is not a material consequence but a material given but I do not appeal to that view here). This is the reason for the doubt and its importance.

The doubt is in the first place a real doubt. And in the second place it is reason for scrutiny. The principle of realism is an important principle that should be looked at from every angle imaginable.

What am I going to do with the doubt? It is important that I consider the consequences of realism. If the possible is realized then we are on the way to becoming the absolute. Therefore I do not have to have ‘belief’ or ‘faith’. I recognize that the expected outcome of a life is optimized when some energies are devoted to action under the principle. In fact the existential aspect of the principle is enhanced by doubt for if I am certain of the outcome I might tend to do nothing—to let it happen (even if the principle is certain I would be mistaken in just ‘letting’ for as we will see, intelligent and committed action is effective and enjoyed action).

While proof and other reasons have been given, doubt remains about the fundamental principle. An ‘optimal’ EXISTENTIAL ATTITUDE is to adopt the principle as fundamental in a program of action.

Even under the truth of the fundamental principle, realization is ever open and failure in balance with success, pleasure with pain. The existential attitude retains its significance.

Important postscript on realism

While the details of ‘realism’, i.e. logic and science and their future development, are wide open as to concept (the concepts of the different systems) and content (what falls under them), their broadest conception fall out of the fundamental concepts of experience, being, universe, natural law, and void.

14. Extension of the metaphysics

TRADITION is what is valid in the history of (human) knowledge and practice from origins to the present day.

From realism, i.e. that the universe is the realization of all possibility, the universe confers this power on individuals (the contrary would mean that the universe is not the realization of all possibility). That more than one individual should simultaneously realize the ultimate is not a contradiction because they would coalesce in doing so.

That all possibility is realized implies that DEATH is and must be real (not just empirical) but is not and cannot be ABSOLUTE.

Beyond personal and cosmological death our future being is realized elsewhere—for example and therefore necessarily on other cosmoses with entirely different physical laws. While we are in limited form, realization never gets further than this sort of thing (as far as the entirety of our being is concerned; we can of course have some incompletely adequate vision of or approach to the ultimate and think it ultimate). Therefore we do not need to and while limited in form we cannot know the ‘geography’ or ‘physics’ of those cosmoses. That is, while in limited form our cultural systems framed by the perfect depiction of the universe in its general features by the metaphysics, form a system of realization that need not and cannot be bettered as such (which is not to say that there is no occasion or immediate need for a better physics). Relative to an aim of ultimate realization, the net system (the metaphysics and tradition) are perfect. In this sense the extension of the metaphysics to frame all tradition will also be perfect. This expanded metaphysics may be called a practical metaphysics or, provided we do not do so from confusion, the metaphysics. We will also see examples of the improvement of this picture as follows: it will further turn out that some general features of the ‘geography’ at a level below that of the purely metaphysical will be capable of perfect depiction.

Now it does not follow that the concern with proper thinking in philosophy, especially of knowledge, and precision in science and technology has been voided. The concern remains valid but it is now not as ideal a concern as it has been under the thought that ‘our science is a handle on the entire universe’. It is a practical concern but more. It is one instrument in the achievement of the ideal (ultimate).

The ultimate metaphysical framework and tradition join in a practical metaphysics that is PERFECT IN RELATION TO THE AIM that it reveals (below).

15. The universal metaphysics

The metaphysics is universal in that it implicitly captures the entire universe as the universe of realism. Since the manifest universe can be seen as originating in the void, it is a non relative foundation—i.e. it refers to foundation which does not depend on further foundation. As the realization of all possibility (a) there can be nothing outside the object of the metaphysic and so the metaphysics is ultimate in breadth and (b) it is shown that the universe is ultimate in breadth—i.e., variety, extension, and duration of being.

16. Objects

Theory of objects

An OBJECT is the referent of a concept.

The following are conceived (by sentient beings): entity, a process, a relationship, an interaction, a property (e.g. redness), a trope (e.g. an instance of the color red), a state of affairs, a referential sentence generally and specifically a propositional sentence or the complex concept it stands for, a form, a simplex (some parts in the case that there are parts), an abstract (e.g. a simplex), and a complex (any collection of the foregoing or complexes subject of course to disallowing those concepts that entail contradiction or paradox). Therefore they all define objects—i.e., the idea of the object is far more general than the idea of the thing.

If the concept entails a contradiction then there is no object. Otherwise, the fundamental principle implies that there is an object.

There is a contemporary distinction between abstract and concrete objects (similar yet distinct from ancient distinctions between forms and the perceivable ‘things’ that embody the forms). In modern understanding, concrete objects are perceivable—a result of their being in time and space and causal (‘causally efficacious’). They are the common objects such as chairs and atoms. Abstract objects, e.g. the objects of mathematics, a poem (contrasted to a printed copy of the poem), are called abstract because we do not touch them they do not reside in space and are not causal. They are thought to exist but they do they do not exist in the spatiotemporal universe (one thought is that they are convenient fictions, another is that they are intuitions, another is that they exist in an ideal or Platonic world). That is the modern understanding and its problem is to clarify the nature of the concrete and the abstract (including the ‘place’ of the abstract) and their difference.

The universal metaphysics eliminates any essential distinction. If a concept is consistent (entails no contradiction) it has an object in the one universe. The number one may be regarded as what is common to all collections of one object, a poem is the poetic content of the written copy (though these specifications are rough, precisely how to make the definitions is not at issue here). Then, in so far as the abstract are not spatial etc it is because what is abstracted omits those features. So there may then be a gradation of objects from concrete to abstract. How? One way would be to consider successive refinements (simplexes); and if the original object is sufficiently fine in its constitution, the successive refinements may form a continuum from the concrete to the abstract.

But what is the difference? The study of number must have begun empirically but it later became more convenient to study number conceptually. Later (perhaps even now with computer search assisting proof) the study of number may become concrete again.

Given that a concrete entity may be seen, e.g. in the physical case of our cosmos, we may ask When we sense the concrete entity are we sensing it as such or are we sensing the constituents and then forming a concept (percept) from the sensa? This would not be to argue that there are no concrete objects but that the meaning of ‘concrete’ is other than the meaning given to it from everyday experience.

Note that and how the fundamental principle and the concept-object theory of meaning are used in arriving at these conclusions. Also note that this explains the modern confusions about the distinction. And finally note that while we could think we have formed a concept of a perfectly abstract object it would reside in the one universe and to have some significance it would be capable of some effect (it could of course reside wholly or partially in a domain temporarily causally isolated from our cosmos).

The theory resolves the seeming essential difference between Platonic forms as very real causes but abstract objects as non causal. The causation of Platonic forms is final. How would this come about? What must give a Form its form cannot generally be random happenstance but the possibility of form, e.g. symmetry of relation among objects constituting an instance. It is important to see that this is not teleologic—i.e. in coming together the objects are not seeking the final form; rather, when they do come together in symmetry, the arrangement is self sustaining: this is what gives the Form its form and the instance its form. Now, in contrast to this case, the said non causality of the modern abstract objects refers to efficient causation—the causal chain over time. However, even though the abstraction omits some or all such aspects, it (may and generally though not universally) selects for Form. I.e., some abstract objects are Platonic forms.

The abstract objects that are selected with (and perhaps for) form are the PLATONIC FORMS.

Importance of the theory

It enhances knowledge of the variety of objects and is thus an advance in cosmology (the study of the variety, extension, and duration of being).

It opens up the possibility / actuality that we can inhabit abstract objects.

MEMORY across death and COSMIC DISSOLUTION may be preserved in abstract objects or DISPOSITIONS or FORMS.

Unity of experience

We have encountered a unity of logic and science. The truths of logic are at a universal end of the continuum of truths of the world, those of science are local. It is interesting that the divide is a continuum rather than sharp. The unity is that both are of the world, first as revealed by Quine’s reflections on the origins of logic and science, and second as confirmed by the fundamental principle: if it entails no illogic a concept has an object but apart from the universal which are such because they are constraints on concepts the rest are laws or patterns and so cannot be universal.

Does mathematics have a place in this continuum? If so, where? First think about the nature of mathematics on its own ground. Though it may have beginnings in the concrete (e.g. the natural) and though it may use logic, it is neither: in its post empirical form mathematics is not about concrete objects and it is not logic because each mathematical discipline requires axioms and terms over and above the logical. But given a mathematical system or structure (perhaps suggested empirically and arrived at via intuition) expressed in axioms regarding undefined terms the structure is built up by logical deduction (guided by intuition) and, frequently, finds application in the world and in the natural sciences. The deductive part is the building up of form (the formal structure) or, rather, ‘seeing’ it because it inheres in the axiomatic (tautology); and the application is possible because the world / natural science has the form (at least approximately. We may think of mathematical systems as studies of forms. But if the axiomatic foundation is consistent, the system has an object (or objects) in the one universe: these are the forms as abstracts immanent in the concrete. That is, mathematics is of the world. In this it is like the natural sciences. The difference is the abstraction of the objects. Therefore, where in the natural sciences we study the concrete, in mathematics we study aspects of the world expressed in symbolic terms (i.e., the form is understood in intuition but its formal side is captured by the axiomatic system). Consequently, just as physical theory is incomplete, there is no surprise that mathematical theories about real forms but expressed symbolically are also incomplete captures of those forms (except in simple cases). Mathematical systems are sciences just as are the natural sciences; the difference is in the abstraction of the objects; naturally the ‘empirical’ data are different in kind (e.g. intuition for mathematics); and the fact that the forms are abstracts, i.e. simples, encourages the precision of mathematics but also that there may be limits to on the power and precision with which we capture and wield forms in symbolic terms (that is, from this perspective, the still remarkable theorems of Gödel are not surprising; and that while it not unexpected that there may be limits to human mathematical capability, three things are opened up (a) human mathematical advance by finding new forms, (b) habitation and / or technological construction of new forms as an advance in mathematical capability, and (c) that beings made up of a different physics, probably in another cosmos or perhaps another stage of this one, will have the potential for greater mathematical—and general intellectual—ability).

Whether evocation and so on are essentially non referential in some part is an open question but if the answer is ‘yes’, evoking may be referring as much as referring is evoking.

Form

The theory shows that there are forms but that they are immanent in the world, e.g. as abstract objects immanent in the concrete. But there is no particular reason that an object should not be considered to be its own form except that for a form to be useful it should (a) refer to more than one object (b) refer to the members of a class of objects with common characteristics, and (c) possess such symmetries as to make comprehension of the form within the grasp of a relevant class of sentient beings (e.g., human beings). The collection forms that are useful in this sense are a sub collection of all forms, probably a small sub collection. These correspond to the Platonic Forms and include or perhaps are the mathematical forms of a class of sentient beings (e.g., human). We expect that our mathematics is useful to a small set of universal structures but of course allow that this small set may be highly useful (applicable).

17. Cosmology

The object of COSMOLOGY is the variety, extension, and duration of being in the universe.

Cosmology is the explicit study of detail that is implicit under metaphysics. It includes physical cosmology.

The GENERAL PRINCIPLE of cosmology is the fundamental principle of metaphysics.

Particular aspects of cosmology such as space and time have additional defining features.

A common twentieth and twenty first century default view of cosmology is modern physical cosmology. However in view of the fundamental principle, our physical cosmology is an extremely special case of general cosmology. Its principles are observation and physical law.

General cosmology

General cosmology is cosmology without restriction.

The only principle of general cosmology is the general principle of cosmology—the fundamental principle (of course particular cosmologies may be studied as examples of general cosmology).

No peak is eternal in its concrete form; that would be a law of the void—a violation of the fundamental principle.

The abstract forms may approach the eternal. Here resides memory across individual death and cosmological dissolution. The ultimate form may be called Brahman or Aeternitas.

A difference between this metaphysical concept and the common idea of ‘God’ is the idea that the latter has particular interest in us which causes doubt when no help is forthcoming. In the metaphysical conception experience of the universe is a mosaic of pain and joy. This is the meaning of pain; that pain is sometimes unrelieved does not cause doubt about the metaphysical power. Ultimate power is already within us. As understood here, Brahman is not waiting to work for us but our working is already an example of Brahman working.

The PEAKS of form are not blind in general. They must include intelligence and commitment applied to form. The greatest significance occurs in experience.

It was noted earlier that the individual inherits the power of the universe.

However, while in limited form the approach to the ultimate is eternal process which from the fundamental principle must contain ever freshness.

Realization of the ultimate is given to the individual but we anticipate that effectiveness and enjoyment are generally enhanced by intelligent commitment.

Space and time

We saw that given our experience of difference there must be space and time. From the fundamental principle there must be difference and so space and time (but the fundamental principle requires that it cannot be universal; and the structure of experience requires or at least suggests that there cannot be another ‘dimension’ beyond space and time). Similarly there must be cases of discrete, vague, and absence of space and time; and discrete as well as interwoven space-time; and cosmologies with immanent or relative space-time; and cosmologies with absolute space-time set up for them by other domains. For the universe, however, all space-time is immanent.

Universe

We saw that there is numerically one universe. However, it is conceivable that there are two or more non interacting domains (they would have no significance to one another). FP implies that there is no eternal non interaction (since interaction is possible). Therefore ‘dynamically’ there is one universe.

However there is no universal causation (in the common sense). There are domains that do not interact for any given finite length of time.

We saw that from the concept of the universe there can be no first cause. The fundamental principle implies that no first cause is necessary. The manifest universe can be seen as necessarily emerging from a state in which the universe is void; however this is not causal in any sense that is close to the usual sense of cause.

Mind and matter

The terms ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ are used here in a generalized sense.

Experience is the occasion for the term ‘mind’.

We saw that from our being, experience is a given. This shows us the sense (concept) of experience and so of significance. But now, from FP, experience and significance must be.

We saw that formed experience cannot be formless at base. Therefore in a one substance metaphysics ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ must belong to the same root. Matter would be being as being and experience would be being in relationship.

However, the universal metaphysics is not a substance metaphysics at all. The universe is equivalent to the void (and therefore to any state of being). Every state is equivalent to every other state. All manifestation can be seen as coming without cause from the non manifest.

Therefore one form of matter and another form of matter can coexist. Similarly, one form for mind and another. And, similarly, a form mind and a form for matter. Essentially the universe is a no substance universe; but there may be infinitely many as if substances.

However, FP implies that the different as if substances are and cannot be eternally non interacting. And in a cosmology with mind (experience) and matter (form at all) that has effectively (as if) just one substance, mind and matter must be two sides of the root. As stated above matter and mind will be the root itself and the root in relationship, respectively. That we have regarded mind and matter as distinct substances or, more recently, mind as emergent (i.e. code for ‘we do not understand’), is not of the phenomena but of our limited understanding. In a many as if substance situation the ‘minds’ and ‘matters’ should all have form (no form implies no form of thought) but these forms may be at least temporarily non interacting. But (a) in that temporary situation every mind-kind will have its own form and therefore as it were substance and as it were cosmos and (b) in eternity the different ‘matters’ / ‘minds’, if they remain manifest, will join at root. And of course ‘we’ do not know that that is not the present situation.

The point is that we will find our and similar cosmoses to be practically one substance cosmologies.

But there is more. Ask Is not consciousness a mere accident in an alien neutral universe? The secular answer should be If so it is no more an accident than the alien neutral material universe itself! That we would emphasize the accidental nature of consciousness over that of the material is to think that being material is a fundamental property while having awareness is not—which is supported by projection but not by fact. However the universal metaphysics supports the centrality of significance in the universe. By itself it says that much great structure will be significant. However, it does not imply that all or most great structure will be associated with or a product of intelligence.

Nature, spirit and the real

Similarly, in general there can be multiple modes of being.

However, in a one substance cosmos, spirit can be only the result of our ignorance of nature (but ignorance is a natural state; ‘postulating’ spirit is natural; it is a source of science).

But, the one cosmos substance is an approximation and temporary. If the first source of the idea of spirit is ignorance, that is not the essence of the global or eternal source.

The Real is what lies behind. But that is no more than outlined above in discussing general cosmology.

Stable cosmologies

Adaptation

What are the principles of formation of apparently structured and rather stable cosmoses such as ours.

We can see three levels of description of nature. (1) A primarily descriptive level informed but not explained by concepts, (2) An elementary level at which there are structures that have forms of structure and behavior that are described by laws that do not refer to the origins of form (3) A more global level that has forms of behavior that are explanatory, typically via increment and adaptation, of the origin and perhaps form of the elementary level.

In detail under #3, given a primitive or adapted situation, random increments occur over some kind of population because the situation is not one of perfect stability or symmetry. Those outcomes that have sufficient symmetry and stability survive as more than merely transient.

It is important that #3 apparently first arose in formulation of the theory of evolution in biology where it is immensely successful. There are some beginnings of this kind of explanation in physics and there are doubts about it from thinkers who think that the canon of physical thought is already established. But it is the explanation of explanations because it establishes the complex from the simple. Yet from FP it is not essential to existence; on the other hand it seems essential to the nature of order.

At a fundamental level the driver of increment is the fundamental principle. At this level the universe is fundamentally indeterministic (all states are achieved / no states are not). At an adapted level there is residual indeterminism (if perfect symmetry is achieved it would be frozen but for the destabilizing influence of other systems and, ultimately, of the void).

The adapted systems could be generated by the void. However, the mechanism of increment finds pathways of stability so that there is a high frequency of long lived adapted ‘cosmoses’. It is reasonable to think that this process is the origin of most structured cosmological systems (since population is proportional to frequency x longevity).

The general picture is that of an indeterministic void background and therefore transients from it. Some stable cosmoses emerge in one indeterminist step but most emerge from the ‘mechanism’ above which is the mechanism of formation of the cosmoses and their patterns (including laws).

Realization and the ‘meaning’ of pain

Freedom of will

Physical law and the structure of our cosmos

Adaptation is a general principle for stable cosmoses.

Our cosmos has further features that make for life, intelligence, and novelty. Conservation of ‘energy’ is an apparent necessity for stability (hyper and hypo conservative will be explosive and dead, respectively). The particular laws and physical constants are significant to our form of life: a small variation would make the cosmos ‘sterile’. Conditions such as the preponderance of certain elements are also important. This makes understanding life without some sort of supra cosmic adaptation improbable except if there are further principles that make intelligence and life likely. The quantum is one such for (a) it makes for both structure and novelty via indeterminist process arriving at structured states and (b) it operates at a micro level. The theory of the void has similarities to the quantum vacuum.

Cosmology of life and identity

Identity

The forms of the concept stand in and contain relationships. It is inevitable (FP) that some of these will be experiential. In the beginning the experiential may be minimal in their ‘intelligence’ but once their organization gets to a certain level they become able to influence their own ‘evolution’ (for better and worse which is one of the prices of intelligence).

Two things are happening or beginning to happen. Consciousness such as ours is not emergent relative to the primitive level but a focusing, layering, environmentally receptive, self reflexive etc of it (and it is thus that whereas primitive experience is not adaptive it is its higher level that is for the higher level is simultaneously intelligent, feeling, and higher conscious).

The other happening is that of the two ‘better or worse’ above there are pathways of ‘better’. The highest reaches of form are anticipated to be those of intelligence. It is where feeling, intelligence, and civilization—not always in the same combination—take over the form of a phase of the universe. Where one culture emphasizes the internal—experience, another emphasizes the external—knowledge and technology; in Civilization both may be present and mutually enhancing. We asked of the meaning of Brahman. Here is one such meaning and we are powerfully aware of it; and it will be instrumental if not in this life, then in another; but it is not instrumental for or to us: we are the instrument.

But even if only in some cosmoses there is significant feeling, what is its source? Or must it be without explanation? Answer: the void is without limit to its power; it is source and memory reserve for consciousness across individual cosmological death.

Life

The facts of life in our cosmos suggest that for intelligence and life there must be a micro structure that supports complexity and inheritance.

Civilization

Our civilization is the web of human communities across time and continents. Universal Civilization is the matrix of civilizations, human and other, across the universe.

The ‘function’ of civilization regarding the ultimate is this. The individual fosters civilization and its process; civilization nurtures the individual.

Civilization and the individual are complementary modes of process.

Form

The adapted systems, we have seen, are (probably) the most populous; and, from near symmetry it is reasonable to think of them as embodiments of form (as conceived earlier in form). We now see why these should form a small sub collection of all forms: they are the forms possessed of high symmetry, for which a cosmos that has the forms is likely to have sentient (e.g. human) form of sufficient symmetry (intelligence) to be capable of mathematics for (some, perhaps many) of the forms of the local cosmos.

Sufficiently formed domains

Earlier we remarked that our cosmos is close to being a (an as if) substance cosmos. Consequently elementary experience is there at the root with matter: matter is being as such, mind is being in relationship.

However according to the fundamental principle, ‘substance cosmos’ is an idealization.

We saw that in general there can be infinitely many as if substances but that they must ultimately meet at the root.

A sufficiently formed domain is an idealization in which substance like behavior is the essential mode. However, such behavior will also occur at the universal level in the emergence of significance.

Other examples occur: having discernible laws of physics, having one signal speed, participation in the greater form of the domain (just as we so far infinitesimally participate in the form of our cosmos).

The universal metaphysics implies this behavior at the level of the universe. It will of course be a peak behavior; concretely it may seem constant but it will not be eternal (the only eternities will be in the abstract).

It is important that for every peak of magnitude H, there will be peaks perceived in significance of magnitude S, as well as peaks constructed of / by and so also perceived by significant forms of peak-magnitude C, such that C and S are both greater than H. That is:

The magnitude (variety, extension, duration) of SIGNIFICANT AND CONSCIOUS FORM is WITHOUT LIMIT.

18. The way of Being

Though it is given that the ultimate will be (is) realized, effectiveness and enjoyment are enhanced by commitment and intelligent application.

However, there is no sure and definite path. There is no final system or nirvana—although there must be bits of nirvana along the way. Being is a mosaic of joy and pain. Empirically, it seems improbable that the ultimate will be ‘materially’ realized in this life; and empirically death seems absolute. However death is real but not absolute. It would then seem that realization of the ultimate in this life, though possible, is improbable (this of course is uncertain for probabilities can only be estimated when something definite is known of the space of possibilities).

So there are two important concerns. (1) How we behave in this life, our attitudes and behavior toward the immediate and the ultimate affects the quality of our own lives. Perhaps an individual’s contribution is small but the sum of contributions is not. (2) Similarly this life is a ‘contribution’ to the ultimate. We are realizations of dispositions (even the empiricist will recognize that our existence shows that the universe has a property that enables life) and behavior and attitude in this life contributes to the total dispositional character and future of the universe. Perhaps the individual’s contribution is infinitesimal but now to arrive at the total contribution we sum over Civilization across the universe. From this perspective not just the individual but humankind, collectively and in communication, may contribute.

Therefore the way cannot be some system to be followed by all. It must be an enunciation of principles (a) such that the principles are self referential in a self enhancing way and (b) supplemented with a flexible and adaptable framework for thought, attitude, and behavior.

The way

Aim

The AIM of the way of being is to know the range of being and to realize its highest immediate and ultimate forms.

The aim is explained as follows. That we shall realize the highest forms is given (even though we do not know the object of ‘highest’ form). However, while in limited form the approach and retreat are eternal process. What we have seen so far leads us to expect that enjoyment and effectiveness are enhanced by intelligent commitment (direction, feeling, and care) of which knowing is a prerequisite.

Name and statement of the way

UNIVERSAL REALISM is another name for The way of being.

The MEANING OF LIFE is being in the way of being

Metaphysics

Metaphysics. Individual and universal identity are the same; both are processes with the individual approaching the ultimate; in the atemporal perspective they are one timeless ultimate. This vision of ‘some ways’ is shown and made full by the universal metaphysics.

Psychology

Psychology. In contrast to some ways, alienation is not central. Psyche reflects the ultimate. Process acknowledges the essential significance of but does not wait for perfection in this life. ‘Perfection’ is (finding) balance of process and enjoyment. The process and its aim give meaning to the mosaic of pain and joy. Enjoyment and effectiveness are enhanced by intelligence and commitment; emotion and care.

Of civilization

For vibrant realism, every individual and culture is an occasion for renewal in the way (with inspiration in the learning of the past).

Care is essential to the forward motion of civilization and being.

Technology, the disciplines, and the being of civilization are instruments on the way to universal Being and Civilization.

Originality

Regardless of inspiration, the ultimate resource in the way from dark to light is within each of ourselves. Divisions of charisma vs. patriarchal authority, authority vs. process, leader and follower, guru and pupil are temporally but not ultimately real.

Mechanics

THE WAY. The mechanics is choice-risk-consolidation (in light of the metaphysics).

The elements

The ‘elements’ that follow are given without explanation or apology as to, e.g., culture dependence. There is of course the universal framework as well as the attempt to give universal context.

Dimension and place

The DIMENSIONS of the way are nature, psyche, civilization and artifact, and ‘universal process’.

Nature

Nature is the ground of being and a source of inspiration.

Psyche

The place of be-ing, individual or person, identity, significance, and relationship to the world.

Civilization

Civilization, local and / or universal, is the shared endeavor of being.

Its dimensions are culture—disciplines of secular and trans-secular knowledge and practice; the material and artifactual—economics and technology; and political or group process.

Universal process

In universal process these dimensions are practiced as immersive and objective.

The ultimate in the immediate

Previous dimensions and their process seek the ultimate in process. The seeking is essential but becomes, paradoxically, the block (ignorance etc are but impediments).

But seeking is the vision of the ultimate in the immediate.

This dimension seeks the join: the ultimate in the immediate.

It is pure being.

Process and time

The ELEMENTS OF PROCESS are means (ideas and action), mechanics (above), ways and catalysts, disciplines and practices (intrinsic and external), and modes (intrinsic and external).

Means

The means are ideas and action.

Mechanics

The form of the mechanics stated earlier can also be seen as analysis and synthesis of being (just as the process of knowing can be seen as analysis and synthesis of meaning or word-idea-world, i.e. concept-object).

The mechanics is the way of small increment but does not rule out the large step; it is committed and attempts the best use of abilities, especially intelligence, perseverance, and meditative retreat; it must deploy given (human) form but is also committed to transcendence of that form by process and real union with greater / ultimate form.

Ways and catalysts

A mechanics has two special elements—ways of living, and particular catalytic activities such as meditation, fasting, and exposure.

Disciplines and practices

The tradition offers disciplines or received knowledge and practice. The disciplines are intrinsic (for the being of individual or civilization) and external (for the environment or support).

Culture includes the ‘discipline of disciplines in transition’.

Modes

Change is either intrinsic or in external circumstances.

The two combine in artifactual being (supported, independent, assistive, interactive).

Reflexive thought and action

Reflexive thought reflects on itself; it is self-conscious and attempts to be self-enhancing and self-correcting. The process can be extended to include action.

Phase, time, and place

The dimensions and processes as well as the phases of a life and community lead to the notion of phases of action or emphasis on the way to the ultimate. There are natural progressions in which beginning or completing one phase can be preliminary to beginning another; and in which phases occur naturally or optimally in parallel.

For each phase there are appropriate and variable times and places whose selection is part of ‘process’.

19. Path

The path has three interacting PHASES—IDEAS, BECOMING, and PURE BEING. Sub phases are identified for the ideas and becoming.

Since we begin without full consciousness of our living process it is natural to begin with our propensities. Later, we see more and fill out our process. The process is reflexive. The times below reflect this.

Ideas

Ideas are a phase of action but have distinction from ‘external’ action.

Ideas are essential to external action, i.e. becoming

Knowing

Selective according to needs of realization. The metaphysics, related, and ancillary material.

Essential to realization (reflexive: nature of knowledge).

Times. Ideas and action are generally interactive. Since my ideas are relatively complete they are now secondary to action. They support action. I may and hope to return to ideas and writing later.

Places. All. Emphases: field—notes, home—essays, sharing, publishing.

Design

Design is part of ‘knowledge’ but it is convenient to place it apart.

Design and planning for the entire process. Includes phase selection and design.

Times. As for ‘knowing’… and as needed in action, below.

Places. ‘Home’ and in process in the ‘field’.

Conceptual background for the phases of becoming

The parts for this section were originally under the sections of ‘becoming’ below.

Continuous with becoming and sub phases including everyday practice; emphasizes thought and experiment with practices as well as special initiatives (nature… below).

Times. Optional preliminary to action. Ongoing and as needed in interaction with becoming.

Places. Home and in process in the field.

Becoming

Everyday practice of thought, presence, and action

Times. All times, naturally.

Places. All places.

Phases. All phases.

Nature

Times. The ongoing and immediate priority.

Places. Selected for ground, contact with the real, vision (quest), inspiration.

Civilization

Emphasis: civilization as such.

Civilization and individual in mutuality. Support and shared endeavor.

Times. In parallel and subsequent to transformation of being and identity.

Places. Cultural, spiritual including primal, intellectual, and political centers.

Artifact

External means (technology) in interaction with and support to civilization. Support, synthesis with organism, independent.

Times. In parallel and subsequent to ‘civilization’.

Places. Centers of philosophy, science including the symbolic, and technology.

Pure being

The ultimate in the present.

A time of being in the moment and / as being in relation to the fact of death and its real though relative nature.

Times. For all times but emphasized after substantial achievement of ‘becoming’ and / or in relation to knowledge of and / or approach of death.

Places and phases. All.

20. Template

Introduction to everyday practice

EVERYDAY PRACTICE. Times, places, and other phases. All. Intended as adaptable to rhythm, activity, day, season, year, circumstance, and phase.

Concept

Right everyday thought, practice, and action for being in the present and the ultimate as one.

About routine

I find adapting to circumstance energizing. Presently, rising hours before the sun is adaptation the rhythm of the day—after a time of ‘work’ there is still an entire day of light, especially in winter.

This routine is for home, in society. It is adaptable to other situations—special events, culture (travel, living) and nature immersion, …

Everyday practice—thought, presence, and action

Rise

1.	Rise before the sun—begin with dedication of my life and the day to the way of being, to focus on essence; and affirmation of commitment..

Dedication

Dedication. I dedicate my life to The Way of Being: / Its discovery, revelation, and realization— / To live and grow in all worlds as one; / To shed the bondage of limited self— / So that I may see The Way so clearly / That living it, even through difficulty / Is flow over force… / And so to show and share its truth, power, and care.

Affirmation. I commit my being, thought, speech, and action to the way; to a positive attitude; to the good and care of the world and all persons, especially to seeing but not taking imagined or real fears and resentments as affronts to security and sense of self. I pray for these things, especially for the good and understanding of those I may resent.

Review

2.	Review and meditate on realization and other priorities and means (priorities).

Realization

3.	Realization—work, care and meditation (below); action and experiment; ideas; and writing—in process journal (field notes), essays, and publishing (networked and printed).
4.	Regular and occasional tasks—everyday, weekly.

Meditation-in-action

Meditation-in-action includes practice of meditation that is continuous with living. It is an essential part of realization.

5.	Meditate: focus and focal issues; quieting—spaciousness of being; death as spur and transition; pain and resentment—their defusion in relinquishing ego to ‘being’; meditation-in-action. Incorporate yogic elements—e.g., of the Gita, the Tantra…

Practical tools for action and meditation

Act on my ambitions and final goals. Accept pain and joy.

Meditate on—own my strength, power, pain, and weakness: I am their active core and source—and so of their transformation as energy.

Be assertive in discovery, cultivation, and expression of my power and goals; seek and encourage active receptivity.

Be assertive about and transform or remove myself from negative influence.

Meditate on my truth; not let apprehension prevent speech or action when good or ego force them when not. Consciously expose myself to and act on my fears, selected for importance.

Healthy living—routine, sleep, food and fluids; avoid toxic substances and influences.

Exercise and physical yoga

6.	Exercise—posture, general (aerobic, flexibility, hiking fitness and strength), and yogic.

Evening and sleep

7.	Evening—realization / renewal; review the next day, plans (and special events); realization if energy-time; evening chores; meditate; sleep early.

System for ideas, action, and pure being

Table for the system

Action	Dimension	Detail / link. Time and cross phase
Ideas—essential to becoming	Knowing	Essential to realization / program of ideas. Time. Secondary to becoming. Emphasize again after becoming. Cross phases. All.
	Design and planning	For the entire process / ways and design. Time. As needed. Cross phase. All.
	Ideas for phases of becoming	Continuous with becoming and sub-phases / ways and design. Time. As needed. Cross phases. Becoming.
Becoming—completes ideas	Everyday practice	For the ultimate in the immediate and the phases / everyday practice of thought, presence, and action. Time. All. Cross phases. All.
	Nature	Ground of real, inspiration / nature as ground. The Beyul journey (pilgrimage) of Tibetan Buddhism. Time. Immediate.
	Civilization	Support, shared endeavor / civilization: engagement in the world. Time. After ‘nature’ begins.
	Artifact	Support, synthesis with organism, independent / artifactual being. Time. After ‘civilization’ begins.
Being	The universal: pure being	The ultimate in the present / pure being. Time. All; especially when ‘becoming’ is sufficient. Cross phases. All; everyday practice.

Some topics for study and development

These topics use the above linked sources.

21. Resources

The website http://www.horizons-2000.org has general resources. For resources specific to this document see some resources.html and the realizations-resource version.html. Extensive resources are listed in the 2014 document Journey in Being-detail.html and the not-so-recent (2009) Journey in being-detail.html.

Purpose of the resources

The aim is to provide resources for readers who would enter the knowledge and / or becoming processes of the narrative. A reader who would use the text as a ‘system’ may refer the parts The way of Being through Template. They would adapt this material and supplement Everyday practice of thought, presence, and action and System for ideas, action, and pure being with material of their own choosing, perhaps following some of the suggestions below. However, the first aim of the narrative is entry into the process, not ‘system’ for successful systems which arise in response to the occasions of an era tend to become formulaic. This is the reason for the generic character of the presentation and of these resources.

The main resource for any reader is her or his presence and initiative in the world.

Perhaps I can assist this process by stating my resources.

The purpose of the following selection is to be useful in stating and following a universal aim. There is special focus on the mechanics and the process.

The mechanics

Comment. Update at the source.

The mechanics is the way of small increment but does not rule out the large step; it is committed and attempts the best use of abilities, especially intelligence, perseverance, and meditative retreat; it must deploy given (human) form but is also committed to transcendence of that form by process and real union with greater / ultimate form.

Knowledge

A personal history of ideas

A driving force has been beauty—the dual beauty of the world and of ideas (see a personal account of nature as source, below). Thus, at least implicitly, I have always regarded knowledge and action interactively. I now see that knowledge requires completion by action and that without knowledge (ideas) there is no such thing as action. Knowledge and action require one another.

In the beginning and throughout my process was driven by beauty and the ‘practical’ and ideal concerns of this world and the ultimate.

The background to this account is my early and ongoing broad interest in ideas and their history. Perhaps breadth is not essential but for me it was immensely useful to my process of understanding and discovery. That process began with a material and evolutionary perspective, saw limitations to that perspective, sought a perspective that did not deny matter and time but that would transcend it, along the way experimented with a variety of ‘idealisms’, found the idealisms wanting and not too different from the materialisms. Finally, after much experiment, I arrived at a place where it occurred to me as reasonable that the perspective I sought would be possible if the universe and nothingness were equivalent.

This thought did not come out of a vacuum but there are suggestions of the equivalence in modern physics as well as modern and ancient thought. Nowhere, however, did I find an explicit statement or proof of the idea I sought. The system of this narrative arose in some main steps interspersed with study, reflection, criticism, and increment. The entire process was inspired by the notions of the ultimate, civilization and its process, and nature (the latter is described below in nature > a personal account).

The main steps were (1) the experiment with paradigms (materialism etc) and realization that perhaps ‘universe º void’ would be the key to going beyond ‘paradigm’, (2) seeing this idea in intuition but failing to prove the equivalence, (3) realizing that the key to proof is to carefully define and look at the properties of the void (it is the null domain, it exists, it contains no natural law) and following up with proof (given in the narrative), and (4) developing and elaborating the resulting metaphysics and applying it to a range of concerns—primarily realization, and secondarily but most usefully to a range of problems from the history and current situation in ideas.

Regarding our religions, as for any actual institution, we can see faults and positive aspects. My personal inclination has been to not ignore the multiple faults (they require redress) but to emphasize what is beautiful, what I could learn in relation to the immediate and the ultimate. I have learned (a) the generality that as allegory religion points to the idea of an ultimate where tacit secular thought is closed by self satisfied unseeing (I prefer that word to ‘ignorance’), and (b) special transformational aspects in or related to the religions such as affirmation, meditation, yoga (the eastern schools), the Beyul of Tibetan Buddhism, the vision quest of Shamanic practice. The theory of meaning has led me to think that religion (the concept) is not the empirical sum of the religions.

Introduction to knowledge resources

The site http://www.horizons-2000.org gives some of my general sources. Here I state some main influences which are the western and eastern traditions of philosophy including metaphysics, trans-secular process, the abstract and concrete sciences, art, literature, technology, and history. The internet has a number of useful general resources such as encyclopedias—see a list of ‘useful links’. Also see a system of human knowledge.html.

The following lists are of persons whose writings have taught and inspired me.

Philosophers—mostly

Veda Vyasa (date and authenticity unclear), Thales of Miletus (624-525 BC), Parmenides (dates uncertain, born about 530 BC), Plato (424/423 BC-348/347 BC), Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC), Adi Samkara (788-820), Johannes Scotus Eriugena (815-877), Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), René Descartes (1596-1650), Baruch Spinoza, Baruch (1632-1677), Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), David Hume (1711-1776), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Hans Vaihinger (1852-1933), Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Karl Popper (1902-1994), Ernst Mayr (1904-2005), Carl G. Hempel (1905-1997), Kurt Friedrich Gödel (1906-1978), Willard Van Orman Quine (1908-2000), Herbert A. Simon (1916-2001), John Searle (1932-), Richard K. Nelson (1941-), author of Make Prayers to the Raven (1983), Hugh Brody (1943-), author of The Other Side of Eden (2000).

The most influential have been Plato, Samkara, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Popper.

I admire persons but hold that, from history, it is the ideas that are most important. The main use of the ideas may require interpretation but is not interpretation as such—it is to attempt to go and see further. I find that this use is best facilitated by finding what is best in the works which requires appreciation over detraction and evaluation over mere criticism (true criticism is of course identical to true evaluation).

The anthropologists Richard Nelson and Hugh Brody have made up for my lack of experience in appreciating the beauty and power (and problems) of the primal way of life, especially in the far north of the American Continent. If you have the impression that I admire that way of life you are correct; however, I hope not to judge that versus my present way.

Scientists

Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Charles Darwin (1809-1882), James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Ernst Mayr (1904-2005), and the creators and developers of quantum mechanics and modern physical cosmology.

Religion

Religion stands against the secular assertion that the secular is the only real and the only value. In this religion is absolutely true.

I have found the religions and their leaders, in fact or legend, informative to my thought and inspiring in my life.

Any movement is likely to have negative sides and uses. However, the problem of our or any time is to attempt to understand and negotiate beyond the secular in a way that is best for the time.

I have admired what I have read of the lives many religious persons and leaders and ‘saints’, especially Buddha, Jesus, and Gandhi. However, I make no recommendation to the reader except to follow their own path (or non path).

Nature

There is a tradition of nature as inspiration, especially among ‘primal’ cultures and the east.

A personal account of nature as source

Cumulatively, I have spent roughly two years in ‘wilderness’ areas in the United States and Mexico: times of health, enjoyment, friendship, and occasional risk. My findings are as follows. (1) I discover the truth of the place by immersion. (2) The discovery of new places is wonderful. (3) Repeated return to one place is greater immersion. (4) Going with others is enjoyable. Minimalism and isolation are the greater immersion and inspiration (just as living is inspiration). Immersion is connection to the ultimate and the beginning of incremental transformation. (5) Being in nature is a ground and gateway to the ultimate (just as for primal peoples and civilization). (6) Nature is a place where I have received great inspiration for my thought (but so is my civilization, so are my cultures). Perhaps the two greatest conceptual realizations are #1 in 1999: that the equivalence of the universe and the void would lead to an ultimate true non substance metaphysics (while hiking one afternoon on a trail in the Trinity Mountains of Northwestern California) and #2 in 2002: in the shadows of the same mountains in the cool just before sunrise, that to look at the properties of the void rather than the universe is the key to the equivalence of #1.

Perhaps what readers may derive from this is the inspiration of nature and the selection of his or her own special places. They would discover their ‘personal’ Beyul as an element in their transformation.

Beyul

In Tibetan Buddhism, Beyul refers to special places, mythical or real, that are beautiful yet remote and hard to find. The finding is a pilgrimage in which the seeker finds the truth of the place which is also the truth already but hidden in the seeker’s self. A good reference is Ian Baker’s The Heart of the World, 2004. This personal account of Beyul refers to original Tibetan and earlier Western sources.

Civilization

The process of civilization also offers support as well as mutual search and realization. It offers audiences, institutions, disciplines, and fellowship in endeavor (these have overlap).

Institutions

The modern world offers an array of institutions—universities, libraries, the internet as information resource and as sharing via blog and publishing, churches, spiritual groups and teachers, publishers.

The institutions provide audiences, teachers, the advantages of institutional setting, and fellowship.

Some groups and institutions focus on other regions and cultures of the world.

Disciplines

Science and sciences (concrete and abstract), philosophy, anthropology, technology, art, religion and religions, yoga of the Gita and other systems, Tantra, and vision quest.