The Realizations of Being

Home | Plan

Essential material is shown in light blue font.

SMALL CAPITALS mark DEFINED and other special terms.

Contents

Aim

Realization | Ways

Path

Aim

The AIM of the realizations is, as far as it is good, to know the range of being and to realize the highest immediate and ultimate forms.

This template for metaphysics and realization is a scaffold. Significant development including proof and explanation is included only when pertinent to the aim.

The metaphysics developed shows the universe to be the realization of all possibility—i.e., far greater than our cosmos in extent, duration, and kind of being—and that it (the metaphysics) meshes effectively with any realistic system of knowledge and action. Therefore the mesh goes far beyond what is standard and valid in ancient through modern traditions of knowledge and realization. Detailed knowledge and realization of the entire universe is shown accessible to limited forms of being but only in transcending limits and / or in eternal process.

Discussion of value (‘ethics’) is general—here I state a principle that is given clearer definition in the text. Though process and possibility are wide open, it is argued that the significant population of the universe is generally one of forms whose history is a trajectory through relatively stable and durable states. The good is the discovery and cultivation of this state-process. We are capable of knowing and creating in this process because we are part of it.

What are the highest forms? The metaphysics shows that in our present form we do not know but we can make reasonable hypotheses and experiment with (our) being in light of the hypotheses. That is, realization is an ongoing process in which, in limited form, we are always at the beginning. The metaphysics suggests that the highest forms will be the result of engagement of entire being—mind-heart-body-and-community. We may build upon blind process but significant forms will be intelligent and most likely require intelligent engagement in process. Some people may use the term ‘god’ to describe the highest forms but; the real issue regarding god is the question: what is god? Because of our associations with it the term ‘god’ is likely to be misleading.

The source for the narrative lies in the interaction of the traditions mentioned above, direct experience, and imaginative and critical reflection. For explicit detail see the general resource, the main statements, and the site page http://www.horizons-2000.org.

The plan for the template is to continue to refine its ideas and presentation and, in interaction with refinement, to use it together with detailed information as a template for reflection, writing, and realization.

To understand the system of ideas, it is important to employ the definitions given and to endeavor to see the system as a connected whole.

Ideas

A CONCEPT or IDEA is any mental content and in this meaning a percept is a concept. A REFERENTIAL concept is one that purports to have an object. In what follows the term ‘concept’ will mean ‘referential concept’.

An OBJECT is and can only be specified by a concept or idea—i.e., by mental content.

The term ‘is’ has two formal uses in this text. In a DEFINITION it means ‘is defined as’. In the second use ‘is’ indicates existence—i.e., that the concept has an object as intended. Thus when a definition is given, a separate statement of existence is given when existence might be problematic. Commonly, use of ‘is’ to indicate existence refers to the present time. Here it will also be used in the generalized sense of existence over some ranges of time and any atemporal sense of existence that is not in time.

Saying that an object is specified by—or known in having—the concept is an aspect of REALISM which is the view that the universe is known (of course, in varying degrees of perfection and completeness) and is there regardless of the ‘subject’ or knower. However, the concept is not its object. This gives rise to SKEPTICISM—doubt that knowing has any degree of faithfulness to the known. Perhaps the known is essentially warped; perhaps the universe is the creation of the knower. Given this challenge, how can realism be justified? It is important, first, to observe that realism does not deny that we create concepts, of which some are social constructs, but says that the concepts, including percepts, have some degree of faithfulness to the known which is real (‘some degree’ allows that there are distortions and even hallucinations but realism holds that nonetheless there is a real world of which we have some knowledge).

One response to skepticism is an IDEALISM in which ideas or concepts are the real world to some degree which includes the case that there is nothing but the world of ideas (mere appearances). The logical appeal of idealism is that it short circuits skepticism. There is perhaps a psychological appeal in which since the universe is our creation we are not encumbered with reality. Idealism is thus a counterfeit realism.

A first ‘real’ line of defense of realism is to observe that skepticism assumes what it denies for without realism it has no point (without objects, faithfulness has no meaning). This is a thin defense of realism but its main point is to show that the main point of skepticism should perhaps be to sharpen our understanding of realism rather than to take skepticism seriously (even the idealists admit this).

The narrative provides a constructive defense of realism—i.e. it develops and defends an account of the universe of which we do and can have (some) knowledge and which exists independently of our knowledge of it and in so doing will demonstrate significant knowledge of the universe. Does this further the aim of the narrative? It will do so in showing (a) that we are in possession of instruments to follow the aim of knowing and realizing and (b) that the universe is real and far greater than our experience (‘mind’) and so our knowledge and realizations have real significance (in not being our product or already contained by us) and great significance (in being far greater than our present cumulative learning).

Concept and object are essential to concept meaning. Linguistic meaning results when a symbol—iconic or abstract, simple or compound—is associated with the concept-object. Inadequate attention to the concept may, it is well known, result in unclear meaning, confusion of different objects, and even paradox.

Some concepts have no object. The concept of a unicorn occurs in some legends as a white horse like creature with a pointed and spiraling horn projecting from its forehead. As far as we know, the concept of the unicorn has no objects—this can be stated ‘there are no unicorns’; this is a matter of fact or contingency. Some concepts, e.g. the self-contradictory square circle, can have no object. In all such cases, contingent and necessary, we can think of the concepts of having ‘absence’ as the object.

The concept of being is essential to the narrative. Its power for the cosmology and metaphysics to be developed is its NEUTRALITY to such kinds as mind and matter, space and time. Its power for the realizations is to remind us that while the world has many forms or appearances it is but one—that which it is (and not the many that it may seem).

The details of core material and treatment of significant topics that are not necessary to the aim of this document may be found in the document journey in being.

Being

BEING is that which is.

Since ‘everything has being’ the concept of being has been criticized as trivial, even not a concept (since, the allegation goes, it designates nothing). A first response to this objection is that it also designates everything and that triviality of sense and depth of consequence are not exclusive (the entire narrative is concerned with depth of consequence and this shows the value of following through with thought even in the presence of initial doubt). A second criticism may be introduced in terms of an example: if I say that Sherlock Holmes does not have being then what it is that does not have being is or seems incapable of identified; thus ‘Sherlock Holmes does not have being’ seems meaningless. This is sometimes called the problem of negative existentials because it is usually stated regarding the concept of existence whose meaning is close to that of being. Resolution in terms of the symbol-concept-object notion of meaning is simple. ‘Sherlock Holmes’ names or symbolizes a concept and its purported object. The concept is ‘defined’ in the writing of Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes is a consulting detective who lives at 221 Baker Street in London and has a friend—one Dr. James Watson, and so on). Then, ‘Sherlock Holmes does not have being’ means that there is no object corresponding to the concept. This also clarifies the earlier objection regarding ‘everything has being’ for the phrase seems to mean that everything that has being does have being but instead it can now be seen that it means something quite different: that to every concept there corresponds an object and since there may be concepts that do not have objects, the concept of being is not trivial in the way that the objection seems to imply. It might seem that the objections and therefore the responses are concerned with minutiae and removed from anything important. However, we will see that such careful thought is immense in its consequences.

There is still another problem regarding being. We have defined being. However, a definition does not imply an object and so it is valid to ask but is there being? We might respond that the world is being. However, that leaves us with the problem of illusion. To show carefully that there is being and what it is that has being will turn out to be empowering and illuminating. To show that there is being we invoke ‘experience’ (this is the idea in Descartes’ famous ‘I think therefore I am’).

EXPERIENCE is awareness.

In this first meaning, experience is close to consciousness. It is in the nature of experience that we would say ‘experience is subjective awareness’. However, in the discussion on mind we find that in addition to the objective side (e.g., talk about awareness) all awareness has a subjective side (the feel of form, quality, and so on) and so the phrase ‘subjective awareness’ is redundant.

How do we know that there is experience? We are accustomed to the idea of relative proof: A is implied by B, B is implied by C, and so on. We invoke axioms to avoid infinite regress. However, regarding the being of experience we seek non-relative proof. Ask: is there anything at all? If there were not there would not even be illusion of things. Therefore there is at least illusion which is experience (so, not all proof is relative and note that while we have named experience we have done more: we have shown why and how it may be named).

There is experience.

It extends over the entire range of our conscious mental content.

There is an issue with this proof—although it is a proof it seems to lack substance. There is experience but it may all be illusion (or nearly all for if all is illusion it is not an illusion that there is illusion). We would like so show that not all experience is illusory—that the object of experience is ‘substantial’.

We should also consider the objections to experience from materialism. Some critical materialists have objected to the notion of experience it on the ground that it has no place in a material world. However, without experience all would be (seem) dark; but that is metaphorical: without experience, there would not even be ‘seeming’ (an error of critical materialism is of the form: if concepts of matter exclude reference to experience then matter excludes experience).

The proof above allows that there may be nothing but experience. Is this in fact the case? To resolve the problem will be empowering (doubt even when not immediately ‘practical’, again with Descartes, is empowering). The resolution is as follows. In experience we find, seemingly, experience itself and a seeming real world. In experience the magnitude and variety of the real world is found to far exceed the capacity for experience (of what is experienced as the individual). Therefore ‘all is experience’ is either self-contradictory or an alternative labeling for the revealed experience of a real world that contains experience. We conclude:

There is a real world which is experienced and which includes experience.

We could have concluded that there is being from the fact that there is experience. However, we can now conclude that

There is being.

And

Experience shows the variety of being to be rich and knowledge of being to be robust.

Universe

The UNIVERSE is all being.

There is precisely one universe.

The universe has no EXTERNAL CREATOR.

A DOMAIN is part of the universe (here, the sense of PART is such that the whole is a part).

An individual, a cosmological system or COSMOS, and the universe and its parts are domains. Domains, together with processes, relations, interactions, properties, and STATES of being are examples of objects.

Law

A natural law is a reading of a pattern in a domain, typically in a cosmos; the pattern itself is the Law (note the capitalization: ‘Law’).

A LAW is an immanent pattern for a domain.

All Laws have being; all Laws are in the universe.

Void

The VOID is the absence of being.

As complement to the universe (or any object relative to itself) the void exists.

A void is effectively associated with every object (e.g. domain or state of being).

Except that there is at least one, the number of voids is without significance.

The text follows common use in using the phrase ‘the void’.

The void has no Laws.

Limitlessness

From the void, every possible object will emerge. In other words:

The void is EQUIVALENT to every possible object.

A proof is as follows. That an object does not so emerge is impossible for that would be a law of the void.

Every possible object or state of being obtains and is equivalent to every other.

The statement just above is named THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE of metaphysics.

It follows from the principle that something must come from nothing (the void).

With a LIMIT understood to be a state or object that violates neither fact nor logic but that cannot obtain, the fundamental principle is the assertion that:

The universe has no limits.

The universe is eternal and unbounded; its variety is without limit. There are no universal Laws.

If POWER is degree of limitlessness the universe is or has the greatest possible power.

Realism

Are there no limits to realization? Conceive, for example, that our cosmos is different than it is or that there are square circles. These are contradictions—the first of fact or science and the second of logic. However, they are not limits to the universe: they constitute the constraint of realism on the freedom of concept formation.

The constraint of logic is ultimate in permissiveness—in what it allows. What of the constraint of fact or science? It, too, is permissive for while it implies that the facts are facts we must ask what the facts are. Grant that it is a fact that the sun has risen every day on record; it is not a fact (or true concept) that it will rise tomorrow. Grant that the known laws of physics hold in our cosmos at the present time; it is not a fact that they will continue to hold, that they hold in every cosmos, or that the universe as a whole is cosmos-like at all. Thus facts, too, are immensely permissive.

If a concept ‘x’ satisfies the constraint of logic-fact its realization is POSSIBLE (we will abbreviate this: x is possible); otherwise it is impossible. There is a clear sense in which facts (and so science) can be brought under logic: if we know a fact obtains, then the claim that it does not obtain violates the logical principle of non-contradiction. In what follows:

The term LOGIC will generally refer to logic-science-fact or possibility. REALISM is the constraint of logic, i.e. of possibility.

Because two conceptions separately consistent might together entail a contradiction an improved form of the fundamental principle is:

Realism is the only constraint on (understanding of) the universe.

Though maximally permissive, realism is not as permissive as may be thought. The future of logic or realism will include working out what forms the universe has under them.

It is obvious that impossible concepts are not realized but the fundamental principle implies that all possible concepts are realized. Thus the fundamental principle is that all possibilities are realized:

Given any object (especially domain, state of being, or individual), the only constraint that any other object should be accessible to it is realism.

Every object is equivalent to every other object.

Logic-science (fact) is a constraint on concepts for realism, not a limit to power. For precision the phrase ‘constraint to’ in the previous paragraph should be replaced by ‘constraints to concepts that specify’.

The immense freedom of being allowed and required by realism would seem to violate our empirical knowledge. However, the same freedom requires the existence of cosmoses such as ours that seem self contained with regard to empirical knowledge—seemingly though not ultimately cut off from the rest of the universe. Worlds such as ours may be called NORMAL.

Under realism, the PROOFS of many propositions—e.g., in cosmology below—are trivial. Yet, realism must harbor much that is difficult if not impossible for any given limited forms (of individual) to intuit and prove (and so the disciplines—metaphysics, abstract and concrete sciences, yoga(s) or science(s) of transformation of being, and political economy—of the future must be ever in process and complemented by participation and immersion). Realism defines the concept and future LOGIC-SCIENCE regarded as one (differentiated only by the universality of their truths).

Identity

The following abstracts material from the main assertions (the detail is included here because it clarifies cosmology and continuities of identity across unmanifest states).

SAMENESS and DIFFERENCE are basic in that they require no definition.

IDENTITY of object is enduring (sense of) sameness with or without difference.

This concept is not the identity of logic and mathematics.

Identity is an object.

SELF or PERSONAL IDENTITY is an enduring sense of sameness of self (in the following identity usually refers to personal identity).

An INDIVIDUAL is a being with self identity.

Extensivity

The idea of extensivity is essential to cosmology and implicit in the idea of mind.

DURATION is marked by identity or sameness with difference.

EXTENSION is marked by difference without sameness.

There are no other modes of difference.

EXTENSIVITY is marked by sameness and difference. It is the conceptual precursor to spacetime. Objects are identifiable only in extensivity.

SPACETIME is the only extensivity.

From these considerations we can see that the Newtonian cosmology should give way to the ‘relativistic’. Extensivity is, in consequence of its nature as just seen, immanent in being—it is therefore relative rather than absolute (but there may be local as if absoluteness… note that the term ‘relative’ is being used in different senses); and from immanence, extensivity is non-uniform as the local qualities of being are non-uniform. Where identity is minimal and vague so is extensivity; where it is more defined so is extensivity; where sameness and difference are not fully distinguishable, neither are extension and duration; and from immanence it is the local nature of being that defines dimensionality

In today’s philosophy, especially the modern analytic tradition, an ABSTRACT OBJECT, e.g. number, is thought to not be characterized by extensivity. However, without difference there is no identifiable object, abstract or concrete. Further, from and within realism, every concept has an object in the one universe—all objects, abstract and concrete, are in the one universe (so, abstract objects do not reside in another universe of ideal forms, nor are they ‘mental objects’). The difference between the concrete and the abstract, then, is characterized by the fact that the concepts that define the latter have at least some degree of extensivity left out in the abstraction. It would seem natural, then, the concrete are known empirically while the conceptual and symbolic are natural modes of definition of the abstract.

Cosmology

COSMOLOGY is study of the variety and extensivity of being.

The universe has identity and MANIFESTATION, without limit, in acute, diffuse, and absent or void phases.

The universe is the void, an ill formed and transient background, and transient forms from the background (the quantum vacuum has similarities to the void; however the void is true absence while the vacuum is not—something from the vacuum is not something from nothing). Some of these forms are more enduring than others (generally, on account of greater SYMMETRY or articulation—i.e., ADAPTATION or self-sustaining form); these include relatively enduring cosmological systems and individuals. The fundamental principle implies that there is no universal mechanism of formation; however it is reasonable to think that:

The majority of enduring forms emerge in an adaptive process: one of INCREMENTAL variations and selections in which each state in the process is a relatively stable form. The variety, occurrence, and co-occurrence of individuals and cosmological systems and their forms are without limit.

It is expected that a count of adapted forms and histories will overwhelm a count of transients because (a) of the durability of adapted forms and (b) the transients are unlikely to have sentient beings capable of seeing and counting. However, even if ‘invisible’, the void and the transients are of essential significance to understanding the universe.

Also from the fundamental principle:

Continuities of identity across DEATH which is real but not absolute and across unmanifest phases define the concepts of individual and universal SOUL.

The next paragraph explains the continuity and defuses its apparent paradox. The key to the explanation is to understand the unmanifest as on the boundary of spacetime and therefore as incomplete or transitory absence. The state of development of the idea is that it is stated in intuitive terms. However, realism requires its truth.

Identity occurs only where there is extensivity or sameness and difference. In the void and the near void where sameness and difference range from absent to minimal there is little that could be extensivity or identity. This is the reservoir of primal identity and, especially, of its continuities or soul and the continuity occurs because the absolute unmanifest is transient.

Within spacetime (or spacetimes) there are HIGH FORMS, e.g. individuals including local GODS, generally the result of increments as described above, which are not eternal or limitless in their being and knowledge.

The ABSOLUTE—the limitless being and knowing which is roughly the AETERNITAS of Thomas Aquinas and the BRAHMAN of Indian thought—transcends but is not beyond space and time.

The previous paragraphs in this discussion of cosmology define some hierarchical LEVELS OF BEING.

Since any object is equivalent to every object:

All individuals are equivalent to the universe and have its cosmology of manifestation and identity.

That different individuals are equivalent to the universe and its manifestations is not contradictory for their identities merge in realization of the equivalence.

Mind

This section is important in showing the place of mind in the universe (for details see main conclusions of the realizations).

From the section on being, experience in its first meaning covers the entire range of conscious mental content. Other features such as attitude and action are also regarded as associated with mind but as far as conscious content goes, they are particular activities associated with experience and therefore mind. Does the extension to non conscious mental content require such further features?

Let us think of a SUBSTANCE is an immutable kind that is one of one or more constituents of being (substances do not interact because interaction requires change). A substance ontology is one according to which the universe is made of substances (a non substance ontology would be one in which there are no immutable constituents of being). Since any state is equivalent to all states there can be no substance ontology. However, it will aid understanding of mind to see to \what extent substance ontology may provide an adequate account of being.

Let us define MATERIALISM as the substance ontology that matter is the only substance and STRICT materialism as further requiring that matter exclude mind. On this view there is no experience (there could be behavior as if there is experience) and so strict materialism is false. Substance alternatives to strict materialism are (a) ontologies that admit other substances instead of matter or dualism in which matter is but one substance, and (b) to relinquish strictness. An ontology without matter has the problem of explaining matter—unless all substances are the same at root and are therefore not other than materialism. Dualism has the problem of how interactions occur. The surviving alternative is to relinquish strictness—i.e. to see mind as an already known or so far unknown aspect of matter. This is admission that our knowledge of matter is not final and so, on substance ontology, there is a ground substance but to call it mind or matter is not meaningful.

Therefore on substance ontology, experience occurs at the root of being and is bound together with matter. Since experience is relationship (interaction) it is the effect of the experienced (even pure experience is an internal effect). Given an identity, the association with it of a substance or faculty of experience, is often—commonly and philosophically—though metaphorically referred to mind: this is the METAPHOR of mind (as though it is something over and above experience). On the same metaphor, MIND is being-in-relation or second order being while MATTER is being-as-such (‘being-as-being’) or first order being. Mind pervades the universe and what we experience as identity is its concentration in extension and continuity in duration.

How is this modified under realism—i.e. under the deepest understanding where substance ontology is relaxed? The universe is equivalent to the void—and so realism does not allow substance (it does not only disallow ‘stuff’ such as mind and matter, but also process, relationship, interaction, property, word, god, or any other proposed substance as the substance of all being). Now, realism not only allows but also requires normal worlds such as ours in which there are as if substances—i.e. substances as long as the normality of the world is not violated. However, while in our limited form though we have rarely if at all seen exceptions, there are indeed exceptions of immense magnitude of mind (and matter) reaching to the root of being (as required by realism). Generally, neither mind nor matter pervades; where they do, they have the foregoing character; and as we have seen this normal character dominates significant reality. In the normal realm all phenomena are experiential in an extended sense—the effect of one element of being in another—and experience in the sense first introduced is a concentration of the experience in the extended sense. It remains true that while there are other ‘correlates’ of mind, e.g. attitude and action, they are essentially experiential and defined by some further but not alternate condition.

These considerations show a consistently expanded sense or concept of EXPERIENCE in which it is the inner aspect of an element of being whose outer aspect is interaction with (other elements of being in) the universe.

In this second meaning, experience includes ‘unconscious’ processing and far more. Insofar as experience is relationship and mind requires experience, that there can be mind without a more elementary form is a contradiction of meaning. However, the logical material requirement of mind is minimal.

From the perspective of an individual, identity is the place of experience which is the source of a metaphor of mind as a place or object in the individual. Non-metaphorically, mind is an alternative term for experience and its varieties.

In this sense mind pervades the universe and what we experience as identity is its concentration in extension and continuity in duration.

Because matter and mind are being itself and being in relationship, respectively, there are no further terms to the ‘series’ that begins with mind and matter. Spinoza’s thought that the series is unending is an error based in substance ontology. There may of course be infinitely many kinds of quality or property.

We have seen that experience is one aspect of interaction all the way to the root of being and that in formed worlds all awareness is experience (has an experiential side). However, there are arguments that even relatively high level awareness may be non-experiential. Let us consider one such argument. A brain in which the corpus callosum, the bundle of axons that connect left and right hemispheres, has been cut (usually to reduce epileptic symptoms) is referred to as ‘split’. Experiments with split brain persons show that the individual responds to events in the field of vision without reporting or being able to report awareness of the events. This phenomenon has been cited as an example of awareness without consciousness experience. However, there is an alternate explanation. It is that there is more than one region of awareness—a peripheral that takes in stimuli and a more central one that is aware of awareness and makes reports of awareness possible. In normal individuals these regions are in communication but for split brain individuals communication is cut off and this blocks central awareness and reporting of the visual awareness. The explanation that purports to show that there is awareness without experience does not do so because there is an alternate explanation.

The conclusions of the previous two paragraphs are examples of resolutions of problems of mind (and matter) from the present necessary account of mind and matter. Other problems of mind and matter may also be treated on this account. This is done in the following documents: main results and details of the realizations.

Intuition

It is rather characteristic that valid science as knowledge is truth but its function is instrumental. Symbols are complemented by INTUITION which shall here connote an embodied sense of the real, including and complement to symbolic representation (embodiment is a deep goal and the sense a means of realization). Intuition is crucial in realization in that what is true and there is not always under bright light. In any attempt at ultimate comprehension in terms of symbols, there is the possibility of paradox. Intuition is a guide at the border of paradox-paradise / consistency-exclusion of riches but instrumentality. But, so as to avoid mere speculation devoid of realism and potential for realization, it is also important for intuition to be critical and in interaction with analytic criticism. The critical analysis for the issue of continuity of identity is likely to straddle the logic-science border which, since the universal metaphysics requires limitless realization, is likely to not be a sharp border or divide.

In developing the consequences of realism it is realism itself that provides proofs while, where explicit analysis has not yet been developed, intuition or heuristic works toward finding the forms of being that exemplify what is proved. Further, while realism provides proofs, intuition suggests the proofs and what to prove. For the present purpose all that is valid in tradition and experience falls under intuition.

Metaphysics

METAPHYSICS is KNOWLEDGE of being.

Though widely criticized in modern thought, a powerful metaphysics in just the above sense has been established in the considerations above.

Realism, exemplified and elaborated in the cosmology, defines a PURE metaphysics named the UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS and called, simply, THE METAPHYSICS.

How has this been possible? The foundation of the metaphysics is in knowledge of being (that there is something that is), universe (that there is all being), Law (that there are patterns), and the void (absence of being). Thus the foundation is empirical but also precise since abstraction has omitted detail whose non distortion is not guaranteed.

This pure metaphysics is LITERAL and PERFECT knowledge of being under the CRITERION OF VALIDITY as FAITHFULNESS to the object.

It is obvious from the separation of knower and known and from examples of error and illusion that the literal perfect faithfulness is not universally coherent or realized in everyday knowledge and TRADITION (the institutions and systems of knowledge and know how of human civilization and cultures, ancient to modern including the abstract sciences such as logic and mathematics and the empirical sciences of matter, life, mind, and society).

The universal metaphysics implies that, for vast realms of traditional empirical and instrumental knowledge, perfect faithfulness is neither possible nor (on account of its impossibility and because our cosmos is an element in a far, far greater process) desirable. However:

For limited form there are and must be criteria or forms of validity such as (a) GOOD ENOUGH faithfulness and (b) knowing as part of our IMMANENCE-IN-THE-WORLD. The former is an instrument of adaptation—an expression of the fact that we do negotiate the world; the latter has focus on enjoyment on being-in-the-world rather than exclusively on manipulation and criteria related to manipulation of the world.

The good enough criterion is exemplified by everyday knowledge and values and by science (which is an extension of the everyday) and, of course, in some cases and for some purposes, ‘good enough’ is very good. Immanence-in-the-world is exemplified by the MYTH-HOLISM of oral traditions and modern thought, e.g. that of Heidegger and interpreters.

It is important that myth-holism is not in opposition to but includes the other modes, especially the literal. These modes constitute a continuum defined by degree of explicitness of concern with criteria from the perfectly literal to immanence.

A great part of our tradition derives its significance from these other criteria of validity.

The universal metaphysics and valid elements of the tradition combine to form a PRACTICAL METAPHYSICS that inherits the ultimacy and perfection of the metaphysics and the empirical and instrumental character of the traditions. How? Though remote, the universal metaphysics requires ‘tradition’ locally (e.g. our cosmos); and the tradition is our local instrument in beginning exploration of the universe. The practical metaphysics integrates the approaches to knowing—the perfect, the instrumental, and the enjoyment of living in the world.

This join is also ultimate, not as perfectly faithful, but as being the best possible system of universal understanding in the realization by beings of universality as seen in the cosmology.

In greater detail, the practical metaphysics develops as follows. The tradition gives us rough understanding of some forms or CATEGORIES OF BEING such as EXPERIENCE, REAL WORLD, IDENTITY, SPACETIME, and MIND-AND-MATTER. While these are not perfectly universal and do not exhaust the forms, they may be refined under the universal metaphysics. The metaphysics, which is remote in its EMPIRICAL and INSTRUMENTAL connection to the details of world, illuminates the traditions and requires that they have significant validity; every tradition is a temporary empirical and instrumental connection to the world and yields to or is simply replaced on the way to the newer and sometimes higher forms of being and knowing. This is possible because the metaphysics and the tradition complement one another: the validity of the metaphysics stems from its conceptual remoteness or ABSTRACTION from empirical detail; the strength of the tradition, especially of science, is its approach to empirical detail.

The development of the practical metaphysics deflates any apparent conflict between the pure metaphysics and valid tradition including experience. Speaking metaphorically, it shows that we live in two worlds: the immediate and the ultimate—i.e., the ‘everyday’ world with its real but now seen not absolute limits and the limitless universe. Speaking in terms of realism there is just one world—the universe revealed in its unity by the metaphysics whose particulars are woven together in the practical side of the metaphysics—‘practical’ knowledge is not merely practical.

The separation of the metaphysics as conceptual and the tradition as empirical is not absolute but one of emphasis. The foundation of the metaphysics was seen to include the empirical; the abstract sciences of the tradition are conceptual and the empirical sciences hypothesize concepts over empirical data (which may be rejected if clearly in disagreement with newer data).

There is a further benefit to the join of the metaphysics and tradition: it is the refinement of our understanding of the categories of being and (a) their elevation in many significant aspects to perfect faithfulness and (b) improved understanding in other significant aspects of what is only imperfect andor local.

Is there empirical evidence for the metaphysics? It is of course empirically founded. Being as being, experience as experience, universe as universe, void as void, Law as Law, and that there is no Law in the void are known empirically and perfectly. From our experience we know of reasoning and its nature even if we do not know its full nature just as though we know the fact of being we do not know its variety. The conclusion that the fundamental principle is realism is now seen to be empirical in that it is the simplest of conclusions. However, what I mean by the question at the beginning of this paragraph is whether there is empirical confirmation of the predictions of the metaphysics. We have seen that the metaphysics favors the worldview of modern physics (quantum, relativistic) over the classical; and the metaphysics gives favor to adaptation over pre-formation. These are modest confirmations (or non disconfirmations) of the metaphysics. However, the metaphysics definitely predicts that we have come nowhere near the end of science. And it predicts some aspects of being that are or shall be part of experience. Therefore the metaphysics is open to disconfirmation. However, this is not the end of the story. We have seen that the metaphysics is realism and that realism (logic-fact) are and must be only at a beginning (according to the metaphysics). The ‘confirmation’, an ongoing affair, of the metaphysics lies not only in empirical testing but in experiments in reason and discovery and creation of form.

There is some modest evidence for the metaphysics. The openness to evidence is ongoing in that the metaphysics implies that we are at the beginning of science. However, the main ‘prediction’ of the metaphysics is that our modes of reason and being are open to discovery and creation.

Are there any doubts about the metaphysics? A proof of existence of the void was given: the existence is consistent via reason with the nature of being and it cannot be inconsistent with experience. Yet to treat the void as an object and the magnitude of the conclusions give reasons for doubt (it is important to reemphasize that the metaphysics harbors no inconsistency of fact or reason though, of course, particular applications of it may be erroneous and inconsistent). This is similar to doubt for any significant proposition. The doubt may be regarded as EXISTENTIAL: the aim of action under the metaphysics is reasonable but not guaranteed. If there is doubt, the value of engagement and its expected realizations are greater.

The metaphysics began simply—with being as that which is. An assessment of the power of the idea is now possible. In avoiding commitments to such kinds as matter, mind, extension, process, and quality or property, an ultimate scaffold for understanding has emerged—ultimate showing and capturing the ultimate character of the universe. The metaphysics also avoids commitments such as the universe as pure consciousness or love. If it were to avoid commitment to truth, the metaphysics would be disempowering. However, to reveal truth can only be empowering; to reveal the greatest truth must be great empowerment.

Is there a way in which the universe is or can be thought of as pure love? In some traditions cognition and affect are thought distinct and one valued over the other. However, roughly, cognition and affect are to one another as means and values. Every act of cognition is imbued with some affect; no occasion of affect is devoid of form; and there is no separating the two sides of mind.

AFFECT will refer to joint cognition-affect—to cover MEANS and VALUES. GOOD (the good) will describe the self-sustaining aspects of adapted and durable forms. EVIL, then, refers to destructive aspects.

From the metaphysics there is no limit or ceiling to the good. Where the good emerges it is special—and especially valued. As destruction of the good, evil has a ceiling. Evil may hurt but cannot exceed good (in general). This gives meaning to evil and pain; they occur in the good and because there is good (of course this is no justification of evil acts but a perception of the reason for their being).

The neutrality of being implies that the universe cannot be essentially evil and so adaptivity of form implies that good bounds evil, that abandonment and pain do not exceed care and love. The good which includes all affects among its dimensions is not the essence of the neutral universe. However, it is the essence of non-primitive formed sentient kinds. It is this character of the constructive affects that make them values and give meaning even to the negative affects.

What is the highest form of being? If we do not know it in full we may still be able to say something of it. The metaphysics shows that every creation is followed by dissolution. However, this does not imply a limit to the height of the forms. What is the nature of the highest form? Is it the result of mechanical process? Practically, mechanical process is the blind aspect of process (even if it does, in adaptation, result in seeing). From this perspective affective involvement in the universe, especially in its own being, will result in the high kinds without limit; this will occur when the reign of mechanism gives way to a reign of affect (cognition-feeling). From the perspective of essence affect is the place of significance and significant meaning and so the place of the good or the high and therefore of the highest forms is the affective kind.

The good is the essence of higher affective sentience and its place in the universe. Affective sentience is the place of the highest good and in this regard knows no limit.

Realization

From the metaphysics there is no static ultimate. The ultimate is process. Limits are relative.

While in limited form being is BEING-IN-REALIZATION—that is, a relationship between the immediate and the ultimate on the way to the ultimate; this is given. What CHOICE does limited, e.g. human, form have? It is to ENGAGE in the process with the WHOLE BEING. This, it may be reasonably argued from adaptivity, is immensely more likely than acquiescence to be ENJOYED and EFFECTIVE in realization.

For limited form, realization is a journey that is ever fresh; it is without limit in variety and extensivity.

From limitlessness, realization for limited forms must be an endless process in ever freshness, limitless in variety, extension, peaks and their forms and magnitudes, and dissolutions—a journey in being. There will of course be challenges—ennui, pain, difficulty of vision. One overcoming of these challenges is in seeing and finding ways to see, even in process, identity with the ultimate. However, this overcoming—described in the traditions—does not and cannot relieve us of the essential present limitations of form and of the necessity of actual realization. The ideal is to ‘live in two worlds’—the immediate and the ultimate as one and to find ways to do so.

Is there realization of the ultimate and experience of it in this life? Yes. Is this ‘eternal’? In living in the two worlds of the immediate in the ultimate, this is the eternal in the present. There is pain but it has meaning. Pain from illusion or non-seeing has overcoming in process. Realizations outweigh negatives.

The net process is this. One realization is in ‘this’ world as above—but is simultaneously in process. The process itself is simultaneously incremental (the mechanics) and seeking singularities—portals to higher realms. What is accomplished in this life is on the way to the ultimate.

These conclusions come from the metaphysics—from the best understanding of it.

Ways

The WAY is engagement of the whole being (‘mind-heart-body’ and community) in knowledge and realization of higher form in this world and in ultimate process.

Here there is a manner in which we are each on our own; in which we enjoy and reflect; take risks—perform experiments in being; learn and consolidate or reject increments and other measures of process. We develop our own ways and catalysts of change.

CATALYSTS shake our sense of the real at all levels of ‘mind-heart-body’—they open us to the voice of our unconscious, to casting off limits of traditional thought and views of the world, and to perception. The action of a strong or deep enough catalyst may bring the individual temporarily close or even to death. An example: the vision quest with its days of fast, isolation, and exposure to the elements and other danger is highly catalytic.

The WAYS are ways of life that are conducive to and embody the ultimate and its realization.

Simultaneously, others are in the same process. The process is communal. Together, we compare learning—develop traditions shared among peers and from generation to generation. There are venerated and charismatic TEACHERS but to think in terms of mastery over transience is stasis.

At a more inclusive level the process involves civilization. HUMAN CIVILIZATION is the web of human community across time and continents. Universal CIVILIZATION is the matrix of civilizations across the universe. Civilization nurtures the individual, individuals foster civilization. The metaphysics requires and suggests that Civilization forges its way to becoming an individual.

The WAYS include CATALYSTS and DISCIPLINES of change. A MECHANICS OF TRANSFORMATION further employs the risk of experiment and reflection in realization. Simultaneously, the mechanics establishes and enhances the ways. ESTABLISHED ways, which include catalysts, are ‘formal’ DISCIPLINES.

The established ways are (a) INTRINSIC (of the individual—of mind-heart-body, e.g. yoga, often mediated by a teacher or ‘guru’ via ideas and ‘RITUAL’ aimed at reaching depth of the individual, often enhanced in a spiritual community or band) which are not distinct from (b) the INSTRUMENTAL (e.g., modern science and technology). The distinction of the intrinsic and the instrumental is roughly that of PSYCHE (‘mind-heart’) versus the PHYSICAL (body-environment) but there is obvious overlap and meshing of psyche and the physical and so of the intrinsic and the instrumental. The mechanics of transformation is: action and risk based in reflexive rationality of values and means, aims (i) at two levels—the entire being but also at the ways and disciplines and (ii) and incremental consolidation in being and knowledge—especially of PSYCHE-IDENTITY-NATURE (‘science’) in light of the metaphysics and the traditions (not to be limited to current western academic foci and method—generally but especially for PSYCHOLOGY; shall include focus on use and usefulness in transformation and realization).

The ELEMENTS of transformation include: VEHICLES (individual and civilization), MEANS (ideas and action), MODES (intrinsic and external to identity—e.g., the focus of YOGA and the focus of science), DISCIPLINES (accumulated-formal and oral-mythic—and their mechanics; also classed as conceptual and active which includes technology and ritual), and PLACES (intrinsic: psyche, and external: nature and civilization—i.e., society).

Path

A secular view is that our normal world is the universe. Trans-secular thought describes greater worlds that in some views are distant from ours. In the universal metaphysics all possibilities are realized: our world is embedded in the limitless. There is experience named pure being—the ultimate in the present—living in two worlds as one; sometimes taken for the ultimate, this is not the end of realization. Engaged realization is becoming (discovery and transformation) and being (be-ing-at-this-time: sustaining). In summary:

One PATHWAY is interaction among BEING (SUSTAINING) and BECOMING (discovery and transformation) mediated by PURE BEING. Sustaining (be-ing) emphasizes shared spiritual practice and life of ways and catalysts. Becoming emphasizes transformations in ideas—and ideas toward transformation, individual identity, shared identity in civilization, and artifact. Because process is eternal, relative to it we are always at the beginning. However, there is a parallel state of being and attitude: pure being is an ideal state informed by transience and the real, always being-in-two-worlds as one.

In greater detail: BEING-SUSTAINING is founded on spiritual practice—simultaneously awakening, maintaining, and living. Awakening and maintaining are interwoven as—daily review and practice of catalysts and ways. Mundane sustaining activities are integral to this and it is sought to infuse them with practice and so use them toward becoming. Being-sustaining is individual andor in a spiritual community where each enhances the other. PURE BEING is an ideal state informed by transience and the real, always being-in-two-worlds as one. It mediates be-ing and becoming in the beginning, in the process, and awareness of (real but not absolute) death. Knowing death-transience and the real, in turn, illuminate and motivate pure being. BECOMING with the following phases: ideas (metaphysics), review, and design; transformation of identity (nature, catalysts, ways); shared transformation (civilization, world, community, shared intrinsic ways, e.g. yoga—a spiritual band); artifactual transformation (shared instrumental approach including abstract and natural sciences and technology).