The Realizations of Being

In the text, light blue font marks essential material.

Small capitals mark defined and other special terms.

CONTENTS

Limitlessness | Realism | Extensivity | Cosmology | Identity

Aim

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

This template for metaphysics and realization is scaffolding. Little explicit demonstration is given. Analysis of the concepts of existence and experience is important to founding the development and grounding the aim of the realizations. These and other significant materials are treated in journey in being.

As scaffold, one aim of the metaphysics of the document is to frame any possible but realistic system of knowledge and action. The plan for this document is to continue to refine it and to use it together with detailed information as a template for reflection, writing, and realization.

Ideas

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

The term ‘is’ has two 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 the atemporal sense of existence that is not in time.

Being

Being is that which is.

There is being.

Identity is enduring (sense of) sameness.

Self or personal identity is an enduring sense of sameness of self (in the following ‘identity’ will usually refer to personal identity).

An individual is a being with self identity.

Universe

The universe is all being.

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 may be considered to be 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 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 would be a law of the void.

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

This statement just above is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics.

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 it has 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 ultimately permissive. 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 satisfies the constraint of logic-fact its realization is possible (we will abbreviate this: the concept 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 thinking it does not 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.

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 state of being or individual, the only constraint that any other state or individual should be accessible to it is realism.

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’.

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, yogas, and political economy—of the future must be ever in process and complemented by immersion). Realism defines the concept and future logic-science regarded as one (differentiated only by the universality of their truths).

Extensivity

The following treatment is a minimal extraction from the main assertions of the metaphysics that will clarify cosmology and the issue the possibility of continuities of identity across unmanifest states.

Sameness and difference are basic in that they require no definition. Identity of object, person, or self is sameness with or without difference (this concept is not the identity of logic and mathematics). Duration is marked by identity or sameness with difference. Extension is marked by difference without sameness. Extensivity is marked by difference. Spacetime is the only extensivity (an abstract object such as number is, apparently, not characterized by extensivity but without difference there is no identifiable abstract or concrete object; the difference between the abstract and the concrete, then, is that the latter refer to some particular region in extensivity while the former are not so restricted).

Extensivity marks sameness and difference. It is the conceptual precursor to spacetime. Objects are identifiable only by extensivity.

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. Some of these forms are more enduring than others (generally, on account of greater symmetry or articulation—i.e., adaptation); 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.

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.

That there should be such continuity across unmanifest phases seems paradoxical. However if the unmanifest can be understood as incomplete absence the seeming paradox might be resolved. If the universe as a whole is not defined by extensivity (time and space) the continuity might be mediated by the transient background. This is taken up in the section on identity below.

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 every part is equivalent to every other all domains and:

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.

Identity

An essential but intuitive conclusion from the previous sections on extensivity and cosmology concerns continuities across unmanifest states including death:

Identity occurs only where there is sameness and difference. In the void or 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.

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.

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—the universal metaphysics, also called 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 where the criterion of validity is 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 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). 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. 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.

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.

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.

The metaphysics began without fanfare—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, and process, an ultimate scaffold for understanding has emerged—ultimate showing and capturing the ultimate character of the universe. The metaphysics also avoids commitments to such kinds as universal consciousness and love. This, too, is empowering: where such kinds emerge they are likely to be adaptations and therefore special. And: if evil is destruction of what is good, there is a limit to evil: though it may hurt, it cannot exceed the good. And it gives meaning to evil: without it there would be no good. Is the universe good? The metaphysics is neutral to the issue but: where there is formed being there must be good.

The neutrality of being implies that evil cannot exceed good, that abandonment does not exceed care and love. Though love, the good and other cognitive-affective kinds are not the essence of the neutral universe they are close to the essence of formed sentient kinds.

Realization

While in limited form being is being-in-realization—that is, a relationship between the immediate and the ultimate. What choice limited, e.g. human, form does have is to engage in the process with their whole being; which, it may be reasonably argued from adaptivity, is immensely more likely (than acquiescence) to be enjoyed and effective in realization.

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 and to find ways to do so.

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

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

Ways

The way is engagement of the whole being (‘mind-heart-body’) in realization.

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.

Simultaneously, others are in the same process. 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.

The ways include catalysts and disciplines of change. A mechanics of transformation further employs experiment and reflection and simultaneously establishes and enhances the ways.

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. The established ways, which include catalysts, are established disciplines—(a) intrinsic (of the individual, 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) and (b) 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).

Some elements of transformation are: vehicles (individual and civilization, roughly being and community, in interaction), 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 pathway is an interaction of be-ing and becoming in light of pure being.

One pathway is of (a) Be-ing: spiritual practice—simultaneously awakening, maintaining, and living—daily review and practice of catalysts and ways and sustaining activities are foundation being as eternal and renewal in becoming—individually andor as part of a spiritual community; sustaining activities are part of this and it is sought to infuse them with the practice and to use them toward becoming; (b) Becoming with the following phases: ideas (metaphysics), review, and design; transformation of identity (nature, catalysts, ways); shared transformation (civilization, world, community, shared intrinsic ways); artifactual transformation (shared instrumental approach including abstract and natural sciences and technology; and (c) a time of Pure being (when satisfied with process in light of the reality of death and the ultimate real). In summary:

One pathway is as follows. Being—shared spiritual practice and life of catalysts and ways. Becoming—or transformations in ideas, identity (individual and shared in civilization), and artifact. The path is always the being-in-two-worlds. Pure being—in light of death and the real.