Introduction
Ideas
Realization
Resource: sources, ‘how to’ and other material as in outline of the realizations.html (perhaps refer to other editions for this); retain in long resource version.

Center-out

Here the cosmology is at the center!

Experience (being)—the general interest!
The cosmology (including identity, person, journey)—the academic interest!
Realization—the ultimate interest!

Scaffold

The topics and supplementary material (grey text) are temporary guide. When done, only bare content will remain.

Resource

A long version with the topics and supplement will function as primary resource.

Plan for this edition

I intend it to be (a) publishable as a short account and manual (b) be effective for my personal use—particularly as a portable manual for the essentials and the plan.

I will hone the very short version, adapting it to use by myself and others.

The resource version will be refined to the point where it will be useful in further development.

Comments in this and in bort.html on their relationship and on levels of detail and extreme detail marked by ‘notes’, ‘older’, and ‘more’…

Plan for the plan

Execute, absorb essential remainders to the resource, eliminate

THE REALIZATIONS

About the book—covers etc

Front and back cover—see, e.g., front cover and back cover.

Front page—Title with picture, see e.g. front page.

Title and edition information—see, e.g., title.

Contents—see contents.

Preface—in this version prefatory material is in the introduction; also see preface.

Epilogue—see the realizations and resource.

Author—see material on the author in the micro edition.

Photographs—the nature photographs symbolize nature as significant ground and inspiration. Some photographs show places of specific inspiration.

Introduction

This is the format of material that will not appear in the shortest version.

The realizations

This edition presents the realizations as a compact picture. Detail may be found here.

Aim

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

The immediate and the ultimate

The immediate and the ultimate are essential to one another—they are interlaced rather than remote from each other. I sometimes call their join the immediate-ultimate or, simply, the world.

The good, possibility, feasibility

‘So far as it is good’ entails ‘so far as it is possible’ and suggests ‘so far as it is feasible’.

Peak and process

‘Highest’ emphasizes peak and process.

Engaging versus be-ing

So there are judgments to be made or defaulted regarding when to engage, when to engage only to the degree of ‘good’ or ‘good enough’, and as to when to just be.

Origins and motives

The aim was suggested by my life, experience, and thought in interaction with aspects of ‘tradition’ (see understanding the narrative, below).

The general motive is contribution to the present and future of civilization and human being.

A personal motive has been wonder and love of beauty in being—nature, ideas, persons, civilization, the universe. From the wonder, I sought to cultivate these and the result was what is described in the aim and the general motive.

On worldviews

See on worldviews and about the new world view.

The idea of a worldview or cosmology

A worldview is a comprehensive picture, presented in words andor icons, of the universe and the relations of living being to and in it.

An importance of the idea of worldview is that (a) every culture and every individual has at least some implicit worldview (b) the view informs and is informed by the range of thought and behavior within the culture or society and (c) such views are instrumental in past, present, and future enjoyment in and success of the culture (society).

Modes of expression

The modes of expression are literal-atomic and mythic-holist. These form a continuum. Modern culture emphasizes the literal-atomic; primal cultures emphasize the mythic-holist; but each has elements of the other.

Perhaps the mythic-holist came first. But the mythic-holist may use rather atomic language. Therefore in origins, which are hidden from us, it is likely that both modes arose together. The likelihood of this lies in that the intuitive capability of literal-atomism greatly enhances capacity for symbolic and significant meaning but mythic-holism was likely better adapted to primal needs in relation to a ‘capricious’ environment. Later, when humankind emerged from subsistence economies, literal-atomism emerged as an instrument of control over an environment that came to be seen as controllable.

Mythic-holism is frequently oral, tied to a specific environment, adjustable in the face of experience and changing environments, spiritual and natural. It is adapted to adaptation. Mythic-holism does not exclude the fact and use of the literal-atomic for specialized purposes.

Literal-atomism frequently includes the written (today: electronic) as a means of preservation, improvement (e.g. study and research), communication, and transmission. While the literal-atomic may be deficient with regard to the holist aspect of the world, it is well adapted to sciences that emerged under its aegis. There is a tendency to specialization , especially because it is in specialization that precision and accuracy may be captured. However, the role of myth, too, becomes specialized. This leads to the fundamentalist distortion of the very nature of human understanding. The fundamentalism appears even in certain kinds of scientific positivism that argue that science is the only true knowledge. It may be possible that an enhanced conception of science may encompass all knowing (the conception would include process at least) but the kind of positivism in question typically defaults to (a) instrumental knowledge (b) the science of the present era. The issue of the mesh of myth, science, and worldview is taken up in the development.

The Standard Cosmologies

Secular, trans-secular (includes the secular)

The worldview of the narrative

I have long seen that negotiating the world involves local and global understanding and their give and take (many modern systems suppress the give and take and this has led to systems that are as unrealistic as they have been impressive—it has led to the criticism that the grand narrative, usually a derogatory term, should be eschewed in favor of local accounts that emancipate rather than merely inform; this point is taken up subsequently in addressing tension between idea and use).

From 1985 to around 1999 I developed a number of ‘relative’ worldviews (or to resort to rough use of terms defined more precisely later: metaphysics, cosmology). They were relative being based on an unfounded foundation. Around 1992 I began to seek a non-relative foundation (aware that this is commonly regarded as unattainable I did not feel that I would be guaranteed success). I had the intuition that if the understanding of the universe could be founded in the absence of being—the void—that this would enable a non-relative foundation. I was aware of the possible absurdity of ‘equivalence’ of the universe and the void (something from true nothing, e.g. possible violation of conservation laws) but I thought that it is our empirical cosmos that the absurdity could be avoided if I found our cosmos with its regularities to be embedded in a larger world without all of those regularities. What was the largest of such worlds—it would be the universe of the possible. I was unable to find a non relative foundation till in 2002 I had the intuition or insight to look at the properties of the void: in summary of what we find below, the void exists and contains neither being nor natural law. It was this that enabled the proof of the possibilist universe.

This proof is given in the development. A way is found about the doubt that the void exists (the present way was found recently and this moves this doubt from the realm of the essential to that of the critical).

So the view, then, of the narrative is a non relative foundation: the universe is the universe of all possibility. The conclusions are momentous. Though the view itself is not new the proof, the confidence in it, and the consequences drawn here, which are empowered by proof and consequence, are immense. It is important that though the view may seem absurd, the potential absurdities, especially conflict with experience and what is valid in our traditions.

Is this worldview truly non relative? The view is a mesh of a framework (the possibilist universe) and what is valid in experience and tradition. The framework is perfect and non-relative founded knowledge. The framed is ever in process and therefore has no perfect foundation. It is important that the mesh is a mix of the non-relative and the relative (the former frames and enhances the latter, the latter is instrumental regarding the former). However, the framework shows that no such perfection is possible or needed; and, as will be seen, the mesh is perfect-in-realization-of-the-ultimate.

Means

The means of realization which are essential to one another are ideas and action or realization. These define the main divisions of the text.

On ideas

Ideas—especially thought, perception, feeling, willing and intending—are essential in negotiation and appreciation of the world. However, relative to the aim, the ideas are not an end in themselves. The aim concerns the entire organism—psyche and body—and community, e.g. civilization. The ideas are a part of this process.

The ideas include representation of the world. They provide a map for realization.

The ideas are not merely formal; cognition is infused with emotion. Feeling does not prove an idea but marks its significance. Thus ideas are substantial.

Arrangement

It is effective to arrange the text into two main parts—ideas and realization (action).

Foundation

The foundation of the ideas—The foundation of the ideas is in the notions of experience and being. The significance of being is its neutrality in relation to kinds (categories, substance) such as mind and matter: the approach from being avoids errors inherent in the kinds. The significance of experience is that it is the place of relationship and the container of what is significant in the life of beings.

Main conclusions

The main conclusions in the ideas—The main result is the demonstration of a universal metaphysics which is ultimate (1) as a perfect picture of the universe (the sense of perfect is clarified in the text) and (2) in showing the universe to be ultimate in the sense that it is the realization of all possibility. There are conclusions for the possibility and nature of metaphysics, for the cosmologies of the universe, for the ‘cosmology’ of life and (human) identity, and a range of special conceptual and practical (immediate) topics.

The realizations

The realizations—One conclusion is that the universe has Identity that is ultimate in its range and power; that this Identity confers its power on human identity; but that the realization of Identity while individual form is limited is an eternal journey of endless variety. Though this is given, intelligent commitment—passionate versus dispassionate as appropriate—makes the process effective and enjoyed. The part on realization develops (1) the idea of realization as a process in immediate-ultimate worlds, (2) approaches to realization (with sources in the universal metaphysics and tradition), and (3) templates that may be adapted to a range of (life) choices and paths.

Audience

The audience is defined by three interests, (1) the general picture, (2) the ideas which includes the academic interest, and (3) interest in universal realization.

Understanding the narrative

Here I consider and suggest resolutions to issues that the audience may face.

Originality of the work

The work centers on (a) my work which includes a new understanding of the universe and (b) consequences for the endeavor of (human) being. Thus the reader should expect to encounter new material.

On meanings and intuition

A new understanding requires new meaning. Readers should be aware that the narrative frequently uses well known terms with new meaning. Further the system meaning is greater than the collection of individual meanings. This can be put in another way: the meanings of the individual terms are not merely a matter of definition; rather, understanding occurs when the system is grasped as a whole. This requires that time be allowed for assimilation.

The new understanding was enabled by a new system of ideas. This system challenged my intuition is likely to challenge readers’ intuition. The issue of intuition may be addressed by (a) carefully following the formal development, (b) remembering that the results are proved and are shown to be consistent with what is valid in our experience, traditions, and sciences, and (c) allowing time for assimilation.

Conditions on any new view

Any significant new view, regardless of its intuitive status, must satisfy the following conditions for acceptance: it must be proved, it must be internally consistent, it must be consistent with facts and with older views where they are valid.

The development assures that the conditions are met. These are given and this should address issues of both validity and intuition. It may be worthwhile to point out that whereas the new view shows the large scale universe to be far greater and different from our cosmos, it is consistent with and even requires the existence of cosmoses such as ours.

Intuition and doubt

There is a technical notion of ‘intuition’ as the capabilities of an organism to apprehend the world. Thus, while different cultural systems may be different systems of reality, the intuitive capabilities of our organism may limit the range of the cultures. When we construct a system at the edge of this capability there may be difficult to overcome issues of intuition; and it may be difficult to distinguish these problems of intuition from formal difficulties (quantum theory is an example). Thus the sources of intuitive and formal difficulty may unclear. New systems of understanding should acknowledge such issues and other doubts. The narrative makes this acknowledgement and draws strength from it.

It is useful to note two kinds of doubt. One type of doubt asks questions whose resolution leads to greater clarity and certainty (so far as certainty is warranted). This may be called critical doubt. Another type remains unresolved; this is ‘essential doubt’. It is important to show that any essential doubt that we allow does not render the development absurd or untenable.

Features that address problems of understanding and intuition

1. Understanding the nature of the work

Valid tradition, ancient to modern, is useful. However, realization will also require initiative and discovery: the work is not a compendium—it goes beyond the standard worldviews of the tradition. The view developed will challenge intuition and understanding; so it is necessary to attend to meanings as defined, to the system of meaning, and to be prepared to reeducate the intuition (here is a readers’ guide). The view is internally consistent and though it may seem to violate cumulative experience and culture, it is in agreement with what is valid in them.

2. Doubt and its importance

I have raised and addressed numerous doubts. This may facilitate address of readers’ doubts. Doubt is crucial and it is via imagination and doubt that the present view developed. Thus I have no desire to suppress reader doubt or my own doubt (I suspect that some readers however would prefer to not encounter doubt and of course I am subject to the same preference at times but I always come back to a point where doubt is part of the only way forward). My address of doubt, and so whatever security-certainty may be possible, has a further function—it is an empathy with others’ doubts and so perhaps an aid in appropriate resolution of such doubts. In this manner I hope I may be contrasted to Sigmund Freud who sought to suppress publication of uncertainty. I hope I may perhaps be compared to Gottlob Frege who acknowledged the insecurity of the foundation of his famous Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Vol. I (1893); Vol. II (1903), which, in addition to the positive contribution of the work, helped the twentieth century advance of the foundations of mathematics.

3. Parallel summary version of the narrative.

There is a summary version of the narrative that is intended to show the structure of the picture as a whole.

4. Addressing tension between idea and action or use

One criticism of earlier philosophy that arose in the twentieth century, roughly between the two wars, ‘critical theory’, has as one of its tenets that knowledge—philosophy—is critical, as opposed to traditional, to the extent that it seeks human emancipation, “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory, 1982, 244). Of course, any implication that the traditional did not have emancipation as one at least implicit objective is not true. Further, any implication that all theory should be critical andor only critical in the given sense is also far from true. This is in part because emancipation requires at least some understanding, so far is it is possible, of the place of human being in the world and the universe as a whole. The narrative addresses these apparently and only apparently contrary objectives by providing universal and local accounts, by keeping them separate (at least to some extent and for purposes of getting both perspectives right) and connected—embedding-embedded. Being is one of the notions that enhances the neutrality of the connection while experience, understood in its general sense, is (the way of or into) connection-interaction-relationship.

5. Definitions and systematic development

While many of the terms used here are established terms, they have numerous meanings in the literature, and so are given precise and perhaps novel definitions here. The definitions here were arrived at via a fairly long process in which I tinkered with individual meanings while simultaneously attempting to security the integrity of the system as a whole. Thus it is important that the reader pay attention to the individual as well as the system meanings.

6. But the narrative allows ‘non systematic’ elements

It is important that the development is not systematic of necessity. I make this point not because it will necessarily be an issue of intuition but because the notion of system may cause unease to some readers (falling under the broad classes that may be labeled ‘analytic philosophy’, ‘continental philosophy’, ‘pragmatic’, and ‘practical’). What system there is arose naturally, was not forced (in fact it was a slow process of seeing that led to seeing system). Where it is useful to import learning from tradition this is done (and is crucial). ‘Ad hoc’ elements such as risk are admitted. This addresses the issue of the ‘grand narrative’ whose point concerns earlier overweening metaphysical and other theoretical developments—developments that sought to impose system on the universe. The present development of system is a natural and, in a manner to be seen, empirical framework. The particular and the local find a place within this framework.

7. Concepts that are universal and local

The concepts of being, experience, universe, domain, pattern or natural law, and void, have been chosen to express and facilitate universality. Allowing other ‘connotations’ to enter while developing the system would strain development and understanding. It is especially important that these concepts derive their universality from their neutral character; therefore they implicitly include the local.

8. And concepts that focus on the local and some of its degrees

Later, when developing the cosmological picture, the local-immediate element enters naturally from the way in which being and experience are conceived. Concepts relating to the local-immediate are identity and experience which straddle the universal and the immediate and ‘individual’, range of experience, local cosmology, politics, economics, and immersive knowledge, politics, economics, and action.

9. Attention to clarity in meaning as an aid to understanding and intuition

Attention to the concept of referential meaning is crucial. This kind of meaning is invariably a concept and the object(s) to which it refers (reference may be empty). Conflation of word, concept, and object in linguistic referential meaning is a source of immense confusion and much paradox and much sophisticated and intelligent—and useful—thought writing has been devoted to working around such problems where a simple clarification in terms of concept-object meaning would suffice. Here, recognition of the distinction of concept and object clears paves the way for clear understanding and development. I am not saying, of course, that mere clarification of meaning is a source of new knowledge (but it is often a way to make explicit what is already implicit). The present conception of referential meaning should be an important part of the reader’s conceptual toolbox. See meaning for more on meaning.

Ideas

Being

Being names that which is (in some regions of space, time andor beyond).

Why Being? Relation to ‘is’. Metaphorical uses.

Reasons for using ‘being’ become manifest below.

The word ‘is’ is used in a sense that means ‘in or at one or more extended regions in andor beyond space and time’ (the terms space and time are explained below).

The phrases ‘non being’ and ‘beyond or neither being nor being’ are sometimes used metaphorically to refer to some special kind or aspect of being. However, where they refer to anything at all their reference has being.

Addressing paradoxes and ambiguities of ‘being’

The concept of being has a number of ambiguities in its traditional use. These can be avoided by attending to the use introduced here. There are also paradoxes in its use and in the use of the related ‘existence’. These are quite simply resolved as in template. What is critical to the resolution is careful attention to linguistic referential meaning as word, concept and object (see meaning, below).

That there is being follows perfectly from the situation that being is a name for what there is rather than by a (doubtable) demonstration.

Desirability of proof. Recognizing the given as proof

A proof that there is being is desirable not primarily because we doubt it but because it clarifies being and introduces ‘philosophical’ approaches to proof. For proof refer to the document linked from the previous paragraph. The essence of the ‘proof’ is that being is so fundamental that it requires no proof in terms of something more basic but the ‘definition’ is (just as in the case of the verb to be and its forms such as ‘is’) a naming of the fundamental given.

Must there be being?

Note that a demonstration that there is being does not establish that there must be being. The latter will be established later.

Meaning

The expedient of naming is as abbreviated definition of a given in terms of symbol, concept, and object.

Generally, referential meaning—the kind of meaning of primary importance in this development—is a concept (sense) and its object(s) (reference). In linguistic meaning, concepts are associated with symbols and their conventional and depictive combinations (e.g. compound words, sentences); this is important to the effectiveness (and limits) of language in thought and communication.

Naming and proof

Meaning and proof—the naming of the given encapsulates definition of the given and proof of its existence. This aspect of proof is outside the premise-to-given dimension of proof; it identifies and names givens which function as premise; and it is valid only where the concept defines something whose givenness is beyond question. We may question the given in general but there are cases in which we find it, after questioning, to be beyond further question. An example is being: that there is being is beyond question because that there is (verb to be) a question shows that there is being. In such cases proof by observation is just as certain as deduction.

In other words we are talking of situations where soundness is collapsed into definition and observation of the object. Note that a sound argument has been defined as follows: a deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true—otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound—Validity and Soundness, from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. However, the definition should be: a (deductive) argument is sound if and only if the conclusion is true and the truth follows from the argument (and not by coincidence or two canceling errors etc). Then, the IEP definition actually provides criteria which follow from the definition here and the nature of deductive argument..

Experience

Experience names awareness in all its manners, kinds, and forms. That experience has being is a given. The form of experience is that of relationship.

Experience names awareness in all its manners (pure, receptive, active), kinds (cognition, emotion), and forms (quality, quality, shape…).

Even pure experience is relationship.

The following are the same true picture: there is nothing but experience and experience is of a real world that contains experience (in its two occurrences here, the meaning of ‘experience’.

The following are not different pictures, they are different labelings of the same picture: (1) Experience is of a real world that contains experience. (2) There is nothing but experience. These are alternative labelings (in which ‘experience’ has the essentially the same intension but different extensions; in (1) the extension is ‘high level’ but in (2) it goes to the ‘root’ of being). The two labelings cannot be incompatible; therefore, the while the solipsist’s intent in asserting (2) included that experience is ‘pure’ the intension must include experience as relation or interaction—which implicitly includes being-as-being. Since they are equivalent, neither can be ‘more right’ but each is illuminating in its own way.

Experience is the place of expression and core of living being. Significance and knowledge are of the world but occur in experience.

A development that does not take the approach from naming

Being is that which is.

Experience is awareness.

There is experience.

Experience is of a real world that contains experience.

This shows the robustness of the concepts of being and experience.

Universe

The universe is all being.

The universe is all being over all time, space and beyond.

There is precisely one universe.

The universe has no outside.

The concept that defines an object that is outside the universe defines a non-existent object (meaning that the concept does not truly define an object at all); and the concept itself must be illogical (on the other hand if the universe were but our empirical ‘universe’, the illogical would not define the only non-existing objects—the non-physical would also define non-existing objects.

The universe has being.

The universe has no external creator.

Self creation of the universe by the universe can mean only emergence from nothingness. This lies outside what is intended in religious and theological connotations of creation.

The universe is all being.

Domain

A domain is a part of the universe.

The non null domains have being (a null domain is a part that contains no being).

Although in analogy to the empty set and the zero force as force we may assert that the null domain has being we do not make this assertion at this point in the development.

One domain may participate in the creation of another.

Pattern

A pattern is a particular (set of) arrangement(s).

Patterns have being.

So far as the pattern obtains other arrangements do not obtain. In this sense a pattern is a limit.

Extensionality

Difference is the most elementary pattern.

Utter sameness is absence of difference.

In utter sameness, there is neither thing, nor pattern, nor knower or known.

Sameness with difference refers to identity of person or object and marks time.

In this sense, identity is not sameness with regard to every property. What change in time are intensive properties of an object, including being.

Difference without identity marks space.

What changes in space is the object or part.

Relative to identity, the modes of difference are space and time.

Extensionality is the generalized notion of ways of difference of a person or object. Time and space are examples. From their conception as exhausting the ways difference can occur regarding identity—i.e. sameness versus difference, they are the only ways.

In a treatment in which, at least in the beginning, we chose to avoid our intuitive connotations of space and time we would use alternative terms, e.g. duration for time-like difference and extension for space like difference (and the notion of extensionality would refer to duration and extension). The terms space and time would be could then be introduced together with the following distinctions.

To the extent that identity is not well defined, space and time are not well defined. To the extent that the ways of difference are not well distinguished, space and time are not. To the extent that identity is not universal, space and time are not universal.

Space and time are immanent in being (and have being). That is, their essence is that they are not absolute and external grids—they are relative. But a domain can have an as if relative space-time grid (perhaps set up by another domain).

Space and time have being.

Tradition

The term tradition will here refer to what is valid in the collection of cultures, primal through today, of living beings. It includes ways of being and knowing and their (encoded) principles and processes.

Tradition includes fact, and science, and principles of reason. The parts of tradition generally have local validity or truth.

Modes of expression

Two non-exclusive and major modes of expression are the mythic-holist and the literal-atomic.

A dominant mode of expression in the modern world is the literal and the atomic. In other cultures the (often oral) mode has been the mythic-holist. However the range from literal-atomic to mythic-holist is a continuum. Scratching the surface shows the naïve literal-atomic and the naïve mythic-holist to have elements of one another. Particularization leads from the mythic-holist to the literal-atomic; appropriate permissiveness leads validly from the literal-atomic to the mythic-holist.

Cosmos

It is not inconsistent with our valid traditions and their principles or reason that the universe is greater than our cosmos without limit to space-time-beyond and variety.

It is allowed (not inconsistent with but not required) by tradition (and its principles of reason) that universe is the universe of all possibility—i.e., it is the greatest possible with regard to space-time-beyond and variety of being.

In the twentieth century, secular thinkers came predominantly to see our empirical cosmos as the universe. However, there is nothing in reason or philosophy or science that implies that case. That is, reason and philosophy and science allow much more. The greatest that they allow is that the universe is the universe of all possibility or greatest possible universe (any picture that violates fact in its empirical domain or logic is not possible). The existence of myriad other cosmoses and more, even ephemera and ghosts violates neither fact (including science) nor logic.

The fact that the universe of all possibility is allowed by the tradition (e.g. science and principles of reason) is not that the universe is universe of all possibility.

Natural law

The natural laws of our sciences are readings of patterns.

Provided we recognize that it is tentative, it is convenient to conflate the laws with the patterns.

The patterns themselves may be thought of as Natural Laws.

We will think of the real patterns of myth-holism as cases of natural law.

Natural Laws have being. This will be written as:

Natural laws have being.

In ascribing being, here, it is not implied that the Laws and patterns are perfectly faithful or universal.

A parallel route to pattern and natural law

Patterns have being.

Why patterns?

The discussion will now be of some elementary patterns—those described in terms of space and time. This could be done with the aid of the metaphysics. It is done here (1) to clarify primitive intuition and understanding of such patterns and (2) so that later application of the metaphysics may show some enhancements (and methods for the same) of the primitive and bring out some of the power oft the metaphysics.

Difference and sameness

Difference is the most elementary pattern.

Sameness is absence of difference. In utter sameness, there is neither thing, nor pattern, nor knower or known.

Duration and extension. Extensionality

Sameness with difference is identity and marks duration.

In this sense, identity is not sameness with regard to every property. There is sufficient similarity to mark identity of object or person.

Difference without identity marks extension.

Duration and extension are experienced in terms of some ‘origin’. The ideas of duration and extension without regard to an origin become time and space. However, time and space measures are marked from some origin (which need not always be the same).

We use the term ‘extensionality’ as a generalized notion of ways of difference. Then, duration and extension are examples or parameters (I do not use the term ‘dimensions’ because it will be convenient to reserve that term for another use) of extensionality. Are there other parameters?

Duration and extension the only parameters of extensionality

The definition in terms of identity shows duration and extension to be the only parameters of extensionality.

But they do not universally obtain

This however, does not imply that the measures invariably obtain. Where identity is vague the measures may be vague; where the distinction between the modes of difference is indefinite, the measure of space and time may be perspective dependent; and where identity approaches lack of identifiablility, space and time may approach not being. The so called ‘abstract objects’ (contrast to the concrete) may lack, say, spatiality (and causality) andor temporality in another way; for discussion see abstract objects.

Space and time have being.

Space and time are not absolute but relative

The question arises whether space and time are absolute or relative. What this means is as follows. They will be called absolute if, where they obtain, they stand independently of the world itself. On the other hand, if the world itself is definitive of space and time measures, they will be called relative. That they seem to arise in being and that they have being suggests that they are relative.

But since there is nowhere else that they can arise—the universe has no outside—and, further, from their conception they must be relative (but since domains have outsides, there may be domains with as if absolute spacetime).

And their measures may depend on perspective or observer

What Einstein showed has the interpretation that sameness with difference depends on perspective—on the observer. However, this is eminently clear from the notions of sameness and difference. That is, the measure of time or space from one perspective may depend on the measure of both time and space from another perspective. And as in Einstein’s general theory, the measures are affected by accumulation of being (read density of matter).

Now consider some specific elementary patterns

The diverse phenomena encapsulated in laws of natural science and in oral / mythic traditions are examples of patterns.

An example of pattern: the Newtonian system

As an example, the laws of physical science are usually stated in terms of ‘elements of being’ that change in relation to space and time. More specifically Newton’s elementary particles had intrinsic properties (mass) that were fixed, their size was zero and they had no other properties relevant to the Newtonian system; their spatial condition (position) changed over time (position was regarded as ‘extrinsic’). The way in which they changed was determined by forces that were in turn determined by the particles, their positions (and in some cases by their motions). Thus the idea of force could be eliminated so that a system of particles formed a system whose dynamical evolution was self-determining.

The laws and mythic forms (regarded as objects of stated law and myth) have being.

On tradition

Tradition—here the word is used in the following non-traditional manner: it is the collection valid patterns of natural science, oral traditions, and other ancient through current cultural systems—applies within an empirical domain: our cosmos. In this sense (let us allow for completeness that humans are not the only possessors of culture even though of course humans are most familiar with human culture) nothing is outside tradition. The non standard metaphysics to be developed lies within tradition. However, in order to give relief to the development here, it will be convenient to use the word tradition to not refer to the metaphysics of the narrative and to use it primarily to refer to what is recognized as standard in the cultures.

Logic, mathematics, and science

Note here that there are standard views on the nature of science and its process as well as alternatives. A current standard view is that every transition to a newer theory is an approach to the universal. However, if the universal were not approachable (and we will find this to be the case) then the thought that we are asymptotically approaching the universal would be false and self-defeating). An alternate view is that the scientific theories are facts but only within limited regions. This alternative has concordance with (a) the metaphysics that we find (we will see this later) and (b) the picture of logic and science that it suggests (and perhaps first due to WVO Quine) that they are of the same kind but that the distinction is that logical truths are universal while scientific truths are particular (and as we now see, local). This view also conduces to the thoughts that (a) logic is revisable and (b) that the proper comparison between science and logic is that the development of logics and sciences is inductive while their application is deductive (naturally only in their domains of validity for it is precisely this that makes them deductive, i.e. that the conclusions are given but only need to be worked out). Later we will see how and where mathematics fits in this framework.

On tradition, literalism, and mythic or metaphorical holism

Tradition has a variety of forms of expression. The literal is thought to simultaneously define and refer to the real. Metaphor is suggestive and as such may include an element of the literal. Allegory is a story told as fact but that refers to truth in another realm, e.g. the psychological. Myth as deployed in ‘primal’ lifestyles is a holist but differentiated approach to truth ‘here’ (in the apparent or ‘material’, the need of which is obvious) and beyond (in the inexplicables in the apparent). The latter arises in needs for explanation in the material realm (adaptation) and, at least correspondingly, adaptation of psychology to the material realm and beyond (thus while spirituality must include elements of speculation, it is not without realism; and, this is there even in modernity and its investment in science and so on; and without which what is adaptive would also be eliminated; and therefore the inclusion of which is optimally adaptive).

Faithfulness in the depictive aspect of tradition

Tradition is almost invariably without perfect and pure literal content. However, mixed modes of expression may have faithfulness in depicting the world. An explicit interest in this narrative is this depictive character.

Empirical limits of the greater part of tradition

In the following use of tradition will include the ideas of experiential discovery and reason.

Tradition is not empirically known to extend beyond the cosmos.

Nature of the beyond: assessment of the cultural systems

What, then, is the beyond like? The human perceptual system is attuned to the local environment. The term ‘local’ not just a spatiotemporal region but depends on the conditions of adaptation which include that the main human senses are sensitive only to certain ranges and thresholds of stimuli. However, humans do extend the senses with instruments and, more importantly, do immensely expand via concepts the range of the local. It remains true, however, that there is a tendency in every culture to view the limits of the cultural system as the edge of the universe even though it is not that edge. Why? One reason is that the cultural system has some adaptive functions that the history of the culture has not encouraged it to overcome even if the overcoming were within human limits. A second and related reason is that education into the cultural system is a task of becoming in itself and that therefore even the accomplished individual tends to see the world as defined by the culture. However, what this shows is that the cultural view of the edge is in fact only the edge of the perceptual-cultural system. What is outside is unknown but is often culturally relegated to zero and this is true in both ‘primal’ and ‘advanced’ cultures.

Nature of the beyond: assessment in terms of possibility

What is the nature of that outside? I will discuss it in terms of a concept of possibility.

On realization of possibility and its consequences

Possibility is that which is not inconsistent with the patterns and reasons of tradition. The greatest conceivable universe is the realization of all possibility. It would have limitless arrays of cosmoses of limitless variety. Of these, some would be replicas of ours. Among ours and the replicas, some would have ghost cosmoses—ones not in current interaction with the host—passing through them. These would occur against a background universe. The universe itself would have identity and manifestation in acute, diffuse, and ‘absent’ phases. This power would be conferred on individuals (who, when assuming ultimate identity would coalesce with the universe).

Possibilism in history of thought. How the present view is an immense advance

The idea of a possibilist universe is not new and has been seen in a range of contexts. Plato envisaged a hierarchy of being from matter to god. The idea of a chain of being persisted in Greek and Scholastic philosophy and in modern times, especially in theology. The Advaita Vedanta philosophy that the individual 'I’ is a particular manifestation of a universal and potential ‘I’ hints at philosophical possibilism (which is quite different from anthropological possibilism that asserts that, within environmental constraints, culture is determined by social conditions). The principle of plenitude asserts that in an infinity of time all possibilities are realized; Kant held this to be true but not proved (it is not true for a possibility may have zero probability).The philosopher David Lewis assigned reality to the ‘possible worlds’. One realist (rather than instrumentalist) interpretation of quantum mechanics involves the idea of many worlds (however the significance is not that of possibilism even though an argument of possibilism has been made from quantum theory). What are the differences of these versions of possibilism from the one to be developed? The main difference is that the present version is proved. Consequently it enables a vast elaboration and application of a possibilist and ultimate metaphysics (as follows). Particularly, for example, it does not actually prove that all possibilities will occur given infinite time but shows that time is eternal and that all possibilities are already occurrent in the space-time and the connected non space-time regions of being.

Remarks on cultural relativism

It may be useful here to express some thoughts on cultural relativism. First, every surviving culture must have sufficient knowledge—literal or mythic—to permit survival. From what we have seen so far, no culture is thus guaranteed to approach absolute knowledge of all things. Second, it appears that any culture may have immense and impressive knowledge of some things pertaining to the natural and social world. Third, when cultures interact there is often a gap that makes seeing the ‘meaning’ of the other system. What I take from this is that even though in some ways any culture may approach ultimates, the world is varied enough that every culture pertains to some niche and that although some inter-translatability of systems is possible, entire translatability is not—precisely because the niches are not identical (and perhaps for other reasons as well). Therefore while I do not see different cultures as inherently lying on a superior-inferior continuum, I do not regard the cultural systems as devoid of true realism. The previous comments have been rather on the epistemic side. There are political reasons for disparaging other cultures but this has not to do with ‘correctness’. However, I do think that I the interests of ‘correctness’ which includes the future realizations of the human race that cultural cooperation—not only political and economic but also intrinsically cultural—is good.

The void

The void is the null domain.

Metaphorically, the void is the absence of being.

The void contains no pattern or natural law.

Does the void as the null domain have being? So far this is to be regarded as an open question.

The void: previous approach

The void is the null domain—it contains no being.

As the complement of every domain with respect to itself the void exists.

Doubt

Except that this existence can be doubted, knowledge of the main concepts so far is perfect.

Perfection so far

The perfection continues regarding the void. However, as it contains no pattern or detail the restriction regarding detail is ‘immaterial’.

The void contains no pattern or law.

The void has being; there is essentially one void

The void has being (even though it contains no being).

The fundamental principle

Thus far we do not know that the void exists. However, consider that the natural laws apply to manifest being. Consider a composite concept temporarily labeled as the Void: void-null-domain and void-as-absence. It has an object Void that contains no Law. If there is any object that does not emerge from the object Void, that would be a Law. Therefore all possible objects emerge from the object Void. This is summarized as follows:

All possible objects emerge from the void since the contrary would be a natural law of the void. This defines a possibilist view of the universe.

What are the possible objects? I.e., what does ‘possible’ mean in this context? Consider a concept or conceptual picture violates our laws of physics but not the facts or logic. If the object defined by that concept did not emerge from the void, it would be a law.

In this paragraph, for brevity, ‘fact’ will refer to ‘fact-science-logic where valid’ (here, science is regarded as the laws or principles regarded as a fact on their local domain of validity rather than the laws or principles regarded as universal). Since the metaphysical framework is consistent with fact, the sole limiting principle of the metaphysics is fact, which is now labeled realism. However, since ‘fact’ is limited, this constitutes a redefinition of science and logic.

Regard natural law as local empirical fact rather than universal projection. Define realism as the constraints of fact and logic on concepts. Then realism is the appropriate criterion for possibility—if a realistic object does not emerge from the void that would be a law of the void. Therefore what obtains is far greater than revealed in science and logic.

However, our sciences and logics are limited. Therefore realism constitutes a redefinition of science and logic which we could label Science and Logic but collapse into a single concept—realism. This realism is already under way in the tradition but is clearly open to vast, perhaps unimagined realms of discovery.

Under this umbrella, every realistic concept has an object. The concepts of mathematics, so far as consistent, therefore have objects (see objects). The putative view of mathematics as deductive and science as inductive is based on comparing argument in a system of mathematics with argument to arrive at a scientific theory. However, if we compare arriving at a system of mathematics with arriving at a scientific theory we see that both are formally inductive while argument under a system of mathematics and under a scientific theory are both formally deductive. That is, mathematics is or can be seen as science: where the natural sciences refer to concrete objects mathematics refers to form as an object. Logic can be brought under the umbrella of science, following the argument of WVO Quine: whereas the ‘truths’ of science pertain to some worlds, those of logic pertain to all worlds. This means that logic is revisable as is science but on account of the greater universality logic seems a priori but in fact its revisability is less frequently manifest than the revisability of science.

It follows that the universe is the universe of all possibility, the greatest possible universe, or the universe of realism (this is the meaning of ‘universe’ in what follows). This is called the fundamental principle of metaphysics (abbreviated fundamental principle).

The status of logic, science, and mathematics under realism; some earlier notes

Logic and science

Our valid experience, science, and logic—tradition—are elements in this future ideal Logic or realism. It was seen in pattern that logic and science are of the same kind. There we saw logic to be universal and science as local. Now this distinction can be amended. Science is particular, concerning particular aspects of reality while logic pertains to all aspects.

There we saw logic and science to be on the same footing, except the universal-local distinction. However, both are revisable; logic being more general in application is likely to be revised far less frequently.

Note that Logic as conceived here is perfect but ever under development, ever incomplete. Science and logic are approximations.

We now bring mathematics into the same fold.

Mathematics

Where does mathematics fit into this scheme? In its beginning, mathematics was empirical: number and geometry, for example, concerned aspects of the world. In time a distinction was recognized: whereas science was about particulars, mathematics was about form. This enabled an abstract turn in mathematics that began at least as early as Greek thought but which accelerated in the modern era. The axiomatic approach heightened this turn for in axiomatization, the terms of the axiom system need not refer to the actual world. However, we now—that is after the fundamental principle—see that if an axiom system is consistent then it must refer to the actual world. The ideal form of mathematics had led to the idea that mathematical objects (e.g. number) must be real but since number is not physical (e.g., a number is not located in space) numbers do not reside in this world but in a world of ideas or forms (Plato) or, in modern terms an abstract world that we also refer to as Platonic. However, we have now learned (i) that there is but one world and (ii) a consistent system of mathematics must have reference in this world. Can we then think of mathematics as a science? Yes, in that it refers to the world: in its beginning, mathematics was most probably empirical and we can still view Euclidean Geometry and number as empirical. However, the way we study mathematics has become different—it is largely symbolic and formal and this is important for this permits any given mathematical structure to be applicable to more than one domain and it simultaneously enables a precision that makes mathematics more rigorous than the natural sciences. Thus mathematics is no longer pursued in the primitive empirical sense and, correspondingly and especially on account of its power, mathematics has largely come to be viewed as symbolic-conceptual-axiomatic-formal. However, the rigor and symbolic approach come at a price. Since we are not talking of an actual structure, we do not know whether we have fully captured any structure or whether ‘full capture’ makes sense. The ideas of Gödel suggest that it makes at least partial sense for we can demonstrate that, for a formal system, there are truths not captured by the system. What that means is that the formal system has not completely captured the world. This, after all is not really a price for logic and science are likewise; it is a price only relative to certain hopes that the greater and greater rigor and power of mathematical thought had led us to expect. A further comment is in order. It is that while we have seen unifying similarities among logic, science, and mathematics we also see that they remain different. Science is relatively concrete. Logic, so far, can be abstract because it is general. On the other hand mathematics is abstract because it refers to form rather than particulars (another way of saying this is that the object to which it refers is what is common to multiple objects of a given kind). But, now, from realism the contact with the real is re-introduced into mathematics and even though the particular systems are not empirically founded, realism shows that as long as they are consistent they must have objects in the one universe. As we will see these objects are, for axiomatic-symbolic systems, abstract objects. We will also see that we may regard mathematical objects as residing in a Platonic ‘universe’ which is not a separate ‘universe’ but a net within the one universe.

Avoiding inconsistency in the concept of possibility

The notion of possibility used thus harbors potential paradox. A trivial example is that ‘it is possible that the possible will not occur’. Such paradox can be avoided by a careful specification of the set of possible states so as to exclude paradox. I think this would be parallel to the introduction of axioms such (e.g. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice, commonly abbreviated ZFC) in set theory that avert paradox there.

Some older notes on the fundamental principle

Every possible state emerges from the void.

The proof is that the contrary would be a law in the void.

Consequently, every state of being is equivalent to every other state. “All beings are equal.”

The universe is the realization of all possibility.

This is called the fundamental principle of metaphysics.

On the fundamental principle

It says, from earlier remarks, that the universe is at least the greatest realistically conceivable.

The number of voids

The number of voids is effectively one.

Metaphysics

The concepts of being, experience, universe, and pattern (as conceptualizing no more than their definition) are perfect; they (define objects that) have being.

From realism, the universe must go through non-manifest phases. Thus the void (the non-manifest) has being; knowledge of it is perfect; and this implies perfection to realism regarding the perfect objects of the previous paragraph and the void.

Except that there is at least one, (a) the number of voids is thus far indeterminate (b) but, from the fundamental principle, it makes no difference whether the number of voids is one or many, e.g. one void to every part of being; therefore we may take the number of voids to be one.

Thus being, experience, universe, pattern, void, and realism define a sound metaphysical framework that, as framework, is ultimate (a) in capturing the universe perfectly and (b) in showing the universe to be ultimate.

The concepts of being, experience, universe, and void are perfectly faithful in that they are concepts with precisely defined objects. That is, they constitute metaphysics as perfectly faithful knowledge of being. Thus they constitute a Kantian-like framework which is perfect because while Kant’s categories were too detailed to constitute metaphysics, the abstract character of the four concepts above permits perfectly faithful knowledge even though there is an experiential gap between knower and known.

Though not the categories of Kant, we have found categories in the sense of Kant (categories of being and knowledge and, simultaneously, solutions to the problem of knowledge).

These are perfect in the abstract, i.e. as long as we are not looking at details within them (the abstraction suggests triviality which, however, is not the case). In a perfect metaphysics these will be supplemented by practical categories that include detail.

It would seem that this metaphysics might be trivial. However, we just saw that it is far from trivial.

What is the place of tradition, especially local culture, in the metaphysics so far? If the universe is limitless with regard to possibility it must confer this power on local forms. However while we (individual, civilization) are limited, realization of peak power is a process. The imperfect aspects of culture-tradition play an essential role in this process (and they include of course experiment, trial, and reason). Further the metaphysics shows that they are essentially lacking in the sense of perfection as faithfulness. On the other hands they are the essential practical tools of process. Therefore in a practical but also existential sense (i.e. they include the notion of being-in-the-world) they are perfect in their way—imperfect as pure knowledge but perfect means.

As an ultimate framework for all being, the metaphysics is an ultimate frame for valid tradition. The frame and tradition are complementary. The metaphysical frame illuminates and guides tradition; tradition-in-process inspires, fills out, and is an instrument for action within the framework.

The framework as framework is perfectly faithful depiction; the tradition is not. However, the framework shows that tradition-in-its-detail is never perfect in this sense but that since it is the only instrument we have (it includes our in process knowledge and their in process principles), tradition is perfect in a practical sense. This sense is ‘good enough’ knowledge which includes both the instrumental and knowledge as serving and deriving from being-in-the-world. Thus the metaphysical framework and tradition complement each other and the result is a practical metaphysics that is perfect in an extended sense.

The extension is perfect in an extended sense that, for the metaphysics is perfect depiction and for the tradition is ‘good enough’ and ‘there can be no better’; and the components of the extension are necessary to and enhance one another (the term the metaphysics will hereafter refer to this extension of the framework). What is valid in tradition and common experience and its process can be validly appended to the list of perfectly known objects (provided the meaning of perfection is as just extended).

It will be useful to consider an example of the interaction: in some but traditions death is considered absolute. The metaphysics will later show that death is real but not absolute. This is one of many examples that show at a deep level that the metaphysics is a system of interaction among tradition and framework: the tradition illustrates and inspires the framework and the framework enhances the tradition, often showing where it may be raised from tentative to definite.

The (extended) metaphysics can, therefore, be regarded a single coherent system. The sense or concept of being has not changed. Error will not accrue if the ideal framework and the practical objects are not confused (except where a conflation is shown warranted).

It is useful to consider another example. If our cosmos is formed from a single pure eternal kind (‘substance’) the kind must somehow include experience and world (we might call these mind and matter). That is, experience and world are two sides of the same kind (on the substance view). They are not different—but how so? World is, roughly, being-as-being and experience is being-in-relationship. Now focus on the universe. Substance is untenable because it would be a law of the void. But from limitlessness of possibility, the universe must have identity that is conferred on individuals (at least as process). From this perspective, too, experience and world are meshed as one.

What the example shows is that the metaphysics and tradition are not just complements but that they form a union that is mutually enhancing and, as already seen, perfect.

That is, the result of the union of the metaphysics and tradition may be regarded also as metaphysics. The former is universal, pure and epistemically perfect. The latter is universal, practical, and practically perfect. The meaning epistemic perfection here is ‘faithful depiction’; the meaning of ‘practical perfection’ is that of the best possible means of realization.

The metaphysics is a perfect, unique, ultimate, and practical metaphysics!

Clearly, Logic is a part of metaphysics. However, only where its necessity is positively known can we say that its truth stands above revisability. It is only the pure metaphysics that has been shown to have positive truth. In that realm, premises and argument are certain. For other concerns neither premise nor argument is certain and, as we have seen, the distinction between induction and deduction is not as important as we have thought. Except in a pure metaphysics, e.g. the pure metaphysics, neither premise nor argument is ever perfect; validity and soundness of argument is a matter of degree and judgment.

Pain and joy

From the fundamental metaphysics, our lives are necessarily mosaics of pain and joy. This (significant) meaning to pain is extended later.

Though not part of the development of the metaphysics comments on pain and joy are appropriate here as (a) preliminary and (b) to show an immediate application of the metaphysics to the human situation.

From the fundamental principle life will generally be a mosaic of pain and joy. This is not saying very much for pain might be infinite and joy infinitesimal—but more will be said later in pain and enjoyment).

Still, that life is this mosaic gives meaning to pain.

Doubt and existential attitude

The immensity of consequences of the metaphysics should lead to doubt. Let us therefore allow doubt. If doubt is essential (rather than merely critical or refining), this must be good for it is an existential challenge to act in face of uncertainty (though not absurdity in this case). The metaphysics may be adopted as part of the existential attitude: it then becomes an action principle in the sense that appropriate action and resource under it maximizes expected outcome.

Something from nothing

We saw that the universe does and must go through non manifest phases. This resolves what has been called the fundamental problem of metaphysics—i.e. why there is (manifest) being at all.

The significance of enquiring about something from nothing

The name ‘fundamental problem of metaphysics’ was used by Martin Heidegger. It is the subject of the first chapter of his Introduction to Metaphysics (trs. Gregory Fried and Richard Polt, 2000, 2 ed. 2014). The original Einführung in die Metaphysik, based on a 1935 lectures, was printed in 1953. I cannot do justice to the work as I have not read it yet. Yet it is interesting to think of approaches to the question and its significance. In the present work it is significant because it is a challenge to which the work rises and responds. Further the response is immensely powerful for the rest of the human endeavor of knowing and being. But I have recorded doubts. That other thinkers also think that being and the being of being are important only adds to the importance of doubt.

Still it is interesting to ask of the significance of the question and possible approaches to it.

Surely, with Heidegger, it is the question of questions—the first question to ask of being. Why? First, it is part of our fundamental sense of mystery. Second, we would anticipate (if we did not know that the problem has fundamental resolution—by which I mean that the solution is not an exotic one but gore to the core of the nature of being) that a solution would shed light on being, its meaning and—as we have seen—all metaphysics and endeavor, especially the nature of the universe in metaphysics. Derivatively, it would be significant for the human endeavor—not because the endeavor is secondary or otherwise but because the endeavor is in being (and as Heidegger points out we are among those beings that can question the nature of being).

How then might the problem be ‘solved’?

1. That there is being does not imply that there must be being. However, perhaps a ‘demonstration’ that there is being may shed light? How is this demonstrated? First, we must be clear about being. Being is or characterizes what is, without qualification as to the nature of the ‘is’ in ‘what is’. That is the ‘is’ shall be more general than the simple temporal ‘is’ of common English: it shall be in some regions of all being where region is not pinned down to space-time or not space-time, not pinned down as concrete or not concrete (abstract if concrete and abstract are exhaustive); further it shall not imply any category such as matter, mind, or spirit—and it shall not be restricted to experience or being experienced even though being experienced may be fundamental to our best knowing of being; it may perhaps be restricted to the manifest but that should, as we have seen, be open—but apart from this non-being and probably even potential being are metaphorical in their proper use. Finally, if being characterizes what is then being is not an object—at least on the primitive perhaps naïve meaning of ‘object’. Perhaps being is a property—the property possessed by all things that are? Could it also be a property of things that are not (because there are no such things or perhaps if the collection of such things has being). On a higher level of the notion of object, a property is an object; perhaps nothingness is an object—so in this sense being is a thing. This is in line with the intent and idea that being respects no category. Second, the demonstration should be fundamental rather than clever. The Cartesian proof comes close but must be divested of its particulars ‘I think therefore I am’ becomes ‘experience is the fundamental mark that there is being’.

2. Is there any way, then, that the simple fact that there is being can imply or implies that there must be being? That is, given that we know here and now that there is being (the empirical cosmos) does that imply that there must be being here and now; does it imply that there must have been being and that there necessarily be being? The point to the questions even if far fetched is the suggestion that we can tease out some fundamental truths by careful understanding.

3. One way is to ask the meaning of non being, i.e. absence of being. This is precisely the approach of the present text. That is, while the simple fact of being does not seem to logically imply necessity of being (there could be some unseen logic lurking under or at the surface and that is interesting but thus far I have not seen such a subficial logic), investigation of the structure of being (I should perhaps say being-as-present-to-us but that, in the end, is all we have anyway) does logically imply the necessity of being (without assuming the fact of being). It could be counter-argued that assuming a structure to being is assuming being but the response to the counter is that what we have really done is to specify the true sense of the ‘void’.

4. Although ‘is’ does not implicate experience, experience is the only way we know the meaning and fact of ‘is’. We can ask a number of the foregoing questions with ‘being’ in the premises replaced by ‘experience’ or ‘being and experience’.

5. Does the fact of experience (or being): imply the necessity of experience or being, that being and experience must have been; that they must be; and, over and above this the nature of the spatiotemporality or other of ‘is’ and the various questions that occur in relation to these the ‘spatiotemporality or other’. The present narrative has investigated these questions and, though questions remain, has found significant answers from structure of being and experience. It is important that I did not assume a structure because it was allowed that the manifold of being did not have to be of any ‘extensional’ kind—that it could be spatiotemporal or other (including non-extensional) or mixed.

The fundamental problem of metaphysics

This does not imply that there are no fundamental problems of metaphysics. What is or are the problem(s)?

The fundamental problem of metaphysics is that of determining what has being.

The answering of this question, already begun, continues.

So much of the history of knowledge, especially science and philosophy, have been fraught with the doubt that even where there is clarity and depth there are questions whether the world has been captured faithfully—and even what such capture may mean. The metaphysics removes this doubt with a fell swoop: it shows perfect faithfulness where it is important and possible and that another kind of perfection is fundamental elsewhere (without implying that faithfulness has importance at all).

That is, the fundamental problem, is that of determining to which of our concepts there concept objects in the sense of perfection.

Why is perfection important? The significance of the question is heightened by the fact that even in the most accurate scientific theories we tolerate some inaccuracy. The response is that we tolerate inaccuracy in science because we have reached the current limits of accuracy but we use science as a practical instrument. Science is practical; by contrast it is immensely useful to have some systems of perfection—i.e., neither the perfect nor the practical is better: each has its use and (we have seen) that the join is mutually enhancing. Perfection is important where (in addition to rather than over and above the practical disciplines) we would and can talk with certainty. Metaphysics is a perfect complement—a complement with perfection to the practicality of other systems including science. The metaphysics is the metaphysics of the present development and we have seen it to be perfect. The sense of perfection of the metaphysics however is not uniform. How shall this potential problem of ‘imperfection’ be addressed? It already has been addressed: no error will accrue provided, except where a conflation is shown to be warranted, there is care to not confuse the ideal framework objects with the practical objects of tradition.

Why is the problem of determining what has being the fundamental problem? It is a fundamental problem because what have being are the objects of the universe. When we reflect that it is not just ‘things’ that have being, but also patterns and processes and laws—whether of literal-atomism or mythic-holism—and (as we shall see in considering objects) that even endeavor has being, we see that this problem is the problem. It is therefore the fundamental problem.

The power of being

The power of the concept of being, now emphatically clear, will continue to emerge in what follows.

The development so far amply illustrates the power of the concept of being. This power will continue to emerge. Particularly seeing limited forms as cases of being—as distinct from just matter or only mind or only spirit—will be empowering in any path to realization of what we have already seen to be necessary, i.e. the peak of being.

But what is this power? What is its nature? It is that in invoking such kinds as matter, or mind, or spirit, or symbol, or space and time as fundamental we would be committing to possible error (in view of the developments so far it would be committing to real error). However, commitment to being is the absence of such commitment; this constitutes avoidance of error. Yet it is not commitment to no commitment; this is further avoidance of error and allows truth to emerge (and as we have seen this truth is not contingent on the standard categories even though it deploys the categories to certain ends).

Objects

Objects are concrete or abstract. Though they seem distinct the metaphysics shows they are ‘equally real’ (within realism, every concept has an object). They seem different, not because the abstract are essentially non-concrete but because abstraction omits certain concrete features. This union of the abstract and the concrete has significance for cosmology and the nature of the real.

The modern concept of abstract object (see Abstract Objects Stanford—Encyclopedia of Philosophy) contrasts with the notion of concrete object. The latter refers to our familiar worldly objects such as books and bricks and the objects of science. The abstract objects are exemplified by a novel (not the book), a cuboid (the form of the brick), and the objects of mathematics (when defined by symbols and concepts). Clearly the concrete objects exist in space and time and are causal. Where do the abstract concepts reside? If a novel is not a book itself, where is the novel? Where is a mathematical object such as the number one? This suggests that abstract objects lack all or some spatiotemporality and causality (thus there are mixed objects).

According the metaphysics, there is one universe and all objects are in it. Further, within realism, all concepts have objects. I.e. the abstract objects (as objects) reside in the one universe. That is, it is only to the degree that the universe is non spatiotemporal that abstract objects can be truly non spatiotemporal and this is one source of abstract objects. Another, but not essentially different source, is that while the abstract objects are in space and time, the abstractness of their definition results in spatiotemporality and causality not being relevant to their nature (in the case of mixed objects the relevance is partial).

That is the abstract are not essentially non-concrete; rather abstraction omits some concrete features. Conversely the concrete are known perceptually and since the percept is a concept and not the object, the concrete are tinged with the abstract.

Thus the abstract and the concrete are not essentially different. They are both in the one universe. Of course the approach to conceptualization may be different. In defining the concrete, the empirical is emphasized; for the abstract the conceptual is the crux. But, in as much as meaning invokes both concept (including percept) and object, the distinction between the empirical and the conceptual is not as great as we tend to conceive it. This lack of distinction between the empirical and the conceptual is heightened by the metaphysics. Thus all objects are abstract from some perspective but concrete from another

This extended notion of object will vastly extend the cosmological picture and will be immensely useful in understanding its nature.

The potential of a theory of objects

It follows from earlier discussion that mathematics is a science (the disciplines of mathematics are sciences) and that so far as they are realistic all concepts of logic, mathematics, and the sciences have objects in the universe.

Here, then lies an immense realm ripe for new understanding (perhaps, and I have some hope, that this understanding will be over and above the cumulative knowledge of logic, mathematics, and the sciences so far.

Abstract objects: earlier notes

As noted earlier, the explicit concept is new (twentieth century) even though the implicit root idea is not.

Purpose

The narrative

The main instrumental purpose to introducing abstract objects is that it clarifies a number of issues of the narrative. See abstract objects: application.

General purposes

The purposes to introducing abstract objects are as (1) a significant clarification and extension of the metaphysical notion of object; (2) as application of the metaphysics and illustration of its power; (3) clarification of the notion of abstract object and issues relating to the nature of abstract objects as the notion and the issues appear in current thought; (4) clarifying a number of issues such as the place of concrete, e.g. spatiotemporal and causal, in a universe that is not altogether concrete or non-concrete and remembering among concrete domains that are not concretely connected; and (5) showing an immense extension of the variety of being in the universe—i.e., as immensely extending the cosmology.

Outline of the discussion

In the first section below, the idea of the abstract object extends and unifies understanding of objects in general; helps provide understanding of the full nature of objects under the universal metaphysics; and resolves current issues regarding abstract objects.

Then, in the second section below, some significant general and specific applications of the idea of the abstract object are taken up.

The concept

This continues previous mention of abstract objects in pattern and perfect metaphysical framework. There discussion was via example. Here we define. The discussion resolves the modern issue of the abstract versus the concrete. It dissolves any essential distinction and shows the functional difference.

An object is defined by a realistic concept (i.e. the idea of object without concept is meaningless: see meaning).

The idea of object without concept is meaningless: see meaning.

A concrete object is defined by an empirical or perceptual concept (of course realistic).

An abstract object is defined in realistic symbolic or conceptual terms but without inherent empirical reference.

Although there is no inherent empirical reference, from the metaphysics, realism guarantees actual reference.

No fundamental distinction between the abstract and the concrete

From the metaphysics, concrete and abstract objects are in the one universe. Abstract objects are not essentially a-causal, non-spatial, or atemporal; rather causal, spatial, and temporal features are absent in the (symbolic) definition.

Just one kind of abstract object

What sort of object is it when a concept refers to a domain for which there is no identifiable extensionality? Can there be domains without extensionality? The answer to the latter question has been seen to that there are such domains. However, what can such domains be if not extensional? It must be that they are some kind of net over one or multiple extensional domains such that the extensional aspect is not significant to the net. The definition did not consider the case where the abstraction arises out of the properties of the domain. Now we can see that this is not necessary: the domain itself is understood abstractly, therefore its objects are abstract in the defined sense. Again we see the breakdown of any real distinction between the abstract and the concrete. What of the case where part of the domain is defined abstractly? Here, the breakdown of the distinction entails that no special consideration is necessary (yet the consequences, as will be seen, are significant).

Objects in general

Just one kind of object

What we have shown is that there is no essential difference between the abstract and the concrete objects. The abstract lack some of the detail of the concrete, e.g. space-time-cause, but not essentially—they are there but the abstraction renders them null (alternatively, they do not survive the abstraction). They are known by different means (the abstract conceptually, the concrete perceptually) but, first, the conceptual and the perceptual are not essentially distinct, second, the difference in mode of knowing is not essential (even though it is immensely useful and powerful to have different approaches) and, third and finally: the concrete-abstract distinction is not ‘real’.

All objects are in the one universe.

All objects are in the one universe

Because there is precisely one universe the abstract objects are in the universe and not in another, e.g. Platonic, universe. As described above they are not truly atemporal but, rather, time is not part of their character (definition). Where they are non-spatial, as in the case of number, the non-spatiality occurs in manner similar to the non-temporality. The abstract objects are, to repeat, in this one universe.

Any Platonic ‘universe’ is part of the one universe

They may seen as Platonic but not as residing in a separate Platonic universe; alternatively we can see Platonic ‘universes’ as abstracta within the one universe. What this means is that their definition is primarily of the higher conceptual type (whereas the concrete objects are defined in terms of ‘lower’ concepts, i.e. percepts).

Abstract objects: application

The concept of abstract object and the metaphysics enable a clearer and comprehensive conception of ‘object’. This metaphysical clarification has significant and multidimensional consequence.

Some applications

The points immediately below constitute summary of applications detailed in what follows.

The concept of the void.

It is clear that the conception of the abstract object shows a far greater population to the universe than the concrete alone.

In general cosmology the concept of abstract object is used to resolve doubt regarding the universal metaphysics and the survival of identity across death.

It is also used to show a way for Brahman and Aeternitas to transcend but not be beyond space and time.

And to show spatiotemporal domains merging non spatiotemporal domains, especially as background; it shows a place for the concrete against a timeless and even space-less background. And, it may be used to show the place of Civilization in this merging.

The concept of the void

It is appropriate and convenient to (re) consider the void at this point. The remaining ‘applications’ are discussed in later sections.

Objections to the void as absolute nothingness

There are reasons to suspect ‘absolute nothingness’. If something comes from the void, some say, surely the void is something and not nothing. Where does this thought come from? One place is our intuitive discomfort with something from nothing which is based, first, in everyday experience and, second, from the conservation laws of natural science. How can something emerge from nothing? The response of this narrative is twofold (a) experience and science do not of necessity extend beyond the empirical world; we should respect them at least for most purposes within that world (but since ‘this world’ connects to any beyond we should be alert to exceptions—i.e. exceptions to our characterizations of experience and science are expected and are not violations of such generalizations (b) except however that the most general principles, ones that should apply in any world, should not be violated but since such principles are the principles of logic there is no problem because something from void-as-absolute-nothingness, despite discomfort felt in its regard, is not a violation of logic (the question of how universal are our particular logics is a valid question and is dealt with at a number of points in the narrative).

Alternate characterizations of the void

What then might the void be? It would perhaps be a vague something. How might this work out?

This is an interesting idea.

Perhaps, then, the void is not pure nothingness but 'something' which is effectively nothingness: it would have no differences or distinctions, i.e. no patterns and therefore no causality and no spatiotemporality. This is an interesting idea.

It would no doubt make certain kinds of rational minded people pleased. It might satisfy conservation of energy, even; and, still, since there would be no law the fundamental principle might follow.

Problems with the alternate characterization

How would it satisfy conservation of energy? Energy would have to be infinite. Then energy might be conserved but, in fact, would have no real meaning since adding a finite or infinite quantity to infinite quantity of the same order does not change the infinity. Creation of a finite energy cosmos would not change the infinity of the energy (the energy of pattern-less-ness is indeterminate). This is not a logical problem but it is a problem for the kind of rationalist described above (the one who does not differentiate between different aspects rationality—the universal and the particular—and confuses the particular plus his or her intuition of it for the universal).

A further problem. If the void is mere pattern-less-ness, how does the fundamental principle arise? Perhaps we should face its not arising. On the other hand no arising of pattern would violate pattern-less-ness; hence the fundamental principle. The memory of identity problem but that is resolved by the transients in communication with the void and the structured systems.

But the main problem is how to prove existence of the pattern-less but not nothingness void?

Concluding discussion

Therefore we go back to the nothingness void from which both the fundamental principle and the pattern-less void follow.

And further proof of existence of true nothingness is easier than that of the 'grey' void even though the two are the 'same'. And what is wrong with the rationalists of the above stripe is that they are insisting on their contingent reality projecting beyond the domain where it is known to be valid. To the rationalists of the above stripe I say, get over it and enhance your rationality to accept, since it turns out to be the case, that the only universal rationality is the necessary rationality.

Now the hard headed rationalist will dislike this whole endeavor. It is not accordance with the principles of science. These are the policemen of science. My response: science is not a principle—it is ultimately an empirical endeavor despite the great beauty and symmetry of some of its theories (e.g. the older classical mechanics, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics, and the newer relativistic theories of Einstein, quantum theory of particles and fields, and statistical mechanics). There is of course value to policing, it steers traffic in the right direction; but sooner or later the road meets the ocean or the edge of the galaxy or empirical cosmos and here we need not only new ways to steer but to rediscover the nature of steering.

The proto-void

Discussion

Still the idea of the ‘no pattern’ void or the ‘in between true nothingness and form’ void may be useful conceptually and practically… and ‘argumentatively’. I call it the pre-void or proto-void.

Significance of the term ‘proto’

‘Proto’ typically suggests ‘coming before’. However, the proto-void does not come before—or after—the void in temporal terms.

The sense in which it comes before is that as we look deeper and deeper for layers under immediate ‘reality’ the proto-void occurs before the void.

The Real

‘Mind and matter’

Purpose of the discussion

The purpose of the discussion is (1) to uncover the nature of mind and matter, (2) and so to illuminate the nature of nature and spirit, and (3) consequently to talk of and illuminate The Real.

Mind and matter are not different kinds but it is only incomplete knowledge—ignorance—that sees them as such.

Mind

Mind is the name of the place—in other terminology not in alignment with the metaphysics—of experience and its manners and forms.

And matter

If to ‘being-as-being’ we give the name ‘matter’ then, since experience is relationship, mind is the name of ‘being-in-relationship’ (or interaction).

Understanding mind and matter

In terms of substance: a thought experiment

Since it is often thought of as a substance, understanding may be approached via a substance approach to give insight and show the contradictions of the approach. The insight gained then enables formulation in the universal case (the metaphysics). Discussion will not go into details of ‘substance theory’ except to note that substances are uniform and unchanging and therefore do not interact.

If matter is the sole substance of the universe, then, mind is either an aspect of matter or there is no such thing as mind (there may be as if mind). Therefore mind and matter are essentially interwoven at the core but this is an understatement: they can be no more than different aspects of the same thing.

The universal case: relaxing the assumption of substance

The difference in the universal case is that while ‘being-as-being’ and ‘being-as-interaction’ need not go to the same depth they will invariably meet at whatever depth there is.

That is, mind and matter are not different kinds but it is only incomplete knowledge—ignorance—that sees them as such.

Nature and spirit

There is a realm of spirit.

Aeternitas and Brahman

The metaphysics shows realms that may appear to us to be beyond the individual in this world. We have called the ‘acme’ of this the Apex, Aeternitas, and Brahman. We may think of the ‘beyond’ realms at all levels as ‘spirit’.

In what follows I use the term Apex for acme of the Apex.

Nature and spirit are not different kinds or realms but it is only incomplete knowledge—ignorance—that sees them as such.

No ultimate distinction between nature and spirit

However, there is no non interaction and no ultimate distinction. We may conceptualize the apparent distinction within the lack of distinction as we did for mind and matter (indeed mind vs. matter and spirit vs. nature are similar and overlap).

The Real

‘The Real’ is another name for the same—for Aeternitas and Brahman.

Aeternitas and Brahman are more than names

But as characterizing ultimates it is more than a name. How so? It is the real to which the positive endeavor of life seeks. Therefore The Real is the ultimate form of the real.

Relationship between the real and The Real succinctly describes our place in the ultimate.

Death

Clearly death is real but not absolute—i.e., death is not Real. This theme is visited again below in death and identity.

Meaning of the metaphysics

The explicit meaning of the metaphysics lies in its proof, interpretation—e.g. in terms of realism, particularly in the terms that every realistic concept has an object. The explicit meaning is in depth—in setting up a framework for application.

The implicit meaning is in implications—in the hierarchy of implications at a range of levels of detail and significance; that is, the implicit meaning is in breadth or cosmology.

Cosmology

Cosmology is the study of the variety, extension and duration of being.

In the following we study the cosmological picture and its principles together. Both picture and principles derive from the metaphysics.

A motivate to develop cosmology

As the realization of all possibility, the universe confers this power (possibility) on individual beings. A motive to develop cosmology it to understand our relation to and trajectory in the universe—i.e., since realization of all power is given, the cosmology would aid in developing approaches to realization and to understanding its significance. A general principle in developing a system of knowledge in relation to some actual purpose is that since we do not know in advance how the system may be useful, it is practical to develop it as fully as possible as a system in itself.

Aim and approach

An aim now becomes to explicitly work out implications of this power for the ideas, thought, and lives of sentient being(s).

An approach will be to formulate some principles of cosmology and, in parallel, to work out the cosmology… for ultimately principles and practice develop together.

The overarching principle is a combination of what is received—the metaphysics including its applied side in the tradition including principles so far—in interaction with process, i.e. reflection, imagination, criticism (conceptual and experimental or acting out the metaphysics).

The development has a natural ordering from general / abstract, to stable cosmologies (familiar as well as alternative and extreme cosmologies and physics), to cosmology of life and identity.

Informal first principle

An informal first principle is that system is desirable where it has application; where we find that it does not risk and ‘post-evaluation’ and learning are always available. However, this is already part of the present system.

On proof and intuition

Many proofs from the fundamental principle are so trivial (some of course are not) that proof may be omitted. What is important is interpretation, which will be given, and challenge to intuition. The issue of intuition may be addressed by (a) carefully following the formal development, (b) remembering that the metaphysics is proved and consistent with tradition, and (c) allowing time for assimilation.

The fundamental principle asserts that the universe is the universe of possibility. It follows that (a) many proofs of very consequential but unexpected results will be so trivial as to not require explicit demonstration and (b) that the results, as is the case for the principle itself, will often be very counterintuitive.

Obvious proofs will not be given. However, there will come a point where proof will be indicated and given. It is anticipated that the future development of the metaphysics will have parts that are immensely difficult (e.g. to human minds); this is a consequence of the metaphysics. However, the metaphysics also says (as made explicit below) that there will be an ‘evolution of intelligence’ that will be at least in step of the demands of proof. Further, any given form may find new approaches to conceptualization that make proof much easier. Perhaps, as has already begun, we will find mixed human-computer approaches to simplification.

The problem of intuition should be overcome by (a) attention to the proof of the fundamental principle and its basis in the given (b) attention to the fact that the principle is not in violation of the tradition (even though it is surprising relative to traditional worldviews) (c) careful attention to the meanings of concepts and the system of concepts as defined and developed here (acknowledging but not directly using other meanings) and (d) allowing time for familiarization.

Complex cases

The simple cases do not exhaust the possibilities. Consider for example ‘every cosmos is an atom, every atom a cosmos. Is there a source for figuring such complex possibilities and more in detail? Here, we might begin to encounter issues with the logics so far and the evolution of logic (at the border between logic and science).

Even in simple cases of imagination care is needed to ensure that no implicit impossibility has been admitted. Here the modern logical systems, axiomatic set theory (to avoid paradox) and mereology (analysis and theory of part-whole and part-part relations; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/) may be useful.

A complete critical - rational development of this process is impossible but in process developments of our science, logic, metaphor-myth-allegory would seem to be open ended and the territory vast.

These approaches give us leverage in the findings below regarding the general cosmological picture, identity and death, The Real, and the issue of nature and spirit.

More on principles

Begin with the world and our being in the world… this is of course a repetition of what was said above under aim and approach.

I.e., with knowledge and experience so far and then with further experience, imagination, criticism, experiment and becoming.

Our knowledge is the only place to begin

Except for pure risk, there is no place to begin other than with knowledge, experience, and the world as we find it. But since we want to go beyond this, we seek further experience, imagination, criticism, experiment, and becoming. This is of course the process of knowing and being but it is explicitly spelled out to our purpose.

Particularly, begin with our cosmos—its cosmology, space-time, mind-matter as we know it, individual-civilization, and knowledge of symbol.

Need for systematic account of knowledge

A systematic account of the tradition—here understood to include the ancient and the modern, the literal and the mythic—is invaluable to realization of the aim revealed by the metaphysics.

Note greater system and detail in a system of human knowledge.

Now turn to how to deploy this beginning…

I.e., to fill in details for the metaphysics. Note in the following that there is overlap among and within the details of the principles.

It will be seen in abstract objects that Realism leads to a far greater population / variety of being in the universe. More than that it provides an approach to understanding the place of the concrete against the timeless and perhaps space-less background.

General cosmology

The, first principle of general cosmology is the fundamental principle. Consequences follow; they are suggested by experience but it is the fundamental principle that is the source of their necessity.

We have already observed and shown various features of space-time, especially that are the two essential and only ‘coordinates’ of extensionality; that they are relative but may be locally as if absolute; and that extensionality is not universal. Therefore I will not repeat details of the features or the proofs.

Aspects of the cosmological picture are now developed. This begins in this section with the general and abstract, proceeds in subsequent sections to the particular concrete—i.e., the stable cosmologies—and then cosmology of identity (and life) which derives from the general and the concrete.

The universe is a manifold of acute, diffuse, and absent manifestation, identity, space, time, causation, and variety; these have no limit but realism; they peak in Aquinas’ Aeternitas and Vedanta’s Brahman (all knowing and being manifest as one). This power is conferred on the individual. While in limited form, however, realization is eternal process; overcoming suffering is significant but we do not wait for it in the path of realization; and the path is made effective and enjoyed by intelligent (cognitive-emotive) commitment (including passion). Pain and enjoyment are a mosaic; this gives meaning to pain. Death is real but not absolute—it reminds us that this life is precious. The briefest answer to the question of memory across death is that in the abstract the individual is already in the ultimate.

The universe is a manifold of acute to diffuse to absent and space and time. As such it is self contained. Within this there are phases of acute, diffuse, and absent manifestation and identity. There is no limit to the extension (in space-time and beyond) and variety of these manifestations (and the peaks of being may be called the Aeternitas of Thomas Aquinas—all being and knowing as a fact; or the Brahman of Adi Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta; or The Real of some formulations that emphasize the difficulty in apprehending the ultimate object). This power is conferred on the individual.

Detail of general possibilist cosmology: an earlier account

In greater detail, manifestation and identity cycle through acute, diffuse, and absent phases; and there is no limit to the extension, duration, and variety of these cycles and their peaks (i.e. the variety is so great that there is no mere repetitiousness and, of course, there are peaks within peaks…). The variety of local or cosmological systems and their laws is without limit. The cosmoses may be seen as lying on a grid connected, sometimes by explicit space-time, but generally via the non-extensional whole (universe). Our cosmos is repeated in its precise and variant forms without limit as an infinitesimal part of this grid. It is possible that a cosmos will have ghost cosmoses that are at most temporarily isolated from them (there is no ultimate disconnection or non-interaction). Therefore a limitless sub-collection will have such ghost cosmoses, each passing through the other(s) with barely a whisper. Temporally, even though this is probably at least partially metaphorical, the cosmoses which have a limitless range of small to large scale manifestation, may be seen against a transient to void background. The universe, as we have seen, has no external creator. However, there may be local creation of one cosmos by another. That is, there may be local ‘gods’.

Note that in viewing the universe as an abstract object for some purposes we can see how it is a non-spatiotemporal reservoir for memory. This is a rather abstract argument that is drawn out below

Death and identity

The identity of the individual constitutes a problem. In going through non manifest phases how is there the memory that is necessary to identity? And how can Brahman and Aeternitas be facts when process is eternal. There are two approaches to answering this. A concrete but somewhat unsatisfactory answer is that between the absolute void and sentient form there are grades of formed-ness including a proto-void that is the container of memory. Then, the individual is an expression of dispositions (from Vedanta); it is this that survives death; and for the individual, perhaps no more is remembered; but within Brahman all is known—at a higher level—and therefore remembered (it is possible and therefore individual lives will generally be mosaics of enjoyment and suffering: more on this later). But this concrete approach is not altogether satisfactory because of eternal process. A second approach is abstract. Recall that the concrete may also be seen as abstract. In the abstract approach spatiotemporality and causality reside in spatiotemporality plus non-spatiotemporality and causality plus non-causality; and in this largest ‘domain’ all is (possible); that is what is said is true even though I do not understand how its truth manifests.

Recollection of past life

As far as I can see, I have no recollection of an earlier life. Some people are reputed to have such memory. On logical grounds I cannot—as far as I see—rule this out (only ‘as far as I see’ because as suggested earlier, Logic may turn out to be more restrictive than we think it). However, in significant terms such truthful recollection seems unlikely (though not necessarily dishonest). So, then, what is to be said about reports of past lives? There are at least three questions. (1) Are the reports reliable? (2) What significance does this have for the present life of the reporter? (3) What is the significance for the continuity of identity? Regarding (1) I think that there is clearly doubt. Regarding (2) it is in part up to the individual to see the significance—it is subjective; however what will the significance have been at the end of the empirical cosmos? If we do not think that our cosmos is a finite part of an infinity then it would follow that all significance will come to an end. Regarding (3) I think that there is little significance because (a) there are better reasons to think that there is continuity of identity and (b) the kind of continuity in question does not seem to be particularly interesting (I admit of course that some people find it quite interesting).

I suggest the following. What we remember in any set of similar lives is at least what is constant over them. Thus I may remember my form but not know that I am remembering it: if form is the same then form and memory coincide. This would be interesting because every instance is another opportunity (therefore it would be functional to forget what varies; this does not prove the case that forgetting is universal). However, as part of a larger organism with greater memory ‘I’ may remember more; in this life, therefore, what is important to memory is realizing andor being on the path to realizing higher consciousness; but this is what is important from the general perspective of the nature of our being (and not just the question of memory).

The preservation of memory would occur, abstractly, from the fundamental principle; and more concretely via communication among the void, the proto-void, and the cosmological.

More on principles

The problem is to search for concepts and evaluate them for possibility and significance.

Experience, presence, intuition, and the metaphysics are among the heuristics.

A formal approach—developing and using existing and new abstract theories—will also be useful. Examples are set theory, mereology, logics, theories of abstract objects, and various mathematical systems suitable to the study of complexity.

A system of human knowledge should also be useful.

Some details

We saw earlier that ‘To the extent that identity is not well defined, space and time are not well defined. To the extent that the ways of difference are not well distinguished, space and time are not. To the extent that identity is not universal, space and time are not universal.’ It now follows that within possibility, all such cases obtain (note the similarity to and inspiration from Einsteinian space-time-matter).

The variety of local or cosmological systems and their laws is without limit. The cosmoses may be seen as lying on a grid connected, sometimes by explicit space-time, but generally via the incompletely-extensional whole (universe). Every atom is a cosmos, every cosmos an atom. All limited cosmoses are repeated in precise and variant forms, as far as ‘possible’ without limit. A cosmos has the possibility of self-annihilation at any moment (or not); therefore infinitely many will self-annihilate. Further for any cosmos there may and so for many there will be annihilator events and annihilator cosmoses. All this occurs against a background at many levels from void, to proto-void, to semi-form (note the analogy to the quantum world and vacuum). Our cosmos is repeated in its precise and variant forms without limit as an infinitesimal part of this grid. It is possible that a cosmos will have ghost cosmoses that are at most temporarily isolated from them (there is no ultimate disconnection or non-interaction). Therefore a limitless sub-collection will have such ghost cosmoses, each passing through the other(s) with barely a whisper. Temporally, even though this is probably at least partially metaphorical, the cosmoses which have a limitless range of small to large scale manifestation, may be seen against a transient to void background. The universe, as we have seen, has no external creator. However, there may be local creation of one cosmos by another. That is, there may be local ‘gods’. It is possible that the story of the Bible (or Koran or similar ‘Hindu’ accounts), in some form made self-consistent, is realized in some cosmoses; therefore the stories will be realized infinitely often. The same is true of all fiction.

Death

This section is ‘detail’ because the contents occur earlier.

What we have seen is that death is real but not absolute.

In this life, death is a reminder of its preciousness.

The proto-void and the ephemera

The void presents as so potent that we are inclined to attribute power and ‘stuff’ to it. However, the reason we may want to do this is that our scientific (though not logical) reason and intuition tell us: no manifest being, no power. But a lesson of the metaphysics is that this kind of reason and intuition are misleading. The void has power even though it contains no being. We are of course so accustomed to causation that we will think of the power of the void as causal. But that is metaphysically unnecessary; but it is allowable provided that we admit a vastly different notion of causality than the scientific-intuitive one.

Still, the metaphysics implies that there is a proto-void that has much ‘stuff’ and causal power (here the significance of ‘proto’ is that of coming before from the direction of the more rather than the less complex). The main reason to bring this up is that it may provide a place to fill the science-intuition versus metaphysics gap without compromising the metaphysics.

The ephemera are roughly related to the idea of the proto-void. Imagine yourself in the place between being awake and sleep. You are imagining shapes and colors and spaces. They are like shadows—they seem to have no causality of their own. How could they depict reality? The do depict reality except of course that there may be intrinsic contradictions as in logic, as in the art of M. C. Escher. They are real. But are they significant? In themselves they are significant at least as depictions of a ‘shadow world’ and as a source of imagination. Perhaps, also, they are pathways to and from absence of being and formed being. We will be investigating significance below.

Significance

We are also interested in stable cosmologies, e.g. that of the local cosmos. This will also help see the significance in general cosmology.

Above we saw that the consequences to the metaphysics are immense in magnitude. But what is their significance? Some consequences, e.g. the eternity of identity, are obvious. But others, e.g. the truth of fiction, are not obvious. The cosmologies taken up below for their intrinsic significance help to answer the issue of the significance of various aspects of the general picture.

Stable cosmologies

Our cosmos has a degree of formed-ness and stability. The universe is a collection of formed stable cosmoses against a transient-void background. What principles are available to explain form and stability?

Let us elaborate the foregoing question. We have seen that the universe is a limitless collection of formed stable cosmoses of variety far greater than suggested by our cosmos—i.e., the fundamental laws and not just constants have limitless range. This is just a beginning for ‘every cosmos is an atom, every atom a cosmos’ and all this occurs against a void-proto-void-transient-ephemera background.. What principles are available to understand their form and stability. For example what is the source of physical structure and particular structures such as the laws of physics of our cosmos; what is the source of life—and what are the kinds of cosmos that are necessary for or facilitate life and lower and higher sentience (and what further high forms of sentience may there be)?

Principles

Since every origin complies with the metaphysics, this is the most general explanatory principle.

The origin of a specialization of form, stability may derive from another specialization that is less specialized but still not the most general picture; but for foundation without further foundation this must lead us back to the general case.

But we are also interested in more specific processes that explain form and the population of form in the universe. These include the standard processes of experience, science, scientific and metaphysical cosmologies as well as metaphysical systems tinged by cosmology and other particularization—and their forms and principles.

It is inherent in the general process under the metaphysics that it need have no explanation or mechanism or understanding other than that the metaphysics requires it. But we also interested in more specific processes that are explanatory mechanism in the sense that we can see how they occur as more frequent, but perhaps not so universal processes. Any reasonable mechanism is necessitated by the metaphysics; what the metaphysics does not require is that such mechanisms be universal. The metaphysics contains all more specific ‘explanations’ but is not limited to any of them. Thus the metaphysics is the ‘parent’ of all principles.

It is sufficient to consider origins from the void.

We may consider origins from any state but there is no origin that is more general than origin from the void; we choose the latter because it is maximally explanatory—i.e. the explanation / mechanism of formation from the void need posit no further form.

Because there is no form in the void, the origin of form is indeterministic. But form has at least some degree of determinism. A goal of explanation is to illuminate the ‘balance’ between indeterminism and determinism—between absence and occurrence of form. A classic mechanism is stepwise via indeterministic increment between stable states where population is maximized where the product of frequency and longevity is a maximum. Fecund transients are very short lived. Perfect symmetry is frozen. The optimum lies somewhere in between.

So we now face the question of the detail, the mechanism of such a process. What is the process of origin of form from the void? The void has no form; therefore the process cannot be determinist in the usual sense (it is determinist in quite another sense in which all form ‘comes’ from the void). But the same is true at every step: the origin of new form, i.e. form not at least implicit in the old form, must be indeterministic.

Would the origin of form be large step or incremental? From the metaphysics large steps do occur; such steps need have no explanation other than the metaphysics requires it. However, it is reasonable that (a) small steps from an already formed system are most probable (b) the net process is not ‘seeking’ an end in form (this is inherent to non-determinist origins) (d) that the individual steps show no preference for stability (e) but that stable outcomes are (by definition) longer lived and (f) that some kind of near symmetry (and thus conservation) is inherent to relative stability (the problem with perfect symmetry is that perfect symmetry and stability are ‘frozen’ in their perfection. Thus there is a balance between stability and the need for process. This balance will lie, as part of a distribution, at a place where the product of longevity and frequency of origin (fecundity) is a maximum. This shows that contrary to some opinion, emergence of structure requires indeterminism which occasionally finds relatively formed states whose behavior is a mix of determinism and indeterminism. There is no other mechanism at this level of generality. The most common way in which this occurs is by some kind of incremental variation and selection. There may be other alternate mechanisms and explanations to the incremental and within the incremental there may be specialized cases. However, it is interesting that the universal metaphysics requires that this incremental mechanism is not the only way but is a definite way—i.e., it is not merely a hypothetical mechanism. Thus we have given two arguments for incremental variation and selection—a reasonable frequency-longevity argument and a necessary metaphysical argument. A classical argument for determinism has been that ‘new structure cannot emerge via random process’. However, this ignores that the very notion of essentially new structure is excluded by the concept of determinism; and what we now see that ‘pure randomness’, if we interpret it as absolute indeterminism is not so random (indeterminist) after all. The history of form is a path navigated a the boundary of stability and instability. It may be obvious to many readers that these thoughts derive inspiration from both modern evolutionary biology and the ideas of symmetry and symmetry breaking in modern physics and cosmology.

Standard science so far does not explain the origins of our cosmos (there are some ‘non-standard’ explanations). The metaphysics requires the origins and end of our cosmos. However, specific and understandable explanatory mechanisms (e.g. causal-like) will have to be sought somewhere between standard science and the metaphysics.

There are some scientific explanations, these include the ideas of Lee Smolin in which a population of cosmoses generates more cosmoses via black holes and there is naturally population selection of the more stable systems which are, from the picture itself, the ones more productive of life and sentience. The ideas are (a) that we look beyond our cosmos and (b) that we look at populations in which the evolution of life is at least a metaphor—it is not suggested (or denied) that cosmoses and other universal structures have something like DNA or sex.

There is no compelling reason to think that origins obey our laws of science, particularly its conservation laws such as conservation of energy.

Unlike some the current speculative cosmologies of origins, there is no compelling reason to think that the origins come from situations in which our conservation laws (e.g. mass-energy) hold. In fact the metaphysics requires that ultimate origins (from the most general case / the least formed case, i.e. the void, the proto-void, and the ephemera) must be non conservative (conservative is not opposite to but is a particular case of the non conservative continuum).

Origins from a non conservative background provide an explanatory template for conservation laws: conservation of energy, for example, lies at the stable interface between deflation of energy dissipating and inflation of energy generating proto-cosmoses.

More on principles: Estimating simple adapted and significant probability and population

Analysis of experience a useful preliminary

Before discussion of general principles note that an analysis of matter and experience, i.e. of matter and mind, will enable a more careful understanding of experience. Consequently the general analysis of cosmology will not be simply linear but different departments and levels will be mutually informative.

General

Examples of general principles whose use is illustrated below are (a) symmetry and stability (b) incremental adaptation at a range of levels of hierarchy and extension and (c) estimation of significance—i.e. what are the features of a ‘cosmos’ that contain world aware beings. A complement to the principles is that the improbable is also necessary but, generally, less significant.

Thus there is a balance here between sufficient stability (the operative terms are relative stability resulting from near symmetry) and so longevity versus sufficient remove from stability for fecund generation. While modern theoretical physics (quantum theory, vacuum fluctuation, bubble cosmoses) may be suggestive, biology—adaptation and its process—shows us a principle. Here there is a paradigm of this balance between stability and fecundity. The significance of such models is that they explain the population of the universe by form over transient; they explain the forms also ever in process—origination—stable evolution—decay; and they help explain the nature of significant form.

Special: the forms of our world

Special principles would begin with the particular forms, laws, and narratives of the world—and these enable (with imagination, criticism and so on) more detailed scenarios. Always remember that what is possible is necessary. How, then, is probability estimated. Begin with well known features such as the estimated narrow range of cosmological constants that allow a cosmos suitable to emergence of life, mind, and intelligence.

Special: going beyond

But we may also go beyond our laws, not just to different values of the constants, but also different forms of law. What principles can we find here? Approaches include (1) Learning from our laws and their forms, including near symmetry, relative stability and how it comes about that there is simultaneous symmetry and symmetry breaking (there must be a balance between stability on the one hand and on the other hand effective origins and change, the related (2) Conservation laws, e.g. momentum and energy and reasons that a conservative universe is stable (non conservation means extreme dissipation or extreme inflation and of course extreme inflation may be a path to relative stability) and dissipation laws (e.g. entropy and, remembering that these laws seem to be statistical in nature, how they may contribute to structure and form—from the simple ‘usefulness’ of friction to the complex relations between entropy and life), (3) Learning from the ‘forces’ of our cosmos—the strong and weak are implicated in binding of particles, the electromagnetic in radiation and chemistry, and the weaker gravitation, since it is or seems strictly attractive, in the larger scale structures, (4) The scales of our cosmos—microscopic to macroscopic and how, e.g., the microscopic gives rise to possibility of form and variety at the level of organisms, and (5) ‘Accidents’ such as the abundant occurrence of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon; the abundance on earth of water and the special physical and chemical properties of water including its anomalous expansion and that it is a medium of chemistry and solution.

Special: alternative and extreme natural law

What is the value of finding alternative laws, e.g. alternative physics? First there is a filling in of the picture of what the universe is like. This may be enhanced by computational intelligence and perhaps even realized by technology (computation itself or other such as micro-technology down to particle levels). Second, consider an alternative physics such as one in which time is sufficiently accelerated so that we can perform ‘super-tasks’. What is a super task? I use a definition somewhat broader than seems to be current. A super task is one that is logically possible but immensely difficult to unrealizable within the physics of our cosmos or a limited collection of cosmoses. However, if ‘super-physics’ permits super tasks then distinction emphasized above between the merely possible and the significant may have some to absolute break down.

Population significance

What this suggests for population significance that while within realism all stories are possible, the ones that follow the foregoing template are probable. Thus while many of our traditional accounts are imbued with moral and psychological significance, their significance for cosmology is not great or, more precisely, does not appear from the developments so far to be great. Naïvely, the account of incremental origins from humble (void) beginnings seems counterintuitive—surely God was necessary to explain the beauty of the world—closer examination shows it to be the most probable explanation (including that if there are hierarchies of gods, their origins too is generally incremental). Somewhat similarly, quantum theory has some explanatory power for local origins (up to, say, the level of Lee Smolin’s kind of account) it is clearly deficient for its lack of explanation of the origin of the theory itself and its conservation laws (but note that on some accounts ‘anything is possible’ under quantum theory).

Stable cosmologies

How may we go to an account that is more general than one based in our kinds of law but yet more specific than a general incremental account. What principles might we uncover? Approaches include (1) Learning from our laws and their forms, including near symmetry, relative stability and how it comes about that there is simultaneous symmetry and symmetry breaking (there must be a balance between stability on the one hand and on the other hand effective origins and change, the related (2) Conservation laws, e.g. momentum and energy and reasons that a conservative universe is stable (non conservation means extreme dissipation or extreme inflation and of course extreme inflation may be a path to relative stability) and dissipation laws (e.g. entropy and, remembering that these laws seem to be statistical in nature, how they may contribute to structure and form—from the simple ‘usefulness’ of friction to the complex relations between entropy and life), (3) Learning from the ‘forces’ of our cosmos—the strong and weak are implicated in binding of particles, the electromagnetic in radiation and chemistry, and the weaker gravitation, since it is or seems strictly attractive, in the larger scale structures, (4) The scales of our cosmos—microscopic to macroscopic and how, e.g., the microscopic gives rise to possibility of form and variety at the level of organisms, and (5) ‘Accidents’ such as the abundant occurrence of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon; the abundance on earth of water and the special physical and chemical properties of water including its anomalous expansion and that it is a medium of chemistry and solution.

Alternative and extreme cosmologies and physics

These overlap the stable cosmologies

Motive

Exploration of the world—our cosmos and its laws are one scenario out of limitlessly many implied by the metaphysics.

Exploration of metaphysical possibility—what is the universe like, what variety and identity are there, what is the origin of our cosmos and its laws and what is its relation to the rest of the universe? Thus far there are two pictures (a) our cosmos and variations (b) the metaphysics of this narrative. Not only do we want to explore the latter in its full range but we are also interested in special cases—laterally and from the level of our cosmos on up.

Constraints

Note that some thinkers interpret ‘metaphysically possible’ in restrictive terms such as (a) should not radically violate our laws and (b) mind requires a body. It is interesting that while these two requirements should be interesting, they are not necessary. Particularly, if we are interested in the most general case, Logic is the only restriction and (b) if we are interested in the origin of our laws (and mind) it is essential to start from more general scenarios.

Sources

Generalization and variation of known laws, conceptual or thought experiment, adaptation, conservation (energy, momentum, angular momentum, Noether’s theorem), entropy (and dissipation and availability) issues, experiment and empirical evidence and suggestion.

Conclusions

There will be pockets of improbability but generally the foregoing population picture will obtain. There is a vast theory of possibilist and probabilist form awaiting development. It is generally the self-adapted systems that will have anything more than the barest sentience (see further discussion in cosmology of life and identity below) and these higher forms of sentience, being locally adapted, will be less to see other self-adapted systems and very unlikely to see transient systems. Thus while the formed cosmoses will be high in population, their sentient forms will predominantly see only their own cosmos (at least until such sentience adapts at a still higher level—organically or culturally). At a certain level of evolution there will be a tendency to see the local cosmos as absolute but think or conceive beyond this situation. Since we can at least think of and, as this account shows, even reason about higher cosmoses and the ultimate we are perhaps higher in this sense though fairly obviously far from ultimate.

Cosmology of life and identity

Approach to the ultimate

Though realization is given to limited form (the individual), intelligent and passionate (committed) engagement enhance effectiveness and enjoyment of the process.

Implications for relations to the ultimate

What circumstances over and above the universal-possibilist case does the probabilist case hold for relations of limited forms to the ultimate? Importantly, local adaptation (perception and free concept formation) enable understanding that goes beyond organic adaptation. This may and as we are now reading does enable universal understanding—some knowledge of the ultimate. Thus knowledge of approaches to the ultimate are also enabled (perhaps the knowledge is not too great but the metaphysics shows that realization for limited form is always at a beginning). These approaches may be ideational (e.g. meditative practice), behavioral (nature immersion, service, mutual spiritual practice) and technological (moving beyond earth to universal civilization via material and information technology).

God—particular versus diffuse, concrete—e.g. person—versus abstract, remote versus immanent

Abrahamic type conceptions of god, divested of inconsistency, are realized. However, these realizations are seemingly not probabilist and therefore the significance of the ‘gods’ is primarily symbolic. Remote personal gods are thus apparently of less real significance. What of local personal gods? These, too, seem improbable except as far as life is part of the ‘god-process’ and this appears to have some significance. However, here it is the abstract god (of which the concrete is a special case) that appears to have the greatest significance for it includes the ultimate. We are as noted earlier strands and dispositions-realizations within this process and therefore it is here that we find the ultimate into which we may enter.

Intelligence, evolution, and significance

We have via intelligence some, if very partial, control over our fate and evolution. It is possible and therefore will occur that we (at least in identity beyond death and together with organism from the corners of the universe) rise to the level of constructing peaks of the universe (there will be depths too). It is in the nature of significance and of the void background (no external god) that such peaks, whatever the mechanism, are the highest significance.

Begin by considering the specifics or our organism rather than ‘universal organism’. We have seen that origins to the present state of our organism have been significantly not under our control (this is fairly obvious). However, it is also clear that we are able to affect our evolution if only minimally (and often adversely). This is of course not new for since the origin of life on earth, life is among the factors that affect the biosphere (life and environment) and the changed biosphere provides new niches and opportunities. What is qualitatively new is perhaps only the result of a single or a few quantitative changes among which is our intelligence (the meaning of the term requires clarification; surely it involves all elements of psyche including perception, physical capability, and emotion over and above mere cognition; and perhaps it should be defined implicitly: ability to apprehend and negotiate the immediate-and-the-ultimate). Perhaps the latter is not particularly remarkable but it is in the nature of our organism that we find it remarkable. In any case, the outcome is qualitatively remarkable even though it is clear that we are far from what is possible.

What is possible? It is clearly possible that that we can—organism can—become greater authors of our own evolution and the evolution of the universe. Two questions arise. Is this likely to result in the greatest variety-height of form? What is its consequence for ‘significance’? The metaphysics itself is neutral on the first question: it allows great variety and height of both conscious and blind form. However, there is clearly some probability advantage of ‘intelligence’ taking over from ‘blindness’ (perhaps the real issue is the nature rather than the issue of intelligence). Given this, the metaphysics requires that there will be peak phases of the universe that result from intelligence; and that from the identity of being, we will be part of such phases (not necessarily as this human civilization). The issue for significance is twofold: the peak phases of intelligence will be phases of consciousness and therefore of significance. Further, however, ability to appreciate the peak is (part of) significance.

But there was an assumption in the previous paragraph in the equation of intelligence and consciousness. How can we argue about this? Some philosophers and evolutionists have argued that consciousness was selected in evolution for its greater adaptivity. There is an error in this argument: surely a non-conscious organism could have instrumental if not conscious intelligence. The argument should go back to basics. We saw earlier that organism and experience (‘mind’ and ‘matter’) are constitutively interwoven at root levels. Thus there is no separating organism and experience. What is or may be selected for in evolution is articulation, processing ability, concentration of experience, freedom of pure experience, self-reference of experience; and this does not result in the higher experience that is our consciousness but, rather, it is that consciousness.

Pain and enjoyment

In a stable organism in a stable cosmos under the paradigm of adaptation, pain and enjoyment are in adaptive balance. This gives further meaning to pain.

We saw earlier that the metaphysics implies that pain and joy are a mosaic and that that gave meaning to pain. In stable cosmologies pain and joy are adaptive; therefore, pain will not exceed joy (roughly). This gives further meaning to pain. This does not exhaust meaning for we may actively search meaning as in the human endeavors of psychology and religion.

The significance of the word ‘enjoyment’ is that whereas joy may be interpreted as in-itself, enjoyment suggests active engagement of life, feeling, and thought.

Adaptivity

In stable cosmologies pain is adaptive. However, pain will normally have limits. Joy, too, is adaptive. Though pain is a ‘problem’ it will not be adaptive for it to absolutely outweigh joy. Pain and joy are a mosaic that, from adaptivity, are normally in some balance. The adaptive situation therefore gives further meaning to pain; particularly it helps address ‘suffering’ that arises from ignorance of the nature of being and pain.

‘Meaning of life’

This kind of meaning—significant meaning—lies in being in process (seen here as negotiating the immediate-ultimate).

There is nothing outside the universe; there is no external creator. Therefore there is no true meaning to be sought in these ideas.

In some existentialisms we are alone in the universe; we are our own seekers and creators of meaning; this is sometimes seen as close to nihilism.

Here we see the truth of the existentialisms. In the ultimate we are the universe and its meaning and significance. But how does this affect the immediate? It gives us the knowledge that even though we may not have the ultimate in meaning, it is part of our destiny. To enjoy it optimally, however, we must engage; we accept the mosaic of joy and pain, the experience of success and failure. There is nothing outside the process therefore being in the process is (the source of) meaning; the thought that there might be some ultimate and external authority on meaning is based in the errors that see the universe as created by such agency and that see the ultimate as a state of frozen perfection.

Realization

Preview

The first main section, journey, makes explicit the so far implicit idea of a journey; it then derives and discusses derives some dimensions (of being) for the journey and elements of process; I allow redundancy with and across dimensions and elements.

The next section, on a path of realization, derives an approach named universal realism and a generic template. The plans are my plans but may be modified to suit other path designs.

Journey

The individual realizes the ultimate. While in limited form this realization is eternal process—a journey in being. This follows from the metaphysics.

It is in overcoming limited form that the ultimate, i.e. the Aeternitas or Brahman, are achieved.

Nature of realization

Enjoyment and effectiveness are enhanced by intelligent, committed and passionate engagement. The process always begins here-now and connects to the ultimate.

This does not exclude detachment from too much investment in outcome.

The ‘journey’ connects the immediate and the ultimate. It begins here, in this world. It is incremental but saying so is not to exclude significant steps.

Magnitude and enjoyment of the process of realization

The extension, duration, variety, peaks and their magnitudes, and dissolutions are without limit; the ultimate is approached but not achieved; it is only in overcoming limited form that the ultimate is achieved.

Further, enjoyment and effectiveness are enhanced by intelligent, committed and passionate engagement (which of course is not to exclude detachment from too much investment in outcomes and so on).

The ‘journey’ connects the immediate and the ultimate. It begins here, in this world. It is incremental but saying so is not to exclude significant steps.

Immersion and the disciplines

The cosmology developed above is derived from that of modern society. This is appropriate for modern cosmology and the metaphysics go a long way (to the ultimate). It is not the point here that the primal and other traditions have no intuition of the ultimate but only that in the here developed way is one way that suggests how to realize.

How? Of course we use the suggestions of all tradition but the final mix is imaginative and critical (the primal have critical aspects as in the strengthening and weakening or strengthening of prescription according to experience). But the modern cosmology and metaphysics suggests some ways (as developed below). The primal and other traditions can add to this.

The intrinsic and instrumental disciplines—the traditions of the east are, though limited just as the west too is limited, developed beyond our psychologies of being. I call these disciplines intrinsic because they apply to our being in contrast to the extrinsic or instrumental of the west that apply primarily to the environment or instrumentally to the individual.

The oral narratives of some primal traditions may be described as immersive (there is no need to generalize; we learn from examples). What this means is that the narratives are not templates to apply but are also lived. This is a significant learning that can be made from the primal (though of course the idea of immersion is not absent in western thought as in the poetry of William Blake and many others and the experience of the western mystics).

What does immersion mean? First, what is non-immersion? The western sciences tend to non-immersion. The natural sciences are essentially objective in their orientation. The social sciences are significantly objective and instrumental. Technology is the technology of instrument and control. To be immersive is to blur the boundaries, to join the oppositions of object and subject. Our social sciences and efforts should merge, thinkers will be actors (e.g. VI Lenin and MK Gandhi); but actors will be thinkers. Ultimately this will be the way of a natural science that leads to realization. The theory of experience shows that ‘electrons’ have experience. There will be no way but to be involved at all levels. But how? We begin with the closest to our niche of being.

Some detail follows.

Natural science and technology in the modern world

The natural sciences are primarily constituted of conceptual and experimental activity. Their application lies in fields such as medicine and technology. These of course have application to ‘being’, healing and modification of the organism in medicine; adding and modification of the organism in technology (medicine and technology overlap). Technology and science of exploration, especially space exploration are potentially significant to our future even construed narrowly. Information and other micro-technologies (‘nano-technology’) come closer to the core of the being of the organism than earlier technologies. Perhaps the time is close when the distinction between organism and technology breaks down.

Society, immersion, and the need for greater immersion

The social sciences come closer to being immersive than the natural. Here, in the doing (politics, ideas and so, charismatic or traditionally structured or both), charismatic authority mixes with traditional-institutional authority but, still, especially in large scale societies far more so than for small independent groups (as in ‘primal’ cultures), the gap is large. Immersion occurs in two ways: narrowing the gap between local and global in individual, charismatic, and institutional aspects; and immersion of the thinker in practice (as in the standard examples of MK Gandhi, VI Lenin, and ML King). As societies become larger, the need for immersive social activity (e.g. politics) will become greater in both immediate and ultimate perspectives.

Need for immersive natural science and technology

But this is true also for the natural sciences and the technologies. This can be seen from two perspectives (1) for limited form (and culture including knowledge) the approach to the ultimate is always in process—‘always at the beginning’ and (2) realization is realization of being and not just of the part of being labeled ‘ideas’.

The intrinsic disciplines

As discussed below, the intrinsic disciplines pertain to the identity of the organism. Among the modern sciences, even psychology has largely ignored the ‘inner’ aspect. The intrinsic disciplines pertain to identity and psyche. Here, the achievements in the east outstrip those of the west. In the west these have been minimized perhaps on account of emphasis on what is controllable. Perhaps the achievements of the east, though spectacular, are not that much after all. Still, this is where ‘core’ being resides; and, even if the east is at a beginning, more is needed. The west has a tradition in this area (e.g. the mystics but this has been marginalized). There has been a renaissance of the intrinsic disciplines in the west that has learned much from the east.

Dimensions

Let us identify some ‘dimensions’ of the world. The purpose is to attempt comprehensiveness with regard to areas of action toward realization. The source and the significance of the dimensions are explained below. There is no need to suggest that the dimensions are trans-cultural or absolute.

The dimensions of process are nature or ground, civilization (individual and community in interaction), psyche (the place of being and significance and source of instrument), and the universal.

In choosing the elements from some culture(s) for projection, there will be some arbitrariness The points are to begin, not uncritically, and that we can return to reexamine and improve.

Nature—in western cosmology, nature is primitive. It is of course multi-dimensional—physical, cosmological, biological and, on some accounts, also of experience (mind). These constitute a scientific ground of being. Then there is the nature that is lived in—land, river, forest, mountain, lake… This is ground, sustenance, and inspiration. Nature is frequently distinguished from mind and spirit. However, the metaphysics as well as the earlier analysis of mind show that the real distinction must lie in our picture of nature versus our picture of mind. Thus, finally, I do not hold with those who refer to the additional reality of a spirit world. There is one world in which spirit and nature are one but the distinction arises as fundamental on account of incompleteness in perception and of knowledge.

Civilization—includes community. So far as there is a communal identity or even soul, it is an aspect of civilization. But civilization also emphasize an external aspect—technology and artifact and their role in realization. Some observations: individuals, community, teachers, and taught are in process together at the forefront; traditions and culture among peers and pass from generation to generation; at an inclusive level the process is civilization. Definitions: Human civilization is the web of human community across time and continents. Universal civilization is the matrix of civilizations across the universe. The process: civilization nurtures the individual, individuals foster civilization. The metaphysics requires and suggests that civilization forges its way to becoming an individual. The process of civilization is also intrinsic—the being of civilization: civilizations in interaction, individual strands interweaving—and external—the employment of physical and life sciences, travel in the world (which merges with the inner as in the Beyul below), and technology in the service of exploration and, via information processing and networking, of identity. Aspects: it is important that the dimensions of civilization include the practical cultural domains of knowledge, politics, and economics. In the process of realization these may come to emphasize immersion as much as instrument. Ways to connect immediate and ultimate—preliminary: perhaps the primary block is fundamentalism in secular (naturalism where ‘nature’ has limited interpretation) and trans-secular domains.

Ways to connect immediate and ultimate: (1) Material-quantitative and spiritual-qualitative implications of the metaphysics are important. (2) Belief is not necessary. (3) A way through the secular / trans-secular: via the metaphysics. (4) Infuse social institutions with the open (eternal process) and immersive implications of the metaphysics. (5) Institutional and charismatic initiatives are important. (6) My path has to be multiple: through my being and sharing.

Psyche—refers to mind, spirit and soul (to the extent that they obtain). Though the distinctions are the result of ignorance they are convenient. Good and evil are real (the metaphysics) but we seem to sense this via emotion, experience, and thought rather than corporeal sense. We can think of spirit as the part of psyche with which we sense the higher things of which we are a part; soul is what survives death; and psyche refers generically to all of these and to person and identity. The essential sense of personal god is that of a process in which we partake. Thus there is a place for a term that properly refers to identity, person, mind, spirit, and soul; the word chosen here is psyche. The essential psychology here is related to the aim and shall be (a) our apprehensions of the real and (b) ways to apprehend the real: we have discussed (a) and discussion of (b) is ongoing.

The universal—see below.

Some details of the dimensions follow.

Nature

Nature can be seen as the ground of being. It can be seen in various ways, e.g. scientifically. Here, however, we are especially interested in other aspects—the experiential and via experience as gateway to the universal.

Perhaps the main artificiality to concepts of nature is the cutoff from other ‘dimensions’, e.g. society and spirit. The divisions are not entirely arbitrary. The social and cultural worlds are partly products of human action. The conventional essence of nature is that we can affect it but do not produce it (from the universal metaphysics we can of course affect it; from experience that suggests we cannot affect nature what we derive is the difficulty of affecting nature). There are numerous connotations to the word ‘spirit’. All suggest a realm beyond immediate sense but not beyond all apprehension. The metaphysics requires this. Perhaps of greatest significance is a ‘higher’ world—somewhere between the immediate and Brahman. But I think that the divide between spirit and nature refers really to ignorance than to a real divide. Ultimately, all is nature or all is spirit.

Nature: explanation

Nature is the most ‘elementary’ of the dimensions. We tend to think that its province does not overlap spirit. Where we see spirit in nature we tend to think of it as separate. However, it was argued that this is simply because what we see in nature as incomplete—i.e., it is our seeing (or thinking) that is incomplete and not nature itself. As our knowledge of nature grows (ancient intuition such as the mystic and the philosophical, mind as part of nature, society as expression of nature even though perhaps remotely so in our understanding, modern physics being more suggestive of mind than classical physics) we begin to see the unity of nature and spirit.

Psychology or theory of realization

Refer to ‘book’.

The focus

The topics will include or be limited to:

1. Apprehension of the real (or the ultimate). This will include psychology (the structure of the apprehension) and epistemology (justification or validation).

2. Ways to apprehension of the real—activities including ritual and programs such as the eightfold way (its essence), reasons for these activities (why they work and how they are based in psychology), and marks of successful apprehension of the real. Hick’s views on religious pluralism, critical realism, and view of the religious life.

What is psychology?

Psychology understands mind in general and conceptual terms.

Detail

It expresses the conceptual in and learns from the particular. It is concerned with the dimensions of mind (cognition, emotion); motivation and how it translates to behavior; it is concerned with relations to the immediate and the ultimate.

Modern academic psychology tends to eschew the ‘unobservable’. Though the ‘heyday’ of this tendency is now past, it is still strong. Even non-academic western psychologies tend to hold that the non or supra natural is only ‘in the mind’. Perhaps all traditional psychologies have a limited view of the ultimate. It is immensely hard to outgrow our adaptive experiential orientation in such a way as to be oriented to the ultimate without violation of what is valid in that orientation.

The purpose of this discussion of psychology

The purpose is to serve the aim.

Detail

The purpose is to serve the aim to live in all worlds, especially the immediate and the ultimate, as one. The focus therefore is on this aspect of perception, cognition, emotion, and motivation. Detailed concerns are of course important, but especially as they relate to the primary focus.

A principle

In the aim of perfection we do not wait for perfection.

The focus

The focus is practical—we are interested in transformation. We are of course interested in theory, particularly because that too is practical.

The primary psychology of concern is psychology of transformation. It is not that psychology of the proximate is not of concern; however it is part of a psychology of transformation since the proximate is part of the ultimate.

The essential psychology

The essential psychology is the theory of realization.

Individuals are strands of the universal, we are its dispositions become concrete.

In universal process individual memory is recollected as part of a higher individual. There is an endless continuum of levels—above self, from SELF to BRAHMAN and below self, from the void and its transients to self.

Detail

The essential psychology is not a theory of how human psychology ‘works’ rather it is the theory of realization—that it is the metaphysics and the cosmology with emphasis on the relations between the individual and the ultimate (which includes groups). How it works is valuable in itself and as support for human aims. At this time this text makes reference to the enormous output of writing in the tradition. But I emphasize the maxim that in the aim of perfection we cannot wait for perfection. That is, practically, perfection in ultimate terms includes sacrifice of aspects of self.

A goal for the future is to work a full but relevant psychology into the theory of realization.

Elements of psychology may be divided according to binding to the world versus freedom. Perception and primal feeling are binding; we are not normally free to perceive the form of mountain as something else and we are not normally free to ignore pain. That is tied in with survival. Yet we are free in some ways; we have freedom of concept formation which is adaptive in surviving in new environments—that is, freedom of concept formation is part of the adaptation of adaptability. We have a degree of freedom of affect—the ability to invest emotion in new objects and pursuits and this too may be seen as ability to adapt to new contexts, even the universal (even if this arose in small ways, the difference between the small and the universal in this context is one of degree rather than kind).

The immediate and the ultimate in psychology

An important element of this psychology is to keep a balance between the immediate and the ultimate.

Detail

The aim of the practical parts (practice and ritual) psychology would include developing and sustaining this freedom while maintaining adequate respect for the immediate or normal. It would further include sustaining this balance between freedom and ‘necessity’ with regard to all elements noted above: the elements of cognition, cognition and emotion (heart-mind), mind and body, individual and civilization, and nature and universe.

Civilization

Possibly use the section on civilization and realization in ‘book’.

Introduction

Individuals are in process together. 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.

Civilization: the concept

Human civilization is the web of human community across time and continents. Universal civilization is the matrix of civilizations across the universe.

Detail

Civilization nurtures the individual, individuals foster civilization. The metaphysics requires and suggests that Civilization forges its way to becoming an individual. The process of civilization is also intrinsic—the being of civilization: civilizations in interaction, individual strands interweaving—and external—the employment of physical and life sciences, travel in the world (which merges with the inner as in the Beyul below), and technology in the service of exploration and, via information processing and networking, of identity.

Civilization: dimensions

It is important that the dimensions of civilization include the practical cultural domains of knowledge, politics, and economics. In the process of realization these may come to emphasize immersion as much as instrument.

The immediate and the ultimate

I seek to formulate ways to connect the immediate and the ultimate.

Introduction

The tradition provides ways. In the secular the ultimate tends to be this world and cosmos and so the primary connections are material and human. The material emphasizes improving the material aspect of life and exploration (and utilization) of the cosmos. The human dimension is seen as living the good life: enjoying the world and what it offers, sharing and contributing—voluntarily and through work—and enjoying the fruits of work. The ‘spiritual’ is not absent but rather than to the real, it refers to ‘higher’ aspects of psychology and culture.

The trans-secular sees a greater universe than does the secular and so sees further connections. There are conflicts and commonalities among the different trans-secular systems and between the secular (and its components, e.g. the nations) and the trans-secular. The conflicts among the trans-secular are largely the result of fundamentalist interpretation and the political economics of religion (religion is also political and economic). The commonalities include moral principles-behavior and symbols of the real (which is or includes the spiritual). Issues of the trans-secular include the negative aspects of its politics, the limited reality of its symbols (which we might see intuitively but are starkly brought out by the metaphysics), and that while religion flourishes in some places it has lost its hold in others. Reasons for this loss are the ascent of science and political-economic freedoms that diminish the need for religious light: the idea of spirit remains positive for many secularists but the compulsion that results from misery and coercion has been removed.

However, the metaphysics shows the standard secular and trans-secular to be severely limited. What it shows is the greatest opportunity that transcends the secular divide; it does not do so compulsively; it cannot do so compulsively for realization must begin with volition. This requires freedom from coercive religious and other politics. On the other hand it also implies that there are limitations to the separation of secular and trans-secular affairs (the separation is important in helping guarantee freedoms of thought, freedom from persecution). This sets up a paradox. The secular divide retards realization while it provides freedom to pursue realization. Its source is a defect of human nature—ignorance and coercion—but its purpose is to protect human value. But the metaphysics and its implications show the crucial significance of going beyond this many faceted stand-off.

While one source of the stand-off is that of the different fundamentalist systems, it is not so commonly recognized that the secular worldview has its own limits and fundamentalisms. The limits are by now obvious: the standard secular worldview is severely limited. The fundamentalism is in taking this limited (e.g. naturalistic) worldview as complete. ‘Soft secularism’ takes it as complete by default; hard, i.e. positivist secularism, believes that it must be complete (but of course does not regard its position as belief).

Thus the argument here is not that of secularism and trans-secularism, one is right and one wrong (in any case there are so many strands within each that the meaning of right and wrong in simple terms is compromised). It is that, while the valid elements of both—tradition—have positive contributions, both are severely limited. What is the way out?

Intellectually, there is a simple answer. The metaphysics has made belief irrelevant; it has shown an ultimate that, as such, requires no belief. Realization, then, is a positive process (which is not to say that there is and shall be no mystery; for there is, especially with regard to the realms of being and as knowledge does not displace true mystery) and all that is required is engagement (which of course is an immense endeavor and may be experienced as difficult and in which the symbolism of the traditions may be invaluable).

Problems of the intellectual answer include the following. While the metaphysics has made the psychologically imperative character of belief rationally unnecessary with regard to realization, it has not removed the strength and various sources—intrinsic and social—of the psychological imperative (for belief could already be seen to be irrelevant with regard to realization from the conflicts of fundamentalism and the symbolic meaning of religion). So the psychological issue is the conflict from the various needs and reasons for fundamentalist belief on one hand, and the inertia of secular comfort on the other. Simultaneously, there are the social issues of communication and organization in relation to the trans-fundamentalist (secular and trans-secular) inertia and reaction which is both psychological and political-economic.

The block

I begin to see that a fundamental issue is not the secular versus the trans-secular but fundamentalism (secular and trans-secular, explicit and implicit) versus openness.

Ways to connect

This emphasizes the psycho-social side. Intrinsic connecting has been set up in the foregoing and continues in path.

The following ways are tentative

1. It is important to see not just the material and quantitative but also the spiritual and qualitative implications of the metaphysics (system).

The nature of the universe includes experience of The Real as spiritual.

2. Belief is not necessary.

Belief may now be replaced by a mix of positive knowing (the givenness of the ultimate) and ‘existential faith’ in the face of doubt and variety. A practical concern—communication and allocation of resources (all institutions, secular and trans-secular, require and take resources).

3. The way through the secular and the trans-secular.

Modern science (quantum and relativistic) has points of contact with the metaphysics, especially in the notions of the void (quantum vacuum), mesh of space-time-being (the space-time-matter of general relativity), and suggestions of mystery from quantum theory (stability from indeterminacy, analogy at least to mind-life-spirit in various phenomena including entanglement and the self-origins of replication and complexity). But these are only suggestions. Clearly, science is far from ultimate and the potential is immense. Regarding the trans-secular, one way is to focus on symbolic meaning, to fuse that meaning with the metaphysics, and perhaps to render the fusion in symbolic (parable or story, myth, legend, allegory) terms. Would institutionalization be significant?

4. To infuse social institutions with the implications of the metaphysics.

I do not mean ‘symbolic infusion and invocation’ such as prayer and artistic rendering (nor should I exclude symbol). However, what I mean is that there are implications for our cultural, political, and perhaps economic processes and institutions. We have seen that the new trans-nomial worldview implies that science will never be at an end and that limited form—individual and civilization—shall never exhaust science; therefore the realization of any ultimate science or even greatest possible science, shall be by enhancing its approach or method to include explicit and intrinsic immersion (application of science is extrinsic and perhaps only implicit). But the same should be true of other institutions—political-economic, other aspects of culture, education and other. And what of symbolic infusion? Would this be anti-‘democratic’? Offensive? And regarding symbolic infusion—what and how?

5. Institutional and charismatic initiatives are important.

And compulsive and exclusive rationality as well as emotionality are to be avoided. Both are adaptive and there separations come in degrees, not absolutes; each ‘informs’ the other; generally, they work together

6. My path has to be multiple.

Intrinsic—my thought and being; individual—my process; and sharing.

Universal

The universal is ‘everything’ but, particularly, emphasizes the unknown; it includes the previous dimensions.

All dimensions, especially the universal, straddle the known and unknown.

Processes

Overview

Elements of process are means (ideas and action), disciplines and mechanics of transformation (ways, catalysts, risk, reflection, consolidation), modes (intrinsic—of being, extrinsic—of environment and technology), places (nature, civilization, psyche, universe), vehicles (individual, civilization, intelligent artifact), and phases (becoming: nature, spirit, civilization-artifact and pure be-ing).

Elements (non exclusive) of the process may include means (ideas and action), disciplines and discipline in process (mechanics: ways of living and catalysts of change; augmented by reflection, experiment, risk, learning…), modes (intrinsic—of being, extrinsic—of environment and technology), places (nature, civilization, psyche, universe), vehicles (individual, civilization and, later, truly sentient and intelligent artifact), and phases (becoming: nature, spirit, civilization-artifact and pure be-ing).

Some details of the process follow.

Means

The means are ideas and action.

Derivation

The net process is that of being: the being of individuals and so on. The goal is transformation but the very fact of an aim involves ideas which give sense and direction to process which render process as action and the outcome as transformation. Ideas and action are the means of transformation.

Disciplines

The tradition offers disciplines or received knowledge and practice.

Derivation

Transformation and the intent to transform do not take place in a vacuum. Others came before us; tradition includes a cumulation of ideas from bits of understanding to a broad understanding of being; tradition also includes ways of transformation and ways of analysis; these become consolidated in disciplines which are also in process (sometimes the activity of exceptional individuals). There is a discipline of disciplines; it may be encoded in culture; it may be explicitly recognized; it is especially active—recognized or not—at times of transition.

Mechanics of transformation

A mechanics of transformation is, simply, analysis and synthesis of being. It may use the disciplines—e.g., the ways of the religions. Its essential mechanics is choice-risk-consolidation.

Detail

What would a mechanics of the process be? We seek activities that are transformative. That includes not only action but also ideas. Ideas and action are in interaction. An action has a transformative effect. We see this in ideas and seek to multiply it. We take a risk; in ideas we see the outcome and reject what does not work, admit what does.

In detail a mechanics of transformation is as follows: it involves risk which is intelligent where possible but sometimes true risk. The ‘cyclic’ process, then, is risk, outcome, learning at various levels, consolidation andor letting go (rejection) conceiving and making choice… or, briefly, choice-risk-consolidation (consolidation refers to both ideas and transformation of being itself).

Ways and catalysts

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

Modes (of change)

Change is either intrinsic or in external circumstances.

Derivation

The external includes social organization or civilization, technology with perhaps material changes in the individual (prosthetics and medicine, machine assistance including intelligent machines. We tend to think of the organism’s being as relatively fixed and so, on the intrinsic side, to emphasize ideas. For the most part even the major religions, even where they see salvation, it is salvation of the individual. They do not see the individual becoming something else, something greater. But some religions see and we have already seen here that we are already part of the absolute; all that is required is transformation of degree. And it is important to emphasize transformation of being because that is what we aim at. Perhaps what we achieve in this life will be small but perhaps not. We do not know the future with precision.

Places of change

The dimensions—nature, civilization, psyche, universe.

Vehicles

Individual and civilization (artifact would be included at the point that artifact acquires knowledge of significance)

Phases

Phases of a ‘journey’ correspond to the dimensions and the aspects of process. Be-coming versus be-ing defines a broad division.

Derivation

A particular journey may recognize phases that correspond to dimensions and aspects of process.

Foregoing considerations suggest (a) BECOMING: transformations in ideas and transformations in being (individual-civilization and artifact-technology) and (b) PURE BEING.

Path

The principle is to use existing systems as suggestive and to synthesize (universal realism) from the universal metaphysics and experience. The existing systems may also be used as suggestive from details, e.g. of living in the world, not emphasized here.

Foundation

This brief overview attempts to avoid being too simple and too sophisticated. The former never gets into real action; the latter never gets out of preparing.

The ‘principle’ will be to look at extremely brief versions of two pathways, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta and its consequence, and derive a third from the suggestions of these ways and reflection on their deficits, especially in light of the universal metaphysics.

I look at Buddhism and Vedanta because they have different metaphysics but not altogether different psychology. Later, I may look at the Abrahamic religions as a source on a ‘personal’ god. But the point is that the sources are regarded as suggestive, not definitive. Importing will require two translations, (1) to account for the local culture and (2) to be consistent with the metaphysics (which includes tradition and local-ultimate issues).

Buddhism

The focus is the multi-faceted psychology and salvation from suffering. The response is therefore a multi-faceted, e.g. eight-fold, way.

Metaphysics: most metaphysical questions are useless, they do not address the central issue of this life, suffering and its psychology (note: the universal metaphysics brings an end to metaphysical question in the direction of the ultimate which provides an imperative in this life and its connection to the ultimate).

Psychology: suffering is universal; its cause is ignorance; so there is an end to suffering; the way is the way out of ignorance.

The way: because the manifestation and inducements to suffering are multifaceted, a multifaceted response is needed, e.g. the eightfold way.

Advaita Vedanta

Metaphysics is important to Vedanta: we are Brahman. The psychology is the alienation of the ego from the true self (Atman: Brahman) due to the natural ignorance of ego. The way emphasizes seeing and overcoming the mistakes of ego. It may be simple: an inspired vision of truth. Other ways, adapted to various personal situations and degrees of potential (in this life), are programs to overcome ignorance.

Metaphysics: Brahman, the ultimate, already contains all manifest being in the form of disposition; therefore all beings are already Brahman; however, our limited form is a source of not seeing this and therefore of alienation.

Psychology: the source of alienation is (over) identification with the separate self as ego; therefore the way back to original Brahman overcoming ego: seeing through and beyond it to the identity of self (Atman) and Brahman (note: the universal metaphysics requires that seeing be extended to being).

The way: the way is of course multifaceted, e.g. as in the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Brahma Sutra, and the Tantra of Kashmir Saivism (note: Adi Shankara, a main author of Advaita, does not refer to the Tantra).

Abrahamic Religions

The cosmology has an emphasis on a separation of world from a personal god; the significance of this may be in suggesting our process as part of a personal but immanent god. The psychology of salvation is that of overcoming sin (rather than salvation); this has significance in that this psychology is widespread.

Universal Realism

Metaphysics: individual and universal identity are the same (as for Advaita); the universe and individual (Brahman and Atman) are both processes—individual identity ever approaching the latter (this is one perspective; there is another in which they are one timeless ultimate).

Psychology: the sources of alienation include those of Buddhism and the Advaita. However, there are further considerations. The metaphysics of eternal process is proved. While we are in that loop, perfection in the ultimate cannot wait for ultimate perfection in this life which is a mosaic of pain and joy. Perfection in this life is a balance or equilibrium between the perspectives of local perfection and process. The elements of process are described in earlier sections of realization.

The way: the mechanics is choice-risk-consolidation (see discussion of mechanics of transformation, earlier). From the universal metaphysics and other previous considerations this is worked out below.

Template

The definition of the template derives from earlier sections of realization.

It incorporates ‘dimensions’ as ‘place’. It is not necessary that every instance shall have every aspect.

Definition

Introduction—general or specific action; nature of the particular action, plans; remark if the action has redundancy…

Aims—state, process, knowledge of being | understanding, knowledge of practice.

Phase (dimension)—area(s) of focal activity grouped efficiently: ideas (pure and applied), action (identity-civilization, artifact-technology) | universal-all: the phases seen as a single process.

Time—now, year, life, beyond | all.

Sequence—i.e. co-requisite andor prerequisite—parallel or prior to phase vs. all.

Elements

Vehicle—individual (practitioner / direct learning-teaching) andor shared (civilization) | being.

Means—ideas (study discipline) andor action (below) | being—direct and study of mechanics of transformation by increment—risk-learning, ways, catalysts.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—direct experiment with being: way-catalyst | reflexive: development of discipline.

Mode—intrinsic vs. instrumental-artifactual.

Place—nature, psyche, society | universe-all-home.

Action

Practice in action including ritual action | action as practice.

Discussion

For details and items not covered in this template / no discussion so far.

Plan: introduction

Introduction

Sources for plans are linked from the already mentioned plan for study and action. Also see charting the journey.html (dated but useful for its format) and matrix.

Significant detail in journey in being-detail.

Plan—template instances: ways and planning

1. Ways and catalysts, mechanics, elements, and phases

Ways and catalysts, mechanics, elements, and phases.

Definition

Introduction—general action.

Aims—revaluation of ways and catalysts, the mechanics of transformation, elements of process (see process elements: details), dimensions (see dimensions: details).

Phase (dimension)—universal-all.

Time—now—life.

Sequence—parallel to all.

Elements

Vehicle—repetitive: individual, direct learning-teaching, shared | being.

Means—ideas-action as above.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—some suggestions: (a) the metaphysics, possibilities and imperatives for realization and action, (b) reflex process or ‘discipline of disciplines’, (c) tradition, study, experiment, eclectic selection and integration, (d) experience-immersion: for cases a, b—ideas, the literature, nature; for case c: practice with a teacher andor in a related community, and (e) reflection.

Mode—intrinsic.

Place—nature, psyche, society | universe-all-home.

Action

…

Discussion

…

2. Path and phase design and selection

Path and phase selection and design.

Definition

Introduction—general action.

Aims—conceive, reconceive, and select phases; select phase for primary current emphasis; define criteria for relative completeness and review accordingly for transition to another phase; review for parallel work on more than one phase (e.g. ideas under continual review and use); consider one main endeavor—perhaps a synthesis—for (my) life amid the ‘many worlds’ as one; review path.

Phase (dimension)— universal-all; elaborate.

Time—now | all.

Sequence—

Elements

Vehicle—self then civilization.

Means—ideas and experiment.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—meditate, reflect on goals and means | and on what is fundamental.

Mode—primarily intrinsic but perhaps also instrumental.

Place—all-home.

Action

Practical aspects of implementation—place, travel…

Discussion

Many worlds as one: my intent for this phrase is to live, as far as it is correct, in the immediate and the ultimate, self and other, inner outer…

Plan—template instances: ideas

3. Ideas

Ideas—the metaphysics; ‘research’, i.e. study, concepts, and criticism for the phases of action and of pure being; and designing and planning the entire path.

Time frame: ongoing

Ongoing, in parallel with other phases.

As of 2014 the ideas are relatively complete and the following is to be in parallel with action.

The metaphysics

Study, concepts, and criticism: the whole system and general reading, specific problems (e.g. memory across death and the void), special topics (e.g. oral tradition, the logics, extreme physics).

For the phases of action and pure being

Study, concepts, and criticism.

Designing and planning the entire path

Note that main sources for study and reading are in plan for study and action.

Detailed implementation for planning is in the instances ways and catalysts, mechanics, elements, and phases and path and phase design and selection.

Also see the realizations, below.

Ideas: details

Definition

Introduction—general action.

Aims—knowledge of being (including Jnâna yoga) | understanding, knowledge of knowledge.

Phase (dimension)—ideas | universal-all.

Time—all (emphasis: a time in the future of return to ideas).

Sequence—co-requisite to all phases of being; each phase will have its own study program (see this resource document).

Elements

Vehicle—individual and shared | being—deploying the full nature and source of ideas.

Means—ideas: study| being—aspects of being supportive of truth and fullness in ideas.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—ideas and knowledge as practice (emphasis: the tradition of philosophy) | reflexive: the nature of ideas and their validity.

Mode—intrinsic.

Note—the study will emphasize the metaphysics, psychology of realization including the yogas.

Place—nature, psyche, society; university and other institutions | universe-all-home.

Action

Knowledge is inseparable from and completed in action (‘action without action’ is not action).

Discussion

Some details regarding the aims—see the resource and other documents in the archive for details of a program—some specific topics are: foundations, logic studies, science of possibility, mereology, development and application of the pure and practical metaphysics.

Also note—Jnâna yoga, typical of a number of eastern traditions, is about knowledge and understanding but there are distinctions from the way these terms are understood and practiced in the modern west where what is emphasized is intellect (of course not divorced from experience). The main distinctions are (1) the aim and object of focus is not that of detached intellect and subject but of embodied knowledge of the ultimate and ways to the ultimate and (2) practices for the individual (not just ‘mind’) aimed at seeing truth and being-in-truth (e.g. samanyasa, sravana, manana, dhyana whose inclusion and elaboration is deferred till I have greater exposure and an opportunity to integrate the practices into my knowing). The ideas may be seen as contemplation which interacts with meditation—meditation provides the space to see—that relaxation that heightens awareness of internal and external worlds, in contemplation we come to see and this coming to see is not just intellectual but permeates our being.

Some important special topics include (i) study of logic, abstract systems, mathematics, and border and alternative physics… for the universal metaphysics and realization, (ii) alternative cognitive, emotive, mythic paradigms for understanding and immersion.

Plan—template instances: becoming (action)

4. Nature as ground and inspiration: Beyul and quest for vision

Nature as ground and inspiration: Beyul and quest for vision (the term ‘Beyul’ from Tibetan Buddhism refers to a nature pilgrimage whose aim is to ‘awaken within oneself the qualities and energies of the sacred site, which ultimately lie within our own minds’—from the Introduction by the xiv Dalai Lama of Tibet to The Heart of the World, Ian Baker, 2004).

Definition

Introduction—specific action.

Aims—seeing and being the real, being on the incremental way | understanding the way of pilgrimage and vision.

Phase (dimension)—ideas, identity-civilization.

Time—immediate.

Sequence—before action in the world and artifact-technology.

Elements

Vehicle—shared and individual | being.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—pilgrimage: Beyul to open self to qualities of sacred places; and vision quest: to awaken vision.

Mode—intrinsic and. instrumental for being.

Means—study of the ways of pilgrimage and vision.

Place—nature and psyche, society; consider the Trinity Alps, Barranca del Cobre, and other places.

Action

These are ways of action; undertaking with understanding of the way is essential.

Discussion

…

5. Transformation of being: yoga, meditation and related practice

Transformation of being: yoga, meditation and related practice—tradition and experiment, psyche and physical organism (especially catalytic transformation by psychic and physical action).

Definition

Introduction—specific action; also see beyul and quest for vision.

Aims—expansion of psychic space (and to see ‘vikalpa’ and maladaptive neuro-endocrine pathways as such); experience and process in the many worlds as one; Beyul—pilgrimage—as place of intrinsic realization: seeing-being through consciousness and body: my awareness-being as and in transaction with universal being

Phase (dimension)—universal.

Time—all.

Sequence—parallel to all specific phases.

Elements

Vehicle—individual | shared: find communities and teachers of practice | being.

Means—study of meditation and related ritual; study of Dzogchen, Tantra; reflection on death—limits to form and transience, death as real but not absolute—as lever to (a) fullness of thought and action in this life and (b) to experience of this life as continuous with the ultimate.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—regular meditation and mindfulness; meditation in action | reflection on meditation (some details are in the discussion below).

Mode—intrinsic.

Place—all.

Action

Meditation in relation to individuals and world.

Discussion

On discipline—meditation in action requires bringing the outcome of meditation practice into daily life and so making that life the ground to the ultimate; and while we meditate on the ultimate and thus infuse daily life with it we also bring this attitude to all activities including and especially the ‘mundane activities of daily living’ (which means that we do not experience those activities as merely to get out of the way, as a waste of time). What are these activities? I shall not detail them here but simply state their principle: they are the activities that sustain mind-body: the essentials (e.g. of Maslow) of survival, security (which includes preparation for the ‘higher’ elements), belonging, esteem, self-actualization, and self-transcendence (Maslow added the sixth ‘need’ later). Two points are relevant: the ‘lower’ needs and imperfection in relation to being a well adjusted human being are important but should not be obsessed over—risk and forward motion are important; and the hierarchy is neat in the meshing of the immediate and the ultimate. I maintain a current sequence of my particular task and other ‘needs’.

6. Civilization: engagement in the world—ultimate and secular

Civilization: engagement in the world—ultimate (universal-holist) and secular (culture, political-economic…).

Definition

Introduction—specific actions.

Aims— Human and universal: shared endeavor, action toward universal civilization. Shared being | understanding nature and path of shared realization (this aim has two parts, the one stated and an implicit one—i.e. secular engagement informed by and supportive of the shared being and realization).

Phase (dimension)—identity-civilization | universal-all.

Time—2015⁺.

Sequence—after or parallel to Beyul and quest for vision.

Elements

Vehicle—civilization | being.

Means—shared ideas and action | shared development of mechanics.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—sharing the aim of realization: political, economic, and universal (spiritual) dimensions | reflection on the needs and on effective communication.

Mode—intrinsic and. instrumental.

Place—psyche and society; consider a tour of spiritual groups, universities and other institutions; establishing / living in a dedicated—spiritual—community | universe.

Action

Practice as action; leading into ‘real’ action.

Discussion

…

7. Proper living

Proper living—with sources in the tradition, experiment and reflection.

Definition

Introduction—specific action.

Aims—living in and attitude of the way of being; identify ‘vikalpa’ (thinking) and maladaptive neuro-endocrine pathways of reaction in relation to self, others, and world; and replace by appropriate thought and living.

Phase (dimension)—ideas, identity-civilization | universal.

Time—all.

Sequence— parallel to all specific phases.

Elements

Vehicle—shared (civilization) | being.

Means—study of ways and mechanics of realization.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—way or lifestyle, e.g. the eightfold way.

Mode—intrinsic.

Place—all, especially society and home.

Action

Action is part of the way.

Discussion

…

Artifact: time frame—emphasis when the previous frames are under way

Information and networking science (a) for independent and cooperative being and (b) preservation and evolution of identity.

8. Artifactual being

Artifactual being—construction of independent and adjunct technologies via cognitive approaches (science, cognitive science, art…), experiment, evolution for organism-artifact.

Definition

Introduction—specific actions.

Aims—independent and adjunct being.

Phase (dimension)—artifact-technology.

Time—2015⁺.

Sequence—after engagement in the world.

Elements

Vehicle—organic level of being.

Means—emphasizes concepts to be modeled and on the nature of practical, experimental, and evolutionary implementation.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—direct experiment with organic, mechanical, and symbolic being: | related conceptual development (e.g. theory of artificial being).

Mode—instrumental-artifactual.

Place—society; universities and other research (and development) institutions.

Action

Concepts and experiment in a shared and designed institutional context.

Discussion

…

Plan—template instance: pure being

9. Pure being

Pure being—living in the immediate and ultimate as identical.

Definition

Introduction—general action.

Aims—my being as part of Being; consciousness as part of Consciousness | understanding.

Phase (dimension)—universal-all.

Time—‘now’—in parallel with becoming | all—after becoming: a phase that emphasizes be-ing over be-coming. The time will be defined by either or both of (a) satisfaction with some completeness of be-coming and (b) the reality of death makes be-ing significant over energy toward be-coming.

Sequence—when satisfied with the ‘action’ phases | in view of approaching death.

Elements

Vehicle—self and sharing experience-learning (civilization) | being.

Means—ideas co-illuminating practice-action | being—open search for direct transformation.

Mechanics, discipline, or practice—risk, ways and catalysts—meditative expansion of and freedom in conscious space | reflexive development.

Mode—intrinsic.

Place—‘here’ | all.

Action

Practice (and ritual) as action | action as practice.

Discussion

…

The realizations

Place

The place of the realizations is immediate and the ultimate.

For details see the plan above.

Process

The process—all endeavor is in process—in ideas-action-shared endeavor. Ideas reveal the universe; and ways and paths of action. Paths of becoming, join nature immersion as ground and inspiration; ways of becoming, especially risk and consolidation, life ways and practices, psychic catalysts (non drug), shared endeavor in realism, learning from tradition, and publication of works.

All endeavor is in process—in ideas-action-shared endeavor. Ideas reveal the universe; and ways and paths of action (and plans and reviews). Paths of becoming, join nature immersion as ground and inspiration; ways of becoming, especially the mechanics (risk and consolidation), life ways and practices (e.g. eight-fold, yoga…), psychic catalysts (non drug, e.g. fasting, isolation, exertion), shared endeavor in realism (world and spirit), learning from tradition, and publication of works.

Personal

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

Evaluating the accomplishment

I was going to say, above, that ‘my endeavor so far which I regard as modest in accomplishment. However, although I feel that to be true and relevant to improvement, it is also irrelevant in that (1) being in the process, seeking to better it is crucial and (2) we are always at a beginning.

What do I feel is most significant, over and above the general endeavor? It is nature immersion, the ideas, and their interrelation; and the shared endeavor.

Transience and arrival

Transience and arrival—realization begins in the present, with perhaps with traditional discipline and practice. It requires risk—reflection and experiment—and consolidation individual form (heart, mind, and body), and in culture and artifact. Living in transience—in joy and anxiety—is on the way… is essential in realization, ever a flux of transience and arrival. While limited realization is endless process—ever freshness in variety and depth in a journey of realizations of being.

The future

The future—the path is always at a beginning, in be-ing and becoming. Becoming is always on the way, somewhere in process (above); exploration, sharing, publishing in world and ultimate, entraining and being entrained by society and civilization. Be-ing is immanent—it is being in the present… and its practices such as meditation—and at times when death speaks: enter into a time of be-ing.

For a map, see the plan above.

Personal

My plan and hope is to extend the work so far—to continue exploration of this world and the ultimate; to extend it in a variety of ways to the social world and civilization—publication of course, but also to attempt to entrain civilization in the process, and perhaps as a specific way of sharing and mutual endeavor, to establish a research and action group or institute dedicated to ‘journey in being’.

RESOURCE

For writing and using the narrative.

Retrospect

Alt title: Epilogue, Retrospect and Prospect

Contents—the aim revisited; progress…

Aim

The ideas enable an enhanced discussion of the aim.

Origins and evolution of the aim (this might go to the chapter on the aim).

Realizations so far

Contribution

Other editions have a review (a) critical with a view to improvement and the future and (b) assessment of contribution.

See Journey in Being(resource edition of 2013). Also see the ‘central statements’ above, especially remarks that this is the first cognitive and complete treatment…