THE
WAY OF BEING
Essential Concepts
Anil Mitra © April 2017 — October 2017
Latest update — October 19, 2017
(9:15:12 AM)
Home | Outline | Detailed
outline
Resources:
This document | Secondary document | Essential concepts without long
outline | The way as a
program | Outline for narration
The Way of Being
The Way of Being is a way of living centered on a
world view, a universal metaphysics that shows the universe to be the
realization of all possibility. The focus of The Way is to live well
in this life and to aim at the highest discovery and realization for beings,
particularly individuals and civilizations. The narrative, ‘The Way of
Being’, develops the world view and the way of living.
Outline
Parts marked with a double dagger†† are
essential to a short version.
Detailed table of contents
Prologue—a Quest for Meaning
Key Terms
The Way in to the Narrative
Dedication and Aim
Outline
Some Questions and Answers
Ideas
Being
Being, the
Universe, and the Void††
Experience,
Meaning, and Reason
Possibility,
Natural Law, and Logic††
Metaphysics
What is
Metaphysics?††
The
Methods of Metaphysics
The Void and
the Fundamental Principle of Metaphysics††
Some
Consequences of the Fundamental Principle
A
Universal Metaphysics††
The
Fundamental Question of Metaphysics
Proof—Role
and Issues
Objections
and Responses to the Universal Metaphysics
Attitude††
Abstract and
Concrete Objects††
Reason in
Light of the Metaphysics
Potency of
the Idea of Being
Cosmology
Introduction††
What is
Cosmology?††
Principles
and Methods of Cosmology: the Categories of Being††
General
Cosmology††
Cosmology and
Origins of Form††
Levels of
Being††
Origins of
Physical Cosmology
Agency
Becoming (Realization)
The Aim of Being
Key Terms
The Aim††
Derivation
of the Aim††
Ethics of the
Aim††
The Way of Being
Key Terms
Practical
Dynamics of Agency††
Attitude††
Ways,
Catalysts and Paths††
Living the
Way††
Sharing and
Sangha
Templates
Introduction
Resources
Everyday
Process Template††
Universal
Process Template††
The Path
Key Terms
Paths††
Past and
Present††
Future††
Epilogue—the Way Forward
An Existential Endeavor
Immediate and Ultimate
Intrinsic and Instrumental
Resources
Practical References for Becoming, with Notes
Topics
Authors
Online Resources
The Universal Metaphysics as Resource
General Plan
Table of
Contents
Prologue—A
quest for Meaning
Key terms
The Way In
to the narrative
It seems characteristic of
human being that we divide our efforts between trying to live well within our
limits and overcoming our limits.
‘The Way of Being’ narrative
develops and centers on a world view, the ‘universal metaphysics’, that shows
the outer boundary of the limits of what is to be achieved. That view begins
as a framework which it is shown is never finally filled in but is always
open to a process of being filled in.
Some lessons in a search
for meaning are
1. To
see the world—matter-mind-spirit,
state-interaction-process—as one: characterized as Being and universe and
that meaning is in the world.
2. The
immediate and the ultimate mesh—there is no issue of which is more important.
3. The
means are the elements of agency—ideas and action; which
include knowledge, foresight, choice, and will.
4. The
vehicle is Being, which includes the individual and civilization.
5. The
sources include all tradition from the primal to the modern including
religion and science.
Tradition emerges in the
primal where spirit and matter are not separate. The idea of spirit
is that some forms of matter are more than they seem. In primality,
experience is corrective of ideology.
In post-primality, the realms
of spirit and matter are as if in a struggle. Let us
characterize this struggle by looking at attitudes toward modern science and
religion.
Modern science shows us a
cosmos which is good as far as it goes. What is outside—science does not say
but there is a secular assumption that the beyond is continuous with what is
known. That however is justified only in the near beyond. Regarding the far
beyond science reveals neither whether there is one nor what may be in it.
The source and sway of the secular assumption is that it tacitly provides the
paradigm for vision and the facts seen.
It is logically possible and
not scientifically or experientially impossible that the universe is the
realization of all logical possibility—provided locally consistent wit
science and experience.
Thus there is immense scope
for exploration beyond the borders of science. Unfortunately, even the best
of modern religions—while of symbolic value—tend to have dogma in regard.
Our means of exploration of
the ‘beyond’, then are (a) the spirit of religion, (b) facts of Being and
universe (including that they exist), (c) reason, e.g. as in rational
science, philosophy, and metaphysics.
The narrative develops the
nature and possibility of metaphysics, derives a universal metaphysics
showing that the universe and so the individual is the realization of all
possibility, shows what limits stand in the way of realization, and develops
a program of realization. The Aim of The Way, its practicality and
meaning made possible by the metaphysics, is stated in the next section.
The actual development has
been iterative—extended over many years, much study and reflection, and much
experience. In the beginning my aim was simply to explore the world via
ideas, experience, and action.
At the core of the ideas is
a worldview called the universal metaphysics. It is essential to the
development.
It is crucial for the
reader to understand that
1. The
worldview is demonstrated rather than posited or merely plausible.
2. The
meaning of the term ‘metaphysics’ as used here is defined and developed. The
demonstration shows the possibility of metaphysics in this sense; this
possibility is further illuminated and arguments against the possibility of
metaphysics addressed and rebutted.
3. The
worldview is shown (a) internally or logically consistent and (b) consistent
with what is valid in other worldviews, especially those from metaphysics,
science, and religion.
4. The
universe revealed by the universal metaphysics is far greater than the
standard pictures from science, religion, and prior metaphysics. This point
is crucial. Without comprehending and absorbing it, the reader will have
blinders on with regard to the developed account of the universe and human
being in relation to it. In fact what is revealed is limitlessly greater than
the standard views. For a preview of the revealed universe see some
consequences of the fundamental principle. It is important to note that these
consequences are but a beginning to what is revealed by the universal
metaphysics and the revelation, demonstrated of course, continues through the
entire narrative.
5. Among
the sources of the common illusion of the more or less completeness of our
standard views are (a) that when we are brought up in those views, they
contribute not only to what we truly seen but falsely to what we can see; and
(b) the deceptions of the linguistic and symbolic ability—that the ability to
talk of something in language or concepts suggests to many that we are
talking of something real.
6. Since
Marx we have been concerned that our philosophy should be not just about
knowing the world but about changing the world. This characterizes a fair
amount of twentieth and twentyfirst century thought. When applied reductively
to general metaphysics and philosophy, as it frequently is, this is severely
disabling. This is because (a) general thought conducted without specific
direction toward action, is ultimately a most powerful implement in action;
(b) the present development reveals ideas that show their own incompleteness
without and need for continuity with action; (c) this attitude toward general
thought is not reductive and does not eliminate or require that there be no
end directed thought; but it does require that the end directed approach also
be non-reductive. The case is not one of either / or as so many critical
reductive theories are presented. Also, the notion that action and knowledge
are already co-immanent is already given—and known, e.g. as in ‘Truth is the
beginning of every good to the Gods, every good to man’, Plato; and ‘The
vitality of thought is in adventure. Ideas won't keep. Something must be
done about them’, Alfred North Whitehead in Adventures of Ideas.
7. The
preceding criticism, it may be noted, is a general criticism of critical and
skeptical thought that self truncates at its end, that is not self critical,
that makes of itself a positive way of thought, and is not seen as a means to
empower and develop truth in imaginative thought. Historical examples are
logical positivism, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s negation of philosophy in his
Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus, and the post modern critique of ‘grand
narratives’. Let us look at the latter critique. It criticizes such systems
as Hegel’s idealism on account of (a) their speculative nature, (b) the
absence of demonstration, (c) the lack of local application, and (d) their
historical failure (e.g. the failure of Marxism), (e) the generalization,
especially encouraged by post-war European nihilism, that all such systems
must be unfounded, (f) the tacit position that the universal and the local
are exclusive, (g) the tacit position that the ‘local’ alone is meaningful,
(h) the tacit position that the local alone is useful, and therefore (i) the
tacit position that the universal is distorted and cannot contribute to the
local. The present development is a rebuttal to these negative attitudes toward
the universal; and it shows the essential mesh of the local and universal;
and the immense superiority of this mesh over either the local or the
universal in isolation.
Dedication
and Aim
The Way of Being is dedicated to shared discovery and realization of the
highest immediate and ultimate aims of Being.
The AIM OF THE WAY OF
BEING is that of LIVing WELL—first to live a good life in this world and second to discover and
live the BEST
POSSIBLE LIFE or GREATEST
ACHIEVABLE LIFE in the UNIVERSE OF ALL
BEING.
1. The
Way is to be understood as an ACTIVE ENDEAVOR—as an attempt to find and follow a MEANINGFUL
LIFEWAY: an approximation, at least, to the
greatest possible life.
2. Meaningful and best possible have meaning and can be designed
and evaluated only in terms of a WORLDVIEW—what
we will call a metaphysics. We will find that the standard SECULAR WORLDVIEW(s) and TRANSSECULAR WORLDVIEW(s) or SUPRASECULAR WORLDVIEW(s), whatever their virtues, are very lacking. Therefore a
preliminary endeavor will be to find and develop a satisfactory worldview—one
that, so far as may emerge, is an ultimate view. That is the goal of the
first main part of the document on Ideas; The Way itself is taken up in the
second part on Becoming (Realization).
3. It
is important that the worldview—a metaphysics—to be developed is an ULTIMATE
WORLDVIEW in a definite sense and goes far
beyond the STANDARD WORLDVIEW(s) above. It is
most likely that the reader will be unfamiliar with this view and at least
some of its concepts. It cannot be emphasized too much that unless forewarned
most readers will, because of their standard orientation, will have
difficulty that a new world view is being presented. They may feel that
science (or religion) have essentially revealed all. However, this will be
explicitly shown false.
4. They
may feel that the standard views are being negated. However, the new view
does not negate the standard views; rather it shows their limits and
integrates what is valid in them to the new. They may wonder whether the new
view is internally consistent—whether it violates reason. The new view will
not just be shown consistent but to have reason immanent in it. But this will
challenge the reader’s intuition. Therefore the readers should be ready for REEDUCATION OF
INTUITION and of their CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK—implicit and or explicit—of
understanding of the world. However, they need not and should not abandon
what is valid in their current worldview. They will of course need to
negotiate the path of integration of the new and old views and the narrative
will guide that process.
5. In
order to digest and understand the development it will be critical that the
reader follow the meanings of terms as introduced here. They will need to
suspend their received meanings. They will need to understand that for
continuity, many enhanced concepts will have ‘old’ names. They must be
prepared for shocks to their intuition—to the fact that the cherished notions
that they may have had to labor to acquire (for the secular) or have faith
(for the religious) are, though adequate in their own realms, immensely
inadequate in the universal. And if their knowledge is built into their
psyche they may have to undergo cognitive fracture before building up again.
The Way begins in the immediate—in THIS WORLD.
It includes the HIGHEST DISCOVERY and HIGHEST REALIZATION
for Being, especially individuals and civilizations in the
universe.
The interactive MEANS are IDEAS, PRACTICE, and ACTION. or IDEAS-PRACTICE-ACTION. Development and justification of the aim and means are
given later.
The VEHICLE is Being—especially the INDIVIDUAL and CIVILIZATION.
Outline
Some
questions and answers
What is
the outer boundary of our Being?
We will find that the universe
is the realization of all possibility.
What is
all possibility?
The concept and measure of all
possibility are developed in the essay. The concepts of Being, experience,
and reason are central to the development.
What are
some important examples of what is to be realized?
The universe has identity; its
identity and manifestation have no limit as to kind, extent, and duration;
individual identity ultimately identical to universal identity which is
achieved via process and communication (communion), in which individuals are
expressions of universal disposition from which they come and to which they
return.
What are
the ways and means of achievement
It is achieved amid ordinary
life. We already have the potential for this awareness. This essay develops
some ways. It draws from tradition. And it builds on tradition, exploring two
necessary complements: inner and outer Being which we might call
awareness and manifestation. What the sages have called ‘ultimate’ is this
inner awareness in its fullness; which is not the ultimate but on the way;
which, however, gives meaning to and illuminates the path of action and
becoming.
The means are inner—ideas, and
outer—transformation of Being.
But is
this not an absurd contradiction of common experience?
No.
For the universal metaphysics
that all possibility is realized requires the fact and being of our
cosmos and our experience of the real.
If we think of that experience
as a kind of normal experience the universal metaphysics places it in and
relates it to the larger context. For example, except for the logically
necessary and impossible, what is normally experienced as necessary and
impossible are but contingent (e.g. very probable or improbable).
Would not
final realization of a universal ultimate be the end to all meaning?
No, for there is no final
realization.
There are peaks but then dissolution.
And, while there is repetition, there is eternal newness. And while there are
peaks there is also pain and challenge—and ignorance and illumination. The
challenge and reward of meaning is eternal.
What does
tradition teach us?
The first traditions are the
primal in which we do not yet have the luxury of separating the ‘secular’ and
‘trans-secular’; each infuses the other. Despite its difficulties it is a
kind of paradise relative to the insecurities of the secular – trans-secular
divide.
The first traditions are
followed by an intensification into the trans-secular and then a split into
trans-secular and secular.
The trans-secular religious
presents us with a picture of this life and beyond which may be naïve or
sophisticated but whose real meaning is symbolic. The sophisticated
rational-emotive side blends with metaphysics. The secular emphasizes the
mundane including rational-empirical science.
What are
the limitations of the standard secular and trans-secular traditions?
The essential limit is that
for theoretical or circumstantial reasons the conventional limits are seen as
ultimate. For example, where vision might be infinite and limitless, even
rationally so, as we will show, we are presented from religion and theology
with a dogma or speculation cast as logic (the symbolic is present but silent
which mutes potential). The secular vision extols the practical and the
empirical relative to which the default and sometimes dogmatic view is that
its limits are the limits of being and universe.
What does
the universal metaphysics show?
It shows us a full
rational-feeling-empirical view of the universe beyond secular and
trans-secular dreams and approaches to negotiate the universe so revealed.
What is the
significance of linguistic meaning for the metaphysics?
Care with linguistic
meaning is important in all contexts; in very limited contexts such
meaning may be defined by use.
However, for any context that
goes beyond the most limited, care with specifying meaning—perhaps rooted in
use—is essential.
When going beyond the realm of
common use, words or terms cannot be expected to have definite meaning without
specifying it. Thus it is essential to define the terms of use in a
metaphysical system. It is natural that the terms used will be related to
common use and to use in other metaphysical systems but the alternate uses
should not be conflated. In developing a rational metaphysics it is important
that the terms used should have an empirical grounding, should form a
consistent system, and, taken together, should cover the breadth of the
intended metaphysics. In this narrative that breadth is, roughly, all Being
over all time and space. The terms employed were arrived at iteratively
and then shown to satisfy the essential criteria of grounding, consistency,
and completeness with regard to ‘entirety’ but not with regard to detail (the
details are filled in by other means). It is therefore critical that readers
read, understand, and use the definitions provided here and not conflate
terms with their uses in other contexts.
Particularly, given two
contexts, say two systems of metaphysics, a single term, e.g. ‘universe’, may
have different meanings and so not translate without modification from one
system to the other.
SMALL CAPITALS are employed to
point out main occurrences of important terms in the formal or METAPHYSICAL
LANGUAGE of the narrative a phrase in red
small capitals indicates a DEFINITION. There
will usually but not always be a single main occurrence (one exception will
be where there is an alternate development of the ideas). The development
depends critically on the chosen system of meaning and it is therefore
essential that readers follow the defined meanings (which have been analyzed
for mutual consistency and completeness relative to ‘all Being’ in outline
though of course not in detail). The main occurrences are typically but not
always the first occurrences.
Two terms have capitalized and
lower case forms to mark significant distinctions—Being versus a
being or beings; and Logic versus logic or logics.
The distinctions regarding Logic will be marked only when they are not
obvious from the context.
A more complete and formal
discussion of meaning is taken up in Experience, meaning, and reason.
What is
the status of foundation of the narrative?
A
pure-pragmatic metaphysics
The universal metaphysics
begins as an abstract framework. The abstraction is sufficient that its
concepts are known perfectly. Among these is the concept of logic.
Consequently the abstract or pure framework is perfectly founded.
The pure framework shows the
realization of all possibility—but not how the details of the possibilities
are to be located in our field of empirical knowledge and action.
However, the pure framework
also shows that perfect detailed knowledge is neither possible nor desirable
but that local pragmatic knowledge is sufficient to the purpose of
realization (which does not of course negate local science or local needs for
precision).
Thus the dual framework, the
pure and the pragmatic, is perfect in relation to the ultimate and demonstrated
goal.
Self-foundational
nature of reason adequate to the ultimate
Thus, in terms of the goal,
reason itself is adequately founded.
Further, the metaphysics shows
that there is no ultimate foundation of reason outside reason.
Practically, of course, reason
is ever under improvement. However there is no inaccessible area of reason.
Intuition
and formal knowledge
Since what can be said in
language is countable, what can be known in intuition may well be without
representation in a fixed language. There is no process limit but at any time
there is a limit of language. There is a communication and interaction of
intuition and formal representation that is greater than either alone. But it
cannot be claimed that either is superior to the other. And it is clear that
the role of intuition is not limited to suggesting ‘proof’. In so far as
proof is available, well and good. Otherwise, proof is an aid to intuition.
But if we think of intuition
as the entire form of conception (including perception) for a being then INTUITION includes symbols and symbolic systems and so also the
formal as well as the empirical. INTUITION INCLUDES SYMBOLIC PRECISION.
Issue of
proof of the metaphysics
There is a question about a pivotal
proof—the proof of the existence of the void. This proof may be doubted?
Since the proof is critical,
what should be the response to the doubt?
Note first that the existence
of the void and the universal metaphysics are self-consistent and consistent
with all experience. Therefore to grant existence of the void is not to
venture into the absurd.
Further, there are very good
reasons, in addition to formal proof, to hold that the void exists. Therefore
to grant existence of the void, is not to venture into the realm of the
improbable.
Meaningful
goals and allocation of resources
Let us then survey what is
meaningful to us based on what we see from the universal metaphysics, pure
and pragmatic, and common knowledge and experience. Action in ‘this world’ is
significant (but note that this world is not a definite world and given the
universal metaphysics it definitely extends, if we so choose, to the entire
universe). Action in ‘the world beyond’ (also a matter of convention), the
ultimate world, is also significant.
Now the relative importance of
those two worlds is not a given. It depends on the temperament of the
individual. The intuitive-idealist will find the universal important—but note
that they do not find the immediate unimportant; and also note that the
universal metaphysics shows the reality of all logical idealism. The
sensing-pragmatist finds this world important—but does not find the universal
unimportant (in both cases there are exceptions at the pathological extreme).
Therefore the real debate to
be had is not on whether to focus only on one of the ‘worlds’ but on the
relative amounts of public energy to devote (private energies being private
concerns except where they cause direct harm). That would be a good focus of
discussion.
Imperatives
From the great value of the
ultimate, the optimum allocation of resources will depend upon individual and
societal values but it is clear that the optimal will include resources for
both the immediate and the ultimate.
A
significant principle of action
Now regarding the universal
metaphysics, if we do not find ‘proof’ persuasive, then from its consistency
and probability, we can choose to regard it as significant principle of
action.
Ideas
Being
Being, the
universe, and the void††
Key terms
Preliminary
The SYSTEM OF IDEAS will be founded in named givens, i.e. in OSTENSIVE
DEFINITION; and DEFINITION IN
TERMS OF THE GIVENS.
On THE GIVEN—a given is sufficiently FUNDAMENTAL—elementary and evident—that it may be specified by
ostension, i.e. by NAMING and pointing out (the name
itself may function as the pointer).
Insofar as the role of givens
is independent of meaning or semantic content, they may be seen as undefined
terms in an axiomatic system.
You may want to read about
Wilfrid SELLARS’ ‘myth of the given’, e.g. at Wilfrid Sellars (Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The analysis presented here acknowledges the
significance of Sellars’ critique. However, the present analysis shows that
that critique, like many, while significant, should not be universalized.
Within the ‘context’ of the more universal picture of the present narrative,
‘the significant critiques’ play useful local roles.
The system is INCLUSIVE of THE REAL in its
entirety via the concepts of ALL (universe), PART (of the universe), and NULL (the void); and, as will be explained, the possible.
The system will be inclusive and
precise; this is a source of its conceptual power.
It is PRECISE in a correspondence sense via NEUTRAL or ABSTRACT use.
The system begins with the
abstract but will later, starting in Metaphysics, the abstract frame CONCRETE ideas and the joint abstract-concrete system will be
adequate to the aim. This adequate system will also be perfect a joint
correspondence-pragmatic sense (to described and justified).
Being,
universe, void—fundamental ideas of experience
1. ‘WHAT IS THERE’ is a fundamental named given. DIFFERENCE is a named given and SAMENESS is the absence of difference.
1.1. The
VERB
TO BE, IS has
a number of uses. In ‘what is there’ or ‘that which is’ it marks existence—to
say of things, concrete or abstract, that they are is to say that they EXIST. In ‘is a fundamental named given’ the verb to be
marks equality. Here the equality is established by definition—‘is’ is used
to mark definitions; it may also be established by inspection or
demonstration.
1.1.1. The
use of the verb to be here is generic—e.g., neutral to TENSE, PLACE, and NUMBER. That is, ‘is’ may designate ‘are here’, ‘was there’,
and ‘will be everywhere’. That is, we need not distinguish the forms ‘is’,
‘are’, ‘was’, ‘will be’ and so on.
1.1.2. It
is similarly neutral to ENTITY, INTERACTION or RELATION, CHANGE or PROCESS, QUALITY or PROPERTY, and GENDER; and to kinds such as MATTER and MIND.
1.1.3. In
the following the distinctions among the uses of ‘is’ will be remarked only
when it is not apparent from context.
1.1.4. The
initial ABSTRACT-INCLUSIVE-CORRESPONDENCE precision will enable demonstration that the universe
is ultimate with ultimate realization for all beings; the abstraction is it
is not a limitation—it is later complemented by CONCRETE-LOCAL concepts
adequate by pragmatic criteria (far from being rejection, this
includes useful knowledge of tradition, including science). Further, in terms
of our aim, the correspondence and the pragmatic merge seamlessly; the former
illuminating the latter and the latter being the best instrument in achieving
the ULTIMATE that the abstract will reveal.
1.2. EXISTENCE and BEING are terms
for the property of what is there. Existing and having Being are the
same.
1.2.1. If
something is there in some range of sameness and difference and their
absence, then it has Being. Capitalization will distinguish ‘Being’ from the
terms ‘a being’ and ‘beings’.
1.2.2. Attempts
to identify a real behind Being or behind the real are without
significance—for Being already has the significance of the real.
1.2.3. Being
names no special KIND—special kinds are
introduced later (it will be seen that there is no universal substance or
kind in the traditional senses of ‘substance’ and ‘kind’).
1.2.4. Being
empowers existence as real without further qualification—in the NEUTRALITY OF
BEING it functions as a symbol for the
unknown. Being to metaphysics is as the symbol to algebra.
1.2.5. The
power of the concept of Being is the neutrality of ‘what is there’ in which
there is no a priori commitment to kinds such as substance, process, and
spatiotemporality. It is essential to project no other role, e.g. historical
or ideological, on Being—but other roles may be introduced via kinds
of Being or ancillary concepts.
1.3. The
UNIVERSE is all Being or existence—over all sameness,
difference, and their absence.
1.3.1. There
is exactly one universe.
1.3.2. The
inclusivity of Being is ONTOLOGICAL.
If there is a ‘multiverse’, if
there are worlds of spiritual beings, if reality is essentially material or
essentially mental, if there are worlds within worlds and spirit
worlds barely in contact with ours—these are all part of the universe in the
sense the term is used here.
EXPERIENCE, SUBJECTIVE
AWARENESS, or CONSCIOUSNESS and MEANING are
implicit above.
These important topics—the
concepts and their objects—are not developed in brief versions of this work;
in longer versions they are treated in separate sections; this particular
development is intended for intermediate length versions.
Experience or consciousness—perception, conception, feeling,
emotion, and agency—are later identified with power, to have an effect.
It will follow from later development that experience and power are
the same kind.
Experience will be seen to be an essence of Being.
1.3.3. The
inclusivity of Being is EPISTEMOLOGICAL.
1.4. A BEING is the universe or part of it.
1.4.1. A
being as a being has no characteristics that define a special kind.
1.4.2. Being
is not a being or beings (plural): rather, a being is an INSTANTIATION of Being—i.e., a being has Being or beings have Being.
With sufficient abstraction, though, the distinction is empty, as are other
distinctions, e.g. state, process, quality, gender and more.
1.4.3. Thus
Being derives from the generic verb to be above a neutrality as extreme as
possible while still referring at all—while referring to the distinction
between existence and non-existence. On the other hand, a being, while not as
neutral is still neutral to ENTITY, PROCESS (change), INTERACTION (relation) but does distinguish this being from that one. To
emphasize entity we will write BE-ING
and for process we write BECOMING. But,
more abstractly, we recognize entity, process, and interaction
as forms of Being.
1.5. POWER, the ability to have an effect is the measure of Being.
1.5.1. A
being that has no power for or direct or indirect effect on a second being—an
individual or the universe—may be said but not known to exist for the second
being; however, it has and can have no significance for the second being.
1.5.2. RELATIVE POWER is ability to have an effect on a particular being or
group of beings. The system of power for a group defines the RELATIVE UNIVERSE for that group.
1.5.3. The
relative universe is effectively the universe. Later, we see that there are
no non-interactors and so the relative universe(s) and the universe are the
same.
1.5.4. The
power of manifestation is POTENTIAL.
Potential is not outside the universe—it has Being.
1.5.5. If
NONBEING refers to a being that is not manifest in a phase of
the universe, then nonbeing has Being.
1.5.6. Potential,
where it may obtain, may (and will be found) in general be found to be non
traditional and non local causation.
1.6. THE VOID is the NULL BEING
or absence of Being.
The fundamental concepts so
far are sameness and difference, Being or existence, power or measure
of Being, experience and consciousness (both introduced
formally), the universe or all Being, a being or part of
all Being, potential and nonbeing, and the void or the null being.
Of these, only the void does not clearly have Being. It is introduced
here but its existence and nature will be demonstrated and developed later in
Metaphysics.
So far, the system exhibits
bits and pieces of explanation. However, to develop it further something more
is needed. We would like that ‘more’ to incorporate the power of our
traditional systems including the modern and we would also like it to go
beyond—to touch the ultimate, perhaps. We will find that the idea of
possibility is a vehicle for this so far vague aim.
In longer developments we will
first take a detour through experience, meaning, and reason (in alternate
developments the detour might come before the formal beginning of the ideas
of the present section).
Experience,
meaning, and reason
Key terms
Introduction
In Experience, meaning,
and reason the focus is on the aware or sentient aspect of Being. The
following critical points are brought out here and subsequently.
Though experience is often
regarded as having secondary Being—as a lower grade of the real—and sometimes
as having no Being at all, the experienced is not primary over experience
itself, for note that experience is experienced. The experienced can
be seen as an aspect of experience but of course not a mere
aspect-as-in-some-solipsisms. Experience can be seen as a medium of Being.
Prior to evaluation of concept
and language meaning a clear conception of such meaning is necessary. Only
then can an empiricist critique of the existence of meaning be discussed. The
concept of meaning here is one that shows the existence and critical
importance of meaning.
Though the origins of reason
may seem opaque, there is no absolute a priori to experience, and no surely
opaque element of reason.
In its first meaning here, experience
will be subjective awareness.
Experience
Key terms
Introduction
to experience
2. In
its first meaning here, EXPERIENCE will
be SUBJECTIVE
AWARENESS and is of the same kind as CONSCIOUSNESS.
There is a NIHILISM that denies that there is experience. However, it
is a fundamental named given for to doubt experience is experience.
It has an ontological priority over matter as its seat or mind
as its place. To see this is to reject any—nihilist—materialism that negates experience
or its powers. There is experience of experience; and there is
experience as-if of a REAL WORLD which
includes but is not identical to the METAPHORICAL EXTERNAL WORLD. While consciousness is experience, the
term experience suggests an experiencer and an experienced.
It is conceivable that there
is nothing in the world but experience—in a naïve form this is SOLIPSISM. However, if we map experience we find that the names for
its aspects and regions are roughly the names we use for the as-if real
world. But we could also see that world as a field of experience with
individuals as concentrations of experience. We ascribe reality to the former
because it is effective: what is called ‘I’ has powers but only limited
powers of knowing and acting. We ascribe reality to the latter as an abstract
description (made concrete later). With appropriate interpretations, the two
descriptions are equivalent. What this says is not that there is more than
one description of the real but that equivalent equally good descriptions or
conceptions are part of the real.
The SKEPTICISM of nihilism and of solipsism have been used to clarify
and establish the nature of experience. DOUBT is essential in arguing that there are experience,
SUBJECT (EXPERIENCER), and OBJECT (EXPERIENCED, the
real world). Of all philosophers, this section owes the most to Descartes
for analysis of existence; it also owes to Wittgenstein for pointing
out that an alternate description often masquerades as factual difference.
2.1. The
WORLD is the universe-as-experienced-by-the-individual or
culture; we have just seen that at root, world and universe are the same.
Kinds of
experience
2.2. Kinds
of experience are free vs. bound, intensity of feeling—imperative to neutral,
bodily (inner) vs. environmental, iconic vs. symbolic, receptive vs. active.
The kinds include:
2.2.1. BOUND EXPERIENCE—PERCEPTION-FEELING, as if of an object and or the BODY felt real,
2.2.2. FREE EXPERIENCE—CONCEPTION-EMOTION (note that conception has two senses in this
narrative—here it is free conception but it is also general mental content),
creative play of experience that includes imagination, LANGUAGE, and reason and which show abstract-pragmatic reality
to the felt-real, and
2.2.3. ACTIVE EXPERIENCE with VOLITION—which
identifies action and the ACTIVE INDIVIDUAL in contrast to the rest of the world.
2.2.4. To
talk of experience is not to exclude the world or the body of the
individual. CITTA (also see Living The Way,
citta), though it has a more specialized use in Buddhist texts, will here
refer to the combination of the three kinds above.
In Buddhism and Hinduism,
there are three aspects of mind—citta or heart-mind or the
emotive side of mind, MANAS—the
intellect, and VIJÑĀNA—‘wisdom’
More specifically in Hinduism vijñāna
is knowledge of the ultimate or that results from dwelling in the ultimate.
I choose citta as the
representative of all aspects of mind because it is underemphasized in
western systems but is crucial in itself but also in interaction with manas
and vijñāna. In this sense citta could be seen as MIND-BODY or body-mind.
We can define a CONCRETE OBJECT as the object of a percept (or bound citta).
Earlier, we considered abstractions from concrete objects. We could regard
these as abstract objects, metaphorically speaking. However, we can also
define an ABSTRACT
OBJECT as the object of a free concept (free citta).
We will later see that abstract
objects are real; that abstract objects lie in the one universe that the
distinction between the abstract and the concrete lies only in the means of
knowing them and is not intrinsic; and we will develop a symmetric and
unified theory of abstract and concrete objects; and the variety of all
objects far exceeds expectation.
Subject
and object
Can we regard subject or
object as fundamental? That is, we are enquiring into the problems of mind
and matter.
On MATERIALISM, a MONISM, there is
only ‘matter’ or object. STRICT MATERIALISM invokes the further idea that mind—experience,
consciousness—are no part of matter.
On strict materialism the
occurrence of experience is MAGIC.
Therefore emergence at some level of complexity is magic; an ANALOGY to emergence from matter to a material system is a
disanalogy because there is no emergence of substance. Therefore the
condition of strictness must be jettisoned if materialism is to be
satisfactory. Now experience (mind) has three possible
sources—internal to the organism, external, and magic. We eliminate magic for
obvious reasons and the external because it does not directly pertain to function.
Therefore the elements of the experiential must be among the known or
unknown elements of the object (matter) and from the nature of
experience its elements must be relations among those material elements. That
is, there is an emergence in higher organisms but what emerges is
higher level experience or consciousness and not the elemental forms (mind)
themselves. This is a monism but material—or mental—only on an open
interpretation of the terms ‘mind’ and ‘matter’. Experience
is a form of power—it is the total of subjective states associated directly
with environmental CAUSE and EFFECT and indirectly with internal causal processing. Those
states could be called states of AFFECT
but to do so would be more inclusive than the common use of ‘affective
state’. We could identify such states as citta.
Given substance, is this a
monism or DUALISM? Two kinds of apparent SUBSTANCE DUALISM seem possible. First, experiential phenomena are the
result of something non-object (non-matter) like that interacts with matter
to make the organism. But this is essentially the above case of monism. In a
second situation, some minds migrate to our immediate world from elsewhere
but unless this is the monistic case then, since the form of mind must
be material, it would be an other kind of matter different from
the local but this does not seem to make sense for it represents something
without power or at most ‘spirits’ or ‘ghosts’. These are of course
possibilities; later we will see an extension of these ideas as real and as
significant to a complete view of our Being—what we are—and destiny.
Later, we find that there can
be multiple experiential kinds, each an as-if monism, each minimally
interacting with the others and each, perhaps, associated with a distinct
cosmos but in the most common cases, in a given cosmos, the situation in a
stable phase of a cosmos is likely close to monism. Entire systems of this
kind will be found in give and take with a transient background that is also
in give and take with the void.
Meaning
Key terms
Introduction
to meaning
2.3. Care
with LINGUISTIC
MEANING is essential to careful thought in
all but the most rigidly defined contexts. It is critical in metaphysics
which is the ultimate open ‘context’. What is needed for the development is referential
meaning, i.e. referential linguistic meaning.
In the open context, including
metaphysics, meaning cannot be implicit or imported from a limited context
without confusion.
2.3.1. The
meanings of terms will be critical to the development—care with linguistic
meaning will be essential but of course not everything to METAPHYSICAL
MEANING and EXISTENTIAL
MEANING—i.e., SIGNIFICANT
MEANING or the MEANING OF BEING or phrases such as the meaning of life.
It is critical to attend to
the meanings as introduced here and to not project other meanings upon the
formal development.
Referential meaning will be
seen to be everything to metaphysical meaning and existential
meaning if we regard referential meaning as
symbol-concept-object-relations. The question regarding the adequacy of
meaning is not whether meaning alone adequate—on limited notions of
meaning it is not—but What is a broad concept and theory of meaning
adequate to the metaphysics and epistemology of the narrative’? Below we
develop such a theory of meaning; and a corollary to it will be an adequate
theory and accomplishment of metaphysics and epistemology.
SMALL CAPITALS are employed to
point out main occurrences of important terms in the formal or METAPHYSICAL
LANGUAGE of the narrative a phrase in red
small capitals indicates a DEFINITION. There
will usually but not always be a single main occurrence (one exception will
be where there is an alternate development of the ideas). The development
depends critically on the chosen system of meaning and it is therefore
essential that readers follow the defined meanings (which have been analyzed
for mutual consistency and completeness relative to ‘all Being’ in outline
though of course not in detail). The main occurrences are typically but not
always the first occurrences.
ORDINARY LANGUAGE terms, used for
general discussion and to talk about the metaphysical language, will not be
in small capitals. I thought to have another level, a meta-language but found
it redundant because ideas, language, and epistemology are also metaphysical.
Thus the two ‘languages’ employed here are the metaphysical language
and ordinary language.
Two terms have capitalized and
lower case forms to mark significant distinctions—Being versus a
being or beings; and Logic versus logic or logics.
The distinctions regarding Logic will be marked only when they are not
obvious from the context.
Meaning
and language
2.4. Here,
meaning is REFERENTIAL MEANING, which is
adequate for the metaphysics to be developed, and for which correspondence
may be perfect or pragmatic. The pragmatic subsumes COHERENCE
CRITERIA, which it will not be necessary
to use explicitly in this essay.
2.4.1. CONCEPT MEANING is a concept as mental content (citta) and its object
(indifferent to sing. vs pl.). When sufficiently abstract reference may be perfect
according to perfect CORRESPONDENCE CRITERIA but otherwise pragmatic. That is, concepts may
be effectively ATOMIC CONCEPTS when sufficient
structure is omitted in abstraction; a LOGICAL ATOMISM is possible in the perfect correspondence case—here we
are developing such an atomistic framework for the pragmatic (citta) case.
To illustrate, consider the
concept of ‘universe’. If it refers to the universe in all its detail, it is
not atomistic. However, if it refers to all existence distinguishing it only
from non-existence. It is a conceptual atom. And it is this atom that is part
of the perfect correspondence in which the concept ‘universe’ refers to the
actual universe. Is it superfluous to have a concept ‘universe’ and the thing
universe? No, for without the concept an object cannot be identified:
imagine, for example, if someone yells ‘sher’ while you are in the forest.
You have no reaction. However, if they had yelled ‘tiger’ you might have
panicked. That’s because you associate the word ‘tiger’ with a conceptual
picture of a tiger. Now ‘sher’ is the Hindi word for tiger but you do not
make the connection: the concept is essential even though it is not always
efficient to be explicit about it. That is the concept is essential if a pure
sign such as ‘tiger’ or ‘sher’ are to have meaning. There’s a further
consideration. Under the concept of ‘universe’ you can entertain
square-circles and then, realizing that that is a contradiction you can tell
that the real universe does not have any. This clarifies that you can if you
wish include ‘square circles’ in ‘universe’ but it makes no material
difference and therefore you are also free to omit ‘square circles’ from ‘universe’.
This approach to meaning also clarifies what a non existent object is. If
‘Sherlock Holmes’ is defined as the person in the Arthur Conan Doyle writings
describing a literary British detective, then Sherlock Holmes does (did) not
exist.
2.4.2. REFERENTIAL LINGUISTIC MEANING associates signs with concept-objects; pure signs have
no intrinsic meaning; structure contributes to compound sign, e.g. sentence,
meaning. This concept of meaning is essential to its possibility, clarity,
adequacy, and definiteness. Without the concept, reference is impossible;
even seemingly well formed compound reference may be indefinite, empty, or
paradoxical. This is crucial later in defining Logic; its neglect results in
many semantic and logical paradoxes.
2.4.3. USE–the
milieu of language—is the first source or MEANING DETERMINER of ordinary language meaning; it may be
stabilized and conventionalized in the common LEXICA and prescribed-semi-logical SYNTAX (pl.). But the ordinary is far from ordinary and so
the single-multiple milieu, conventional-realist, fluid-stable,
atomic-diffuse, unique-multiple and family nature of ordinary language
meaning. Also, the meaning of a compound sign is usually more than the sum of
the parts and might have little to do with the parts. We have no option but
to begin in the immediate and so we use ordinary language to build up a metaphysical
language system—terms introduced in small capitals. One aim of a
metaphysical (formal) language is to overcome the difficulties of ordinary
language—e.g. as in mathematics (the formal case). Here, we should not wish
to be as strictly formal as in logics and mathematics there is, I find,
significant achievement. I do not know what the ultimate achievement or
improvements may be.
Via abstraction there is, in
discussing experience and meaning, the beginning of a metaphysics—a
METAPHYSICAL
SYSTEM—of precise reference (the atomic
frame). This is crucial to meaning and precision. It is essential for
understanding that it be followed and not confused with ordinary or other
special meaning such as in science or other metaphysical systems.
Because the present work is
not, say, mathematics it is likely impossible to not have nuances of meaning
and play. But I hope that the introduction of metaphysical language
introduces reasonable general consistency, careful consistency where it is
needed—the ‘pure’ metaphysics, allows play, disallows variant interpretations
but allows play with those interpretations.
Language
and reality
2.5. Language—FORMAL LANGUAGE at any rate—is DISCRETE LANGUAGE; its elementary signs (alphabet, phonemes) are finite
in number; and the number of possible (and syntactical) combinations at most
discretely (countably) infinite.
Thus formal systems have
certain inadequacies in capturing an abstract andor concrete reality.
These difficulties arise
because of mismatch within the formal—these are inconsistencies; because of
mismatch between the formal and the real—these have to do with ‘shape’; and
because of issues of size—the formal map is smaller than the real.
But real knowledge, e.g. intuition,
may be able to capture the real. Thus, ultimately, we may know more than we
know formally and, perhaps, the precision of the formal may be ultimately
misleading.
Meaning in
this essay
In introducing terms here, it
not be necessary to say, for example, ‘here, reason is establishment of
truth’. We will simply say ‘reason is establishment of truth’ and we will not
invariably add the reminder that ‘it is not to be associated with other
uses’.
The meaning of terms is and
should be related to historical and modern uses but is as defined here. For
the defined terms of the narrative, the metaphysical language and so
on, an attempt at precision and context independence is made. The system of
terms also has meaning that is revealed in the metaphysics and so on. It is
crucial that the reader recognize this and not impose imported meaning. This
quite valid for I endeavor to be internally and externally consistent and I
do not impose my meaning on extra-narrative use. However, I do claim a valid
and potent system that should at minimum be informative for
extra-narrative—for the measure of a system of meaning should be primarily
what it captures and secondarily the historical uses.
Introduction
to reason
Key terms
What
reason is
3. REASON is establishment of TRUTH (KNOWLEDGE) and
is integral to ACTION Some related terms are ARGUMENT, logic, science, and RATIONALITY.
Reason is the means of
reliable knowledge and action.
So as not to see reason as
sterile, it is important to see that reason does not exclude any element of
citta. To see that reason is rich and human, note that though it may be used
with a sterile set of presumptions, it may be used only to exclude what is
absurd and so to allow all richness of vision. We will chisel a view that is
maximally rich, yet may be used with precision.
This will require that we do
not alter the strict meaning of logic, especially in its modern use as
deductive logic, in its domain of applicability. Yet we must also see logic
in its larger context as synergic with all aspects of experience.
Where it is necessary to specify what meaning we use, we will do so.
Reason and
language
We saw that language is
discrete. It may fail to capture on various accounts (some noted above) but
especially on this account.
An advantage of language is
its simplicity of form.
But the real is not
necessarily discrete.
The real may be a mesh of
discrete and continuous (e.g. bound vs. unbound quantum states).
Intuition—brain, if
‘continuous’ may be more effective in capture even though it seemingly lacks
the definiteness of language.
But even if the definiteness
of language (formal) is not illusory, the indefiniteness of intuition may be
illusory and a seeming artifact of translation into language.
Are there non-discrete forms
of language?
Truth and
fact
3.1. The
word FACT is sometimes used to refer to something that is
postulated to have occurred or be correct.
3.1.1. If
the fact did occur, then we say it is true or has truth. But
usage sometimes conflates fact and ‘TRUE FACT’.
3.1.2. For
the present purpose we will think of fact as true fact. To indicate that
something is a fact that may be true we will call it a hypothesized or HYPOTHETICAL FACT.
3.1.3. A
fact may be a SIMPLE FACT or a COMPOUND FACT. But it seems that ‘simple’ is relative. If a fact is
elementary or not decomposable into to other facts it is an ATOMIC FACT.
It is not clear that there are
concrete atomic facts but if there are it would give absolute meaning, at
least in some cases, to the notions of simple and compound facts. However, it
has been seen that there are effectively atomic facts by abstraction.
Discovering
reason and its principles
3.2. The
PRINCIPLES
OF REASON are open to discovery. As such
there is no FIRST PRINCIPLE.
3.2.1. Principle 1.
Begin in the present; no ABSOLUTE A PRIORI.
Begin in the present—where we are; begin with ordinary language which may be
investigated later.
There is no absolute a
priori.
To not seek immediate
perfection empowers foundations.
3.2.2. Principle 2.
Reason and content are not distinct.
For reason is in the world and
is therefore also content. Further, ground level content provides the
examples upon which reason is discovered experimentally. And still further,
therefore reason can also study itself—empirically and symbolically. I.e.
there is such a thing as ‘meta-reason’ but because reason refers to no other
arbiter of things, any meta-reason is part of reason.
3.2.3. Principle 3.
Reason does not exclude the affective. Reason includes all elements of psyche
or citta—reflexively (reflexivity is defined below).
This follows from the discussion
of experience, meaning, and reason.
3.2.4. Principle 4.
Practical principles of reason.
Perhaps the main practical
principle is, rather than some Leibnizian formula, reason is established
iteratively in practice.
But principles are already
being established as in the foregoing sections—and in what follows.
An essential principle to be
established is the identity of metaphysics and reason—see the chapter on
metaphysics. We have seen why process and content should be inseparable—i.e.
incompletely separable. However, once the universal metaphysics has been
established the nature and truth of this will become clear.
3.2.5. Principle 5.
Reflexivity.
REFLEXIVITY, in general, is the
powerful open interactivity of any one part of experience with any
other—selected dynamically for consistency, adequate completeness, and
efficiency.
Creative imagination,
intuition, and criticism are essential to the process; the definition above
did not specify this because it follows from the definition.
Examples are process of reason
and content; intuition and formal reason—and intuition of reason and
reasoning about intuition; thought and action—‘mind’ and ‘body’;
cognition and emotion; individual, community, and culture; elements of
content—e.g. the disciplines; discipline and practice; experience—active or
seeking and passive, learning and study, research—intellectual and active.
3.2.6. Principle 6.
Doubt. Methodological skepticism.
Doubt and METHODOLOGICAL
SKEPTICISM are aspects of reflexivity.
Philosophical skepticism
questions the possibility of certain knowledge or, in a radical form, the
possibility of knowledge at all. Doubt in methodological skepticism may seem
radical and thus absurd. However, the aim of methodological skepticism is to
question what we routinely but perhaps naïvely take to be true and so to
establish what is objective with regard to uniqueness versus relativity of
interpretation, what is its extent, and what is the nature of knowledge and
its truthfulness.
Thus if we question whether
experience as consciousness exists we are beginning to question the meaning
of experience and existence. With regard to existence this leads to the
notion that we need and perhaps should not posit a particular yet ultimate
real as a measure of existence (we may posit some local measures and we allow
that universal measures may emerge); this is a source of the focus on ‘Being’.
With regard to experience it leads to the notion that it is so fundamental
that it may be regarded as a given to be named but not defined in terms of
other kinds. Now since experience may be experienced this leads to the idea
that there may be no fundamental distinction between experience and the
experienced—and, particularly, not that there is no real world but that
experience is very much part of the real.
Now we have just seen how
radical doubt used ‘methodically’ leads to clarification of the fundamental
notions of ‘experience’, ‘existence’ and ‘the real’.
We can use such methodical
doubt even more methodically.
We can imagine a whole family
of radical doubts that when addressed result in elucidations of the nature of
reality and the universe.
We will consider some examples
under the headings of ‘experience and the real world’, ‘knowledge and value’,
‘synthesis’ of the foregoing, and learning from ‘alternate realities. See
for further discussion of methodological skepticism and reflexivity.
Here are some kinds of
conclusion from skeptical analysis, (1) some doubts concern elements of experience
so fundamental that they are given and need only to be named, (2) some doubts
concern meaning and the process of identifying what is real is in fact a dual
process of concept and object, i.e. of meaning in the sense used here, (3)
while the individual doubts may seem as if doubting the obvious, they may
lead to clarification and a more comprehensive view—a view that incorporates
more of the real, better understood than the naïve view. While some may adopt
a skeptical view (e.g. solipsism), the (an) essential function of skepticism
is to critique the naïve view and to improve it. Often we find that the naïve
view is one possible view; and there is another interpretation; and,
sometimes, neither is more correct but one is more universal, simpler, more revealing,
(4) selection of truth from alternative incompatible views: for some
practical purposes we can take the naïve viewpoint as basic. We do so because
we do not want to dwell forever on doubt; we also want to move ahead. At the
same time we also entertain the doubt and as progress occurs we can modify
our basic position, e.g. in ways described above, (5) showing where
apparently incompatible views are compatible interpretations and showing the
circumstances under which the different interpretations are preferred, and
(6) how apparently piece meal analysis, especially imaginative and critical
response to skepticism, helps build up a powerful whole picture of the world;
When an adequately complete set of ‘canonical’ doubts are identified, they
fit together as a jigsaw to give an enhanced and whole picture of Being not
apparent from the individual pieces.
Experience and the real
world
Definition.
What experience is. Experience
is subjective awareness; a named and founded given.
Skeptical view—there is no
such thing as experience.
Reasons for denial—strict
materialism – matter is the only substance and contains no element of psyche,
positivism and positivist science, extraversion, skepticism, experience
cannot be causal.
Response to
denial—‘experience’ names subjective awareness, of experience itself, and appearance
of a real world. Strict materialism is impossible.
Conclusion—there is
experience, i.e. experience is real.
Skeptical view—philosophical
solipsism—there is no real world in the sense that there is only experience
and experience of experience which are real. That is, there is no
metaphorical external world.
Response—a standard view is
that of an experiencers in the perhaps material world, who are at the
‘center’ of their experience. What they experience, including experience
itself, is the real world; and the real world includes others that are
similar to themselves. However, the ‘solipsist view’ is not true solipsism
but an alternative to the ‘standard’ to which the name ‘solipsism’ has been
uncritically applied. In this alternative, the universe is a field of
experience whose experiential ‘brightness’ ranges from dim (perhaps
effectively but not essentially zero—i.e., the ‘zero’ is a value of what does
not have to be zero) to animal – human level and perhaps beyond. This is
consistent then with universal consciousness, which may itself vary in
brightness and scope, of which individuals are part.
Note—these two views are not
‘materially’ different but different interpretations of which the standard
view has pragmatic purchase in the immediate while the view of pan –
universal consciousness is more inclusive—it includes the standard with
certain parameter settings—and more pragmatic in the universal. A main
objection of materialism is that matter cannot be of the same kind as
experience but this is not at all known and, in any case, it at once shows
the impossible poverty of materialism whose power derives from a blind convention
posing as ‘reason’; it is not a criticism of the ‘field of experience’ view.
And note that the ‘dim’ parts of the field are allowed to have zero
brightness thus not even being a violation of the possibility of zero
brightness under materialism.
Skeptical view—experience is
acausal or epiphenomenal.
Sources of this view—the
sources are similar to some of those for the denial of experience. Even if we
admit the existence of experience, it seems to contradict materialism for
experience to be able to interact with matter.
Response—we have already seen
that the universal view is not anti-material but is, rather, inclusive of a
material view—except of course that strict materialism has been ruled out—and
that, in either perspective, psyche is among the elements of the effectively
material and so there is no oddity to causal interaction.
Further we experience sentient
persons as agents in both subjective and objective viewpoints.
Skeptical view—while solipsism
does not hold, there are no other psyches or minds. The universe is just ‘my
psyche’ and the ‘material’ universe.
Response—a beginning is to
note the alternatives (1) my mind and other minds as not real but experienced
via intuition and inference as having the same status as my mind (2) the same
as #1 except that other minds are real. We then observe that these may be
considered ‘materially’ equivalent perspectives. However, to deny ‘other
minds’ I must also ask what the experiential justification of the ‘my’ in ‘my
psyche’ is and here I find that the existence of subjectivity justifies no
‘my’ without a ‘you’ or ‘them’ as having psyches. But further, if I grant
that there is only ‘my mind’ then there is no explaining the apparent power
of the ‘other psyches’ (or the reality of the universe).
Skeptical view—we do not have
free will. The arguments for this position are (a) physical determinism, (b)
experiments suggesting ‘choice’ is pre-conscious.
Response to skeptical
arguments—it is not clear whether quantum theory is deterministic but in any
case none of its forms is complete; further there is no necessary reason to
hold that the universe is deterministic. The experiments have no clear
interpretation and in any case do not apply to complex situations with
learning. It is further important to note that a tacit assumption in the
skeptical position seems to be that physical theory informs biology and
psychology (and indeed even physical origins) regarding issues such as
determinism. However, that is not given either. There is no reason we should
not, if we can show free will to obtain—or if we can show evolutionary
biology or the psychology of creation to have indeterminism—to use it to
conclude that physics must be indeterministic.
Skeptical position—but randomness
hardly allows or makes for free will and choice. This argument was given by
David Hume.
Response—the origin of form
occurs at the boundary of already formed structure and indeterminism.
Final response regarding free
will—will itself is the insertion or presence of experience into the causal
chain. That it is ‘free’ follows from the psychological argument.
Conclusion—we arrive at a
modified standard view of a world with psyches having free will and creative
intelligence, each cognizing a world of matter which is not alien to psyche
and cognizing psyche itself, and each cognizing in that world the other
psyches. At minimum this standard world has an extent at least that roughly
as described in modern cosmology. At most this world is limitless in variety,
extension, and duration (identity, variety, sameness, difference)—we are
denying that physical possibility in the sense of what is allowed by our empirical
and local laws is the general kind of possibility. In this possibilist but
not yet though to be demonstrated view, universal consciousness, Brahman,
varies in its range and height, but approaches the greatest possibility; and
individual self or Atman approaches Brahman (and is Brahman, if only we were
to see it by overcoming our adaptive blindness). For universal purposes, the
alternative interpretation of the world as a field of experience as described
above is superior and, in a sense, ultimate. Of course, the local view is
materially (at least) adaptive.
Skeptical position, addressed
to the Platonic Realists above—the universe is the minimalist one described
just above.
Alternative skeptical
position, addressed to the strictest possible materialists above, whom, we
have already seen, have already been required to admit that strict reductive
materialism is not tenable—the universe is the greater than the minimalist
one and may even by the maximalist Platonic Universe.
Observation—true skepticism
should not be applied only to ‘optimist’ versions of reality but also to the
minimalist views.
Response—the response is the standard
one from The Way of Being: the demonstration of the maximalist universe via
the concepts of Being, Universe, Beings, The Void, and analysis of
possibility in terms of the meaning of ‘possibility’ and natural law and
natural possibility and logic and logical possibility.
Conclusion—the universe is the
realization of all possibility. This requires careful analysis of possibility
to avoid paradox that may arise from careless use. It demonstrates the
maximalist Platonic Realism noted above.
Knowledge and value; and
synthesis
Skeptical view—from the veil
between experiencer and experienced, knowledge is impossible. Particularly,
universal and necessary knowledge is impossible (and of course even the
ordinary is impossible).
Response—any view that ‘no
knowledge’ is possible can follow via reason only from an essentially absurd
concept of knowledge. That no knowledge is possible follows (only) from a
view that all knowledge should be a perfect copy of the world.
Response continued—here is an
essential consideration: in consideration of the world as having experiential
beings within it, we recognize that ‘experience’ is a relation between
‘experiencer’ and ‘experienced’. While it is true that we experience a
picture of the world, it is also true that that net picture is part of
experience. Therefore both are subject to the criticism of imperfection. What
this implies is that the very meaning of ‘knowledge as picture’ is (or may
be) misleading. But we know, from the perspective that our ability to
negotiate the world gives some knowledge pragmatic validity (reliabilism) if
not correspondence (the picture-picture) variety.
Continued—but we have seen
that we do have perfect knowledge, e.g. of experience, Being, Universe,
Beings, The Void, Law, Possibility, Logic, and a maximal Universe. This shows
us that for ultimate purposes, any approximation – imprecision – or
tentativeness in ‘pragmatic knowledge’ is not an undesirable feature. In fact
it is unavoidable, and perfect as instrument in ultimate realization.
Continued—this alternative
view to the standard may challenge the imagination; the standard view is
present as constant pressure, sustained by the normal world and individuals,
to return to the standard. The resolution is to see both alternatives as
valid in their realms; but the realm of the Platonic is the inclusive view.
Continued—as far as the
immediate world, i.e. this cosmos, is concerned and our temporal lives on an
‘everyday’ basis, is concerned, the ‘old’ problems of knowledge remain pertinent.
These include the nature of knowledge as held in the individual, issues of
validity and reason, of justification versus fallibilism, and so on. What has
changed, however, in response to the New Platonic Realism above, is that the
significance of these standard views is given perspective, closing down
mystery on some fronts—but opening up greater mystery on others.
Note that ‘New Platonic
Realism’ is not a standard use and has been introduced ad hoc relative to
‘standard’ use of Platonic Realism. Of course there is some affinity with the
ideas of Platonic Form, Idealism, and Realism so it is not entirely ad hoc.
Continued—why do we exist? It
is required by logic—i.e., in a sense there is no ultimate ‘Why?’ All why’s
and how’s are proximate why’s or how’s. What is the meaning of our lives?
Locally, it is up to the choice of the individual although of course there
are practical considerations of material reality, human relationships, life
path, technology, science, politics, and economics, and even the meaning of
‘religion’, and psyche. But universally the meaning of life can be none other
than what it is—i.e., participation in the Platonic Universe and its
Atman-Brahman process. Within life and at its local (proximate) edge, we find
instrumental and intrinsic means of entry into that process. These begin with
science, technology, psychology, politics, and economics (the instrumental)
and meditation, vision quest, yoga, and self transformation, and similar
processes from other (extra-Hindu) world cultures (the intrinsic). The local
can derive illumination from the universal; and it illustrates and need not
be estranged from the universal as advocated by the territorial materialist.
Skeptical view—David Hume: all
our knowledge is confined to the facts of experience. We think external
objects exist because we think the mind can frame abstract ideas as real. But
the mind is, in fact, incapable of this. A paraphrase from History of Western
Philosophy
Hume’s view is empirical: our
knowledge has its source in experience; it is positivistic: limited to the
world of phenomena; but we know nothing of ultimates, substances, causes,
external world and so on; it is humanistic: the human mental world is the
only legitimate sphere of science and inquiry.
Response due to Immanuel
Kant—Kant’s response is well known. Mind of course contributes to the real as
does the world. Kant goes deeper. He looks at experience—perception and
thought—and asks how it is possible. He concludes (1) the form of experience
must conform to the form of the world, (2) he is thus able to make
conclusions about both of those forms, (3) that conformation is the source of
the synthetic a priori, (4) from the science of his time, the geometry of
Euclid and the mechanics of Newton, he concludes that those two sciences
belong to the synthetic a priori.
Continued—we now know of
course that the science of Kant’s time was, though adequate for some
purposes, inadequate as the science of the universe. However, conclusions (1)
– (3) still hold and would apply if we were to find a ‘necessary science’ in
the way Kant thought the science of Euclid and Newton necessary.
Continued—but our modern view
of science tends to be different. We find science to have a positive domain
of application but we are agnostic with regard to a universal science. Why?
Because in a potentially infinite universe, in which there are always
potential new data, we have no guarantee that a science, no matter how
perfect in some domain, will extend to the whole universe.
Continued—but is it true that
our knowledge must be so limited forever? The universal metaphysics of the
present narrative, finds Universe, Being, Beings, The Void, Possibility, The
Existence of the Void, to be ‘absolute concepts’. Further, though these seem
trivial, they lead to the potent universal metaphysics.
Continued—objection—but the
universal metaphysics is abstract and, therefore, though it has objects, we
do not know how to locate these objects in experience. For the latter, we
resort to the concrete experiential objects which remain subject to Humean
like objects.
Continued—response—but the
universal metaphysics shows that in the evolution of Being, it (us) will
encounter myriad cosmoses and myriad forms of self, all with necessarily
limited knowledge of the local concrete, all with yet another world to come
on the way to the ultimate. What that says is that (a) our concrete local
knowledge is necessarily limited, barring possible exceptions, and (b) that
is essential and good.
Continued—that is, we move one
step higher: in analyzing the concrete and its rough rendering of reality, we
find that that is precisely the knowledge we need and ultimate precision as a
goal is limiting (of course this does not imply that the local goal of
greater precision is undesirable for all ends).
Continued—almost all modern
philosophy is substance philosophy. This includes the empiricists, the rationalists,
Immanuel Kant, and any philosophy of a scientific interpretation of the
universe as ultimate; even Heidegger, after having foresworn substance,
attempts to turn European Experience into a substance.
Continued—to make this clear
let us return to substance and state two ‘definitions’ of it. (1) Substance
is eternal structureless and eternal being, whose manifestations are the
world; and as such substance solves the dual problem of being and knowing.
(2) Substance is the attempt to project limited generalization, which is
powerful in its limited domain, to the universe, where it is not merely
impotent but destructive of both greater and the greatest understanding.
Skeptical view—if logic is a
priori we cannot know it; if it is empirical, it is not absolute.
Response—to address this, let
us compare logic and science. Let us begin with physics. We hold, let us say,
that modern physics is true in a limited domain—the limit of our physical
knowledge but not necessarily the limit of the universe or anywhere near.
Roughly, then, in science we have knowledge of a limited world—limited on
multiple fronts, e.g. space and time, magnitude of phenomena, and perhaps the
‘mind-matter gap’.
Continued—on the other hand we
know that logic is less demanding than physics. Physical knowledge must also
be logical; but logical knowledge need not be physical. We can say, at least
tentatively, that logic must apply in any world. But since we do not have
access to other worlds, how can we evaluate our logics?
Continued—let us begin with a
simple reflection. A physical law implies that some patterns must obtain,
while others that we can easily imagine do not obtain. For example, say inertia
is a measure of resistance to acceleration and not a measure of resistance to
the third derivative of position. Though we think the third derivative
case to be un-physical, we do not think it absurd, even though a third
derivative world might be bizarre to us.
Continued—now consider a
simple example of logic. When we say a ball cannot simultaneously be black
and not-black, we consider it a logical statement because the
alternative, a simultaneously black and non-black but real object to be
absurd because, not only does it not happen at all but, it seems to be
impossible in any world. In fact ‘does not happen at all’ is the same as
‘does not happen or is impossible in any world’.
Continued—that gives us a
sense of how we may explore logic even though we do not have access to other
worlds. And the seeming necessity of it explains why we think of it as a
priori. On the other hand, let us reconsider why we think ‘simultaneously
black and not-black’ is impossible. Perhaps it is in the definition of ‘not’.
But surely we cannot make something true by definition.
Continued—it seems that what
we are doing is taking something very general but simple, and therefore also
intuitive, and claiming its truth. It is a little circular—true because
intuitive and simple and general and therefore true. Unless we acknowledge
that it is ultimately an empirical generalization. In which case, logic,
whatever its ultimate status, which we now know that we do not know, is
discovered empirically.
Continued—which also
underlines what its a priori status is. Here, it is knowledge of a more
general nature than physical knowledge but still empirical. For why could
there not be a world in which there is ‘black and not black’? Because of
explosion of truth, one might respond, which, in turn, gets the counter
response—explosion occurs only on a certain account of propositional logic.
Thus logic is empirical.
Continued—on the other hand it
is a priori in the sense of a priori to physical or more specific experience.
The ‘black and not black’ idea is not, for example, built into any necessary
grammar. If it were it would be closer to an absolute a priori.
Continued—we have, today,
another way to think about this. Since we are adapted via biological
evolution and perhaps there is also a certain amount of cultural selection
within culture, we can say that at least part of the logical a priori is
prior to human being and culture but not prior to their evolution. Similarly
we could say that physics is a synthetic a priori to our knowledge but a
posteriori to the origin of the cosmos.
Learning from the idea of
alternate realities
We have looked at alternate
but compatible interpretations of the real. They may have begun as ‘alternate
realities’ but we then found them to be alternate interpretations.
Here we look at some alternate
realities. They may even be bizarre. But the goal, as before, is a more
secure grasp of the real.
Let us begin with a fragment
of the real as preliminary to the main argument of this section. We saw that
every possibility must obtain. Why then must our earth continue doing what it
will and not undertake a whole range of realities (let us set aside the many
histories interpretation of quantum theory)? This is because given a reality
for a fragment of the real, e.g. our earth and its history, another, say
superposed but different reality is not a possibility at all. However, it is
possible and therefore given that there are ‘other earths’ in the universe,
some of them identical in history but others bifurcating at some past and /
or future point from the ‘mother history’, i.e. our earth’s history. There
need be no immediate causal connection between the different earths. We think
our earth has its roots in the big bang. However, it seems entirely possible
that it began five minutes ago (complete with memories as if it began in a
big bang). But what our theory of the realization entails is that some
earth’s in the universe have the standard history that is the history read in
the record in the present while others do not. The former are ‘stable
realities’ the latter ‘unstable’ in the sense that the path to their
formation is so unlikely that, as shown in The Way of Being, they constitute
a minute fraction of the total number of earths (which is without limit).
So here are some alternate and
‘bizarre’ realities
1. The
earth and our cosmos formed five minutes ago, an infinite amount of time ago…
2. The
earth was created by a super organism (not an external god because the
universe has no ‘outside’); this is bizarre in relation to the stable and to
the Atman-Brahman cosmology because the latter leaves the nature of Atman and
Brahman open besides being a necessary destiny of consciousness,
3. Russell’s
teapot which is actually more bizarre than the Abrahamic God because the
latter attempted to be an explanatory answer to psychologically curios
organism (but must now be bizarre after science as reductive science becomes
bizarre after rational metaphysics),
4. Wittgenstein’s
“there is a rhinoceros in the room and you can’t prove there isn’t”.
5. We
are brains in vats and nothing but brains in vats; we are simulations; we are
simulations of simulations; and so on.
6. And
so on.
The point to the ‘bizarre
realities’ is not that they are true or false (they are necessarily true).
The point is that they remind
us that most realities are dependably stable (in a cosmological sense); even
the appearance of a historical reality is stable.
But, in fact, where we cannot
or so far do not distinguish, we should proceed as if stable.
Except to note that
1. We
may learn something from the fact of instability, e.g. to see beyond our
reality and how the unstable and the stable make up a greater fabric,
2. The
seeming contingent necessities of our primitive metaphysics, e.g. science and
death, are high degrees of probability, and the continent impossibilities are
high improbabilities,
3. The
ultimate real is transcendent of the contingent, stable or not, to the
necessary and ultimate,
4. Which
is eternal, ever fresh, never given, full with joy and pain, blood and
comfort.
The
pillars of reason: observation and inference
3.3. The
two pillars of reason are (1) OBSERVATION—to establish fact directly and (2) INFERENCE—i.e., from given facts to conclude further facts.
Reason as
fabric for knowing and realizing
Reason does not stand above
knowledge content or action and realization.
Since Being and
experience are in the world reason is a kind of content.
Reason maps action.
Here, neither absolute a
priori nor final reason is assumed, except where shown. Reason remains a
fluid center in communication with all content.
Reason is not merely formal
and cognitive—e.g., logic and science. It also involves, as noted, other
elements of citta (see citta) as including bound, free, and active
experience: appropriate and necessary use of heuristics, emotion, value,
intuition, imagination, experiment, and action—all in reflexive interaction.
But note that an image of action is captured in reason and that in the
universal metaphysics it is a perfect image:
An ultimate metaphysical
framework will be developed that is precise by abstraction. This will frame
and interact with the rich, pragmatic, case that permits citta and
imprecision, and includes TRADITION—what is
valid in the tradition of human cultures, imagination and criticism,
experiment and action. The latter will be found to be the perfect instrument
for the former.
The criteria of truth will be
perfect correspondence for the logical atomic framework and pragmatic for
tradition. Though pragmatic, tradition as defined here, is the perfect
instrument in realization within the framework
That is, in an ideal and
active sense, metaphysics, reason, argument, and Logic are identical. We say REASON IS
IDENTICAL TO METAPHYSICS and mean that if we
begin with limited accounts then a full account of metaphysics or reason is
not possible without a full account of both. But in saying metaphysics is
reason, I mean that reason (citta) is the higher of the two.
Reason as
a narrative thread
Reason is a main thread
weaving The Way together. It is so, not because reason or reasoning
generates all things but because it is in efficient communication with all
things.
The
elements of reason
Key terms
The
elements of reason
3.4. The
ELEMENTS
OF REASON are—to ESTABLISH FACT and INFER FACT
from fact.
Fact and establishing
fact
3.4.1. A
simple fact or fact is an item of DATA that is atomic for a given correspondence or BASIC DATA for a given pragmatic purpose.
3.4.2. Facts
are established by perception, observation (link), MEASUREMENT, CORROBORATION,
and reason (argument).
3.4.3. But
the pure or PRECISE FACT as possible, e.g.
that there is a universe, which from abstraction is perfect and atomic.
Though trivial in following from definition and the given,
such precise facts in combination will be found to have immense consequences.
3.4.4. A
NECESSARY
TRUTH is one that must be true. From
universe as all Being, that there is precisely one universe is a NECESSARY FACT, if tautological—since there is ‘always’ either a
manifest or void universe.
Are there any necessary non
tautological non analytic facts? Following W. V. Quine, “It is
raining” is contingent. But “It is raining on Saturday, May 20, 2017 at
8:46:23 AM in my backyard”, on tenseless us of ‘is’ and factual truth of the
statement in double quotes, is an eternal fact. That is, prior to Saturday,
May 20 it could not be said to be true. On the other hand now that it
is past the given date and time I know that it is an eternal fact. It is a
necessary fact, a necessary truth.
Given that there is, by simple
observation and earlier Cartesian type analysis, a manifest universe, this is
a necessary truth. But can we say it is a necessary truth without the
observation? No—not unless we find some other way of demonstrating it as a
fact. In Metaphysics the fact will be demonstrated and so shown necessary,
while not eternally, but limitlessly in that the non-manifest case will be
also limitless but non-eternal.
Necessary
versus hypothetical inference
3.4.5. A
compound fact as a collection of facts is also a fact; but as PROJECTION beyond the collection, finite or unlimited, it may be HYPOTHESIS or THEORY.
3.4.6. Inference is to
arrive at a CONCLUSION with a certain CONFIDENCE from a PREMISE
of a specified confidence. Note that because they may be compound,
‘conclusion’ and ‘premise’ include ‘conclusions’ and ‘premises’.
3.4.7. NECESSARY INFERENCE is inference in which the conclusion follows from the
premise without doubt—i.e., with full confidence.
3.4.8. Necessary inference
is possible only when the conclusions are essentially contained in the
premises (by TAUTOLOGY, trivial or
significant) or independently true, e.g. as fact. A necessary
inference is a LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE. The main
means of necessary inference is ‘logical deduction’ or, simply, DEDUCTION or DEDUCTIVE LOGIC
or LOGIC which follows semantically from the containment of
conclusion in premise; for example the transitivity of implication can be
modeled by inclusion for sets: (a ® b).(b ®
c) ® (a ® c) says, with appropriate interpretation, (A Ê
B).(B Ê C) ® (A Ê C). However syntactic representation is desirable when
we want logic to be independent of models. First order logic, too, has a set
theoretic interpretation.
Note that it is common today
for logic to refer to deductive logic; while quite common in philosophy this
is almost universal in mathematics.
3.4.9. If,
indeed, the conclusion follows from the premise, the inference is VALID.
3.4.10. If the facts or premises are true and the inference
valid, then the conclusions are true and the reason or argument is SOUND.
3.4.11. When the conclusion is not contained in the premise, it
is at most PROBABLE and the inference is
the inference of INDUCTION of which particular
cases are HYPOTHETICAL
INFERENCE, ABDUCTION, and CONDUCTION. In SCIENCE, the projected conclusions begin as hypotheses and via
repeated and widespread success achieve theory status. Unless the
‘universe’ of potential data has been exhausted, the theory is never finally
confirmed. While testability (falsifiability) is a criterion of valid
science, the method may be called the HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD (i.e. making EXPLANATORY HYPOTHESES, predictions based on the hypotheses, modifying the
hypotheses if the predictions disagree with the outcomes). Aesthetic appeal
is a heuristic criterion; OCKHAM’S PRINCIPLE
regarding minimality of hypotheses may be seen as effective and aesthetic. SIGNIFICANCE
CRITERIA, RANGE CRITERIA, and SUBSUMPTION CRITERIA
(of other theories) are some heuristic criteria of an effective scientific
theory.
Method is content; in reason, IDEATION
and action are continuous.
Reason is everything (see
metaphysics is reason).
We will see no ultimate reason
to distinguish reason, metaphysics, and rational action (in practice there
are of course differences).
An idea such as rational
yoga—in theory, practice, and action—will also be part of reason. We will not
necessarily make an explicit point of this.
Knowledge
and culture
Knowledge is also a social and
cultural phenomenon—KNOWLEDGE AS CULTURAL—i.e., one of culture and SOCIETY.
This is emphasized above—coherence includes AGREEMENT or CONSENSUS among individuals
and cultures; corroboration includes agreement or consensus by individual(s)
and cultures. While consensus is an INTERNAL FACTOR, EXTERNAL FACTOR(s)
of knowledge as cultural include INTERCULTURAL ADAPTATION and ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTATION (including natural and economic).
Possibility,
Natural Law, and Logic††
Key terms
Possibility
as a vehicle for reason
As the BOUNDARY OF THE
REAL OR ACTUAL, the concept of possibility
is crucial to rational study of Being and the universe. Possibility is
what may be, which is the ultimate boundary for what may be some ‘where’ in
sameness, difference and their absence (more particularly, anticipating the
development of space and time, what has been, what is, and what will be).
Analysis of possibility is analysis of the relation of potential and reality.
Are they distinct or identical? We move to discover.
Possibility
in general
4. POSSIBILITY is the range of STATES OF AFFAIRS accessible to a being—or Being.
4.1. A
LIMIT is an inaccessible state. Possibility also defines
inaccessible states.
Study of possibility begins as
possibility for a being.
Beings have no a priori limits
except as kinds or cases.
The study will be concerned
with relations between the possible and the actual. A range of kinds of
possibility are taken up here and it is shown that the greatest kind is
logical possibility. In Metaphysics it is shown that logical possibility is
the same as the actual for the universe and that the different kinds of
possibility mesh consistently—and that is a truth rather than an artifact of
definition. The range of the possible and the actual are elaborated here, in
Metaphysics, and in Cosmology.
4.2. The
CONSTITUTION of a kind of being, case of Being, or a CONTEXT defines or specifies the kind, case, or context.
4.2.1. Constitution
is what, if altered, is cessation of the being as that being or that kind
of being.
4.2.2. A
PATTERN is simplicity of form that permits representation of
raw data by a smaller quantity of data.
4.2.3. Constitution
includes individual and generic patterns.
4.3. A
conceived state is possible for a being if it is allowed by or does
not violate the constitution of the being.
4.3.1. States
not allowed by the constitution of the being are IMPOSSIBLE for the being.
4.3.2. NECESSITY for a being is what must obtain for it; i.e. necessity
for the being is constitution. It is necessary that a being be in one of its
possible states and not in an impossible state.
4.3.3. For
a being it is possible to be any one of its possible state and necessary that
it should be in some possible state.
A thought on classical vs.
quantum logic. In the classical case the being is in one and only one state.
It has been suggested that in the quantum case the object may participate in
more than one state. But it is not clear to me whether this is a truth or an
artifact of the conception of quantum states in classical terms.
4.4. An
ACTUAL state of a being B is possible. This may be called B
possible.
Possibility
for the universe
4.5. UNIVERSAL POSSIBILITY, UNIVERSAL ACTUALITY,
and the GREATEST
POSSIBILITY are identical.
4.5.1. Though
we may conceive possibility greater than universal, there is not and can not
be a greater possibility.
4.5.2. Such
greater conceived possibility could lie in the range of universal to logical
(as defined later) or beyond the logical (which would be logically
contradictory). The former might seem possible but the latter does not even
seem possible.
Cosmos and
epoch
4.6. An
EPOCH is a phase of sameness and difference for a being over
which the being does not mutate and which is causally connected; for the
phase, it is weakly causally connected to—or temporarily isolated from—the
rest of the universe.
4.6.1. A
COSMOS is a being or domain whose constitution is regarded as
immutable over a limited epoch—the epoch of the cosmos.
4.6.2. OUR COSMOS or THE EMPIRICAL COSMOS
is the domain of our empirical knowledge as understood in terms of our
natural laws (natural law is defined shortly).
4.6.3. The
empirical cosmos is not the universe. The universe will be seen to be
limitlessly greater than the empirical cosmos in extension (sameness,
difference, and their absence—which will be seen to include space and time)
and variety of Being.
4.6.4. COSMOLOGICAL POSSIBILITY refers to any outcome consistent with the constitution
of a cosmos in its epoch.
4.6.5. A
temporally deterministic cosmos would have only one outcome; an
indeterministic cosmos may have more than one possible outcome.
Natural
law and possibility
4.7. A
LAW, LAW OF NATURE,
or NATURAL
LAW is a READING of a pattern, usually generic, for a being (in
our experience, a cosmos).
4.7.1. A
law can be seen as a compound fact for the being in question or a universal
hypothesis.
Later we find that a universal
hypothesis as potentially applicable to all Being is empty. Valid
concepts of all Being as such satisfy no contingent condition—they are seen
to satisfy only ‘Logic’.
4.7.2. NATURAL POSSIBILITY, for a cosmos (and some other kinds of Being, e.g.
living beings) is defined by its constitution (to the exclusion of epoch).
4.7.3. Kinds
of natural possibility include PHYSICAL POSSIBILITY and BIOLOGICAL POSSIBILITY and PSYCHOLOGICAL POSSIBILITY (also see Sentient possibility).
Some writers do not consider
the psychological to be a natural kind.
Sentient
possibility
4.7.4. SENTIENT POSSIBILITY is the possibility of sentience as subject and agent.
Kinds include sentient possibility for the universe and for a being.
4.7.5. If
natural possibility were regarded as inert, we would not consider sentient
possibility natural.
4.7.6. Sentient
possibility includes capacity for thought and feeling and possibilities for
sentience driven action and creation.
4.7.7. A
limited case of sentience and biology that is HUMAN POSSIBILITY.
4.7.8. NON SENTIENT POSSIBILITY is possibility for a being or the universe as devoid
of sentience.
Other
kinds of possibility
For completeness, we may also
consider SOCIAL
POSSIBILITY, CULTURAL POSSIBILITY, SYMBOLIC POSSIBILITY,
LINGUISTIC
POSSIBILITY, ECONOMIC POSSIBILITY, and POLITICAL POSSIBILITY.
Feasibility
FEASIBILITY is possibility of some
kind that is pertinent to individuals, societies, or civilizations that
includes some further concerns such as practicality, value, and desirability.
Logical
possibility and Logic
4.8. LOGICAL POSSIBILITY is whatever is allowed by Logic. Logical
possibility is conceivable possibility in general.
4.8.1. Logical
possibility is CONCEPTUAL POSSIBILITY in
general.
4.8.2. The
main kinds of possibility considered prior to the logical are the actual
and the possibility for a kind or case of Being or a system—general,
natural, universal and greatest, and sentient.
4.8.3. Whereas
the previous kinds of possibility are limits on Being, Logical possibility is
not a limit on Being but a limit on concepts for realizability.
4.8.4. The
capitalization in ‘Logical’ is explained shortly.
4.8.5. If
a conceptual representation of the universe satisfies Logic, its
realization is logically possible.
4.8.6. Whatever
is possible under the limiting kinds of possibility, is logically possible.
Conversely, the logically impossible concept is never and cannot be realized;
therefore all possibility lies within the logical.
4.8.7. (Therefore)
logical possibility is the greatest conceivable realizable possibility or,
because the possible must be realizable, more appropriately, the GREATEST
CONCEIVABLE POSSIBILITY; it must contain UNIVERSAL
POSSIBILITY.
4.8.8. If
our cosmos has the limits we normally assign to it, the logical possibilities
for the universe are far greater than the physical or cosmological
possibilities for our empirical cosmos—in terms of extension (‘space’, ‘time’,
other: that is, sameness and difference, and their absence) and kind. These,
the logical possibilities, are without limit—LIMITLESS—for which the term ‘infinite’ is inadequate.
4.8.9. Logical
possibility is the MOST LIBERAL POSSIBILITY—a
state cannot be obtain but not be logical. Note that the interpretation of Logic
here must include that given fact cannot be violated which brings the
concepts of Logic and reason (with citta—see citta—as ‘whole
being’) into alignment. That is, here logic is LOGIC as reason or CITTA AS LOGIC (where there would be no confusion capitalization for
the terms ‘Logic’ and ‘Logical’ is omitted).
4.8.10. The idea of Logic may be seen as arising in the
following way. The freedom of concept formation allows the formation of
concepts that purport to refer to the world, i.e. facts, that do not actually
so refer. That is the purported fact is not true. Similarly, the freedom of
concept formation allows compound concepts that contain internal
contradictions and so cannot refer to any world. When a compound concept can
refer to the world, it is ‘logical’; otherwise it is ‘illogical’. Now since
true facts can be regarded as percepts that do refer to the world and
percepts are a kind of concept, factual reference can be brought under logic
as Logic.
4.8.11. Here is a summary of the liberal extent of logical
possibility from Metaphysics > Some consequences. For a universe that is
the universe of logical possibility (a) the universe has limitless sentient
and cosmological identity (sense of self—identity is defined in
categories of identity…), e.g. of cosmoses against a void-transient
background (b) limitless physical laws, (c) limitless extension, (d) every
realization has a greater general as well as sentient realization, (e) so
realization is endless, and (f) these realizations are the realizations of
the individual.
4.9. Our
LOGICS are cases of logic. They are approximate in two
ways—in being incomplete and where not known to be consistent.
4.9.1. The
examples above illustrate the fact that Logic is a limit on thought
for realizability; it is not a limit on the world
4.9.2. As
an example an omnipotent being does not and cannot violate true Logic
because it is in the meaning of logic that it is not a limit.
Greatest
possible universe
4.10. The
concept of the GREATEST POSSIBLE UNIVERSE (GPU or gpu) is that of the universe defined by Logical
possibility.
If the concept of the gpu
were introduced independently we would be concerned with paradox inherent in
the indefinite use of ‘possibility’. Examples are the careless use of
language ‘it is possible that the possible is not possible’ and the fact that
there is not necessarily a greatest possible but only limitlessly greater
than anything conceived in appropriately careful language. However, the
burden of consistency is shifted to Logic. And for this there are apparati to
avoid inconsistency.
4.10.1. If, as is found in Metaphysics, the universe is the
greatest possible, then given any definite possibility or actuality, there is
(1) a greater definite possibility and actuality, (2) a greater definite
sentient possibility actuality.
A
hierarchy of possibility
Detail
Let = mean is the same as,
> mean includes but is not the same as, >= mean includes or is the same
as, and >> mean is much greater than.
4.11. These
considerations imply HIERARCHIES OF POSSIBILITY.
4.11.1. In NATURALISM:
logical >> universal > or >> natural = non sentient >
physical > sentient and human.
4.11.2. In some MONOTHEISM:
logical = universal = deistic possibility >> human, other sentient and
natural possibility.
4.11.3. In IDEALISM:
logical > absolute ideal = universal > other sentient > ‘natural’.
4.11.4. We will find that the universe is the gpu and
therefore, logical = universal >> natural and cosmological (our
cosmos); that for any epoch or being, some sentient epoch or being >>
that epoch; and that with suitable interpretation logical = universal =
sentient = human.
4.11.5. Therefore the great IDEALIST COSMOLOGY of Atman = Brahman.
4.11.6. The main kinds of possibility so far are for a being,
universal, natural, sentient, the greatest, and logical.
4.11.7. Later, as previewed here, universal and logical
possibility will be found to have the same extension.
4.11.8. If universal possibility was lesser than that of an
ideal or symbolic Logic, it would suggest an alternate and
in-equivalent definition for logic.
Summary.
4.11.9. We are sure that logical = greatest conceivable
realizable >= greatest = universal >= natural >= physical.
4.11.10. We will find that logical = greatest and universal = UNIVERSAL NATURAL
POSSIBILITY > LOCAL NATURAL
POSSIBILITY.
4.12. We
will also find that for any state, sentient being will and all sentient being
may access greater states.
Metaphysics
What is
metaphysics?††
Key terms
What is
metaphysics?
In philosophy the term
‘metaphysics’ is used to refer to an historical through modern subject that
has some continuity as well as some discontinuity. There are common themes,
yet there is no perfect consensus on what metaphysics is. Why?
In the following I will
discuss the meaning and possibility of metaphysics, for they are dependent on
each other. The meaning of metaphysics—the discussion—has a a neutral side,
whether there is a reasonable consensus on the nature of metaphysics; and a
committed side, what I take metaphysics to be and why.
A. Though
metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, the term has uses outside philosophy.
Among non-philosophers metaphysics is sometimes equated to superstition or
religion or topics such as healing with crystals. However these are quite
different conceptions of metaphysics and have little to do with
‘philosophical metaphysics’—and when writing for a purely academic audience
this would be understood. Yet these different meanings do affect the
attitudes of many non-academics and even some academics, especially outside
philosophy. So, even if it is made clear that the sense of metaphysics is the
philosophical sense one can expect negative reactions to the term
‘metaphysics’ that stem from such uses. Because of such reactions I have
considered neutral alternatives to the term ‘metaphysics’.
B. One
philosophical use of metaphysics is knowledge of Being as it is. It is quite
correct to question whether this is possible at all. One traditional division
of metaphysics is what Immanuel Kant and Christian WOLFF called SPECIAL METAPHYSICS.
It includes the study of special beings such as material bodies and souls. The
tradition of idealism in the continent and Britain and America till about the
beginning of the twentieth century might be called RATIONAL
SPECULATION—i.e. rational systems that while
they did not necessarily contradict experience were not entailed by it. It is
not surprising that the logical atomism of the early twentieth century
took exception to all these matters (yet logical atomism is now seen as
metaphysical which suggests that it is the meaning rather than the existence
of metaphysics that should be in question). At this point it should be asked
whether metaphysics is possible. One answer is that section Being, which may
be called metaphysical knowledge of the world, is already an elementary
empirical, rational and necessary metaphysics (and that elementary beginning
will be developed into a powerful system in the present chapter). Thus it can
be said that there is definitely one necessary and powerful system that may
be labeled ‘metaphysics’. Still it is necessary to take care to not admit
mere speculation or, at least, to label speculation where it is admitted.
That is, while Immanuel Kant pre-eminently raised the question of the
possibility of metaphysics as knowledge of Being in itself and
independent of experience, we show here that there is such knowledge via
experience yet true (emphatically we do not argue that all knowledge is like
that; in fact science is not; much of our common experience is not; and this
is vital to the system to be developed—which will be a RATIONAL-IN-THE-SENSE-OF-CITTA
DUAL METAPHYSICS according to a RATIONAL DUAL
EPISTEMOLOGY).
C. Let
us compare modern science and the modern ‘secular’ world view with the idea
of metaphysical knowledge of the world. How are modern theories of science
arrived at? Consider the example of relativity. In the late nineteenth
century it seemed to many thinkers that physics was essentially complete—even
though Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwell’s electromagnetism were known by some
scientists to be fundamentally inconsistent. It was fundamentally this
inconsistency that led to the relativistic reformulation of mechanics. To do
so, it was necessary to modify concepts of space and time. Though Einstein
presented this as a reasoned consequence of the principle of relativity and
the constancy of the speed of light, it is in fact speculative. We do not
regard it as speculative because of its consistency and manifold experimental
verification (non falsification). The essential difference between a
speculative metaphysics and speculative science tends to be (a) the
elementary concepts of science are suggested by experiment and measurement
and (b) science maintains close contact with experiment. So what is the
difference between a rational metaphysical system and science? It is one of
immediate applicability. But why would we want a metaphysical system if we
have science? Consider the issues—the final foundation of our science, e.g.
the source of gravitation; and the reach of science, e.g. what came before
the big bang, what lies outside the scientific-empirical cosmos (including
the multiverse in so far as it is empirical), and what is the connection
between consciousness and matter. Here are some possible
inroads for metaphysical system. Thinkers with a positivist orientation will
object. However, (1) as long as exaggerated claims are not made thinking
about the universe in any terms is just what it is (and may have future
value), and (2) in this essay I develop a positive metaphysics.
D. But
the secular view sometimes goes beyond empirical science. It is a very common
often implicit DEFAULT WORLDVIEW that our science
has shown near ‘everything’—i.e., it is a view of SCIENCE AS
ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE. However, there is no
basis for this. What science has done is to define an empirical ‘universe’
that we, conventionally andor tacitly, conflate with the universe and then
conclude that science has shown near everything. That is pure speculation
without basis—it is metaphysics-at-its-worst, precisely because it seems to
be rational. Here then is one value of metaphysics. Almost every human being
and culture has at least a tacit metaphysics. Therefore one value of explicit
metaphysics is to bring the tacit out into the open and evaluate it. Here, I
must point out again that the metaphysics under development in this essay
provides a wider view than the scientific or normally experiential, one that
is empirical-rational and that contains science and experience where they are
valid. The metaphysics of the essay does not deny science but it
does—will—deny that science is anywhere near the whole story—and that we have
any sound basis of knowing science to be anywhere near the whole story.
E. In
looking at what is recognized as pre-modern and modern metaphysics there is
no clear and unified subject. What we find is a loosely related assortment of
topics. Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) lists some problems
as follows—divided into an old or pre-modern and a new metaphysics. Problems
of the ‘old’ metaphysics—(1) Being As Such, First Causes, Unchanging Things,
(2) Categories of Being and Universals, and (3) Substance. Problems ‘new’
metaphysics—(4) Modality—i.e. necessary vs. contingent beings and essential
vs. contingent properties, (5) Space and Time, (6) Persistence and
Constitution, (7) Causation, Freedom and Determinism, and (8) The Mental and
Physical. An issue not mentioned is that of ‘abstract objects’ and this is
pertinent because some modern philosophers see metaphysics as the study of
abstract objects. The differences between the old and the new metaphysics
seem to be (a) a new attitude in which saying that there are no ‘metaphysical
objects’ is a metaphysical proposition (a source of the more neutral modern attitude
toward metaphysics) and (b) a concern with categories of Being, rather
different than the older categories, that are occasioned by modern
developments in philosophy and science.
F. But
what is common in all these endeavors? It does not seem easy to say. But
looking at the list above we could say that what is in that list lies under
the most general aspects of Being and sufficiently general related matters
(and perhaps add ‘not yet appropriated by the special disciplines’).
G. Here
another remark is appropriate. It is the nature of disciplines of knowledge
that their definition is not just harder than definition of physical objects
but also somewhat different in nature. Why? In part it has to do with the
fact that physical objects are (seem) given to us while the disciplines are
created by us (this is true of other social artifacts as well). Therefore, as
we have seen, the definition of an academic subject will evolve with history.
This is especially true of philosophy and its disciplines including
metaphysics today in a way that it is not so true of physics (for example).
Physics has a fairly definite subject matter in a way that would not have
been true more than about four to five hundred years ago when physics and
philosophy had not yet separated (and such separation occurs when a
discipline acquires definiteness). On the other hand a special concern of
philosophy has been investigation at the edge of what is definitely known
(because of this some philosophers and metaphysicians argue that their
discipline is not about knowledge of the world but about such things as the
nature of knowledge of the world). But definitely there is a area of
investigation outside science—first, the edge and second in that knowledge
itself is part of the world. Definitely this may have a speculative element
and where that is the case it should be acknowledged. Still, once again,
recall that this essay develops positive metaphysics.
H. That
is, for the disciplines, any good definition of an academic discipline
overlaps creation—that is ‘defining’ and ‘creating’ are not exclusive.
I. Therefore,
for the purposes of this essay, given that such a system has been developed,
I tentatively choose to regard metaphysics as TRUE KNOWLEDGE OF BEING—and metaphysical activity as the process of coming to
acquire such knowledge (which may require experiential action). The first
justification or that is that the essay develops a powerful metaphysical
system in just this sense.
J. But
there is more. The perfect universal metaphysics (the title will be
justified) to be developed shows that the universe is the realization of all
possibility and is consequently a framework for all true knowledge. That is
all science and endeavor is framed by the metaphysics.
K. But
what of the various topics mentioned earlier under metaphysics. These too
will be seen to be framed. Is there a first cause? The metaphysics enables an
answer (a beginning is already seen in the section on Being). That is the
metaphysics enables answers to the entire range of historical-modern
metaphysical problems.
L. There
is still more. The metaphysics shows that in fact there is no real
distinction to the abstract and the concrete—our distinctions are essentially
based on the two main ways of knowing—perception (empirical including
feeling) for the concrete, and higher conception for the abstract. That is,
there is a sense in which all knowledge is and can be framed by metaphysics.
There is an interesting discussion of such points under ‘methodology of
metaphysics’ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article linked above
(The Methodology of Metaphysics—Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
M. In
summary ‘what metaphysics is’ is seems complex. However, I shall use this
meaning—metaphysics as experiential and reflective knowledge of Being. It is
valid to do so provided it is made clear that it relates to only a relatively
traditional meaning and does not reject other meanings. But it should also be
noted that the general issue of ‘what is metaphysics’ is about nomenclature
and issues of priority (read ‘turf’) which ought to be irrelevant. Concepts
come before names or at least in interaction with names—the tendency to focus
first and primarily on words violates the nature of meaning.
N. Further
we have seen that the ‘consensus’—the most general aspects of Being and
sufficiently general related matters falls under and is tied together by the
meaning used here.
5. METAPHYSICS is experiential and reflective study and knowledge of
Being—the world, the universe—as it is.
5.1. Metaphysics—and
philosophy—have beginnings in recognizing THE VEIL
between knower and known; and in the attempt to lift the veil. In seeing, as
we will see, places where the veil is essentially ‘transparent’ and places
where its opaqueness is a virtue.
There are many conceptions and
activities of ‘philosophical metaphysics’. This is one. It is here justified
as fundamental in human knowledge and an ultimate metaphysics is
developed—this meaning is not just another meaning.
Other uses of ‘metaphysics’
are not intended to be minimized but it is important that in reading this
work, attention be paid to its meanings. Some meanings that will be at
least partially subsumed under the present meaning of metaphysics
are—metaphysics as the study of experience, as study of abstract
objects, a reason or Logic, and others.
The present conception of
metaphysics has been criticized on numerous counts. One is that it is not
even possible. However, when the concepts so far—Being and so on—are regarded
with sufficient abstraction, knowledge is precise and will emerge as ultimate
if abstract knowledge of our universe as ultimate in extension, e.g.
space-time and their absence, and variety of Being.
This abstract metaphysics is
ideally useful—in showing us the nature of the place in which we live. To
render it practical it will be consistently synthesized with the practical
knowledge and practice of human tradition, including the modern, and their
means.
Another criticism is that it
contradicts and minimizes our experience and common paradigms. In fact it
does not but even justifies them where they are valid and more—it
illuminates them and gives them context. And far from being minimizing, the
metaphysics of the narrative and its worldview necessarily have roots in
everyday life as much as in the ultimate and bridges the two.
As noted above, the main
justification is post-justification. The metaphysics of the essay is a
metaphysics that is perfect for ultimate knowledge and realization and that
while necessarily incomplete as a static achievement and therefore not in
need of static completion, shows itself to be process complete-able.
It is important to see that
while the idea of ‘given meaning’ is practically needed for communication,
there is a contrary need for open and fluid meaning when going beyond given
contexts. Discussions such as ‘What is metaphysics?” depend crucially on an
adequate meaning of concept and linguistic meaning.
The
methods of metaphysics
The method is reason.;
language is primary means of expression, communication, and part of the
method.
Note that appeal to content,
experience, experiment, and action are part of reason; and that what is valid
in tradition is part of this and so on. From Experience, meaning, and reason,
sand Introduction to reason, and the later section on Reason in light of the
metaphysics, these are very broad.
We develop a sense in which
metaphysics and reason are identical. Abstraction, for example as in Being,
universe, and the void and further developed in the present chapter and later
in Abstract and concrete objects, is crucial to the development. That
abstract and concrete objects are not distinct—as seen later—suggests, as
argued by W.V. Quine and others, that valid descriptions of the real
carry ‘ontological commitments’—see (Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
On reflection, however, these commitments are already present in universal
metaphysics, i.e. in the fundamental principle, i.e. in the existence of the
void.
That is, ultimately, method
and reason are not gods to which universe-as-content is subject. The universe
is its content and process and all that may lie in between (such as
relationship, quality, dynamics, agency and so on). Put another way, as we
have seen, method is content and low level content provides the first ground
for experiments in method (reason). This unity will be seen more flat and
well knit with the developments that follow.
The void
and the fundamental principle of metaphysics††
Key terms
A
fundamental principle of metaphysics
5.2. We
will find that the universe is the realization of all possibility. The proof
idea is that the void has no laws and so results in realization of all
possibility. Proof, omitted in some brief versions, now follows.
5.2.1. Demonstration. If
the universe is in a void or unmanifest state, there are no laws (since laws
have Being). Therefore, all logically possible states emerge from that void
state for the contrary would be a law (this proof is also plausible).
5.2.2. Demonstration—continued.
But a being and the void are just the being, so a void is present with
all beings—i.e., voids exist. But there is no difference between voids
existing and there being precisely one eternal void—the void—that
generates all Being including other voids.
5.3. That
is—The universe is the realization of all logical possibility. This is
the FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLE OF METAPHYSICS (also, the FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLE, fp, or FP). From earlier discussion this is equivalent to saying
that the universe is the greatest possible universe.
5.3.1. As
noted earlier the burden of consistency in the notions of limitlessness (and
the greatest possible universe) are shifted to Logic.
5.3.2. The
fundamental principle is the pivotal result of the ideas.
5.3.3. The
remainder of this chapter on metaphysics explores and develops the explicit
meaning—the metaphysics it entails and its conceptual meaning, objections and
responses, the depth and vastness of ‘material’ consequences, and human
significance.
5.3.4. The,
next chapter on cosmology explores the implicit meaning of the principle—i.e.
starting with fp and the metaphysics and then via synthesis of the
metaphysics and tradition—coded as a system of categories, it explores
consequences systematically and in detail, for general cosmological depth and
variety, origins of form and levels of Being, origins of physical cosmology,
and agency.
Substance
and the properties of the void
5.4. The
void exists. It is ultimately simple; yet it generates every state and being.
5.4.1. The
void is ultimate in power and potency; it is ultimate in causation—but this causation
is not mechanistic or necessary local.
5.4.2. (The
void is not the quantum vacuum but has similarities to it. The void generates
this cosmos and its vacuum state.)
5.4.3. Therefore
every state has the potential of all Being and is equivalent to every other
state.
5.4.4. There
is effectively a single void (except that there is at least one, the number
of voids has no significance).
5.4.5. Every
being or state, inherits the power of the void and is equally foundational.
5.4.6. Every
state generates every other state.
5.4.7. Therefore
there is no SUBSTANCE in the traditional
sense.
5.4.8. But
every being or state, including the void, may be thought of as the substance
or ultimate cause of Being and the universe.
5.4.9. The
universe is ABSOLUTELY INDETERMINISTIC in
that every state may emerge from any state. It is ABSOLUTELY
DETERMINISTIC in that every state is
already given and will emerge from any state.
Some
consequences of the fundamental principle
Key terms
Some
consequences of the fundamental principle
5.5. The
universe has identity (sense of self)—i.e., there is UNIVERSAL
IDENTITY. Individual identity shares in
universal identity and, ultimately, INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY IS UNIVERSAL IDENTITY.
5.5.1. The
individual is an expression of potential or disposition, comes
from and returns to the universal; has access to this knowledge which is
entire in abstract principle if limited in detail; has ultimate realization
as an inevitable imperative; and while eternal rebirth has validity—that is
not karma (here) and, in any case, that ‘karma’ is at most a fragment of
meaningful reality, perhaps symbolic in its usefulness.
5.5.2. Karma
is not just a limited identity that is reborn as itself. Every identity is
reborn as every other; which includes the least and the greatest.
5.5.3. KARMA (here) is participation in ultimate universal process
in the present and toward the ultimate.
5.5.4. The
universe and its identity go through manifest cosmological and void
phases—limitlessly.
5.5.5. The
universe is limitless— has limitlessness—with regard to variety
and extension (sameness and difference and their absence—to be identified as
time, space, and their absence). It is limitless with regard to PEAK and dissolution.
5.5.6. Note
that LIMITLESSNESS is contrasted to THE INFINITE; there are infinitely many infinities but at most one
counts as limitless.
5.5.7. Ours
is but one cosmos; there is a LIMITLESS ARRAY OF COSMOSES of limitless variety, all in transient communication
with the void, sometimes via a TRANSIENT BACKGROUND.
5.5.8. Every
cosmos has its ‘laws of nature’; while they may be the same among some cosmoses,
there is limitless variety of the laws, from slight to great differences;
thus there is no universal law (though universal, Logic is not law); thus the
correct view of laws is that they are compound facts on particular domains
(that the facts are laws implies that the essential information is
significantly less than the raw information in the compound fact).
5.5.9. A
question to be addressed is not whether this obtains but what its
significance is, what are the kinds and frequencies of the various kinds of
cosmoses—and a related question of mechanisms of
formation-sustenance-dissolution, and the place of sentient Being amid this
eternity.
5.6. SENTIENT BEING is the place of significance. And as we have
seen, given any being or cosmos, there is a greater sentient being and
creation by a sentient being.
5.6.1. If
you wish you may think in terms of ‘GOD’
in relation to ever greater sentience but the truth is that we participate in
and are the ultimate.
5.7. Regarding
the issue of all possibilities, how can apparently contradictory
possibilities be realized? True contradictions of course are not realized.
However, amid the array of cosmoses there are limitless earths and near
earths and in the latter there are alternate histories that were they but one
history would be contradictory. The term ‘all possibilities’ harbors
potential contradiction and care is needed to avoid such contradiction.
5.7.1. The
relations among perfect identities, near identities, and all identity,
occurs, in one way, via connection in the receptacle of the dispositions.
5.7.2. A
basis of possibility theory in a system such as the ZERMELO FRAENKEL
AXIOMS FOR SET THEORY, with or without the
axiom of choice, would be worthwhile investigation.
5.8. Metaphysics,
often said impossible, is possible.
5.8.1. We
have just constructed and developed such a powerful if abstract metaphysics.
However, though abstract the existence of the possibilities shown is
demonstrated. We now connect the abstract and the concrete.
A
universal metaphysics††
Key terms
Pure
metaphysics
5.9. THE PURE METAPHYSICS is the metaphysical framework consequent on the
universe as realization of all possibility. As derived from abstract versions
of concepts, this is perfectly true though abstract.
5.9.1. Because
the fundamental principle was derived from abstract versions of Being and
universe perfectly known according to correspondence criteria, the pure
metaphysics is perfect according to those criteria.
5.9.2. The
explicit meaning of the pure metaphysics is that the universe of logical
concepts has an object.
5.9.3. The
pure metaphysics may be defined as what Logic allows. Observe is that
this is a permissive rather than restrictive point of view. Importantly,
noting that our logics are not complete, this is an alternate and more inclusive
definition of logic. When enhanced by earlier observations regarding the idea
of logic we find an equivalence of metaphysics and Logic.
Tradition
and pragmatics
5.10. We
understand tradition to be what is valid knowledge in the history of
human culture including reason.
5.10.1. In principle tradition contains the universal
metaphysics (I am at least a small part of history) but it is convenient to exclude
the universal metaphysics temporarily.
5.10.2. Though we distinguish them for convenience, the pure
metaphysics is a limiting case of tradition.
5.11. As
we (beings) move from civilization to civilization, cosmos to cosmos,
pragmatic tradition is the perfect instrument in that trajectory of ultimate
realization.
5.11.1. Recall that the sameness and difference—concepts of
time and space are developed later—in which this happens is not just infinite
but limitless.
5.11.2. Even though tradition is imprecise and even though
imperfect for local purposes.
5.11.3. Of course, its particular form depends on the ‘cosmos’
under consideration (e.g. our cosmos, or what is becoming today recognized as
the multiverse, and or but which is easily seen not only to be immensely
minute relative to the universe but also small relative to cosmological possibilities).
5.11.4. Our tradition is the present point in an unending
sequence of ‘pragmatic metaphysics’.
Perfect
metaphysics and epistemology
5.12. The
join of the universal metaphysics and tradition provide a PERFECT
METAPHYSICS (PERFECT UNIVERSAL
METAPHYSICS OF THE ULTIMATE) of
realization
5.12.1. Within that perfection, the pure metaphysics and
tradition each plays a perfect role—the pure according to correspondence
criteria and tradition according to pragmatic criteria.
5.12.2. This perfect metaphysics is also called THE UNIVERSAL
METAPHYSICS or simply THE METAPHYSICS (this extends the earlier meanings of ‘the universal
metaphysics’ and ‘the metaphysics’).
5.13. This
also defines a PERFECT DUAL EPISTEMOLOGY.
5.13.1. Note again, that the normal problems of epistemology remain
for local purposes. The value of pragmatic knowledge remains. However, the
pure alters the significance of tradition. The latter is no longer our final
instrument for our final knowledge. It is a drop in the universe. Of course
it is, for us, a very large drop—our local and temporary ‘universe’.
5.14. The
pure and the pragmatic form a joint system that is perfect to the goal of the
process of ultimate realization.
5.14.1. The pure will frame, clarify, extend, and be fleshed by
the pragmatic; the pure illuminates and gives justification to the pragmatic;
the pragmatic is illustrative and, as noted earlier, taken to a limit of
reason, it includes the pure; their criteria are PERFECTLY ADAPTED: each to its ends and both jointly to the
metaphysics and The Way.
5.14.2. The pure part of the metaphysics is perfect according
to correspondence criteria and the pragmatic according to PRAGMATIC
CRITERIA. Since the join is perfect in
ultimate realization the perfect metaphysics is perfect according to ULTIMATE CRITERIA. These are of course ultimate relative to ultimate
aims—local precision does not become a disvalue (but of course its value is
revalued by the ultimate: it remains of local significance but lesser
ultimate significance).
5.14.3. Essential values to metaphysical clarity are truth and
understanding. The perfect metaphysics has the VALUE of (a) showing the ultimate character of the universe
and our ultimate relationship to it and (b) means of realization. Beyond
these general values, there are specific values to the metaphysics—many are
explored below.
Also, in longer versions of
this essay, see The Universal Metaphysics as resource.
Relationship
to history of ideas
The
fundamental question of metaphysics
The
question
5.15. The
question of why there is something at all rather than just nothingness has
been seen as intractable. It has been called ‘the fundamental question of
metaphysics’.
The
fundamental principle resolves the fundamental question
5.15.1. Clearly the fundamental principle resolves the problem.
The fundamental principle
includes that given the universe in a void or non-manifest state, manifest Being
must emerge.
Let us therefore reflect
further on why the fundamental question has been considered a problem.
Further
reflections on the question
A satisfactory
answer must be a necessary answer that shows the existence of all
possibilities
5.15.2. A satisfactory resolution to the fundamental question
must be necessary—and, of course, non relative (to further posits, axioms,
and so on).
5.15.3. But how could there be a necessary answer? The
necessary answer would have to include that the manifest and the non-manifest
are equivalent—given one, the other must also exist.
Note that we need only that
the non-manifest entail the manifest but given that it follows that the
manifest entail the non-manifest.
5.15.4. From symmetry, if the void or nom-manifest necessarily
entails manifestation of one logically possible state it also necessarily
entails all logically possible states to manifest.
5.15.5. That is, an adequate proof would prove the necessity of
the existence of all possibilities.
5.15.6. And that is precisely what the fundamental principle /
universal metaphysics does but science and metaphysics so far do not do.
5.15.7. Thus the problem of something from nothing can no
longer be considered a problem.
Can we
extract a proof of the fundamental principle from the argument concerning a
satisfactory answer?
Experience
as a source of a new fundamental question of metaphysics
5.16. A
first candidate for a new fundamental problem—why is there experience
rather than inertness or nothingness?
5.16.1. The answer is the same as for why there is something
rather nothing—i.e., given fp, the existence of experience is
not fundamental.
5.16.2. A second candidate—it is also worth asking whether experience
is essential to Being. Is it possible that the universe should be without
experience? Clearly, in view of fp, not. But what if we ignore fp
for this purpose?
5.16.3. The existence of experience is unquestioned
(following Cartesian style argument). However, all experience has form and
therefore if elementary form did not have elementary experience there would
be magic-like emergence. On fp, this is not magic but without fp
it would be magic-like. Can we argue that in formed cosmoses all form has at
least elementary experience? This is addressed below.
A new
fundamental question—What has Being?
5.16.4. A new fundamental question of metaphysics is—What
has Being? Here, ‘has’ is atemporal.
5.16.5. This will be seen to be a collection of questions
without definite end.
5.17. Power
is the measure of Being. There are no further absolute grades of the real
beyond what affects our world. That is, in the ultimate, our world is the
universe.
5.17.1. Beyond power, we can look for levels, categories, and
modalities; and particular entities. What has Being? That is a question that
shall ever be in a process of being answered.
Being and
perception
5.18. Let
us call ‘my significant universe’ (our significant universe) the
universe-of-Being-that-has-an-effect-on-our-conscious-content.
5.18.1. In a sense that is our effective universe.
5.19. There
is one universe that is (a) the ‘universe’ all Being, (b) the ‘universe’ of
interactions, and (c) the significant ‘universe’.
5.20. There
is no object apart from power and at least indirect effect on experience—but
power and experience can be extracted from the object by abstraction in some
cases and according to some criteria. This is why it is possible and even
adaptive to sometimes think in terms of ‘the object’ or objects in
themselves. Particularly, the triad of experiencer-experience-experienced
may sometimes be thought of as ‘in-itself’. Generally, however the
object-as-perceived is not an object-apart-from-perception and thinking of
one as the other may lead to error or imprecision of fact and minor to utter
misconception of the nature of the object. Conversely, critique of the
con-fusion and clarification of thought-conception can lead to understanding
limits of observation and clarification about the nature of the object and
constitution of objects unattainable by care in observation.
Note that the comment just
above could have been placed as early as the section Being, universe, and the
void††.
Proof—role
and issues
Key terms
Doubts
about the proof of the universal metaphysics
5.21. The
essence of the proof is the proof of the fundamental principle.
5.21.1. It is principled to doubt the proof from the nature of
the proof, the magnitude of the implications, and the apparent contradiction
of experience.
This section addresses the
first two of those concerns; the concern about experience is addressed in the
next section. The magnitude of the implications are not an actual doubt but
reasons that doubt should be taken seriously. What remains is the nature of
the proof. What kind of doubt may be had regarding the proof?
Triviality
of the proof
5.21.2. The proof seems trivial. Note that all necessary proof is trivial insofar as
tautological but here ‘trivial’ means ‘obvious’. This is not a formal mark
against the proof but, especially given the magnitude of the consequences,
triviality suggests something may have been overlooked.
Response. Well, it is not trivial
for its recognition is absent in the literature or at least rare enough that
I have not seen it in extensive reading. Intrinsically, though, the proof is
not at all trivial. It become trivial only after shedding of a vast
ontological confusion, seeing what the confusion was, and careful and
iterative selection of a system of concepts free of constraining and
contradictory ontological commitments.
The proof
is not original
5.21.3. Of course non originality is not a mark against the
proof but, again, it might suggest that ‘we already know all that’ so what’s
new?’ What is new is that even if the proof is non-original, it may be
original to take the proof and its consequences seriously and so to be able
to develop a potent metaphysics. I will now argue as to the newness (but also
see the previous section on triviality of the proof).
Response 1. In Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein comes tangentially close to the
idea of the proof in equating metaphysics and Logic. That would
perhaps make the proof trivial and non-original. However, Wittgenstein
neither claims nor demonstrates the fundamental principle, i.e. the universal
metaphysics. What he says is that given the universe as a collection of
atomic facts, all the facts—metaphysics—are just the compound facts and to
determine the truth of any asserted fact is a matter of logic. The present
metaphysics is not a metaphysics of atomic fact and is neutral to the issue
of whether facts are ultimately atomic. It does give priority to logic as and
in determining the boundary of what obtains—it says that logic is the only
limit on conception for realization (this is not a limit on the universe).
That is Wittgenstein’s metaphysics is a LIMITED METAPHYSICS OF FACT and not one of possibility. For Wittgenstein, in the
Tractatus, logic comes in because there is a collection of true atomic facts
and all other facts are true or false in virtue of being vs. not being a
truth functional combination of those facts (including singletons).
Response 2. The PRINCIPLE OF
PLENITUDE, in one of its forms, is that
anything that is possible it will occur. This is an ancient idea that has
recurred in many forms; were it to be the fundamental principle and were it
to have been proven it would show the fundamental principle proven and
non-original. However, it is not the fundamental principle. It’s deficiencies
relative to that principle are (a) it is stated without proof as perhaps
reasonable, (b) perhaps because stated without proof it is not taken
seriously or well understood for its usual applications have been trivial and
taken from normal cosmology or to support traditional religion, and (c) where
there are arguments for it they are deficient. Immanuel Kant asserted that
given an infinite amount of time, whatever is possible will occur. In the
first place this is not true. A possible event may have zero probability.
What Kant might have said is that given limitless realization all
possibilities will occur. But the reason that we see the need for limitless
realization is precisely because of the proof. Also, there is no hint that
possibility itself needs to be explored. Here, the earlier exploration of the
nature of possibility was occasioned by the proof, and in turn, this
led to the present exploration of the possibilities. In summary, the
principle of plenitude is an idea and not a rational metaphysics.
Response 3. The fundamental
principle sounds rather like David LEWIS’
MODAL
REALISM regarding POSSIBLE WORLDS: possible universes or worlds exist, there is an
infinite number of them, every possible world is a concrete entity, any
possible world is causally and spatiotemporally isolated from any other
possible world, and our world is among the possible worlds. Note that Lewis’
metaphysics is significantly lesser than the one developed here (infinity
instead of limitlessness, causal isolation, somewhat circular in its
development of the concept of possibility) and lacks proof.
5.21.4. Returning to the question of triviality, it is only
after the proof is given that it becomes manifestly trivial. Triviality
however is not an argument.
The proof
is not founded in fact
5.21.5. Another argument is that the proof is not founded in
fact; and that every proof ultimately
rests on assumption or axiom.
Response. However, we have
already seen that the Being of the universe, beings, Being itself and so on
are given as necessary-facts-from-observation-by-abstraction. Therefore they
are empirical and precise. This is a remarkable exception to the traditional
notion that all philosophy—and science—must be either a RELATIVE
METAPHYSICS in being non-terminating or a NON RELATIVE
METAPHYSICS but founded in
axiom-assumption. It is worth emphasizing that this reiterates a
interpretation of logic (Logic) in its traditional sense enhanced by
necessary fact (or reason in its traditional sense enhanced by fact). But
note that while the necessary facts begin as
facts-necessary-after-establishment, this restriction is no longer
metaphysically necessary once the proof of the metaphysics is accepted.
The proof
is not founded in reason
Response. Well, yes it is.
It is a kind of ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT—an
argument that appeals to the nature or properties of existence or Being.
The proof
is a kind of ontological argument
5.21.6. Yet another argument against the proof of FP is that, like the ontological argument for the
existence of God, it is a proof by appeal to pure logic and so, by analogy
with the ontological proof, it must fail.
Response. However, this
rather repeats the previous objection where we saw a necessary empirical
foundation from which logic was able to build. Note, also, that this shows
that while some ontological arguments may fail, others may succeed.
Comment. Still we have an
obligation to support the proof. We may do this by providing alternate lines
of proof and heuristic arguments to appeal to intuition.
Alternate
proofs, heuristics, and other arguments
5.22. The
purpose to HEURISTIC ARGUMENT(s) is to
assuage doubt from intuition; heuristics are not presented as alternate
proofs. Here are some heuristic arguments in skeletal form.
5.22.1. Existence of the void is equivalent to non-existence.
5.22.2. Any system of laws of nature apply only to the
manifest.
5.22.3. Ockham’s Principle
applied to what does not exist.
5.22.4. The principle of plenitude—as discussed above.
5.22.5. Also see can we extract a proof of the fundamental
principle from the argument concerning a satisfactory answer?
Proofs in
this essay
The
limited role of proof
5.23. While
proof is critical we also need:
5.23.1. Significant meaning—occurs in sentience, sentient
organism can exceed knowledge and creation of any ‘inert’ possibility,
perhaps the highest significance as in the aim of The Way is
living-well-in-this-world-on-the-way-to-and-from-the-ultimate.
5.23.2. What is worthwhile—what is value and what particulars
are of value.
5.23.3. Mechanism and likelihood—to make distinctions of
feasibility and means in the region of limitless possibility.
5.23.4. Practice, action, and reason—as supplement to
knowledge… on the way to the ultimate. Note that action is already a part of
reason as seen earlier.
Objections
and responses to the universal metaphysics
Key terms
The
objections and responses
5.24. But metaphysics is not possible—in the first place because we do not have knowledge of
the object and in the second place because of the speculative nature of
metaphysics, especially what Kant called ‘special metaphysics’.
5.24.1. Response. We have
seen that we do have pure correspondence knowledge of what now emerges of an
abstract core to the metaphysics. We will further show that while knowledge
of the interior of the abstract framework is pragmatic, pragmatism is all
that is possible there but also precisely what is needed in filling out and
realizing the ultimate—it is perfect in its own way. That is, the pure and
the pragmatic together will constitute a perfect dual but unified ultimate
metaphysics of knowledge and for realization—and that is associated with a perfect
dual epistemology (which does not eliminate the local need for normal
epistemology). Finally, note that where not contradictory all special
metaphysics is realized per fp; the question that emerges concerns its
significance. This is addressed below, especially under cosmology and agency.
5.25. ‘All possibilities’ is a self-contradictory notion.
5.25.1. Response. The burden
of consistency was earlier shifted to Logic. Modern logic addresses
contradictions inherent in careless use of language. Probably not all
problems of language are yet uncovered. The burden of explicit consistency is
an in process endeavor. The universal metaphysics is SELF-CONSISTENT and EXTERNALLY CONSISTENT.
5.26. It is possible that Earth should not have
existed—therefore its existence is contradictory (this is a trivial example of how all possibilities
may be contradictory).
5.26.1. Response. Since this
Earth exists, it is not possible. There is no contradiction. In fact, from fp
it is necessary that Earth, its inhabitants, their experience should have
existed and shall exist over and over.
5.27. But is not multiple earths just repetitious?
5.27.1. Response. Yes but it
is repetitious as part of a limitlessly greater variety and adventure.
5.28. Does not the realization of all possibilities include
immense pain and suffering? Response.
Yes, but that is not an objection. Whereas pain might be a criticism of an
omnipotent and omni-benevolent God, it is not a criticism of the fundamental
principle. In the ‘significant universe’ pleasure and pain are commingled in
proportion and pain has some meaning and can be employed to positive purpose.
5.29. If all is possible why is the Earth the way it is?
5.29.1. Response. See the
earlier discussion of necessary fact. Further, it is necessary that some
place be the way Earth is. We call this a NORMAL
occurrence. What, in the normal, is not universally necessary but seems
locally necessary is but HIGH PROBABILITY
(ALMOST
CERTAIN) in the local; this could be
called NORMAL
NECESSITY; NORMAL IMPOSSIBILITY may be defined similarly. For example, a natural law
of our cosmos is a NORMAL LAW; our form is a NORMAL FORM. Similarly our experience of our world is a NORMAL WORLD.
5.30. The universal metaphysics and its implications
contradict science, experience, and common sense.
5.30.1. Response. We have
just seen examples of how apparent contradiction of expectation is not a true
contradiction. A full response, however, is to observe (a) that the
metaphysics requires our world as a normal world and therefore is not merely
consistent with but requires our science, experience, and common sense where
valid, and (b) it provides a reinterpretation of the normal world placing it
in a larger context.
5.31. There is and should be doubt about the proof of the
fundamental principle.
5.31.1. Response. This is addressed in the next section.
5.32. The concern with the ultimate denies the significance
of the immediate. To ignore limits is
to ignore the concerns of everyday life. It is grandiose and narcissistic.
5.32.1. Response. It is true that in thinking of the ideas in
this essay, I have been very much concerned with the ultimate. However (a) it
is in part because the universal metaphysics provides a new vision of the
ultimate, (b) a personal motivation was to find what the individual and
society may achieve, (c) the concern here is very much with the
immediate-in-itself as well as how appreciation of the immediate and the
ultimate are both enhanced by the mutual concern, and (d) a practical concern
is living well in this life as being on the way to ultimate realization, and
(e) the very real difficulties of living well and so on are recognized as an
essential part of becoming.
Attitude††
Key terms
The
problem of doubt
Consistency
of the metaphysics
Existential
attitude
5.33. Since
the universal metaphysics is internally and externally consistent, we may
validly adopt it as an EXISTENTIAL ATTITUDE
even if we doubt its proof.
5.33.1. What should or may we do if we do not accept the proof
of the fundamental principle? Given its internal and external consistency and
value, we can adopt an existential attitude—that the implications of
the universal metaphysics and the fundamental principle are so great in value
and magnitude that there is value in adopting it as a stance and in devoting
energies to it in parallel with other traditional pursuits, secular and
mundane and more.
Existential
and optimal stance
5.33.2. If we assign the infinite value to the limitless
potential under the universal metaphysics, then an optimal approach to ‘this
life’ is to devote sufficient energies to the immediate while reserving
energy also for the infinite potential.
Abstract
and concrete objects††
Key terms
Abstract
and concrete objects
5.34. The
universal metaphysics empowers understanding and unification of concrete
objects and abstract objects.
5.34.1. Object is interpreted generally to include fact, thing,
process, interaction, quality or property, ‘fiction’.
5.34.2. From the fundamental principle there is no fiction
except the logically impossible and that too can be seen as vacuously
satisfied.
5.34.3. A bound concept is one that is in its nature of an
object. A free concept is not bound—it is at least part pure creation and may
seek attachment to simple and compound objects
5.34.4. If the universe is the universe of Logic then
all concepts, free and bound, are realized:
5.34.5. Obviously all concepts, free and bound, consistent and
otherwise are in the universe (the inconsistent objects, vacuously).
5.34.6. The inconsistent do not define objects, except the null
object—the void whose existence is given as far as power is concerned but
moot as far as manifest Being is concerned.
5.34.7. All other concepts have objects.
5.34.8. Relative to human Being, the concrete objects are
roughly the perceived and the abstract are conceived for which a degree of
concreteness, e.g. spatiotemporality—defined later, is not included in the
abstract.
5.34.9. I.e. all objects, abstract and concrete, are in the one
universe.
5.34.10. This constitutes a unification of the abstract and
concrete; they are not essentially different. The difference is one of
filtering rather one of nature. The distinction is conventional. The abstract
can be causal unless causation is filtered out. The abstract and the concrete
lie on a continuum.
5.34.11. The abstract lend themselves to conceptual or rational
study and symbolic representation. The concrete to perceptual or empirical
study and iconic representation. Language straddles the iconic-symbolic
divide.
5.34.12. Logic, potential, reason, concepts, mind-and-matter-in-so-far-as-they-exist,
are in the universe—are real.
5.35. Thus
fp resolves issues of the concrete and the abstract. fp:
every Logical concept has an object.
5.35.1. Consequences: no essential difference between concrete
and abstract objects or beings (abstraction omits concreteness, e.g.
cause and space); Being is a being; REALISMS—LOGICAL REALISM, MATHEMATICAL REALISM,
and SCIENTIFIC
REALISM—are on par: from fp,
mathematical systems are abstract sciences of forms which are real (and in
Platonic worlds as parts of the one universe); all content—perhaps neither
literal nor explicit, e.g. art—that has possible objects has real objects…
5.36. Further
consequences: DEATH, real but not absolute,
is reminder that this life is no less significant than the ultimate
and so to live well; the ultimate abstract is a RECEPTACLE of DISPOSITION to
emerging-merging-reemerging identity of substantial beings…
5.36.1. Still further consequences: local science as locally
valid but otherwise shed like snakeskin in
transcending a cosmos; religions as allegorically real and socially
significant but premature if taken literally; which suggests The Way of
Being, the aim of wholeness, of real religion, as discovery-realization
of immediate-ultimate Being by limited beings using all Elements and
Dimensions of identity and the world.
Reason in
light of the metaphysics
Key terms
Introduction
5.37. Metaphysics
is Logic interpreted as reason
As reason, Logic has the
following extensions to logic-as-necessary-inference:
5.37.1. Inclusion of hypothetical or inductive inference that
is less or other than necessary,
5.37.2. Inclusion of fact or premise and determination of fact,
5.37.3. Extension of necessary inference and definite fact to
the pure metaphysics.
A final extension is to the
perfect metaphysics of the world:
5.37.4. Extension of the foregoing to the perfect metaphysics
which though a unitary metaphysics, is dual—the pure and the
pragmatic—with regard to function and criteria.
The full
metaphysics and its rationale
5.38. Under
the universal metaphysics, there is no essential distinction between the concrete
and the abstract; they form a continuum—the ABSTRACT-CONCRETE
CONTINUUM; and ‘all objects’ exist is the
fundamental principle. The abstract and the concrete exist in the one
universe; in the abstract the concrete is suppressed rather than essentially
absent.
5.38.1. Here, science is interpreted broadly to include
the concrete and the abstract; and non-dogmatic RELIGION as addressing inner Being in light of both truth and
rational imagination beyond the empirical.
Metaphysics,
Logic, and Reason
5.39. In
this and the next sections on logic, mathematics, science, and religion, each
topic establishes the general case and then its enhancement or restriction
under fp; this practice is continued in discussing cosmology and
agency.
Logic,
mathematics and science
5.40. The
valid comparison of logic, MATHEMATICS and science, is (a) discovery and creation of the systems
which is not intrinsically necessary and (b) inference under those systems
which is frequently necessary inference. Specifically, the comparison of
deduction under logic with inference to scientific theories from data etc. is
not a proper comparison.
Logic
5.40.1. We have seen various interpretations of logic beginning
with necessary inference that occurs because the conclusion is implicit in
the premise.
Mathematics
5.40.2. In its beginnings mathematics is empirical and
interwoven with what passes for early science.
5.40.3. However, we learn over history that some patterns are
general and can be seen to have a formal character. They can be expressed in
abstract or symbolic terms as axiomatic systems. If the universe is the
greatest possible, then any mathematical system that is logically consistent
has objects in the universe which may be seen as abstract.
5.40.4. Today, mathematics does not use the empirical approach
even though it has objects—for locating those objects would be difficult; and
what is more the symbolic approach gives mathematics a necessity that it
would not have if empirical. This necessity is not at all obvious over
history—i.e., its necessity is after the fact; and there is an entire study
of that necessity. It begins with the idea of definite proof but we know from
experience that that is not enough and so we have the metamathematical
disciplines of proof theory and model theory.
Science
5.41. But
beings have constitutions and perhaps other facts—or states of affairs.
5.41.1. More precisely: a fact is correct PERCEPTION of a STATE OF BEING
or object.
5.41.2. We say facts can be correct because claimed facts can
be incorrect (usually, fact will mean ‘correct fact’). How is a fact
validated? Observation, measurement, corroboration, and argument (below) are
among the means.
5.41.3. There are also COMPOUND FACTS, e.g. the natural laws. The laws of nature are usually
regarded as tentatively universal; but they may also be seen as local facts;
which view is less problematic. But then: the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is available for validation: the law is hypothesized
and as local may be validated (e.g. a very limited epoch); which does not
rule out law as UNIVERSAL HYPOTHESIS. Unlike
the necessity of logic, science as universal hypothesis is not necessary and
goes under the names of scientific method or inference, induction,
or abduction.
Metaphysical
logic
5.42. Metaphysical language, logic, mathematics, and science will be the study of the variety
implied by the fundamental principle and harbored in the universal
metaphysics.
5.42.1. While we have already begun this, the concern here is
the difficult, the detailed, and the esoteric but not to the exclusion of the
exoteric.
5.42.2. Tradition as understood in this essay is important. It
may be enhanced in interaction with the present developments.
Regarding
religion
5.43. Our
naïve idea of religion is informed by naïve religion.
5.43.1. What shall we do regarding the limitlessness beyond the
empirical? A common pragmatic and secular default is that there is no such
realm.
5.43.2. However, we have seen that there is and it is very
worthwhile contemplating, attempting to map, and travel. We are giving tools.
5.43.3. Among our tools are what might be called philosophical
religion, symbolic religion, reason, and the pure metaphysics.
5.43.4. Intuition and imagination are essential but are part of
Logic in its extended sense of reason.
Potency of
the idea of Being
Key terms
The
potency of the idea of Being
5.44. The
POTENCY
OF THE CONCEPT OF BEING of the idea of
Being so far includes avoiding paradigmatic prejudice. The power of the
concept includes its indifference to such high level distinctions such as mind
vs. matter and the real vs. the experienced and shows these distinctions
ultimately moot even though pragmatic. Being is also indifferent to such low
level distinction such as entity vs. event, state vs. interaction vs.
process, object vs. property vs. attribute, place, tense, and gender. It is
significant that the indifference of Being to the distinctions is such that
it also allows them.
5.45. Further,
as the pure and the pragmatic, each on its criteria, are perfect, the FOUNDATION is perfect (this reflects an idea—perfection does not
pertain to the world as whole). Contrary to a long tradition of
post-enlightenment criticism, there is potent metaphysics as knowledge of
Being. Its source: PERFECT CATEGORIES—beings,
universe, Being, void, possibility, and pragmatism. This contrasts with the
imperfect if useful categories of Kant and Schopenhauer.
Cosmology
Introduction††
What is
cosmology?††
Key terms
What is
cosmology?
6. COSMOLOGY is the study of the KINDS OF BEING, VARIETY OF BEING,
and EXTENSION
OF BEING over all sameness and difference
and their absence. Cosmology is continuous with metaphysics and ontology.
Note: extension includes spatial extension as well as DURATION.
6.1. Cosmology
emphasizes special cases from our EMPIRICAL COSMOS to the universe—this is the contrast to metaphysics.
6.1.1. GENERAL COSMOLOGY is cosmology without particular reference to detail.
Its objects are those of the pure metaphysics.
6.1.2. Particular
cosmologies are defined by aspects of the universal metaphysics.
6.1.3. COSMOLOGY OF FORM is study of FORM,
particularly of enduring forms whose stability is a function of
symmetry and that result from processes of adaptation.
6.1.4. PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY is defined by laws of physics but not necessarily the
specific laws of out empirical cosmos.
6.1.5. We
will also be concerned with the COSMOLOGY OF SENTIENCE which is its inevitable as well as chosen and
engineered destiny—as far as these occur.
Principles
and methods of cosmology: the categories of Being††
Key
terms—general
Key terms
for the category of agency
Agency and
general terms
Elements
of identity
Elements
of interaction
Elements
of process
Inclusive
and powerful
6.2. The
GENERAL
PRINCIPLE OF COSMOLOGY is the universal
metaphysics.
Particular
and incisive
6.3. We
study cosmology systematically in its concrete aspects of variety, origins of
form and levels of Being, origins of physical cosmology, and agency via ‘CATEGORIES OF
BEING AND REASON’ which are the PARTICULAR
PRINCIPLES OF SPECIAL AND GENERAL COSMOLOGY.
The
Categories of Being and Reason: principles of form, formation, and dynamics
Introduction
to the Categories
6.4. Traditionally,
the categories are a catalog of the highest genera. The systems of Aristotle,
Kant, Schopenhauer, and Whitehead are well known.
6.4.1. Here,
the categories of Being and reason are assigned the aim of an effective
foundation for metaphysics. EFFECTIVE FOUNDATION
aims at a metaphysics of maximal power.
6.4.2. The
foundation is the universal metaphysics (cum tradition).
6.4.3. The
focus is to find basis for form (ontology), formation (process, generation),
and dynamics (e.g., for prediction). Note that dynamics might have been
bracketed under formation.
6.4.4. As
genera and for completeness, Being will be a category. As they are real and
interwoven with Being, experience and reason will be categorial. Note
that our tendency to minimize the reality of ideas is a categorial error that
minimizes Being and universe. Inclusion, means that the categories include
their own principles and shall be founded rather than ad hoc or relative.
6.4.5. The
universal metaphysics and reason are the highest level paradigm. Abstract
science, especially mathematics, are an intermediate level. Tradition, especially
natural sciences of matter, life, and mind, shall provide
paradigms at a lower level. Recalling that reason includes citta
and the functions of art and literature, these are an adequate tentative
initial vertical and horizontal range for the categories.
Categories
at the level of Being
6.5. Being and reason; form
and formation are given by the universal metaphysics; the paradigm is
Logic; causation is Logic; process is absolutely indeterministic and
absolutely deterministic.
6.5.1. Experiencer-experience-experienced (subject-content-object), mind-world-matter
and substance metaphors or approximations.
6.5.2. We
have seen that on strict monism, experience (e.g. consciousness)
and experienced (world, matter, experience itself) must
constitute a single substance. Therefore, experience is interaction, a
form of power. This is paradigmatic for any stable single substance
cosmos.
6.5.3. However,
in the general stable case, there may be many substances, each either a
single matter like substance or a experience-experienced substance.
Generally the substances need not but may interact.
6.5.4. In
the fully general case there may be matter-like Being, experience-experienced
like Being, and mostly experience like Being with simple form. All
these may interact.
6.5.5. It
is an evident principle that experience-experienced (mind-body)
should be studied each on its own terms and on mutually informing
rather than reductive terms.
Categories
of Stable Form and Formation; Formation of a world or cosmos
6.6. Indeterminism
yields many transients of which few are stable, have well formation
and symmetry, and aware reason. Being potent and long lived these
populations dominate the significant universe. The paradigm is
indeterministic increment and selection; sources of the paradigm are
evolutionary biology and reflection on necessity for origin of novel form.
Stable beings, stable cosmos, and stable physical laws are outcomes rather
than initial causes. However, once established, given any form, sentient
beings are and are agents of higher forms.
Categories
of Identity, Space, Time, and Dynamics
6.7. The
most elementary pattern is difference
with sameness across the universe’s oneness. IDENTITY is sense of sameness of object or person. Difference
with and without identity mark TIME
(duration) and SPACE (extension),
respectively, which would so be the modes of difference. Then the
universe is Being over all spacetime and its absence (other modes were just
seen improbable). Spacetime (difference) is IMMANENT in the world, not absolute, has and is of Being;
relations among identities across extension mediate change over duration.
Identity is transparent only when local: space-time-identity does not always
separate into its components. Where identity is fully absent, so is
spacetime. process, RELATION (as INTERACTION), and state have Being—and will found DYNAMICS. An epoch is a realm of fact relative to which
the rest of the universe is not determined.
6.7.1. Two
sources of identity and dynamics are ‘Logic’ at the most general level and
the stable formation from numerous trials. This would explain (1) stable
second order dynamics, (2) residual indeterminism cum structure, and (3) why
the long range interaction in our stable cosmos, gravity, is solely
attractive.
6.7.2. So
far in this section, identity is material or physical (object) identity. But
the concept of identity above also allows for the self-identity of
beings—individuals and the universe. This ‘side’ of identity is inclusive of
object identity.
Category
of Agency
6.8. AGENCY is the power of sentient beings to see and conceive
alternate futures, to value some of those futures, and to select to act
toward the valued futures, especially those of high value. Therefore it
requires also the concept and understanding of value and ordering of value.
Agency requires indeterminism with structure—the structure is necessary for
the seeing etc. and indeterminism is necessary for the existence of alternate
futures. In being agentive, the agent is involved in creating a future.
However, to be agentive is only to say that there is at least a small effect
and not that the agent can ‘do anything’ or violate physical law.
6.8.1. In
our normal lives, effective agency may be difficult, slow, and incremental;
and may require ‘will’. That is, being an effective human Being may be a
difficult task even when the accomplishment is or seems small.
6.8.2. Yet,
in the larger realm of Being and stable formation, agency is about effecting
significant change. We have seen that there are no limits to form except
Logic, and that given any form there is a higher form and creation of
sentient Being.
6.8.3. The
first paradigm for agency is human psychology, i.e. our normal
experience of the world.
Elements
of Being and Dimensions of Identity and the world
6.9. Here
we enumerate a tentative set of elements and dimensions for use in agency.
6.9.1. The
paradigm is a traditional organization of our cosmos into nature,
society (civilization), psyche, and the universal. Psyche could be placed
under nature but it is convenient here to keep it separate because nature
will emphasize the INSTRUMENTAL MEANS or
(external) while psyche emphasizes the INTRINSIC MEANS (inner).
6.9.2. The
ELEMENT(s) of The Way of Being—THE ELEMENTS OF
BEING—are
primitive basis of a dynamics (mechanics), the DYNAMICS OF BEING, DYNAMICS OF AGENCY,
or dynamics of The Way of Being—of realization. From ‘difference’,
there arose a tentative identity-interaction-process mechanics.
6.9.3. The
elements can be arranged in a table. The rows may be the elements of
mechanics or dynamics, identity, interaction or relation, and process.
The columns may be a set of dimensions of Being, which, in one tradition, are
nature, civilization, psyche, and the universal—seen
later to be reasonable on an atomistic approach. However, we will not form
the table which is implicit in the following tentative arrangement of the
elements of Being:
Elements
of Identity
6.10. ELEMENTS OF IDENTITY—DIMENSIONS OF GROWTH:
NATURE (roughly, instrumental: physical, biological), civilization
(individual, society)—often tied to PLACE OF BE-ING; PSYCHE (COGNITION, EMOTION,
integration as PERSONALITY), and the UNIVERSAL (immediate, ultimate).
Elements
of interaction
6.11. ELEMENTS OF INTERACTION (relation, sharing) include the natural—FORCE, FIELD, FLOW, CHEMICAL; of civilization
and society—COMMUNICATION: BEHAVIORAL, and LINGUISTIC
expression; of psyche—experience, INTELLIGENT AND
PASSIONATE COMMITMENT; and universal—ONE AND MANY. As FORESIGHT,
experience and choice mediate identity and process; the mechanics is
incremental (see Stable form and formation, and Cosmology and origins of
form), and large step: seeing-choosing-risking-acting-consolidating the SIGNIFICANT and ultimate. It is self-examining-referential,
ever under discovery, an active part of the metaphysics. It
employs-develops The Way, catalysts and ways.
Elements
of process
6.12. ELEMENTS OF PROCESS include the natural—MOTION, FUNCTION, EVOLUTION;
6.12.1. Of civilization and society—LOCAL
CIVILIZATION or POPULATION (verb) and instrumental means: WAYS (revelation-illumination), DISCIPLINES and PRACTICES. TECHNOLOGY, ECONOMICS, POLITICS;
6.12.2. Of psyche—citta: cognition (mind-thought)
and emotion (HEART), and action.
intrinsic means: CATALYSTS
(fracture-integration), practices, IMMERSIVE ECONOMICS and IMMERSIVE POLITICS;
and
6.12.3. Of the universal—ULTIMATE AND IMMEDIATE, BRAHMAN and ATMAN—UNIVERSAL CIVILIZATION. Universal and local cycles of becoming, PEAKING, and DISSOLUTION.
Psyche,
agency, and dynamics
Employing
the dynamics of agency
Psyche
General
cosmology††
Key terms
General
cosmology
6.13. The
universe is a FIELD OF BEING and a FIELD OF
SENTIENCE and identities (entities,
processes, relations—not substances) are its concentrations.
6.13.1. Experience—pure
and engaged—is relationship, place of agency which will be seen to
require CHOICE (CONSCIOUS CHOICE
and, so, FREE
WILL), and SIGNIFICANCE but experience is not all significance; subject-object
meet in experience as one.
6.13.2. The ‘universes’ of significance and destiny are fields
of experience and agency; and sentient agents (beings) are their
concentrations. Assertions and reasoning for sentience follow; those for agency
are similar. All peaks of form are accessible to sentient form. We might
expect that all actuality >> sentient actuality; but from
fp, for any form there is greater sentient form (and vice versa). The
field of experience and agency has no limit; it is effectively and
essentially the universe.
6.13.3. Only in sentience are there PAIN and SUFFERING—and
joy and agency; which are essential to Being; so in and only in sentience is
there price paid with BLOOD, their
sometime temporal non-overcoming, its universal cycles of release and
overcoming into JOY (BLISS, calm abiding) and dissolution.
6.13.4. The Bhagavad Gita’s fourfold YOGA and MEDITATION-VISION QUEST are identity with the real—present-as-ultimate (in a
broad sense practice includes science, reason, philosophy, and their
methods). As expansion of awareness, meditation is concurrent to discovery
and realization of the real. It may begin with a range of techniques or
approaches as a good foundation: SHAMATA,
VIPASANA, BEYUL, TANTRA.
6.13.5. The universe has identity. Identity and manifestation
have no limits—especially to variety, peak, extension, duration; cycle
endlessly—without simple and universal periodicity—in acute, diffuse, and
non-manifest phases in relatively remote epochs; UNIVERSAL
CAUSATION is at most weak; causal
connectivity is at most local (in creation-destruction, time has causal
direction); beyond ours, there are cosmoses, natural laws, physical and
living forms without end or limit; these occur meshed to a void-transient
background; only some occurrences have mechanism; every atom is a cosmos,
every cosmos an atom; individuals and civilizations inherit these
powers—while in limited form realization is eternal endeavor…
6.13.6. Local civilizations
(webs of cultures across time and continents) merge with universal
civilization (capitalized, the matrix of civilizations across the
universe) and Being; discovery and realization beyond a cosmos—beyond the
normal—is a limitless and eternal journey. What is the identity of self? In
overcoming limited form individuals realize the ultimate—Brahman (Upanishad),
AETERNITAS (Thomas Aquinas), or PERFECT BUDDHA. But for process even these are local peaks.
6.13.7. Is there a cosmos—a field of Being—in an electron? What
is the region far beyond the empirical? Our physics suggests that the
electron is truly elementary. However, that physics must break down at some
scale and not only because of a Planck length limit but also because of fp. The region
far beyond the empirical is not just remote in largeness or ‘there and then’
but also in smallness or ‘here and now’.
6.13.8. There are ghosts and ghost cosmoses passing through our
cosmos and every cosmos, sometimes with barely a whisper—but there must at
least be a whisper somewhere and when. Meanwhile normal reality continues on
sometimes with and sometimes without a smile at the limitless.
6.14. General
cosmology does not follow a strict substance metaphysics—one of fixed kinds
and no emergence of or interaction among kinds.
6.14.1. In monism, experience and Being are coupled
through and through; in dualism their interaction is inexplicable. In general
cosmology kinds and forms may occur independently but must at times merge,
emerge, and export—kinds-forms are not substances and are organic to Being.
6.14.2. Our cosmos normally approximates monism. The
constitution of beings is normal—only normally inviolable (see possibility):
beings have no absolute real limits or impossibilities.
6.15. If
the metaphysics and cosmology read as fantasy—as if entering a strange
land—their truth is cast in Logic. Where access is improbable, cosmology of
form, next, seeks the probable. Then The Way seeks access to the ultimate
(via intelligent commitment that enhances enjoyment and likelihood),
transforming it as needed to the probable.
Cosmology
and origins of form††
Key terms
Cosmology
and origins of form
6.16. The
study of cosmology and origins of form require intersection of the pure and
pragmatic sides of metaphysics.
6.16.1. In the intersection, the pragmatic gives flesh to the
pure, while the pure illuminates the pragmatic and shows some of its general
aspects that may be raised to the level of the pure without being abstracted
out of contact with our world.
6.16.2. A pragmatic source is the THEORY OF
BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION as MODEL FOR NORMAL
FORMATION. As such a model only
appropriately generic features of biological evolution will survive any
translation to origins of cosmos and form. The features to be selected from
include the primary mechanics of VARIATION
that is at least originally indifferent to adaptation and ADAPTIVE
SELECTION. Analogy suggests the following
point but by fp, there are NECESSARY INSTANCE(s) of formation. Heuristic considerations—at
least—suggest that they are probable..
6.16.3. The UNIVERSAL WAY OF ORIGIN OF FORM is that of INDETERMINISM for NOVELTY; and DETERMINISM for stable form.
6.16.4. But if fp necessitates only instances, why is it
universal? It is universal because it includes SINGLE STEP ORIGINS.
6.16.5. The pure metaphysics allows single steps according to
‘Logic’. However, we are interested in a mechanism that would generate
relatively stable, enduring, and numerically dominant populations.
6.16.6. The mechanisms of biological evolution suggests a
general incremental mechanism: indeterminist variation, then selection of
adaptive states and a rough optimum step size: if larger, the probability of
non viable organisms is high; if smaller, larger steps achieve more (this too
is allowed and required by fp). The range of particulars in biology
that this mechanism and epi-mechanisms show and caution suggest that the
particular mechanisms in cosmology and their range remain to be discovered
and or conceived.
6.16.7. From fp, such ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS origin is generic if not universal; details depend on
context; it is causal in a general though uncommon sense; it can explain
populations in the universe in terms of the product of frequency of origins
and longevity or relative stability; it would explain the origin of form,
cause, and laws for our cosmos. There may be other mechanisms but from fp,
mechanism is not necessary—there are single step origins.
6.17. Possibilities
that are likely—and of significant population, stable and enduring, have ROBUST FORM, especially ROBUSTNESS VIA ADAPTATION—i.e., ROBUST SYSTEMS,
e.g., ‘physically’. If also capable of meaning, they are SIGNIFICANTLY
ROBUST.
6.18. Generally,
function and form are in rough proportion; in a SINGULAR EVENT increase in function is far beyond such proportion.
6.18.1. The fundamental principle implies singular events—events at a threshold of
function. Some factors are self-reference and micro-organization of
macro-function. Such events partially explain origins of life from complex
molecules; origins of human and linguistic intelligence; a hypothesized,
perhaps imminent, immense leap in and dominance of computational and
networking intelligence; and, from fp, conscious intelligence—with our
Being among its disposition—as driver and form of peaks of universal Being.
Singularity may be a norm in origin of essentially new forms and approaches
to the universal.
6.19. Let
us now talk of God because of the interest to many people and as illustration
of metaphysical cosmology—omitted in brief versions.
6.19.1. What can we say of the GOD OF MONOTHEISM? The intelligent, omniscient-omnipotent-omnibenevolent
God? The rather arbitrary justice and anger and cruelty of that God?
6.19.1.1. Preliminary note—no intrinsic importance to the
Abrahamic God is implied.
6.19.1.2. For existence, any contradictions must be cleared—e.g.
naïve omnipotence is self-contradictory.
6.19.1.3. Once the logical contradictions are removed, existence
is guaranteed by fp. Absurdity is no bar. One type of absurdity is the
arbitrariness. Another is improbability—but note that improbability relative
to the empirical cosmos is not absolute improbability. It is possible that
there is an intervening God from a ‘another cosmos not subject to our
physics’. Also note that absurdity and contradiction are ‘literal’ and do not
rule out symbolic and related significance.
6.19.1.4. Is this God likely or robust? Here there are opposing
tendencies. From ordinary probability and normal formation the ABRAHAMIC
MONOTHEISTIC GOD is unlikely. However,
perhaps singularity counters that tendency. It is important to look into
‘simplicity of form does not imply simplicity of function’.
6.19.1.5. Whatever the case, all beings partake in and approach
gods.
6.19.2. The Atman-Brahman of INDIAN PHILOSOPHY (Hinduism) and other philosophical conceptions of PANTHEISTIC GOD and PANENTHEISTIC GOD
seem far more robust than the Abrahamic God. Atman-Brahman in a general sense
has a role in this work, especially with regard to agency and is developed in
the narrative.
6.19.3. All Being participates in and is ‘god’.
Levels of
Being††
6.20. The
LEVELS
OF BEING are stages of inclusivity, power,
and sentient and intelligent agency.
6.20.1. They range from the primitive to the high. We regard human
being as primitive.
6.20.2. An atomistic approach suggests nature, society, psyche,
and the universal as dimensions of Being.
6.20.3. The highest conceived is Brahman of the
heterodox Indian Vedanta philosophy. It is the universe in organic oneness
and ultimate and neutral sentience. The highest is also the Aeternitas
of Thomas Aquinas.
6.20.4. These, however, are not the highest—they are processes
toward the ever higher without limit (we sometimes conceive them as static
highest).
6.20.5. Static ‘Brahman’ is at best on the way to the real.
6.20.6. Perhaps, though, the real is beyond process.
6.20.7. The Atman is a realization of Brahman in the
individual. Sometimes conceived as equivalent to Brahman, the static Atman is
at most on the way to Brahman.
6.20.8. As process and beyond process we allow Atman as
equivalent to the real.
6.20.9. Human being is the lowest form I know that is capable
of Atman.
To say that is not to exclude
other Beings on Earth. Perhaps there are human beings that have sufficient
empathy to know more (such empathy has been a project of mine, especially in
the ‘wild’.)
Origins of
physical cosmology
6.21. The aim of this
section is to show conceptual basis from general cosmology for an
indeterminate space-time, relational-experiential cosmology.
6.21.1. Vacuum transients arise in hierarchies of scale from
the void.
6.21.2. All possible worlds occur; an efficient mechanism is
informed by modern cosmology—small near quantum transients combining as large
scale near determinate-symmetric-stable hyper-dense state with some near
classical behaviors.
6.21.3. A dynamics—change in semi-determinate relational
identity depends on duration of interaction or ‘force’ across extension, and
on inertia to change. Experience as interaction is integral to the dynamics.
6.21.4. Essential issues:
to represent semi-determinate identity; whether this entails process
indeterminism; account for dual origin of force-inertia.
6.21.5. Aim: improve-particularize-quantify.
In realms of opaque measure and difficult analysis, e.g. beyond the empirical
cosmos, simulation guided by cosmology may show a way: see a tentative
digital modeling of the early universe whose principle is LAYERING from the void and random to mechanism.
6.22. A hypothesis: DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY as ongoing creation
and / or space-time itself as an object and not merely a framework, e.g. as
the source of Mach’s principle.
Agency
Becoming (Realization)
The Aim of
Being
Key terms
The aim††
7. Here
the universal AIM OF BEING is
seen to be the aim of The Way of Being.
7.1. The
aim of The Way of Being is a shared endeavor for Being,
especially for the individual and civilization throughout the
universe.
7.2. The
endeavor is living well and the highest discovery and highest realization in
the immediate and ultimate world.
7.3. The
means of discovery and realization are ideas, practice, and action (practice-action)
in interaction.
7.4. The
aim of The Way is now seen as a universal aim of Being: to know the
range of significant Being and realize its highest immediate and ultimate
forms for all beings and Civilization.
Derivation
of the aim††
7.5. Even
if the proof of the fundamental principle is not accepted, it is self and
empirically consistent; and there is an imperative to the realizations that
it entails. Even though the ultimate remain unrealized, there is value to
attempts to realize—the potential, the inspiration, and what is learned on
the way.
Ethics of
the aim††
7.6. It
is inspiring and rewarding, spiritually and politically, to engage in the
aim.
7.7. Given that intelligent commitment enhances realization and
enjoyment, what energies should we devote to the aim? The oneness of
the universe implies the worth of devoting resources to the aim as ‘duty’ and
joy. Quantitative choice, individual and social, may recognize that resource
allocation is already integral to our secular and transsecular institutions. ETHICS are driven by citta, specifically heart,
channeled by thought or ‘mind’, and encoded in culture. ‘Rational
ethics’ stems from citta—mind and heart—there is no
ethics without reason, emotion, and value.
The Way of
Being
Key terms
Key terms
for practical dynamics of agency
The
essence
A system
Key terms
for attitude through sharing
Practical
dynamics of agency††
The
essence
7.8. The
idea of DYNAMICS
OF AGENCY, is that of EFFICIENT MEANS of being agentive in our normal lives and larger
realms of Being. The dynamics may be seen as part of cosmology.
7.8.1. The
dynamics—as seen above—is based in the ideas, is a framework for
transformation, and leads to the TEMPLATES FOR THE WAY.
7.9. The
essence of the dynamics is (i) INNER TRANSFORMATION and INSTRUMENTAL TRANSFORMATION of INDIVIDUAL-CIVILIZATION (ii) citta including foresight applied to relation to
effect transformation change (iii) deploying THE METAPHYSICS OF KNOWLEDGE AND
ACTION—which includes ALL HUMAN
KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE.
A system
7.9.1. The dynamics emphasizes the inner—INNER DYNAMICS OF THE PSYCHE. It emphasizes that experience – ‘my subjective
flimsy awareness’ is indeed real and the place where the really real plays
out: the PLACE
OF THE REAL. No, we do not control all
aspects in our human form and so in that form we must adjust so as to have
optimal control; that is the play both forcing and flowing and combining
optimally (OPTIMAL FORCE AND FLOW). And
flowing into the ultimate when for an eternal instant we are the universe.
The play between THE MANIFEST AND THE HIDDEN.
7.9.2. The dynamics emphasizes the instrumental—THE DYNAMICS OF THE INSTRUMENTAL—the POWERS OF NATURE,
TECHNOLOGY-IN-THE-SERVICE-OF-POPULATING-THE-UNIVERSE, ART AS TRANSFORMING
the inner, politics and economics; and the continuities of these with the
inner: IMMERSION-SCIENCE, IMMERSION POLITICS-AND-ECONOMY.
7.9.3. The dynamics emphasizes the universal—DYNAMICS OF THE UNIVERSAL—where the inner and the instrumental meet in ultimate
identity.
Traditional
knowledge and practice
7.9.4. The
practical dynamics may selectively employ traditional ways and catalysts for
inner, instrumental, and universal phases of awareness (and knowledge) and
realization.
Universe
1. Metaphysics (and philosophy), symbols and signs.
2. Abstract
sciences—of language, logic, mathematics,
computer and information science.
3. Concrete
sciences—of nature, mind, human
being (anthropology) and society.
4. History.
Artifact
5. Applied
science, design, and engineering—immediate
and projected application; design and its methods; the major fields of
engineering: chemical, civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering. For
other branches see Modern Engineering and Engineering - Wikipedia.
6. Art
(and art as representation on the border
between metaphysics and artifact)—literature, drama, music, painting,
sculpture, architecture…
7. Technology.
Nature and development: scope and history,
organization of work. Elements of technology: materials, energy, tools
and machines, measurement and control, industry and production… Fields of
technology: agriculture and food, major industries, transportation,
information processing – communication – networking, urban, military, earth
and space exploration.
8. Humanities and the study of systems of knowledge and the
tradition(s).
9. Transformation
of Being—with technology of Being. The
concept of religion as knowledge and negotiation of the entire universe by
the entire individual in all its faculties and modes of Being
(potential, un-named and perhaps un-thought forms). Nature and varieties of
religions of the world—hunter gatherer and agriculture based societies,
throughout pre-history and history. Ways and varieties of religion and
spirituality. Catalytic awareness and transformation—mystic, yogic including
vision-quest, nature and culture immersion (including Beyul as nature immersion
in quest of self), modern—e.g. dream as inspiration, psychoanalysis as depth
analysis, isolation-deprivation-exertion as source of vision, metaphysical
insight, immersive approaches to metaphysics, science, economics, and
politics.
Tradition
in terms of key words
Attitude††
7.10. Though
we should doubt the universal metaphysics, it is consistent
internally and with all we can know. Its argument is at least highly
plausible—from the proof, and, e.g., that as a form of OCKHAM’S
PRINCIPLE it is minimal regarding what is not
in the universe (i.e., the ‘strong principle of plenitude’).
7.11. We
therefore adopt universal metaphysics as an existential attitude—valuable
in itself and as affording the greatest likely immediate and ultimate outcome
of life. Without intuition immersed in attitude, intellect is impotent.
7.12. While
accepting temporal limits this side of death—while living in this world—we
also live in act toward the ultimate.
Ways,
catalysts and paths††
Traditional
ways
7.13. There
is a range of WAYS OF BEING—secular,
suprasecular, and primal. The primal refers to ways before the secular split.
I have not found such ways to be complete with regard to the ultimate. Yet,
even where there is dogma, I have found parts of the traditions useful and
inspiring. However, they are not essential to the practices that will follow.
Catalysts
and paths
7.14. Types of CATALYTIC STATE AND PROCESS—dream, hypnotic, meditative vision—world-self-unconscious,
hallucinatory vision, enhanced body dynamic; brain states; Catalytic use—focusing
dreams etc.; cultivation and integration in awareness over time; sensitivity
to, cultivation of opportunity
Living The
Way††
7.15. WHOLENESS OF BEING involves citta (heart-mind): bound
experience or perception-feeling – free experience or conception-emotion
– active experience with volition; and security in
openness-transience, e.g. not depending on proof—the proof is in the person.
This wholeness is essential to The Way.
7.16. Among
its means are: SANGHA, IDEATION-PRACTICE-ACTION, ACTION-EVEN-IN-INSECURITY.
7.17. Let
us now consider the MEANING OF BEING
or meaning of life and SPIRITUALITY—omitted in brief versions.
7.17.1. Let us consider the idea that their linguistic meanings
are LIVING
THE TRUTH or living what is true. This
seems to be in opposition to the idea that the meaning of life is the
individual’s choice—what they put in to it. However, there is no
contradiction. Truth can be interpreted individually, universally, or even
for a phase of life.
7.17.2. The idea is that truth in the present sense—rather
different than the earlier use in relation to fact—is an adaptable ideal.
Meaning is found in SEEING – DISCOVERING – CREATING – SHARING –
PRACTICING – LIVING – BECOMING – THE – TRUTH.
Sharing
and Sangha
Sangha
7.18. Sharing
is important as THE WAY OF CIVILIZATIONS moving
forward and outward; and as reinforcement for the individual.
Communicating
7.19. COMMUNICATION is important in sharing. WRITING and SPEAKING are
important. Clarity and reason in these activities are important. Persuasion
for its own sake is not desirable but what does ‘persuasion’ mean? It means
such clarity, emphasis, and reason in writing or speech that the truth
becomes transparent. PERSUASION is MAKING THE TRUTH
TRANSPARENT.
Templates
Introduction
8. These
templates are toward realization in the meshed everyday and universal—via
internal and external action. Their basis is in the development so far,
tradition, and personal experience.
The templates are a particular
in content but general in form. They are intended for adaptation by
modification and amplification. To that end, some resources are listed below.
Resources
In this
essay
Other
documents
The
literature
Everyday
process template††
Tabular
template
The
template
8.1. Everyday process template—daily
activity for realization and complementary to the universal process template:
it is adaptable and should be adapted to a range of ways and phases of life,
especially those of the universal process. It should be used selectively—and
the order of activity should be varied according to need.
The everyday template is
adaptable to a range of ways and phases of life. It requires complement by a
practice—see, e.g., Some meditations, and Resources. Dedication and
meditation infuse and are practice for life. It is crucial that while some
system of practice emphasize personal perfection, process should not wait
until the perfect is achieved. The explanations enable selection,
modification, substitution and elaboration. Links are available in the
details of the document.
8.1.1. Rise before the
sun.
Explanation. Rising at 4am or earlier gives me a sense of the
special-ness of the world and my enterprise. Then there is a whole day of
light after essential project work is done.
Dedication. I dedicate my
life to The Way of Being—to shared discovery (ideas) and realization
(action and choice); to shedding the bonds of limited self and culture
and so to see The Way so clearly that even in difficulty life is flow
over force (opening to the real in individuals and the world); to realizing
the ultimate in this world and beyond (inner-intrinsic and instrumental ways
in the dimensions and elements of the real).
Explanation. In a static world view the idea, e.g. in meditation,
is sufficient to the best identity with Being and is best in interaction with
shared action. In the dynamic view of The Way ideas and action are
essential to realization. Meditation to overcoming the limits of self,
especially closedness to others and the real, may be catalytic.
Shared affirmation. That
pure unlimited consciousness that is all Being alone is supreme reality. That
is the universe—its life and breath—that am I. So I am and embody the
self-transcending universe that is all Being and has no other.
Explanation. Ritual reminder of truth. I experiment with
alternatives and supplements.
The Dedication is a
modification of the third step of twelve step programs. The affirmation is a
modification of a quotation of Abhinava GUPTA
from Tantra Illuminated: The Philosophy, History, and Practice of a
Timeless Tradition, 2 ed. (2013), by Christopher Wallis.
8.1.2. Review and meditate
on realization and immediate priorities and means.
Explanation. The meditation need not be ‘formal’. The extent of
the review depends on need. An accumulated burden of personal expectation and
planning is occasion for extensive review. A change of ‘scene’—a visit to my
favorite town or a week spent in my favorite mountains—are really conducive
to review of my life and my projects.
8.1.3. Realization.
Work and care. Ideas, writing, networking with the young and the established;
shared action, transmission, experiment: everyday process and universal
process. Days for renewal. Other activities, e.g. languages, art.
8.1.4. Tasks. Daily (morning); meals; select
andor regular days for long term tasks.
8.1.5. Experimental yoga,
general—relation to the real, postural.
Explanation. ‘Experimental’ includes building upon established
practice and uses of practice. Experimental meditation, focus on spaciousness,
freeing from ego-fixation, ultimate in-itself-and-the-present, continuity of
meditation-action-Being. See the supplementary conceptual outline for a range
of meditations from centering to being-in-the-universe. See the references
for yoga and meditation.
8.1.6. Exercise.
Aerobic: in nature; and photography.
Explanation. Having gotten up early, even in winter there is time
for as much as four hours of this activity. I like to get some good aerobic
exercise—but it is best for me when I combine this with other activity. I
often ride my bicycle in local farm and backcountry roads. The marshes,
slews, farmlands, skies, and an immense range of birds where I live are
amazing.
Note. These personal details are intended as illustrative
examples.
8.1.7. Evening. Rest,
renewal, meditation, realization, and community. Evening tasks, preparation
and dedication of the next day and the future. Sleep early.
Explanation. If I have energy and time, I work on
projects—especially The Way. I like to meet people at a local coffee
house—especially for conversation. I like to do preparation for the next day
that saves precious high energy morning time. If I feel it right I like to do
a twenty minute meditation. I may watch a DVD. I am winding down.
Some
meditations
Purpose of
the yoga-meditations
The many purposes support a
single main purpose—the identity of Atman as self-spirit-consciousness
and Brahman as Universe-Ultimate-Spirit-Consciousness.
The many purposes include:
Some
yoga-meditations to work on
Gates to Buddhist
Practice (see the references): Parts
III. Refuge and Bodhicitta, IV. Foundational nature, faith, death…), and V.
Guru yoga, the great perfection, nature of mind.
Also see works on Tantra
(see the references); see Tantra-outline.
Everyday
life as spiritual practice
A typical but flexible set
of activities.
Dedicate-affirm-relax-focus (see below) tailored to: (i) Rise (ii) Review—the
day… and life-death-Brahman-birth (iii) Realization projects (iv)
Yoga-meditation (v) Food-chores (vi) Exercise-nature-meditate-photography (v)
Evening—realize, network, prepare.
Meditation on Being—i.e. on life – death – life. (1) Death as relative—as
gateway to the real in universal life. (2) Death as absolute—as motivation to
the real in this life. Contemplate the thought ‘LIFE BEGINS WITH
DEATH’.
Contemplating
and overcoming the ‘poisons of the mind’
Attachment and desire /
anger and aversion / Ignorance
Contemplating
the four thoughts of Chagdud Tulku’s Vajrayana (see the references)
Contemplating the four
thoughts (Vipasana), cutting, and
Shamatha (relaxation)— precious human existence / impermanence / karma and
rebirth / ocean of suffering
Shamatha,
cutting, vipasana
Shamatha—heart rate and pressure, relaxation, space between
thoughts (see the references, Meditation-Pema Chödrön).
Vipasana—overcoming inner constraint due to judgment—being
equal on the inside and the outside—optimize with regard to overcoming vs.
achieving.
Work with negativity in thought and emotion
Uncover my prejudices
and resentments, see patterns of
behavior and resenting, meditate on these without judgment—to accept etc:
fourth step for internet.
Dedication
to The Way
Dedication—I dedicate my life to The Way of Being: to
shared discovery of ideas and realization in action; to shedding the bonds of
limited (dualist) self so that I may see The Way so clearly that even
in difficulty life is flow over force; to realizing the ultimate in this life
and beyond.
Affirming
identity of Atman and Brahman
Affirmation—That pure unlimited consciousness that is all being is
supreme reality. That is the universe—its life and breath—and that alone am
I. And so I am and embody the self-transcending universe that is all Being
and has no other.
Visualizing
and conceiving Atman is Brahman
Self = universe (Atman, spirit = Brahman, eternal and ultimate
consciousness)—(a) as Being (b) as process.
Ideas to
action to learning to ideas; and planning
Ideas into action into learning into ideas.
Universal
process template††
Tabular
template
The
template
8.2. Universal process template—a
template for general action. It covers the dimensions of Being—its use will
be selective.
Explanation. Arranged according to action, dimension,
and detail. At level 2 (e.g., 10.1.) the action is bold and the dimension
is in italics. Level 3 (e.g., 10.1.1.) spells out minimal details (for
topics for the details, see online resources). Links are available in the
template in the document body.
8.2.1. Action: Being—dimension:
Pure Being and a spiritual home.
Explanation. Home is ground. I want people around me who are not
steeped in either secular or suprasecular limits of vision or dogma.
Detail. Everyday process, bridges the
immediate-ultimate. Vision retreat.
Explanation. Being in and search for home and yogic (universal)
connection.
8.2.2. Action: Ideas—dimension:
Knowing.
Detail. For understanding, begin with the ideas.
Explanation. Ideas are the first place of Being, significance, and
action; and are instrumental in realization. For further information see
the chapter resources above and the document resources.
8.2.3. Action: Becoming
with phases of human life—dimension: Nature and Psyche.
Detail. Nature as ground for the real of real and
renewal e.g. as in Beyul: quest for the real as in Tibetan Buddhism. These
focus on nature as gateway.
Explanation. Nature is inspiration on multiple counts—an essential
place and image of Being, catalyst to meditation and ideas. Wildlife
exemplifies Being. What are the animals be-ing? We are seeking paths to the
real and nature is one (even when idealized).
8.2.4. Action: Becoming
(with phases of human life)—dimension: Civilization—with society
and culture.
Explanation. Civilization is vehicle for and path to the real.
Detail. Civilization and shared immersion (a shared
immersion approach to transformation, community populating the universe), cultural
economics and politics (a model that includes Marxian and Schumpeterian
political economy).
8.2.5. Action: Becoming
with phases of human life—dimension: Artifact.
Explanation. Artifact has potential as Being, reservoir of our
Being, auxiliary in our search for intrinsic and instrumental Being (e.g. the
spread of ideas and civilization).
Detail. Artifactual Being (on the use of computation
and networking in realization—as adjunct and as independent identity) and
technology.
8.2.6. Action: Becoming
(with phases of human life)—dimension: Universal.
Explanation. The path to Being. Where secular and transsecular
paradigms visualize completeness or impossibility of completeness, there is
neither completeness nor impossibility. This action is on the way to the
ultimate.
Detail. Catalysts (on catalytic transformation), ways
(on religion as a source for transformation), in everyday process, and
renewal, knowledge, technology, developed-deployed in transforming
Being-civilization.
The Path
Key terms
Paths††
9. Being
is ever on THE PATH, sometimes
consciously, to design and affect DESTINY.
Individuals and
civilizations peak at stages of ultimate realization; in death and decay they
dissolve into and transact with the receptacle of eternal Being. The greatest
cultivation of the present occasion of Being is essential: in the singular
case, this life as the only life, it is the occasion; in the eternal
case, the alternative is as if condemned to eternal death.
9.1. Everyday
process is a (personal), flexible, adaptable routine for living in the
immediate as ultimate. Universal process is an adaptable process for living
in the immediate for and with openness to the ultimate.
An approach is to select from these templates; they are adaptable
to a range of situations and phases of life and civilization—and deploy
dynamics and agency. RENEWAL,
critical to practice, is reflected in the templates.
Links for the above are Everyday
process, Universal process, dynamics, and agency.
9.2. It
is crucial that the everyday and the universal reflect each other and both
reflect the immediate and the ultimate.
Past and
present††
9.3. An
evaluation of The Way of Being—the ideas are relatively complete but
always under review. The ultimate is given to all Being but normally only
felt, seen, or potential in ‘this life’—transformation is ongoing.
Future††
9.4. My
outline plan is (a) follow the broad picture from The Way of Being and
(b) specifically to follow the two templates.
Also see traditional knowledge
and practice.
Epilogue—The way forward
The epilogue looks forward
to realization and its ways based in the knowledge and practice of The Way
of Being.
An
existential endeavor
What if we doubt the proof
of the universal metaphysics? Because the metaphysics is self-consistent
and externally consistent, and frames all possible experience, to live
under it is existentially optimal.
Immediate
and ultimate
The immediate and ultimate
are interwoven. A derived ethic is that living well is living for this world
and the ultimate.
Intrinsic
and instrumental
The
intrinsic-experiential—the true nature of Being—includes the instrumental. It
is the way to the ultimate.
Resources
Practical
References for Becoming, with notes
Baker, Ian, The Heart of
the World: A Journey to Tibet’s Lost Paradise, 2004, Penguin Books.
Insight into and a great
example of nature pilgrimage as path to the real and evocation of real self.
Chödrön, Pema, How to
Meditate: A Practical Guide to Making Friends with Your Mind, 2013,
Sounds True Inc.
Practical instruction on a
range of uses of meditation; readers can use this book as a base for
exploration of the real; shows that there is no ultimate way—the way is
always experimental. The main focus is on Shamatha—calm abiding.
Easwaran, Eknath, trs.,
1985, The Bhagavad Gita, Vintage Spiritual Classics, Random House.
The Gita is a source for post
orthodox yoga.
Hick, John, The Fifth
Dimension: An Exploration of the Spiritual Realm, 1999, OneWorld
Publications.
Insight into the nature of our
being-in-the-universe within a modern material perspective, and a modern
account of Atman-Brahman; insight into the meaning of religion beyond
literalism and dogma.
Tulku, Chagdud, Gates to
Buddhist Practice: Essential Teachings of a Tibetan Master, rev. ed.,
2001, Padma Publishing.
Tulku’s Tibetan account of
other worlds will strike modern readers as fantastic. However, the practical
psychology of overcoming the ‘bonds of self’ and relating to the real is
excellent. Focuses on dual use of Vipasana (insight) and Shamatha. Also see
the related conceptual outline: vajrayana practice.
Wallis, Christopher, D., Tantra
Illuminated: The Philosophy, History, and Practice of a Timeless
Tradition, 2nd ed., 2013, Mattamayūra Press.
Tantra is a way of relating to
the real (and not about exotic sex). The Kashmir ‘Non Dual’ Saiva Tantra of
this book, which has similarities to Dzogchen, shows how ritual and other
traditional practices may lead to the real. The book has some nice
affirmations.
Topics
The following topics
emphasize depth and breadth, ideas and practice: metaphysics, philosophy and
narrative mode; design and planning; science and sciences, abstract and
concrete; ethics; catalysts and ways; civilization; and art and artifact—see
traditional knowledge and practice in this document and the separate document
study topics.
Authors
Following are some main thinkers
that influenced my thought in rational and visionary ways. PLATO, Adi SAMKARA (the
Vedanta), Rene DESCARTES, David HUME, Immanuel KANT,
Charles DARWIN, Albert EINSTEIN,
Ludwig WITTGENSTEIN, Werner HEISENBERG,
Erwin SCHRÖDINGER (and other creators of quantum theory), Martin HEIDEGGER, Karl POPPER, Kurt GÖDEL, W. V. QUINE,
and a range thinkers and doers in natural science, cosmology, and religion.
Online
resources
My website The Way of
Being, online references for the section universal process template: nature
as ground for the real, Beyul: quest for the real, civilization and shared
immersion, cultural economics and politics, artifactual being, catalysts,
ways, and study topics.
The
Universal Metaphysics as resource
The metaphysics is an
approach to resolution of the essential problems of metaphysics.
1. Nature,
possibility, and development of a full and robust metaphysics.
2. Universal
metaphysics as absolute-ultimate framework for knowledge, philosophy,
science, mathematics, art, and destiny. It enables a potent attitude to
doubt.
3. Perfect
dual epistemology for the perfect metaphysics (pure metaphysics-pragmatics).
4. Necessity,
power and robustness of Frege’s concept of meaning
5. The
nature of Being; the universe as the greatest possible. Resolution of
fundamental problems—Human Identity and Source of Being. Being
(void), not substance, as absolute foundation. Nature of matter-mind as
Being-relation in near substance cosmology; necessary general realization
of this; therefore there is no categorial mind-body issue; so mind
is organic and from adaptation, intense feeling arises with cognitive
freedom. The variety of forms of mind-matter is unlimited but
there are no further attributes.
6. Cosmology—transient
origin of stable cosmoses from the void. Indeterminism as essential in itself
and to equilibrium between form-change and mechanism-chance. Foundation of
creative-critical thought and measured freedom of will. The nature of object
identity. Implication for the interwoven nature of space-time-matter and
dynamics of change. Spacetime is the only measure of difference.
7. The
entire rational system of concepts has an object. This entails dual
reconceptualization of logic and science. There is no essential distinction
between concrete and abstract objects—the abstract are real and in the one
universe; there is no other Platonic universe; and insofar as the
abstract are acausal, atemporal, and non-spatial, it is because those
features omitted in abstraction. The concrete-abstract distinction is not
real but lies in the main mode in which they are known. The concrete are
empirical; the abstract are known conceptually, in symbolic, often axiomatic
terms; and from this greater simplicity, are known with greater definition
and certainty. Natural laws have Being; the void has no laws.
8. The
metaphysics shows and provides an instrument for the highest realization.
9. Treatment
of all essential metaphysics begins
(began) with the simplest cognition—difference. We then saw measure of
difference as spacetime and no more. Modes of Being are experience-experienced;
no more. Kinds of knowing are concrete-abstract; no more. Modes of
instrumentality, perfect and pragmatic and no more, are sufficient to
ultimate realization. The realm of the will-be-accessed-by-identity is the
limitless infinitesimal to the limitless ultimate; no less.
General
Plan
This document
1. Minimize-minimize-minimize.
Especially this and the peripherals, e.g. prologue and
resources.
2. Improve
outline and start from there.
3. The
issue of citta vs. psyche.
4. To
the prologue add—The essential issue of what to do with one’s life ®
what a life well lived may be ® sharing and moving
together toward the possible ® civilization and its
means ® their standard limits ® the actual and the
possible ® the importance of an ultimate worldview-metaphysics ®
representation in terms of knowledge so far as a good start. Human knowledge
= the world-and worldview: concrete and abstract sciences – philosophy and
metaphysics – art and literature – technology – religion – history –
knowledge itself – knowledge itself – contingent limits – possibilities and
actualities – some knowledge of the ultimate – ultimate metaphysics.
5. Reduce
the number of formal language terms to the essential. Have the first
instances of metaphysical terms in
6. Work
on and eliminate comments.
7. Symbols
that render properly in browsers—", $,
É, Þ and so on.
8. Using
HTML 5, CSS, and LATEX. Using collapsible text and framed tables of contents
as a way to make content more accessible.
Developing modules for
future versions
9. Précis module—this must be
very brief, e.g. metaphysics, limitlessness, examples, realization. Will use
a new sign º$
defined as follows: Being º$
what is there reads Being is defined as what is there.
10. Metaphysics.
11. The metaphysics.
12. The universe of possibility.
13. Science, limits, limitlessness, limits of empiricism,
openness of intuition and reason, and the future of science.
14. Proof, reason, intuition, and attitude (continuous with the previous module).
Writing future longer
versions
15. Publish
under a pen name.
16. Find
people to share writing, editing, discovery, and realization; network.
17. Essential
outline with essential points and links for details.
18. Work
parallel to realization, and use study topics, and the resources.
19. Topics
to think about—What is logic? Incorporate to study topics above.
20. Import
remaining planning from conceptual outline.
Document versions
21. Frames
with
22. For
short versions write directly, cutting savagely but precisely.
23. Later—for long versions use conceptual outline and its
sources.
NARRATIVE
Prologue—A quest
for Meaning
The prologue functions as a way in to the narrative,
introduction, and overview.
Aim of the way of being, living well, best possible life,
greatest achievable life, universe of all being, active endeavor, meaningful
lifeway, worldview, secular worldview, transsecular worldview, suprasecular
worldview, ultimate worldview, standard worldview, reeducation of intuition, conceptual
framework, this world, highest discovery, highest realization, means, ideas,
practice, action, ideas-practice-action, individual, vehicle, civilization,
metaphysical language, definition, intuition, intuition includes symbolic
precision.
It
seems characteristic of human being that we divide our efforts between trying
to live well within our limits and overcoming our limits.
We sometimes think we have definite limits, yet we are not
sure what they are. It is an issue that we do not quite grasp—we do not seem
to know what our limits are or what the limits of possibility of the universe
are.
If we had a grasp of those two questions we wouldn’t be
then transported to our limit boundary but we would perhaps be able to orient
ourselves in the world. We might have a concept of the ultimate limit beyond
the borders of empirical science; when we puzzled about the meaning of our
lives we might be do more than posit an ultimate force or resort to (just)
‘meaning is what you assign or put in to it’.
‘The Way
of Being’ narrative develops and centers on a world view, the ‘universal
metaphysics’, that shows the outer boundary of the limits of what is to be
achieved. That view begins as a framework which it is shown is never finally
filled in but is always open to a process of being filled in.
___
Some
lessons in a search for meaning are
1.
To see the world—matter-mind-spirit,
state-interaction-process—as one: characterized as Being and universe and
that meaning is in the world.
2.
The immediate and the ultimate mesh—there is no issue of which is more
important.
3.
The means are the elements of agency—ideas
and action; which include knowledge, foresight,
choice, and will.
4.
The vehicle is Being, which includes the individual and civilization.
5.
The sources include all tradition from the primal to the modern
including religion and science.
Tradition
emerges in the primal where spirit and matter are not separate. The idea of spirit is that some forms of matter
are more than they seem. In primality, experience is corrective of ideology.
In
post-primality, the realms of spirit and matter are as if in a struggle. Let us characterize this
struggle by looking at attitudes toward modern science and religion.
Modern
science shows us a cosmos which is good as far as it goes. What is outside—science
does not say but there is a secular assumption that the beyond is continuous
with what is known. That however is justified only in the near beyond.
Regarding the far beyond science reveals neither whether there is one nor
what may be in it. The source and sway of the secular assumption is that it
tacitly provides the paradigm for vision and the facts seen.
It is
logically possible and not scientifically or experientially impossible that
the universe is the realization of all logical possibility—provided locally
consistent wit science and experience.
Thus
there is immense scope for exploration beyond the borders of science.
Unfortunately, even the best of modern religions—while of symbolic value—tend
to have dogma in regard.
Our
means of exploration of the ‘beyond’, then are (a) the spirit of religion,
(b) facts of Being and universe (including that they exist), (c) reason, e.g.
as in rational science, philosophy, and metaphysics.
The
narrative develops the nature and possibility of metaphysics, derives a
universal metaphysics showing that the universe and so the individual is the
realization of all possibility, shows what limits stand in the way of
realization, and develops a program of realization. The Aim of The Way,
its practicality and meaning made possible by the metaphysics, is stated in
the next section.
The
actual development has been iterative—extended over many years, much study
and reflection, and much experience. In the beginning my aim was simply to
explore the world via ideas, experience, and action.
___
At
the core of the ideas is a worldview called the universal metaphysics. It is
essential to the development.
It
is crucial for the reader to understand that
1.
The worldview is demonstrated rather than posited or merely plausible.
2.
The meaning of the term ‘metaphysics’ as used here is defined and
developed. The demonstration shows the possibility of metaphysics in this
sense; this possibility is further illuminated and arguments against the
possibility of metaphysics addressed and rebutted.
3.
The worldview is shown (a) internally or logically consistent and (b)
consistent with what is valid in other worldviews, especially those from
metaphysics, science, and religion.
4.
The universe revealed by the universal metaphysics is far greater than
the standard pictures from science, religion, and prior metaphysics. This
point is crucial. Without comprehending and absorbing it, the reader will
have blinders on with regard to the developed account of the universe and
human being in relation to it. In fact what is revealed is limitlessly
greater than the standard views. For a preview of the revealed universe see some consequences of the fundamental
principle. It is important to note that these consequences are but a
beginning to what is revealed by the universal metaphysics and the
revelation, demonstrated of course, continues through the entire narrative.
5.
Among the sources of the common illusion of the more or less
completeness of our standard views are (a) that when we are brought up in
those views, they contribute not only to what we truly seen but falsely to
what we can see; and (b) the deceptions of the linguistic and symbolic
ability—that the ability to talk of something in language or concepts
suggests to many that we are talking of something real.
6.
Since Marx we have been concerned that our philosophy should be not
just about knowing the world but about changing the world. This characterizes
a fair amount of twentieth and twentyfirst century thought. When applied
reductively to general metaphysics and philosophy, as it frequently is, this
is severely disabling. This is because (a) general thought conducted without
specific direction toward action, is ultimately a most powerful implement in
action; (b) the present development reveals ideas that show their own
incompleteness without and need for continuity with action; (c) this attitude
toward general thought is not reductive and does not eliminate or require
that there be no end directed thought; but it does require that the end
directed approach also be non-reductive. The case is not one of either / or
as so many critical reductive theories are presented. Also, the notion that
action and knowledge are already co-immanent is already given—and known, e.g.
as in ‘Truth is the beginning of every good to the Gods, every good to man’,
Plato; and ‘The vitality of thought is in adventure. Ideas won't keep.
Something must be done about them’, Alfred North Whitehead in Adventures
of Ideas.
7.
The preceding criticism, it may be noted, is a general criticism of
critical and skeptical thought that self truncates at its end, that is not
self critical, that makes of itself a positive way of thought, and is not
seen as a means to empower and develop truth in imaginative thought. Historical
examples are logical positivism, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s negation of philosophy
in his Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus, and the post modern critique of ‘grand
narratives’. Let us look at the latter critique. It criticizes such systems
as Hegel’s idealism on account of (a) their speculative nature, (b) the
absence of demonstration, (c) the lack of local application, and (d) their
historical failure (e.g. the failure of Marxism), (e) the generalization,
especially encouraged by post-war European nihilism, that all such systems
must be unfounded, (f) the tacit position that the universal and the local
are exclusive, (g) the tacit position that the ‘local’ alone is meaningful,
(h) the tacit position that the local alone is useful, and therefore (i) the
tacit position that the universal is distorted and cannot contribute to the
local. The present development is a rebuttal to these negative attitudes
toward the universal; and it shows the essential mesh of the local and
universal; and the immense superiority of this mesh over either the local or
the universal in isolation.
Dedication and Aim
The
Way of Being is dedicated to shared discovery and realization of the
highest immediate and ultimate aims of Being.
The
AIM OF
THE WAY OF BEING is that of LIVing WELL—first to live a good
life in this world and second to discover and live the BEST POSSIBLE
LIFE or GREATEST
ACHIEVABLE LIFE in the UNIVERSE OF ALL BEING.
1.
The Way is to be understood as an ACTIVE ENDEAVOR—as an attempt to
find and follow a MEANINGFUL LIFEWAY: an approximation, at least, to the greatest
possible life.
2.
Meaningful and best possible have meaning and can be
designed and evaluated only in terms of a WORLDVIEW—what we will call a
metaphysics. We will find that the standard SECULAR WORLDVIEW(s) and TRANSSECULAR
WORLDVIEW(s) or SUPRASECULAR WORLDVIEW(s), whatever their virtues, are very
lacking. Therefore a preliminary endeavor will be to find and develop a
satisfactory worldview—one that, so far as may emerge, is an ultimate view. That
is the goal of the first main part of the document on Ideas;
The Way itself is taken up in the second part on Becoming (Realization).
3.
It is important that the worldview—a metaphysics—to be developed is an
ULTIMATE
WORLDVIEW in a definite sense and goes far beyond the STANDARD
WORLDVIEW(s) above. It is most likely that the reader will be
unfamiliar with this view and at least some of its concepts. It cannot be
emphasized too much that unless forewarned most readers will, because of
their standard orientation, will have difficulty that a new world view is
being presented. They may feel that science (or religion) have essentially
revealed all. However, this will be explicitly shown false.
4.
They may feel that the standard views are being negated. However, the
new view does not negate the standard views; rather it shows their limits and
integrates what is valid in them to the new. They may wonder whether the new
view is internally consistent—whether it violates reason. The new view will
not just be shown consistent but to have reason immanent in it. But this will
challenge the reader’s intuition. Therefore the readers should be ready for REEDUCATION OF
INTUITION and of their CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK—implicit and or explicit—of
understanding of the world. However, they need not and should not abandon
what is valid in their current worldview. They will of course need to
negotiate the path of integration of the new and old views and the narrative
will guide that process.
5.
In order to digest and understand the development it will be critical
that the reader follow the meanings of terms as introduced here. They will
need to suspend their received meanings. They will need to understand that
for continuity, many enhanced concepts will have ‘old’ names. They must be
prepared for shocks to their intuition—to the fact that the cherished notions
that they may have had to labor to acquire (for the secular) or have faith
(for the religious) are, though adequate in their own realms, immensely
inadequate in the universal. And if their knowledge is built into their
psyche they may have to undergo cognitive fracture before building up again.
The Way begins in the immediate—in THIS WORLD.
It includes
the HIGHEST
DISCOVERY and HIGHEST REALIZATION for Being, especially individuals and civilizations
in the universe.
The
interactive MEANS
are IDEAS,
PRACTICE,
and ACTION.
or IDEAS-PRACTICE-ACTION.
Development and justification of the aim and means are given later.
The VEHICLE is
Being—especially the INDIVIDUAL and CIVILIZATION.
The plan of the narrative is to first build up a system of
ideas and then to develop this underpinning into a way of realization. It is
not the goal to develop detailed specific objectives. Rather the narrative is
about the general aspects of intrinsic or inner realization and instrumental
or outer realization. The narrative provides a framework for the enterprise
of ideas and action and so of specific goals.
An outline of the work follows.
The Dedication and aim
are first stated above.
In reality of course ideas and action are always
interacting. The essay has two main parts, Ideas
and Becoming.
A rough division of the content of the Ideas is that Being sets up the main concepts, Metaphysics develops the fundamental
theory, Cosmology develops and explores consequences,
and Agency is about the nature and role of
agents in the universe. Along the way there is a focus on (i) what is
conceptually useful to understanding and (ii) what is applicable to Becoming.
The part on Becoming discusses The
Aim of Being (stated in the Prologue),
showing that the aim of The Way is the aim of Being. Then The Way of Being takes up the question of
attitude and explicit approaches to realization. The main topics in this part
are the everyday and universal process templates
to realization. Finally The Path looks to
past, present, and future for personal and universal process.
The essay ends with an epilogue
and resources for realization.
The answers here must be incomplete; they are elaborated
in the main text.
We will
find that the universe is the realization of all possibility.
The
concept and measure of all possibility are developed in the essay. The
concepts of Being, experience, and reason are central to the development.
The
universe has identity; its identity and manifestation have no limit as to kind,
extent, and duration; individual identity ultimately identical to universal
identity which is achieved via process and communication (communion), in
which individuals are expressions of universal disposition from which they
come and to which they return.
It is
achieved amid ordinary life. We already have the potential for this
awareness. This essay develops some ways. It draws from tradition. And it
builds on tradition, exploring two necessary complements: inner and outer Being which we might call awareness and manifestation.
What the sages have called ‘ultimate’ is this inner awareness in its
fullness; which is not the ultimate but on the way; which, however, gives meaning
to and illuminates the path of action and becoming.
The
means are inner—ideas, and outer—transformation of Being.
No.
For the
universal metaphysics that all possibility is realized requires the
fact and being of our cosmos and our experience of the real.
If we
think of that experience as a kind of normal experience the universal
metaphysics places it in and relates it to the larger context. For example,
except for the logically necessary and impossible, what is normally
experienced as necessary and impossible are but contingent (e.g. very
probable or improbable).
No, for
there is no final realization.
There
are peaks but then dissolution. And, while there is repetition, there is
eternal newness. And while there are peaks there is also pain and
challenge—and ignorance and illumination. The challenge and reward of meaning
is eternal.
The
first traditions are the primal in which we do not yet have the luxury of
separating the ‘secular’ and ‘trans-secular’; each infuses the other. Despite
its difficulties it is a kind of paradise relative to the insecurities of the
secular – trans-secular divide.
The
first traditions are followed by an intensification into the trans-secular
and then a split into trans-secular and secular.
The
trans-secular religious presents us with a picture of this life and beyond
which may be naïve or sophisticated but whose real meaning is symbolic. The
sophisticated rational-emotive side blends with metaphysics. The secular
emphasizes the mundane including rational-empirical science.
The
essential limit is that for theoretical or circumstantial reasons the
conventional limits are seen as ultimate. For example, where vision might be
infinite and limitless, even rationally so, as we will show, we are presented
from religion and theology with a dogma or speculation cast as logic (the
symbolic is present but silent which mutes potential). The secular vision
extols the practical and the empirical relative to which the default and
sometimes dogmatic view is that its limits are the limits of being and
universe.
It shows
us a full rational-feeling-empirical view of the universe beyond secular and
trans-secular dreams and approaches to negotiate the universe so revealed.
Care
with linguistic meaning is important in all
contexts; in very limited contexts such meaning may be defined by use.
However,
for any context that goes beyond the most limited, care with specifying
meaning—perhaps rooted in use—is essential.
When
going beyond the realm of common use, words or terms cannot be expected to
have definite meaning without specifying it. Thus it is essential to define
the terms of use in a metaphysical system. It is natural that the terms used
will be related to common use and to use in other metaphysical systems but
the alternate uses should not be conflated. In developing a rational
metaphysics it is important that the terms used should have an empirical
grounding, should form a consistent system, and, taken together, should cover
the breadth of the intended metaphysics. In this narrative that breadth is, roughly,
all Being over all time and space. The terms employed were arrived at
iteratively and then shown to satisfy the essential criteria of grounding,
consistency, and completeness with regard to ‘entirety’ but not with regard
to detail (the details are filled in by other means). It is therefore
critical that readers read, understand, and use the definitions provided here
and not conflate terms with their uses in other contexts.
Particularly,
given two contexts, say two systems of metaphysics, a single term, e.g.
‘universe’, may have different meanings and so not translate without
modification from one system to the other.
SMALL CAPITALS are
employed to point out main occurrences of important terms in the formal or METAPHYSICAL
LANGUAGE of the narrative a phrase in red small capitals indicates a DEFINITION.
There will usually but not always be a single main occurrence (one exception
will be where there is an alternate development of the ideas). The
development depends critically on the chosen system of meaning and it is
therefore essential that readers follow the defined meanings (which have been
analyzed for mutual consistency and completeness relative to ‘all Being’ in
outline though of course not in detail). The main occurrences are typically
but not always the first occurrences.
Two
terms have capitalized and lower case forms to mark significant distinctions—Being versus a being or beings; and Logic versus logic or logics. The
distinctions regarding Logic will be marked only when they are not
obvious from the context.
A more
complete and formal discussion of meaning is taken up in Experience, meaning, and reason.
The
universal metaphysics begins as an abstract framework. The abstraction is
sufficient that its concepts are known perfectly. Among these is the concept
of logic. Consequently the abstract or pure framework is perfectly founded.
The pure
framework shows the realization of all possibility—but not how the details of
the possibilities are to be located in our field of empirical knowledge and
action.
However,
the pure framework also shows that perfect detailed knowledge is neither
possible nor desirable but that local pragmatic knowledge is sufficient to
the purpose of realization (which does not of course negate local science or
local needs for precision).
Thus the
dual framework, the pure and the pragmatic, is perfect in relation to the
ultimate and demonstrated goal.
Thus, in
terms of the goal, reason itself is adequately founded.
Further,
the metaphysics shows that there is no ultimate foundation of reason outside
reason.
Practically,
of course, reason is ever under improvement. However there is no inaccessible
area of reason.
Since
what can be said in language is countable, what can be known in intuition may
well be without representation in a fixed language. There is no process limit
but at any time there is a limit of language. There is a communication and
interaction of intuition and formal representation that is greater than
either alone. But it cannot be claimed that either is superior to the other.
And it is clear that the role of intuition is not limited to suggesting
‘proof’. In so far as proof is available, well and good. Otherwise, proof is
an aid to intuition.
But if
we think of intuition as the entire form of conception (including perception)
for a being then INTUITION includes symbols and symbolic systems and so also
the formal as well as the empirical. INTUITION INCLUDES SYMBOLIC PRECISION.
There is
a question about a pivotal proof—the proof of the existence of the void. This
proof may be doubted?
Since
the proof is critical, what should be the response to the doubt?
Note
first that the existence of the void and the universal metaphysics are
self-consistent and consistent with all experience. Therefore to grant
existence of the void is not to venture into the absurd.
Further,
there are very good reasons, in addition to formal proof, to hold that the
void exists. Therefore to grant existence of the void, is not to venture into
the realm of the improbable.
Let us
then survey what is meaningful to us based on what we see from the universal
metaphysics, pure and pragmatic, and common knowledge and experience. Action
in ‘this world’ is significant (but note that this world is not a definite
world and given the universal metaphysics it definitely extends, if we so
choose, to the entire universe). Action in ‘the world beyond’ (also a matter
of convention), the ultimate world, is also significant.
Now the
relative importance of those two worlds is not a given. It depends on the
temperament of the individual. The intuitive-idealist will find the universal
important—but note that they do not find the immediate unimportant; and also
note that the universal metaphysics shows the reality of all logical
idealism. The sensing-pragmatist finds this world important—but does not find
the universal unimportant (in both cases there are exceptions at the
pathological extreme).
Therefore
the real debate to be had is not on whether to focus only on one of the
‘worlds’ but on the relative amounts of public energy to devote (private
energies being private concerns except where they cause direct harm). That
would be a good focus of discussion.
From the
great value of the ultimate, the optimum allocation of resources will depend
upon individual and societal values but it is clear that the optimal will
include resources for both the immediate and the ultimate.
Now
regarding the universal metaphysics, if we do not find ‘proof’ persuasive,
then from its consistency and probability, we can choose to regard it as significant
principle of action.
Ideas
Being
Why Being? In searching beyond our world and what we know,
we begin with the thought that our common views of the way the world is are
rough and incomplete. The way Being is used here makes it an excellent
vehicle for a picture of the world to emerge with experience and reflection
rather than imposed at the outset. But it is valid to ask whether any concept
or system of concepts can be adequate to this aim. It is in the spirit of the
present meaning of Being that this will emerge with the narrative rather than
be presumed at the beginning. After this emergence, the significance of Being
will be reviewed in Potency of the idea of
Being.
The following section introduces fundamental concepts of
Being, all Being—the universe, a being—part, and the void—null
being or null part.
Being, the universe, and the void††
System of ideas, ostensive definition, definition in terms
of the givens, given (the), real (the), all, part, null, what is there,
difference, sameness, what is there, difference, sameness, verb to be, is,
exist, tense, place, number, entity, interaction, relation, change, process,
quality, property, gender, matter, mind, abstract, inclusive, correspondence,
concrete, local, existence, Being, kind, neutrality of Being, universe,
experience, subjective awareness, consciousness, a being, instantiation,
entity, process, interaction, be-ing, becoming, power, relative power,
relative universe, potential, nonbeing, void, the; null being.
The SYSTEM OF IDEAS
will be founded in named givens, i.e. in OSTENSIVE DEFINITION; and DEFINITION IN
TERMS OF THE GIVENS.
On THE GIVEN—a
given is sufficiently FUNDAMENTAL—elementary and evident—that it
may be specified by ostension, i.e. by NAMING and pointing out (the name
itself may function as the pointer).
Insofar
as the role of givens is independent of meaning or semantic content, they may
be seen as undefined terms in an axiomatic system.
You may want to read about
Wilfrid SELLARS’
‘myth of the given’, e.g. at Wilfrid Sellars
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The analysis presented here
acknowledges the significance of Sellars’ critique. However, the present
analysis shows that that critique, like many, while significant, should not
be universalized. Within the ‘context’ of the more universal picture of the
present narrative, ‘the significant critiques’ play useful local roles.
The
system is INCLUSIVE
of THE REAL
in its entirety via the concepts of ALL (universe), PART (of the universe), and NULL (the
void); and, as will be explained, the possible.
The
system will be inclusive and precise; this is a source of its
conceptual power.
It is PRECISE in a correspondence sense via NEUTRAL or ABSTRACT use.
The
system begins with the abstract but will later, starting in Metaphysics, the abstract frame CONCRETE ideas and
the joint abstract-concrete system will be adequate to the aim. This adequate
system will also be perfect a joint correspondence-pragmatic sense (to
described and justified).
1.
‘WHAT
IS THERE’ is a fundamental named given. DIFFERENCE is a named given and SAMENESS
is the absence of difference.
1.1.
The VERB
TO BE, IS
has a number of uses. In ‘what is there’ or ‘that which is’ it marks
existence—to say of things, concrete or abstract, that they are is to say
that they EXIST.
In ‘is a fundamental named given’ the verb to be marks equality. Here the
equality is established by definition—‘is’ is used to mark definitions; it
may also be established by inspection or demonstration.
1.1.1.
The use of the verb to be here is generic—e.g., neutral to TENSE, PLACE, and
NUMBER.
That is, ‘is’ may designate ‘are here’, ‘was there’, and ‘will be
everywhere’. That is, we need not distinguish the forms ‘is’, ‘are’, ‘was’,
‘will be’ and so on.
1.1.2.
It is similarly neutral to ENTITY, INTERACTION or RELATION, CHANGE or PROCESS, QUALITY or
PROPERTY,
and GENDER;
and to kinds such as MATTER and MIND.
1.1.3.
In the following the distinctions among the uses of ‘is’ will be
remarked only when it is not apparent from context.
1.1.4.
The initial ABSTRACT-INCLUSIVE-CORRESPONDENCE precision will enable
demonstration that the universe is ultimate with ultimate realization for all
beings; the abstraction is it is not a limitation—it is later complemented by
CONCRETE-LOCAL
concepts adequate by pragmatic criteria (far from
being rejection, this includes useful knowledge of tradition, including
science). Further, in terms of our aim, the correspondence and the pragmatic
merge seamlessly; the former illuminating the latter and the latter being the
best instrument in achieving the ULTIMATE that the abstract will reveal.
1.2.
EXISTENCE
and BEING are
terms for the property of what is there. Existing and having Being are
the same.
1.2.1.
If something is there in some range of sameness and difference and
their absence, then it has Being. Capitalization will distinguish ‘Being’
from the terms ‘a being’ and ‘beings’.
1.2.2.
Attempts to identify a real behind Being or behind the real are
without significance—for Being already has the significance of the real.
1.2.3.
Being names no special KIND—special kinds are introduced later (it
will be seen that there is no universal substance or kind in the traditional
senses of ‘substance’ and ‘kind’).
1.2.4.
Being empowers existence as real without further qualification—in the NEUTRALITY OF
BEING it functions as a symbol for the unknown. Being to metaphysics
is as the symbol to algebra.
1.2.5.
The power of the concept of Being is the neutrality of ‘what is there’
in which there is no a priori commitment to kinds such as substance, process,
and spatiotemporality. It is essential to project no other role, e.g. historical
or ideological, on Being—but other roles may be introduced via kinds
of Being or ancillary concepts.
1.3.
The UNIVERSE
is all Being or existence—over all sameness, difference, and their absence.
1.3.1.
There is exactly one universe.
1.3.2.
The inclusivity of Being is ONTOLOGICAL.
If
there is a ‘multiverse’, if there are worlds of spiritual beings, if reality
is essentially material or essentially mental, if there are worlds within
worlds and spirit worlds barely in contact with
ours—these are all part of the universe in the sense the term is used here.
It is crucial to recognize that the ‘universe’ is often
used in a range of different senses. One common but different sense is that
of our empirical cosmos (and there are scientists, other academics, and
non-academics that insist that this is ‘the universe’). A more inclusive one
is the multiverse in which each ‘universe’ has its own set of fundamental
constants. But this too is limited—why should the laws be at all like ours? There
is no reason to think that the universe is quantum mechanical or relativistic
as we understand those terms, even though they are clearly excellent local
empirical-conceptual approximations. Are abstract objects part of the
universe (present sense)? As we will see the one universe contains all abstract
and concrete objects and what is more it unifies them. That is, we will find,
as suggested in the prologue that the universe is the universe of all
possibility. What about mathematical objects? These are to be included
because they are among the abstract. But certainly not all particular (not
concrete) objects need be mathematical in any formal sense—there may well be
realms not amenable to mathematics as we know it. How about logical objects?
Though we will need to specify the meaning of logic carefully, we will find
the greatest possible and the logical universes to be identical.
EXPERIENCE, SUBJECTIVE
AWARENESS, or CONSCIOUSNESS and MEANING are implicit above.
These important topics—the
concepts and their objects—are not developed in brief versions of this work;
in longer versions they are treated in separate sections; this particular
development is intended for intermediate length versions.
Experience
or consciousness—perception, conception, feeling,
emotion, and agency—are later identified with power, to have an effect.
It will follow from later development that experience
and power are the same kind.
Experience
will be seen to be an essence of Being.
1.3.3.
The inclusivity of Being is EPISTEMOLOGICAL.
1.4.
A
BEING is the universe or part of it.
1.4.1.
A being as a being has no characteristics that define a special kind.
1.4.2.
Being is not a being or beings (plural): rather, a being is an INSTANTIATION
of Being—i.e., a being has Being or beings have Being. With sufficient
abstraction, though, the distinction is empty, as are other distinctions,
e.g. state, process, quality, gender and more.
Thus a being as a being has no
special characteristics that define special kinds of Being. Special kinds are
of essential interest but it is essential to defer their introduction.
In virtue of abstraction Being
is indifferent to the distinctions above. In the sufficiently abstract, there
is Being; there are beings; beings are not Being but have Being; at
greater abstraction beings and Being are not distinct; with sufficient
abstraction there is only experience.
The abstract conceptions of
Being and a being introduces an algebraic character to the study of Being and
universe. It empowers the means of answer to the question of what has Being,
which is a fundamental problem if not the fundamental problem of metaphysics.
The idea of Being is instrumental in addressing this question of Being. Is
substance the answer? Substance is an abstract posit—it may ‘exist’ but it is
not a final answer. If something never has an effect existence neither
obtains nor fails to obtain but is without meaning. This is one motive to the
concept of power introduced below.
1.4.3.
Thus Being derives from the generic verb to be above a neutrality as
extreme as possible while still referring at all—while referring to the
distinction between existence and non-existence. On the other hand, a being,
while not as neutral is still neutral to ENTITY, PROCESS (change), INTERACTION (relation)
but does distinguish this being from that one. To emphasize entity we will
write BE-ING
and for process we write BECOMING. But, more abstractly, we recognize entity, process, and interaction as forms of Being.
1.5.
POWER,
the ability to have an effect is the measure of Being.
1.5.1.
A being that has no power for or direct or indirect effect on a second
being—an individual or the universe—may be said but not known to exist for
the second being; however, it has and can have no significance for the second
being.
Power is an effective as an
approach to the question of What has Being?
As cause and effect are interactions
(which require relation), the universe—all Being—is
neither created nor caused. It lies outside the ideas of interaction,
relation, cause, and effect.
1.5.2.
RELATIVE
POWER is ability to have an effect on a particular being or group of
beings. The system of power for a group defines the RELATIVE UNIVERSE
for that group.
1.5.3.
The relative universe is effectively the universe. Later, we see that
there are no non-interactors and so the relative universe(s) and the universe
are the same.
1.5.4.
The power of manifestation is POTENTIAL. Potential is not
outside the universe—it has Being.
1.5.5.
If NONBEING
refers to a being that is not manifest in a phase of the universe, then
nonbeing has Being.
1.5.6.
Potential, where it may obtain, may (and will be found) in general be
found to be non traditional and non local causation.
1.6.
THE
VOID is the NULL BEING or absence of Being.
The fundamental
concepts so far are sameness and difference, Being
or existence, power or measure of Being, experience and consciousness
(both introduced formally), the universe or all Being,
a being or part of all Being, potential and
nonbeing, and the void or the null being. Of these, only the void does not clearly have Being. It is introduced here but its existence and
nature will be demonstrated and developed later in Metaphysics.
So
far, the system exhibits bits and pieces of explanation. However, to develop
it further something more is needed. We would like that ‘more’ to incorporate
the power of our traditional systems including the modern and we would also
like it to go beyond—to touch the ultimate, perhaps. We will find that the
idea of possibility is a vehicle for this so far vague aim.
In
longer developments we will first take a detour through experience, meaning,
and reason (in alternate developments the detour might come before the formal
beginning of the ideas of the present section).
Experience, meaning, and reason
Key terms are in the individual sections below.
In
Experience, meaning, and reason the focus is on the aware or sentient
aspect of Being. The following critical points are brought out here and
subsequently.
Though experience is often
regarded as having secondary Being—as a lower grade of the real—and sometimes
as having no Being at all, the experienced is not primary over experience
itself, for note that experience is experienced. The experienced can
be seen as an aspect of experience but of course not a mere
aspect-as-in-some-solipsisms. Experience can be seen as a medium of Being.
Prior to evaluation of concept
and language meaning a clear conception of such meaning is necessary. Only
then can an empiricist critique of the existence of meaning be discussed. The
concept of meaning here is one that shows the existence and critical
importance of meaning.
Though the origins of reason may
seem opaque, there is no absolute a priori to experience, and no surely
opaque element of reason.
In
its first meaning here, experience will be subjective awareness.
This meaning is repeated below.
Experience, subjective awareness, consciousness, real
world, metaphorical external world, doubt, subject, experiencer, object,
experienced, world, bound experience, perception, feeling, perception-feeling,
body, free experience, conception, emotion, conception-emotion, active
experience, volition, citta, manas, vijñāna, mind-body, concrete object,
abstract object, materialism, monism, strict materialism, cause, effect,
affect, dualism, substance dualism.
2.
In its first meaning here, EXPERIENCE will be SUBJECTIVE
AWARENESS and is of the same kind as CONSCIOUSNESS.
There is a NIHILISM that denies
that there is experience. However, it is a
fundamental named given for to doubt experience is experience. It has an ontological priority over matter as its seat or mind as
its place. To see this is to reject any—nihilist—materialism that negates experience or its powers. There is experience
of experience; and there is experience as-if of a REAL WORLD which includes
but is not identical to the METAPHORICAL EXTERNAL WORLD. While consciousness is experience,
the term experience suggests an experiencer and an experienced.
It is conceivable that there is
nothing in the world but experience—in a naïve
form this is SOLIPSISM.
However, if we map experience we find that the names for its aspects and
regions are roughly the names we use for the as-if real world. But we could
also see that world as a field of experience with individuals as
concentrations of experience. We ascribe reality to the former because it is
effective: what is called ‘I’ has powers but only limited powers of knowing
and acting. We ascribe reality to the latter as an abstract description (made
concrete later). With appropriate interpretations, the two descriptions are
equivalent. What this says is not that there is more than one description of
the real but that equivalent equally good descriptions or conceptions are
part of the real.
The SKEPTICISM of nihilism and of
solipsism have been used to clarify and establish the nature of experience. DOUBT is essential in arguing that there are
experience, SUBJECT (EXPERIENCER), and OBJECT (EXPERIENCED,
the real world). Of all philosophers, this section owes the most to Descartes for analysis of existence; it also owes to Wittgenstein for pointing out that an alternate
description often masquerades as factual difference.
2.1.
The WORLD
is the universe-as-experienced-by-the-individual or culture; we have just
seen that at root, world and universe are the same.
2.2.
Kinds of experience are free vs. bound, intensity of feeling—imperative
to neutral, bodily (inner) vs. environmental, iconic vs. symbolic, receptive
vs. active. The kinds include:
2.2.1.
BOUND
EXPERIENCE—PERCEPTION-FEELING, as if of an object
and or the BODY
felt real,
2.2.2.
FREE
EXPERIENCE—CONCEPTION-EMOTION (note that conception has two senses
in this narrative—here it is free conception but it is also general mental
content), creative play of experience that includes imagination, LANGUAGE, and reason
and which show abstract-pragmatic reality to the felt-real, and
2.2.3.
ACTIVE
EXPERIENCE with VOLITION—which identifies action and
the ACTIVE INDIVIDUAL
in contrast to the rest of the world.
2.2.4.
To talk of experience is not to exclude the world or the body of the individual. CITTA (also
see Living The Way, citta),
though it has a more specialized use in Buddhist texts, will here refer to
the combination of the three kinds above.
In
Buddhism and Hinduism, there are three aspects of mind—citta
or heart-mind or the emotive side of mind, MANAS—the
intellect, and VIJÑĀNA—‘wisdom’
More
specifically in Hinduism vijñāna is knowledge
of the ultimate or that results from dwelling in the ultimate.
I
choose citta as the representative of all aspects
of mind because it is underemphasized in western systems but is crucial in
itself but also in interaction with manas and vijñāna. In this sense citta
could be seen as MIND-BODY or body-mind.
We can
define a CONCRETE
OBJECT as the object of a percept (or bound citta).
Earlier, we considered abstractions from concrete objects. We could regard
these as abstract objects, metaphorically speaking. However, we can also
define an ABSTRACT
OBJECT as the object of a free concept (free citta).
We
will later see that abstract objects are real; that abstract objects lie in
the one universe that the distinction between the abstract and the concrete
lies only in the means of knowing them and is not intrinsic; and we will
develop a symmetric and unified theory of abstract and concrete objects; and
the variety of all objects far exceeds expectation.
We have seen that experience
and so consciousness, subject
(experiencer), and object
(experienced) have Being.
Can
we regard subject or object as fundamental? That is, we are enquiring into
the problems of mind and matter.
The treatment is not at a point where it can make a
commitment to substance or otherwise but we can
analyze some possibilities regarding substance.
On MATERIALISM, a MONISM,
there is only ‘matter’ or object. STRICT
MATERIALISM invokes the further idea that mind—experience, consciousness—are
no part of matter.
On strict materialism the
occurrence of experience is MAGIC. Therefore
emergence at some level of complexity is magic; an ANALOGY to emergence from matter to a material system is a disanalogy because
there is no emergence of substance. Therefore the condition of strictness
must be jettisoned if materialism is to be satisfactory. Now experience (mind) has three possible sources—internal to the
organism, external, and magic. We eliminate magic for obvious reasons and the
external because it does not directly pertain to function.
Therefore the elements of the experiential must be
among the known or unknown elements of the object (matter)
and from the nature of experience its elements must be relations among those
material elements. That is, there is an emergence
in higher organisms but what emerges is higher level experience or consciousness and not the elemental forms (mind) themselves. This is a monism but material—or
mental—only on an open interpretation of the terms ‘mind’
and ‘matter’. Experience
is a form of power—it is the total of subjective states associated directly
with environmental CAUSE and EFFECT and indirectly with internal causal
processing. Those states could be called states of AFFECT but to do so would
be more inclusive than the common use of ‘affective state’. We could identify
such states as citta.
Given substance, is this a
monism or DUALISM?
Two kinds of apparent SUBSTANCE DUALISM seem possible. First, experiential
phenomena are the result of something non-object (non-matter)
like that interacts with matter to make the
organism. But this is essentially the above case of monism. In a second situation,
some minds migrate to our immediate world from elsewhere but unless this is
the monistic case then, since the form of mind
must be material, it would be an other kind of matter
different from the local but this does not seem to make sense for it represents
something without power or at most ‘spirits’ or ‘ghosts’. These are of course
possibilities; later we will see an extension of these ideas as real and as
significant to a complete view of our Being—what
we are—and destiny.
Later, we find that there can be
multiple experiential kinds, each an as-if monism, each minimally interacting
with the others and each, perhaps, associated with a distinct cosmos but in
the most common cases, in a given cosmos, the situation in a stable phase of
a cosmos is likely close to monism. Entire systems of this kind will be found
in give and take with a transient background that is also in give and take
with the void.
Linguistic meaning, metaphysical meaning, existential
meaning, significant meaning, meaning of being, metaphysical language, formal
language, ordinary language, referential meaning, coherence criteria, concept
meaning, correspondence criteria, atomic concepts, referential linguistic
meaning, use, meaning determiner, formal language, discrete language.
2.3.
Care with LINGUISTIC MEANING is essential to careful thought in all
but the most rigidly defined contexts. It is critical in metaphysics which is
the ultimate open ‘context’. What is needed for the development is referential meaning, i.e. referential
linguistic meaning.
In the
open context, including metaphysics, meaning cannot be implicit or imported
from a limited context without confusion.
2.3.1.
The meanings of terms will be critical to the development—care with linguistic meaning will be essential but of course not
everything to METAPHYSICAL MEANING and EXISTENTIAL MEANING—i.e., SIGNIFICANT
MEANING or the MEANING OF BEING or phrases such as the
meaning of life.
It is
critical to attend to the meanings as introduced here and to not project
other meanings upon the formal development.
Referential
meaning will be seen to be everything to metaphysical
meaning and existential meaning if we
regard referential meaning as symbol-concept-object-relations. The question
regarding the adequacy of meaning is not whether meaning alone adequate—on
limited notions of meaning it is not—but What is a broad concept and
theory of meaning adequate to the metaphysics and epistemology of the
narrative’? Below we develop such a theory of meaning; and a corollary to
it will be an adequate theory and accomplishment of metaphysics and
epistemology.
SMALL
CAPITALS are employed to point out main occurrences of important terms
in the formal or METAPHYSICAL LANGUAGE of the narrative a phrase in red
small capitals indicates a DEFINITION. There will usually but not
always be a single main occurrence (one exception will be where there is an
alternate development of the ideas). The development depends critically on
the chosen system of meaning and it is therefore essential that readers
follow the defined meanings (which have been analyzed for mutual consistency
and completeness relative to ‘all Being’ in outline though of course not in
detail). The main occurrences are typically but not always the first
occurrences.
ORDINARY LANGUAGE
terms, used for general discussion and to talk about the metaphysical
language, will not be in small capitals. I thought to have another level, a
meta-language but found it redundant because ideas, language, and
epistemology are also metaphysical. Thus the two ‘languages’ employed here
are the metaphysical language and ordinary language.
Two
terms have capitalized and lower case forms to mark significant distinctions—Being versus a being or beings; and Logic versus logic or logics. The
distinctions regarding Logic will be marked only when they are not
obvious from the context.
2.4.
Here, meaning is REFERENTIAL
MEANING, which is adequate for the metaphysics to be developed, and for
which correspondence may be perfect or pragmatic.
The pragmatic subsumes COHERENCE CRITERIA, which it will not be necessary to use
explicitly in this essay.
2.4.1.
CONCEPT
MEANING is a concept as mental content (citta) and its object
(indifferent to sing. vs pl.). When sufficiently abstract reference may be perfect
according to perfect CORRESPONDENCE CRITERIA but otherwise pragmatic.
That is, concepts may be effectively ATOMIC CONCEPTS when sufficient
structure is omitted in abstraction; a LOGICAL ATOMISM is possible in the perfect
correspondence case—here we are developing such an atomistic framework for
the pragmatic (citta) case.
To
illustrate, consider the concept of ‘universe’. If it refers to the universe
in all its detail, it is not atomistic. However, if it refers to all
existence distinguishing it only from non-existence. It is a conceptual atom.
And it is this atom that is part of the perfect correspondence in which the
concept ‘universe’ refers to the actual universe. Is it superfluous to have a
concept ‘universe’ and the thing universe? No, for without the concept an
object cannot be identified: imagine, for example, if someone yells ‘sher’
while you are in the forest. You have no reaction. However, if they had yelled
‘tiger’ you might have panicked. That’s because you associate the word
‘tiger’ with a conceptual picture of a tiger. Now ‘sher’ is the Hindi word
for tiger but you do not make the connection: the concept is essential even
though it is not always efficient to be explicit about it. That is the
concept is essential if a pure sign such as ‘tiger’ or ‘sher’ are to have
meaning. There’s a further consideration. Under the concept of ‘universe’ you
can entertain square-circles and then, realizing that that is a contradiction
you can tell that the real universe does not have any. This clarifies that
you can if you wish include ‘square circles’ in ‘universe’ but it makes no
material difference and therefore you are also free to omit ‘square circles’
from ‘universe’. This approach to meaning also clarifies what a non existent
object is. If ‘Sherlock Holmes’ is defined as the person in the Arthur Conan
Doyle writings describing a literary British detective, then Sherlock Holmes
does (did) not exist.
2.4.2.
REFERENTIAL
LINGUISTIC MEANING associates signs with concept-objects; pure signs have no intrinsic meaning; structure contributes to compound sign, e.g.
sentence, meaning. This concept of meaning is essential to its possibility,
clarity, adequacy, and definiteness. Without the concept, reference is
impossible; even seemingly well formed compound reference may be indefinite,
empty, or paradoxical. This is crucial later in defining Logic; its neglect results in many semantic and logical paradoxes.
2.4.3.
USE–the
milieu of language—is the first source or MEANING DETERMINER of ordinary language meaning; it may be stabilized and
conventionalized in the common LEXICA and prescribed-semi-logical SYNTAX (pl.). But the ordinary is far
from ordinary and so the single-multiple milieu, conventional-realist,
fluid-stable, atomic-diffuse, unique-multiple and family nature of ordinary
language meaning. Also, the meaning of a compound sign is usually more than
the sum of the parts and might have little to do with the parts. We have no
option but to begin in the immediate and so we use ordinary language to build
up a metaphysical language system—terms introduced
in small capitals. One aim of a metaphysical
(formal) language is to overcome the difficulties of ordinary language—e.g.
as in mathematics (the formal case). Here, we should not wish to be as
strictly formal as in logics and mathematics there is, I find, significant
achievement. I do not know what the ultimate achievement or improvements may
be.
Via
abstraction there is, in discussing experience and
meaning, the beginning of a metaphysics—a METAPHYSICAL SYSTEM—of
precise reference (the atomic frame). This is crucial to meaning and
precision. It is essential for understanding that it be followed and not
confused with ordinary or other special meaning such as in science or other
metaphysical systems.
Because
the present work is not, say, mathematics it is likely impossible to not have
nuances of meaning and play. But I hope that the introduction of metaphysical language introduces reasonable general
consistency, careful consistency where it is needed—the ‘pure’ metaphysics,
allows play, disallows variant interpretations but allows play with those
interpretations.
2.5.
Language—FORMAL LANGUAGE at any rate—is DISCRETE LANGUAGE; its elementary
signs (alphabet, phonemes) are finite in number; and the number of possible
(and syntactical) combinations at most discretely (countably) infinite.
Thus
formal systems have certain inadequacies in capturing an abstract andor
concrete reality.
These
difficulties arise because of mismatch within the formal—these are
inconsistencies; because of mismatch between the formal and the real—these
have to do with ‘shape’; and because of issues of size—the formal map is
smaller than the real.
But
real knowledge, e.g. intuition, may be able to
capture the real. Thus, ultimately, we may know more than we know formally
and, perhaps, the precision of the formal may be ultimately misleading.
In
introducing terms here, it not be necessary to say, for example, ‘here,
reason is establishment of truth’. We will simply say ‘reason is
establishment of truth’ and we will not invariably add the reminder that ‘it
is not to be associated with other uses’.
The
meaning of terms is and should be related to historical and modern uses but
is as defined here. For the defined terms of the narrative, the metaphysical language and so on, an attempt at precision
and context independence is made. The system of terms also has meaning that
is revealed in the metaphysics and so on. It is crucial that the reader
recognize this and not impose imported meaning. This quite valid for I
endeavor to be internally and externally consistent and I do not impose my
meaning on extra-narrative use. However, I do claim a valid and potent system
that should at minimum be informative for extra-narrative—for the measure of
a system of meaning should be primarily what it captures and secondarily the
historical uses.
Introduction
to reason
Reason, truth, knowledge, action, argument, rationality,
fact, true fact, simple fact, compound fact, atomic fact, principles of
reason, first principle, absolute a priori, reflexivity, methodological
skepticism, observation, inference, observation, inference.
3.
REASON
is establishment of TRUTH (KNOWLEDGE) and is integral to ACTION Some related terms are ARGUMENT,
logic, science, and RATIONALITY.
Reason is the means of reliable
knowledge and action.
So as not to see reason as
sterile, it is important to see that reason does not exclude any element of
citta. To see that reason is rich and human, note that though it may be used
with a sterile set of presumptions, it may be used only to exclude what is
absurd and so to allow all richness of vision. We will chisel a view that is
maximally rich, yet may be used with precision.
This will require that we do not
alter the strict meaning of logic, especially in its modern use as deductive
logic, in its domain of applicability. Yet we must also see logic in its
larger context as synergic with all aspects of experience.
Where it is necessary to specify what meaning we use, we will do so.
We saw
that language is discrete. It may fail to capture on various accounts (some
noted above) but especially on this account.
An
advantage of language is its simplicity of form.
But the
real is not necessarily discrete.
The real
may be a mesh of discrete and continuous (e.g. bound vs. unbound quantum
states).
Intuition—brain,
if ‘continuous’ may be more effective in capture even though it seemingly
lacks the definiteness of language.
But even
if the definiteness of language (formal) is not illusory, the indefiniteness
of intuition may be illusory and a seeming artifact of translation into
language.
Are
there non-discrete forms of language?
3.1.
The word FACT is sometimes used to refer to something that is
postulated to have occurred or be correct.
3.1.1.
If the fact did occur, then we say it is true
or has truth. But usage sometimes conflates fact and ‘TRUE FACT’.
3.1.2.
For the present purpose we will think of fact as true fact. To
indicate that something is a fact that may be true we will call it a
hypothesized or HYPOTHETICAL
FACT.
3.1.3.
A fact may be a SIMPLE FACT or a COMPOUND FACT. But it seems
that ‘simple’ is relative. If a fact is elementary or not decomposable into
to other facts it is an ATOMIC FACT.
It is
not clear that there are concrete atomic facts but if there are it would give
absolute meaning, at least in some cases, to the notions of simple and
compound facts. However, it has been seen that there are effectively atomic
facts by abstraction.
The discussion of simple and compound facts is continued
below. We will see that there are some atomic facts but by abstraction rather
than by non-decomposability.
3.2.
The PRINCIPLES
OF REASON are open to discovery. As such there is no FIRST PRINCIPLE.
3.2.1.
Principle 1. Begin in the present; no ABSOLUTE A PRIORI.
Begin
in the present—where we are; begin with ordinary language which may be
investigated later.
There
is no absolute a priori.
To not
seek immediate perfection empowers foundations.
3.2.2.
Principle 2. Reason and content are not distinct.
For
reason is in the world and is therefore also content. Further, ground level
content provides the examples upon which reason is discovered experimentally.
And still further, therefore reason can also study itself—empirically and
symbolically. I.e. there is such a thing as ‘meta-reason’ but because reason
refers to no other arbiter of things, any meta-reason is part of reason.
3.2.3.
Principle 3. Reason does not exclude the affective. Reason
includes all elements of psyche or citta—reflexively (reflexivity is defined below).
This
follows from the discussion of experience,
meaning, and reason.
3.2.4.
Principle 4. Practical principles of reason.
Perhaps
the main practical principle is, rather than some Leibnizian formula, reason
is established iteratively in practice.
But
principles are already being established as in the foregoing sections—and in
what follows.
An
essential principle to be established is the identity of metaphysics and
reason—see the chapter on metaphysics.
We have seen why process and content should be inseparable—i.e. incompletely
separable. However, once the universal metaphysics has been established the
nature and truth of this will become clear.
3.2.5.
Principle 5. Reflexivity.
REFLEXIVITY,
in general, is the powerful open interactivity of any one part of experience
with any other—selected dynamically for consistency, adequate completeness,
and efficiency.
Creative
imagination, intuition, and criticism are essential to the process; the
definition above did not specify this because it follows from the definition.
Examples
are process of reason and content; intuition and formal reason—and intuition
of reason and reasoning about intuition; thought and action—‘mind’ and ‘body’; cognition and emotion; individual,
community, and culture; elements of content—e.g. the disciplines; discipline
and practice; experience—active or seeking and passive, learning and study,
research—intellectual and active.
3.2.6.
Principle 6. Doubt. Methodological skepticism.
Doubt and
METHODOLOGICAL
SKEPTICISM are aspects of reflexivity.
Philosophical
skepticism questions the possibility of certain knowledge or, in a radical
form, the possibility of knowledge at all. Doubt in methodological skepticism
may seem radical and thus absurd. However, the aim of methodological
skepticism is to question what we routinely but perhaps naïvely take to be
true and so to establish what is objective with regard to uniqueness versus
relativity of interpretation, what is its extent, and what is the nature of
knowledge and its truthfulness.
Thus
if we question whether experience as consciousness exists we are beginning to
question the meaning of experience and existence. With regard to existence
this leads to the notion that we need and perhaps should not posit a
particular yet ultimate real as a measure of existence (we may posit some
local measures and we allow that universal measures may emerge); this is a
source of the focus on ‘Being’. With regard to experience it leads to the
notion that it is so fundamental that it may be regarded as a given to be
named but not defined in terms of other kinds. Now since experience may be
experienced this leads to the idea that there may be no fundamental
distinction between experience and the experienced—and, particularly, not
that there is no real world but that experience is very much part of the
real.
Now we
have just seen how radical doubt used ‘methodically’ leads to clarification
of the fundamental notions of ‘experience’, ‘existence’ and ‘the real’.
We can
use such methodical doubt even more methodically.
We can
imagine a whole family of radical doubts that when addressed result in
elucidations of the nature of reality and the universe.
We
will consider some examples under the headings of ‘experience and the real
world’, ‘knowledge and value’, ‘synthesis’ of the foregoing, and learning
from ‘alternate realities. See for further discussion of methodological
skepticism and reflexivity.
Here
are some kinds of conclusion from skeptical analysis, (1) some doubts concern
elements of experience so fundamental that they are given and need only to be
named, (2) some doubts concern meaning and the process of identifying what is
real is in fact a dual process of concept and object, i.e. of meaning in the
sense used here, (3) while the individual doubts may seem as if doubting the
obvious, they may lead to clarification and a more comprehensive view—a view
that incorporates more of the real, better understood than the naïve view.
While some may adopt a skeptical view (e.g. solipsism), the (an) essential
function of skepticism is to critique the naïve view and to improve it. Often
we find that the naïve view is one possible view; and there is another
interpretation; and, sometimes, neither is more correct but one is more universal,
simpler, more revealing, (4) selection of truth from alternative incompatible
views: for some practical purposes we can take the naïve viewpoint as basic.
We do so because we do not want to dwell forever on doubt; we also want to
move ahead. At the same time we also entertain the doubt and as progress
occurs we can modify our basic position, e.g. in ways described above, (5)
showing where apparently incompatible views are compatible interpretations
and showing the circumstances under which the different interpretations are
preferred, and (6) how apparently piece meal analysis, especially imaginative
and critical response to skepticism, helps build up a powerful whole picture
of the world; When an adequately complete set of ‘canonical’ doubts are identified,
they fit together as a jigsaw to give an enhanced and whole picture of Being
not apparent from the individual pieces.
Experience
and the real world
Definition.
What
experience is. Experience is subjective awareness; a named and founded given.
Skeptical
view—there is no such thing as experience.
Reasons
for denial—strict materialism – matter is the only substance and contains no
element of psyche, positivism and positivist science, extraversion,
skepticism, experience cannot be causal.
Response
to denial—‘experience’ names subjective awareness, of experience itself, and
appearance of a real world. Strict materialism is impossible.
Conclusion—there
is experience, i.e. experience is real.
Skeptical
view—philosophical solipsism—there is no real world in the sense that there
is only experience and experience of experience which are real. That is,
there is no metaphorical external world.
Response—a
standard view is that of an experiencers in the perhaps material world, who
are at the ‘center’ of their experience. What they experience, including
experience itself, is the real world; and the real world includes others that
are similar to themselves. However, the ‘solipsist view’ is not true
solipsism but an alternative to the ‘standard’ to which the name ‘solipsism’
has been uncritically applied. In this alternative, the universe is a field
of experience whose experiential ‘brightness’ ranges from dim (perhaps
effectively but not essentially zero—i.e., the ‘zero’ is a value of what does
not have to be zero) to animal – human level and perhaps beyond. This is
consistent then with universal consciousness, which may itself vary in
brightness and scope, of which individuals are part.
Note—these
two views are not ‘materially’ different but different interpretations of
which the standard view has pragmatic purchase in the immediate while the
view of pan – universal consciousness is more inclusive—it includes the
standard with certain parameter settings—and more pragmatic in the universal.
A main objection of materialism is that matter cannot be of the same kind as
experience but this is not at all known and, in any case, it at once shows
the impossible poverty of materialism whose power derives from a blind
convention posing as ‘reason’; it is not a criticism of the ‘field of
experience’ view. And note that the ‘dim’ parts of the field are allowed to
have zero brightness thus not even being a violation of the possibility of
zero brightness under materialism.
Skeptical
view—experience is acausal or epiphenomenal.
Sources
of this view—the sources are similar to some of those for the denial of
experience. Even if we admit the existence of experience, it seems to
contradict materialism for experience to be able to interact with matter.
Response—we
have already seen that the universal view is not anti-material but is,
rather, inclusive of a material view—except of course that strict materialism
has been ruled out—and that, in either perspective, psyche is among the
elements of the effectively material and so there is no oddity to causal
interaction.
Further
we experience sentient persons as agents in both subjective and objective
viewpoints.
Skeptical
view—while solipsism does not hold, there are no other psyches or minds. The
universe is just ‘my psyche’ and the ‘material’ universe.
Response—a
beginning is to note the alternatives (1) my mind and other minds as not real
but experienced via intuition and inference as having the same status as my
mind (2) the same as #1 except that other minds are real. We then observe
that these may be considered ‘materially’ equivalent perspectives. However,
to deny ‘other minds’ I must also ask what the experiential justification of
the ‘my’ in ‘my psyche’ is and here I find that the existence of subjectivity
justifies no ‘my’ without a ‘you’ or ‘them’ as having psyches. But further,
if I grant that there is only ‘my mind’ then there is no explaining the
apparent power of the ‘other psyches’ (or the reality of the universe).
Skeptical
view—we do not have free will. The arguments for this position are (a)
physical determinism, (b) experiments suggesting ‘choice’ is pre-conscious.
Response
to skeptical arguments—it is not clear whether quantum theory is
deterministic but in any case none of its forms is complete; further there is
no necessary reason to hold that the universe is deterministic. The
experiments have no clear interpretation and in any case do not apply to
complex situations with learning. It is further important to note that a
tacit assumption in the skeptical position seems to be that physical theory
informs biology and psychology (and indeed even physical origins) regarding
issues such as determinism. However, that is not given either. There is no
reason we should not, if we can show free will to obtain—or if we can show
evolutionary biology or the psychology of creation to have indeterminism—to
use it to conclude that physics must be indeterministic.
Skeptical
position—but randomness hardly allows or makes for free will and choice. This
argument was given by David Hume.
Response—the
origin of form occurs at the boundary of already formed structure and
indeterminism.
Final
response regarding free will—will itself is the insertion or presence of
experience into the causal chain. That it is ‘free’ follows from the
psychological argument.
Conclusion—we
arrive at a modified standard view of a world with psyches having free will
and creative intelligence, each cognizing a world of matter which is not
alien to psyche and cognizing psyche itself, and each cognizing in that world
the other psyches. At minimum this standard world has an extent at least that
roughly as described in modern cosmology. At most this world is limitless in
variety, extension, and duration (identity, variety, sameness, difference)—we
are denying that physical possibility in the sense of what is allowed by our
empirical and local laws is the general kind of possibility. In this
possibilist but not yet though to be demonstrated view, universal
consciousness, Brahman, varies in its range and height, but approaches the
greatest possibility; and individual self or Atman approaches Brahman (and is
Brahman, if only we were to see it by overcoming our adaptive blindness). For
universal purposes, the alternative interpretation of the world as a field of
experience as described above is superior and, in a sense, ultimate. Of
course, the local view is materially (at least) adaptive.
Skeptical
position, addressed to the Platonic Realists above—the universe is the
minimalist one described just above.
Alternative
skeptical position, addressed to the strictest possible materialists above,
whom, we have already seen, have already been required to admit that strict
reductive materialism is not tenable—the universe is the greater than the
minimalist one and may even by the maximalist Platonic Universe.
Observation—true
skepticism should not be applied only to ‘optimist’ versions of reality but
also to the minimalist views.
Response—the
response is the standard one from The Way of Being: the demonstration of the
maximalist universe via the concepts of Being, Universe, Beings, The Void,
and analysis of possibility in terms of the meaning of ‘possibility’ and
natural law and natural possibility and logic and logical possibility.
Conclusion—the
universe is the realization of all possibility. This requires careful
analysis of possibility to avoid paradox that may arise from careless use. It
demonstrates the maximalist Platonic Realism noted above.
Knowledge
and value; and synthesis
Skeptical
view—from the veil between experiencer and experienced, knowledge is
impossible. Particularly, universal and necessary knowledge is impossible
(and of course even the ordinary is impossible).
Response—any
view that ‘no knowledge’ is possible can follow via reason only from an
essentially absurd concept of knowledge. That no knowledge is possible
follows (only) from a view that all knowledge should be a perfect copy of the
world.
Response
continued—here is an essential consideration: in consideration of the world
as having experiential beings within it, we recognize that ‘experience’ is a
relation between ‘experiencer’ and ‘experienced’. While it is true that we
experience a picture of the world, it is also true that that net picture is
part of experience. Therefore both are subject to the criticism of
imperfection. What this implies is that the very meaning of ‘knowledge as
picture’ is (or may be) misleading. But we know, from the perspective that
our ability to negotiate the world gives some knowledge pragmatic validity
(reliabilism) if not correspondence (the picture-picture) variety.
Continued—but
we have seen that we do have perfect knowledge, e.g. of experience, Being,
Universe, Beings, The Void, Law, Possibility, Logic, and a maximal Universe.
This shows us that for ultimate purposes, any approximation – imprecision –
or tentativeness in ‘pragmatic knowledge’ is not an undesirable feature. In
fact it is unavoidable, and perfect as instrument in ultimate realization.
Continued—this
alternative view to the standard may challenge the imagination; the standard
view is present as constant pressure, sustained by the normal world and
individuals, to return to the standard. The resolution is to see both
alternatives as valid in their realms; but the realm of the Platonic is the
inclusive view.
Continued—as
far as the immediate world, i.e. this cosmos, is concerned and our temporal
lives on an ‘everyday’ basis, is concerned, the ‘old’ problems of knowledge
remain pertinent. These include the nature of knowledge as held in the
individual, issues of validity and reason, of justification versus
fallibilism, and so on. What has changed, however, in response to the New
Platonic Realism above, is that the significance of these standard views is
given perspective, closing down mystery on some fronts—but opening up greater
mystery on others.
Note
that ‘New Platonic Realism’ is not a standard use and has been introduced ad
hoc relative to ‘standard’ use of Platonic Realism. Of course there is some
affinity with the ideas of Platonic Form, Idealism, and Realism so it is not
entirely ad hoc.
Continued—why
do we exist? It is required by logic—i.e., in a sense there is no ultimate
‘Why?’ All why’s and how’s are proximate why’s or how’s. What is the meaning
of our lives? Locally, it is up to the choice of the individual although of
course there are practical considerations of material reality, human
relationships, life path, technology, science, politics, and economics, and
even the meaning of ‘religion’, and psyche. But universally the meaning of
life can be none other than what it is—i.e., participation in the Platonic
Universe and its Atman-Brahman process. Within life and at its local
(proximate) edge, we find instrumental and intrinsic means of entry into that
process. These begin with science, technology, psychology, politics, and economics
(the instrumental) and meditation, vision quest, yoga, and self
transformation, and similar processes from other (extra-Hindu) world cultures
(the intrinsic). The local can derive illumination from the universal; and it
illustrates and need not be estranged from the universal as advocated by the
territorial materialist.
Skeptical
view—David Hume: all our knowledge is confined to the facts of experience. We
think external objects exist because we think the mind can frame abstract
ideas as real. But the mind is, in fact, incapable of this. A paraphrase from
History
of Western Philosophy
Response
due to Immanuel Kant—Kant’s response is well known. Mind of course
contributes to the real as does the world. Kant goes deeper. He looks at
experience—perception and thought—and asks how it is possible. He concludes
(1) the form of experience must conform to the form of the world, (2) he is
thus able to make conclusions about both of those forms, (3) that
conformation is the source of the synthetic a priori, (4) from the science of
his time, the geometry of Euclid and the mechanics of Newton, he concludes that
those two sciences belong to the synthetic a priori.
Continued—we
now know of course that the science of Kant’s time was, though adequate for
some purposes, inadequate as the science of the universe. However,
conclusions (1) – (3) still hold and would apply if we were to find a
‘necessary science’ in the way Kant thought the science of Euclid and Newton
necessary.
Continued—but
our modern view of science tends to be different. We find science to have a
positive domain of application but we are agnostic with regard to a universal
science. Why? Because in a potentially infinite universe, in which there are
always potential new data, we have no guarantee that a science, no matter how
perfect in some domain, will extend to the whole universe.
Continued—but
is it true that our knowledge must be so limited forever? The universal
metaphysics of the present narrative, finds Universe, Being, Beings, The
Void, Possibility, The Existence of the Void, to be ‘absolute concepts’.
Further, though these seem trivial, they lead to the potent universal
metaphysics.
Continued—objection—but
the universal metaphysics is abstract and, therefore, though it has objects,
we do not know how to locate these objects in experience. For the latter, we
resort to the concrete experiential objects which remain subject to Humean
like objects.
Continued—response—but
the universal metaphysics shows that in the evolution of Being, it (us) will
encounter myriad cosmoses and myriad forms of self, all with necessarily
limited knowledge of the local concrete, all with yet another world to come
on the way to the ultimate. What that says is that (a) our concrete local
knowledge is necessarily limited, barring possible exceptions, and (b) that
is essential and good.
Continued—that
is, we move one step higher: in analyzing the concrete and its rough
rendering of reality, we find that that is precisely the knowledge we need
and ultimate precision as a goal is limiting (of course this does not imply
that the local goal of greater precision is undesirable for all ends).
Continued—almost
all modern philosophy is substance philosophy. This includes the empiricists,
the rationalists, Immanuel Kant, and any philosophy of a scientific
interpretation of the universe as ultimate; even Heidegger, after having
foresworn substance, attempts to turn European Experience into a substance.
Continued—to
make this clear let us return to substance and state two ‘definitions’ of it.
(1) Substance is eternal structureless and eternal being, whose
manifestations are the world; and as such substance solves the dual problem
of being and knowing. (2) Substance is the attempt to project limited
generalization, which is powerful in its limited domain, to the universe,
where it is not merely impotent but destructive of both greater and the
greatest understanding.
Skeptical
view—if logic is a priori we cannot know it; if it is empirical, it is not
absolute.
Response—to
address this, let us compare logic and science. Let us begin with physics. We
hold, let us say, that modern physics is true in a limited domain—the limit
of our physical knowledge but not necessarily the limit of the universe or
anywhere near. Roughly, then, in science we have knowledge of a limited
world—limited on multiple fronts, e.g. space and time, magnitude of phenomena,
and perhaps the ‘mind-matter gap’.
Continued—on
the other hand we know that logic is less demanding than physics. Physical
knowledge must also be logical; but logical knowledge need not be physical.
We can say, at least tentatively, that logic must apply in any world. But
since we do not have access to other worlds, how can we evaluate our logics?
Continued—let
us begin with a simple reflection. A physical law implies that some patterns
must obtain, while others that we can easily imagine do not obtain. For
example, say inertia is a measure of resistance to acceleration and not a
measure of resistance to the third derivative of position. Though we
think the third derivative case to be un-physical, we do not think it absurd,
even though a third derivative world might be bizarre to us.
Continued—now
consider a simple example of logic. When we say a ball cannot
simultaneously be black and not-black, we consider it a logical statement
because the alternative, a simultaneously black and non-black but real object
to be absurd because, not only does it not happen at all but, it seems to be
impossible in any world. In fact ‘does not happen at all’ is the same as
‘does not happen or is impossible in any world’.
Continued—that
gives us a sense of how we may explore logic even though we do not have
access to other worlds. And the seeming necessity of it explains why we think
of it as a priori. On the other hand, let us reconsider why we think
‘simultaneously black and not-black’ is impossible. Perhaps it is in the definition
of ‘not’. But surely we cannot make something true by definition.
Continued—it
seems that what we are doing is taking something very general but simple, and
therefore also intuitive, and claiming its truth. It is a little
circular—true because intuitive and simple and general and therefore true.
Unless we acknowledge that it is ultimately an empirical generalization. In
which case, logic, whatever its ultimate status, which we now know that we do
not know, is discovered empirically.
Continued—which
also underlines what its a priori status is. Here, it is knowledge of a more
general nature than physical knowledge but still empirical. For why could
there not be a world in which there is ‘black and not black’? Because of
explosion of truth, one might respond, which, in turn, gets the counter
response—explosion occurs only on a certain account of propositional logic.
Thus logic is empirical.
Continued—on
the other hand it is a priori in the sense of a priori to physical or more
specific experience. The ‘black and not black’ idea is not, for example,
built into any necessary grammar. If it were it would be closer to an
absolute a priori.
Continued—we
have, today, another way to think about this. Since we are adapted via
biological evolution and perhaps there is also a certain amount of cultural
selection within culture, we can say that at least part of the logical a
priori is prior to human being and culture but not prior to their evolution.
Similarly we could say that physics is a synthetic a priori to our knowledge
but a posteriori to the origin of the cosmos.
Learning
from the idea of alternate realities
We
have looked at alternate but compatible interpretations of the real. They may
have begun as ‘alternate realities’ but we then found them to be alternate
interpretations.
Here
we look at some alternate realities. They may even be bizarre. But the goal,
as before, is a more secure grasp of the real.
Let us
begin with a fragment of the real as preliminary to the main argument of this
section. We saw that every possibility must obtain. Why then must our earth
continue doing what it will and not undertake a whole range of realities (let
us set aside the many histories interpretation of quantum theory)? This is
because given a reality for a fragment of the real, e.g. our earth and its
history, another, say superposed but different reality is not a possibility
at all. However, it is possible and therefore given that there are ‘other
earths’ in the universe, some of them identical in history but others
bifurcating at some past and / or future point from the ‘mother history’,
i.e. our earth’s history. There need be no immediate causal connection
between the different earths. We think our earth has its roots in the big
bang. However, it seems entirely possible that it began five minutes ago
(complete with memories as if it began in a big bang). But what our theory of
the realization entails is that some earth’s in the universe have the
standard history that is the history read in the record in the present while
others do not. The former are ‘stable realities’ the latter ‘unstable’ in the
sense that the path to their formation is so unlikely that, as shown in The Way of Being, they
constitute a minute fraction of the total number of earths (which is without
limit).
So
here are some alternate and ‘bizarre’ realities
1.
The earth and our cosmos formed five minutes ago, an infinite amount
of time ago…
2.
The earth was created by a super organism (not an external god because
the universe has no ‘outside’); this is bizarre in relation to the stable and
to the Atman-Brahman cosmology because the latter leaves the nature of Atman
and Brahman open besides being a necessary destiny of consciousness,
3.
Russell’s teapot which is actually more bizarre than the Abrahamic God
because the latter attempted to be an explanatory answer to psychologically
curios organism (but must now be bizarre after science as reductive science
becomes bizarre after rational metaphysics),
4.
Wittgenstein’s “there is a rhinoceros in the room and you can’t prove
there isn’t”.
5.
We are brains in vats and nothing but brains in vats; we are
simulations; we are simulations of simulations; and so on.
6.
And so on.
The
point to the ‘bizarre realities’ is not that they are true or false (they are
necessarily true).
The
point is that they remind us that most realities are dependably stable (in a
cosmological sense); even the appearance of a historical reality is stable.
But,
in fact, where we cannot or so far do not distinguish, we should proceed as
if stable.
Except
to note that
1.
We may learn something from the fact of instability, e.g. to see
beyond our reality and how the unstable and the stable make up a greater
fabric,
2.
The seeming contingent necessities of our primitive metaphysics, e.g.
science and death, are high degrees of probability, and the continent
impossibilities are high improbabilities,
3.
The ultimate real is transcendent of the contingent, stable or not, to
the necessary and ultimate,
4.
Which is eternal, ever fresh, never given, full with joy and pain,
blood and comfort.
3.3.
The two pillars of reason are (1) OBSERVATION—to establish
fact directly and (2) INFERENCE—i.e., from given facts to conclude further facts.
Reason
does not stand above knowledge content or action and realization.
Since Being and experience are in the world reason is a kind
of content.
Reason
maps action.
Here, neither
absolute a priori nor final reason is assumed, except where shown. Reason
remains a fluid center in communication with all content.
Reason
is not merely formal and cognitive—e.g., logic and science. It also involves,
as noted, other elements of citta (see citta) as including bound, free, and active
experience: appropriate and necessary use of heuristics, emotion, value,
intuition, imagination, experiment, and action—all in reflexive interaction.
But note that an image of action is captured in reason and that in the
universal metaphysics it is a perfect image:
An
ultimate metaphysical framework will be developed that is precise by
abstraction. This will frame and interact with the rich, pragmatic, case that
permits citta and imprecision, and includes TRADITION—what is valid in the
tradition of human cultures, imagination and criticism, experiment and
action. The latter will be found to be the perfect instrument for the former.
The
criteria of truth will be perfect correspondence for the logical atomic
framework and pragmatic for tradition. Though pragmatic, tradition as defined
here, is the perfect instrument in realization within the framework
That is,
in an ideal and active sense, metaphysics, reason, argument, and Logic are
identical. We say REASON IS IDENTICAL TO METAPHYSICS
and mean that if we begin with limited accounts then a full account of
metaphysics or reason is not possible without a full account of both. But in
saying metaphysics is reason, I mean that reason (citta) is the higher
of the two.
Reason
is a main thread weaving The Way together. It is so, not because
reason or reasoning generates all things but because it is in efficient
communication with all things.
Elements of reason, establish fact, infer fact, data,
basic data, measurement, corroboration, precise fact, necessary truth,
necessary fact, projection, hypothesis, theory, conclusion, confidence,
premise, necessary inference, tautology, logical consequence, deduction,
deductive logic, logic, valid, sound, induction, hypothetical inference,
abduction, conduction, science, hypothetico-deductive method, explanatory
hypotheses, Ockham’s principle, significance criteria, range criteria,
subsumption criteria, ideation, knowledge as cultural, society, consensus,
internal factor, external factor, intercultural adaptation, environmental
adaptation.
3.4.
The ELEMENTS
OF REASON are—to ESTABLISH FACT and INFER FACT from fact.
3.4.1.
A simple fact or fact
is an item of DATA that is atomic for a given
correspondence or BASIC DATA for a given pragmatic purpose.
3.4.2.
Facts are established by perception,
observation (link),
MEASUREMENT,
CORROBORATION,
and reason (argument).
When discrimination is imperfect, facts are uncertain or
imprecise.
3.4.3.
But the pure or PRECISE FACT as possible, e.g. that there is
a universe, which from abstraction is perfect and atomic. Though trivial in following from definition
and the given, such precise facts in combination
will be found to have immense consequences.
3.4.4.
A NECESSARY
TRUTH is one that must be true. From universe as all Being, that there is precisely one universe is a NECESSARY FACT,
if tautological—since there is ‘always’ either a manifest or void universe.
Are
there any necessary non tautological non analytic facts? Following W. V. Quine, “It is raining” is contingent. But “It is raining
on Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 8:46:23 AM in my backyard”, on tenseless us of
‘is’ and factual truth of the statement in double quotes, is an eternal fact.
That is, prior to Saturday, May 20 it could not be said to be true. On
the other hand now that it is past the given date and time I know that it is
an eternal fact. It is a necessary fact, a necessary truth.
Given
that there is, by simple observation and earlier Cartesian type analysis, a
manifest universe, this is a necessary truth. But can we say it is a
necessary truth without the observation? No—not unless we find some other way
of demonstrating it as a fact. In Metaphysics
the fact will be demonstrated and so shown necessary, while not eternally,
but limitlessly in that the non-manifest case will be also limitless but
non-eternal.
3.4.5.
A compound fact as a collection of facts is
also a fact; but as PROJECTION beyond the collection, finite or unlimited, it
may be HYPOTHESIS
or THEORY.
3.4.6.
Inference is to arrive at a CONCLUSION with a certain CONFIDENCE
from a PREMISE
of a specified confidence. Note that because they may be compound,
‘conclusion’ and ‘premise’ include ‘conclusions’ and ‘premises’.
3.4.7.
NECESSARY
INFERENCE is inference in which the conclusion follows from the premise
without doubt—i.e., with full confidence.
3.4.8.
Necessary inference is possible only when the conclusions
are essentially contained in the premises (by TAUTOLOGY, trivial or significant)
or independently true, e.g. as fact. A necessary inference is a LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE.
The main means of necessary inference is ‘logical deduction’ or, simply, DEDUCTION
or DEDUCTIVE
LOGIC or LOGIC
which follows semantically from the containment of conclusion in premise; for
example the transitivity of implication can be modeled by inclusion for sets:
(a ® b).(b ® c) ® (a ® c) says, with appropriate interpretation,
(A Ê B).(B Ê C) ® (A Ê C). However syntactic representation is
desirable when we want logic to be independent of models. First order logic,
too, has a set theoretic interpretation.
Note
that it is common today for logic to refer to deductive logic; while quite
common in philosophy this is almost universal in mathematics.
3.4.9.
If, indeed, the conclusion follows from the premise, the inference is VALID.
3.4.10.
If the facts or premises are true and the inference valid, then the
conclusions are true and the reason or argument is SOUND.
3.4.11.
When the conclusion is not contained in the premise, it is at most PROBABLE and the
inference is the inference of INDUCTION of which particular cases are HYPOTHETICAL
INFERENCE, ABDUCTION, and CONDUCTION. In SCIENCE, the projected conclusions
begin as hypotheses and via repeated and widespread success achieve theory status. Unless the ‘universe’ of potential data
has been exhausted, the theory is never finally confirmed. While testability
(falsifiability) is a criterion of valid science, the method may be called
the HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE
METHOD (i.e. making EXPLANATORY HYPOTHESES, predictions based on
the hypotheses, modifying the hypotheses if the predictions disagree with the
outcomes). Aesthetic appeal is a heuristic criterion; OCKHAM’S
PRINCIPLE regarding minimality of hypotheses may be seen as effective
and aesthetic. SIGNIFICANCE
CRITERIA, RANGE
CRITERIA, and SUBSUMPTION CRITERIA (of other theories) are some heuristic
criteria of an effective scientific theory.
Method
is content; in reason, IDEATION and action are continuous.
Reason
is everything (see metaphysics is
reason).
We
will see no ultimate reason to distinguish reason, metaphysics, and rational
action (in practice there are of course differences).
An
idea such as rational yoga—in theory, practice, and action—will also be part
of reason. We will not necessarily make an explicit point of this.
Knowledge
is also a social and cultural phenomenon—KNOWLEDGE AS CULTURAL—i.e., one of
culture and SOCIETY. This is emphasized above—coherence includes AGREEMENT or CONSENSUS among individuals and
cultures; corroboration includes agreement or consensus
by individual(s) and cultures. While consensus is
an INTERNAL
FACTOR, EXTERNAL
FACTOR(s) of knowledge as cultural include INTERCULTURAL ADAPTATION
and ENVIRONMENTAL
ADAPTATION (including natural and economic).
Reason includes content and principle in interaction with
action and culture; and it maps all of the foregoing.
Possibility, Natural Law, and Logic††
Boundary of the real or actual, possibility, states of
affairs, limit, constitution, pattern, necessity, actual, universal
possibility, greatest possibility, epoch, cosmos, our cosmos, empirical
cosmos (the), law, natural law, law, natural possibility, sentient
possibility, feasibility, logical possibility, conceptual possibility,
greatest conceivable possibility, universal possibility, limitless, most
liberal possibility, logic, citta as logic, logics, greatest possible
universe, hierarchies of possibility, naturalism, monotheism, idealism,
idealist cosmology, universal natural possibility, local natural possibility.
As
the BOUNDARY
OF THE REAL OR ACTUAL, the concept of possibility is crucial to
rational study of Being and the universe.
Possibility is what may be, which is the ultimate boundary for what may be some
‘where’ in sameness, difference and their absence (more particularly,
anticipating the development of space and time, what has been, what is, and
what will be). Analysis of possibility is analysis of the relation of
potential and reality. Are they distinct or identical? We move to discover.
The idea of possibility is of something that could be. One
obvious measure is that something has been or is (strictly though ‘has been’
implies only ‘was possible at some time’). But otherwise ‘could be’ is not
definite. For the concept of possibility to be an instrument of rational
study it needs careful definition. It needs to be recognized that while an
intuition of what is possible is experiential, the intuition collapses a
range of criteria of the possible. That range should be fleshed out and made
precise.
4.
POSSIBILITY
is the range of STATES OF AFFAIRS accessible to a being—or Being.
4.1.
A LIMIT
is an inaccessible state. Possibility also defines inaccessible states.
Study of possibility begins as
possibility for a being.
Beings have no a priori limits
except as kinds or cases.
The study will be concerned with
relations between the possible and the actual. A range of kinds of
possibility are taken up here and it is shown that the greatest kind is logical
possibility. In Metaphysics it is
shown that logical possibility is the same as the actual for the universe and
that the different kinds of possibility mesh consistently—and that is a truth
rather than an artifact of definition. The range of the possible and the
actual are elaborated here, in Metaphysics,
and in Cosmology.
4.2.
The CONSTITUTION
of a kind of being, case of Being, or a CONTEXT defines or
specifies the kind, case, or context.
4.2.1.
Constitution is what, if altered, is cessation of the being as that
being or that kind of being.
The cessation is perhaps
‘transformation to’ another being, manifest or null—i.e. at least temporary cessation
of manifest existence.
4.2.2.
A PATTERN
is simplicity of form that permits representation of raw data by a smaller
quantity of data.
4.2.3.
Constitution includes individual and generic
patterns.
4.3.
A conceived state is possible for a being
if it is allowed by or does not violate the constitution of the being.
4.3.1.
States not allowed by the constitution of the being are IMPOSSIBLE
for the being.
4.3.2.
NECESSITY
for a being is what must obtain for it; i.e. necessity for the being is
constitution. It is necessary that a being be in one of its possible states
and not in an impossible state.
4.3.3.
For a being it is possible to be any one of its possible state and
necessary that it should be in some possible state.
A
thought on classical vs. quantum logic. In the classical case the being is in
one and only one state. It has been suggested that in the quantum case the
object may participate in more than one state. But it is not clear to me
whether this is a truth or an artifact of the conception of quantum states in
classical terms.
More precisely for a being B,
these are RELATIVE
POSSIBILITY and RELATIVE
NECESSITY or B
POSSIBILITY and B
NECESSITY.
4.4.
An ACTUAL
state of a being B is possible. This may be called B possible.
The set of actual states is
included in—is a subset of—the set of possible states.
4.5.
UNIVERSAL
POSSIBILITY, UNIVERSAL ACTUALITY, and the GREATEST
POSSIBILITY are identical.
4.5.1.
Though we may conceive possibility greater than universal, there is
not and can not be a greater possibility.
4.5.2.
Such greater conceived possibility could lie in the range of universal
to logical (as defined later) or beyond the logical (which would be logically
contradictory). The former might seem possible but the latter does not even
seem possible.
4.6.
An EPOCH
is a phase of sameness and difference for a being over which the being does
not mutate and which is causally connected; for the phase, it is weakly
causally connected to—or temporarily isolated from—the rest of the universe.
4.6.1.
A COSMOS
is a being or domain whose constitution is regarded as immutable over a
limited epoch—the epoch of the cosmos.
4.6.2.
OUR
COSMOS or THE EMPIRICAL COSMOS is the domain of our empirical
knowledge as understood in terms of our natural laws (natural law is defined
shortly).
4.6.3.
The empirical cosmos is not the universe. The universe will be seen to
be limitlessly greater than the empirical cosmos in extension (sameness,
difference, and their absence—which will be seen to include space and time)
and variety of Being.
4.6.4.
COSMOLOGICAL
POSSIBILITY refers to any outcome consistent with the constitution of
a cosmos in its epoch.
4.6.5.
A temporally deterministic cosmos would have only one outcome; an
indeterministic cosmos may have more than one possible outcome.
4.7.
A LAW,
LAW
OF NATURE, or NATURAL LAW is a READING of a pattern, usually
generic, for a being (in our experience, a cosmos).
The capitalized term ‘LAW’ refers
to the pattern itself but what follows will use just the term law and not
distinguish it from Law.
Laws pertain especially to
cosmoses. Laws may also pertain to other kinds such as life and society. The
term ‘law’ is generally not applied to lesser entities or individuals.
4.7.1.
A law can be seen as a compound fact for the being in question or a
universal hypothesis.
Later
we find that a universal hypothesis as potentially applicable to all
Being is empty. Valid concepts of all Being as such satisfy no contingent
condition—they are seen to satisfy only ‘Logic’.
4.7.2.
NATURAL
POSSIBILITY, for a cosmos (and some other kinds of Being, e.g. living
beings) is defined by its constitution (to the exclusion of epoch).
4.7.3.
Kinds of natural possibility include PHYSICAL POSSIBILITY and BIOLOGICAL
POSSIBILITY and PSYCHOLOGICAL POSSIBILITY (also see Sentient possibility).
Some
writers do not consider the psychological to be a natural kind.
The constitution of a cosmos may
be expressed in terms of its natural laws (this is possible though not
typical for other kinds of Being, e.g. individuals) and the extent of its
epoch.
If the cosmos is entirely given
by natural law—i.e. if the known natural laws are complete over the cosmos,
then cosmological possibility is natural possibility in the context of the
cosmos and its epoch. We may also consider natural possibility for other and
more inclusive systems—cosmological or merely transient.
Sentient
possibility
4.7.4.
SENTIENT
POSSIBILITY is the possibility of sentience as subject and agent.
Kinds include sentient possibility for the universe and for a being.
4.7.5.
If natural possibility were regarded as inert, we would not consider
sentient possibility natural.
4.7.6.
Sentient possibility includes capacity for thought and feeling and
possibilities for sentience driven action and creation.
4.7.7.
A limited case of sentience and biology that is HUMAN
POSSIBILITY.
4.7.8.
NON
SENTIENT POSSIBILITY is possibility for a being or the universe as
devoid of sentience.
For completeness, we may also consider
SOCIAL
POSSIBILITY, CULTURAL POSSIBILITY, SYMBOLIC
POSSIBILITY, LINGUISTIC POSSIBILITY, ECONOMIC
POSSIBILITY, and POLITICAL POSSIBILITY.
Practically, for some of these cases of this and recent
sections, the notion of feasibility is also pertinent.
FEASIBILITY is possibility of some
kind that is pertinent to individuals, societies, or civilizations that
includes some further concerns such as practicality, value, and desirability.
Logical
possibility and Logic
4.8.
LOGICAL
POSSIBILITY is whatever is allowed by Logic.
Logical possibility is conceivable possibility in general.
4.8.1.
Logical possibility is CONCEPTUAL POSSIBILITY in general.
4.8.2.
The main kinds of possibility considered prior to the logical are the actual
and the possibility for a kind or case of Being or
a system—general, natural, universal and greatest, and sentient.
4.8.3.
Whereas the previous kinds of possibility are limits on Being, Logical
possibility is not a limit on Being but a limit on concepts for
realizability.
4.8.4.
The capitalization in ‘Logical’ is explained shortly.
4.8.5.
If a conceptual representation of the universe satisfies Logic, its realization is logically possible.
4.8.6.
Whatever is possible under the limiting kinds of possibility, is
logically possible. Conversely, the logically impossible concept is never and
cannot be realized; therefore all possibility lies within the logical.
4.8.7.
(Therefore) logical possibility is the greatest conceivable realizable
possibility or, because the possible must be realizable, more appropriately,
the GREATEST
CONCEIVABLE POSSIBILITY; it must contain UNIVERSAL POSSIBILITY.
If a concept violates Logic it cannot and does not exist in any world; this is
equivalent to saying it exists outside the greatest possible universe; or
saying it exists outside the universe if the universe is the greatest
possible (which will be shown). In other words ‘illogical states’ could be
allowed because there are none. Provided it is done consistently, logical
possibility can be interpreted either to include or not include the illogical
states.
4.8.8.
If our cosmos has the limits we normally assign to it, the logical
possibilities for the universe are far greater than the physical or
cosmological possibilities for our empirical cosmos—in terms of extension
(‘space’, ‘time’, other: that is, sameness and difference, and their absence)
and kind. These, the logical possibilities, are without limit—LIMITLESS—for
which the term ‘infinite’ is inadequate.
4.8.9.
Logical possibility is the MOST LIBERAL
POSSIBILITY—a state cannot be obtain but not be logical. Note that the interpretation of Logic here must include
that given fact cannot be violated which brings the concepts of Logic and reason (with citta—see
citta—as ‘whole being’) into alignment. That is, here
logic is LOGIC as reason or CITTA AS LOGIC (where there would be no
confusion capitalization for the terms ‘Logic’ and ‘Logical’ is omitted).
4.8.10.
The idea of Logic may be seen as arising in the following way. The
freedom of concept formation allows the formation of concepts that purport to
refer to the world, i.e. facts, that do not actually so refer. That is the
purported fact is not true. Similarly, the freedom of concept formation
allows compound concepts that contain internal contradictions and so cannot
refer to any world. When a compound concept can refer to the world, it is
‘logical’; otherwise it is ‘illogical’. Now since true facts can be regarded
as percepts that do refer to the world and percepts are a kind of concept,
factual reference can be brought under logic as Logic.
4.8.11.
Here is a summary of the liberal extent of logical possibility from Metaphysics > Some consequences. For a universe
that is the universe of logical possibility (a) the universe has limitless
sentient and cosmological identity (sense of self—identity is defined
in categories of identity…),
e.g. of cosmoses against a void-transient background (b) limitless physical
laws, (c) limitless extension, (d) every realization has a greater general as
well as sentient realization, (e) so realization is endless, and (f) these
realizations are the realizations of the individual.
In what follows we will
distinguish logic—inference only—and Logic—fact and inference—only when
necessary for clarity.
If a concept—a proposed state of
affairs—violates a system natural law but not logic, it may exist outside the
realm of the natural law; the existence of such realms is logically possible;
they are possible under different natural laws. As noted we can entertain
that illogical states exist.
For convenience, to appreciate
the immensity of the logically possible, which is conceptually obvious, the consequences
summarized above, taken from Some
consequences…, are repeated here.
The universe has identity. Individual identity shares in universal
identity.
The individual is an expression of
potential or disposition, comes from and returns to the universal; has access
to this knowledge which is entire in abstract principle if limited in detail;
has ultimate realization as an inevitable imperative; and while eternal
rebirth has validity—that is not karma (here) and, in any case, that ‘karma’
is at most a fragment of meaningful reality, perhaps symbolic in its
usefulness.
Karma is not just a limited identity
that is reborn as itself. Every identity is reborn as every other; which
includes the least and the greatest.
Karma (here)
is participation in ultimate universal process in the present and toward the
ultimate.
The universe and its identity go
through manifest and void phases.
The whole is limitless with regard to
variety and extension (sameness and difference and their absence—to be
identified as time, space, and their absence). It is limitless with regard to
peak and dissolution.
Ours is but one cosmos; there is a
limitless of cosmoses of limitless variety, all in transient communication
with the void, sometimes via a transient background.
Every cosmos has its ‘laws of nature’;
while they may be the same among some cosmoses, there is limitless variety of
the laws, from slight to great differences; thus there is no universal law
(though universal, Logic is not law); thus the correct view of laws is that
they are compound facts on particular domains.
A question to be addressed is not
whether this obtains but what its significance is, what are the kinds and
frequencies of the various kinds of cosmoses—and a related question of
mechanisms of formation-sustenance-dissolution, and the place of sentient
Being amid this eternity.
Sentient Being is the place of
significance. And as we have seen, given any being or cosmos, there is a
greater sentient being and creation by a sentient being.
4.9.
Our LOGICS
are cases of logic. They are approximate in two ways—in being incomplete and
where not known to be consistent.
Logical possibility lies in the
free concept; lesser possibility lies also in the relation between the free
concept and the fact object or percept. That concepts can step outside or
violate Logic (includes fact) arises from freedom
of concept formation.
4.9.1.
The examples above illustrate the fact that Logic
is a limit on thought for realizability; it is not a limit on the world
4.9.2.
As an example an omnipotent being does not and cannot violate true Logic because it is in the meaning of logic that it is
not a limit.
4.10.
The concept of the GREATEST POSSIBLE UNIVERSE (GPU
or gpu) is that of the universe defined by Logical possibility.
If the concept of the gpu were
introduced independently we would be concerned with paradox inherent in the
indefinite use of ‘possibility’. Examples are the careless use of language
‘it is possible that the possible is not possible’ and the fact that there is
not necessarily a greatest possible but only limitlessly greater than
anything conceived in appropriately careful language. However, the burden of
consistency is shifted to Logic. And for this there are apparati to avoid
inconsistency.
4.10.1.
If, as is found in Metaphysics,
the universe is the greatest possible, then given any definite possibility or
actuality, there is (1) a greater definite possibility and actuality, (2) a
greater definite sentient possibility actuality.
Let us look at the relationships among the various kinds
of possibility.
Let = mean is the same as, >
mean includes but is not the same as, >= mean includes or is the same as,
and >> mean is much greater than.
For possibility—with the word
possibility omitted in each case and so, for example, ‘logical’ should be
read ‘logical possibility’.
From some common paradigms we expect
4.11.
These considerations imply HIERARCHIES OF POSSIBILITY.
4.11.1.
In NATURALISM:
logical >> universal > or >> natural = non sentient >
physical > sentient and human.
4.11.2.
In some MONOTHEISM: logical = universal = deistic possibility
>> human, other sentient and natural possibility.
4.11.3.
In IDEALISM:
logical > absolute ideal = universal > other sentient > ‘natural’.
4.11.4.
We will find that the universe is the gpu
and therefore, logical = universal >> natural and cosmological (our
cosmos); that for any epoch or being, some sentient epoch or being >> that
epoch; and that with suitable interpretation logical = universal = sentient =
human.
4.11.5.
Therefore the great IDEALIST COSMOLOGY of Atman = Brahman.
4.11.6.
The main kinds of possibility so far are for a being, universal,
natural, sentient, the greatest, and logical.
4.11.7.
Later, as previewed here, universal and logical possibility will be
found to have the same extension.
4.11.8.
If universal possibility was lesser than that of an ideal or symbolic Logic, it would suggest an alternate and in-equivalent
definition for logic.
4.11.9.
We are sure that logical = greatest conceivable realizable >= greatest
= universal >= natural >= physical.
4.11.10.
We will find that logical = greatest and universal = UNIVERSAL NATURAL
POSSIBILITY > LOCAL NATURAL POSSIBILITY.
4.12.
We will also find that for any state, sentient being will and all
sentient being may access greater states.
Metaphysics
What is metaphysics?††
Special metaphysics, rational speculation, rational-in-the-sense-of-citta
dual metaphysics, rational dual epistemology, default worldview, science as
essentially complete, true knowledge of being, metaphysics, the veil.
In
philosophy the term ‘metaphysics’ is used to refer to an historical through
modern subject that has some continuity as well as some discontinuity. There
are common themes, yet there is no perfect consensus on what metaphysics is.
Why?
In
the following I will discuss the meaning and possibility of metaphysics, for
they are dependent on each other. The meaning of metaphysics—the
discussion—has a a neutral side, whether there is a reasonable consensus on
the nature of metaphysics; and a committed side, what I take metaphysics to
be and why.
A.
Though metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, the term has uses
outside philosophy. Among non-philosophers metaphysics is sometimes equated
to superstition or religion or topics such as healing with crystals. However
these are quite different conceptions of metaphysics and have little to do
with ‘philosophical metaphysics’—and when writing for a purely academic
audience this would be understood. Yet these different meanings do affect the
attitudes of many non-academics and even some academics, especially outside
philosophy. So, even if it is made clear that the sense of metaphysics is the
philosophical sense one can expect negative reactions to the term
‘metaphysics’ that stem from such uses. Because of such reactions I have
considered neutral alternatives to the term ‘metaphysics’.
B.
One philosophical use of metaphysics is knowledge of Being as it is.
It is quite correct to question whether this is possible at all. One
traditional division of metaphysics is what Immanuel Kant
and Christian WOLFF
called SPECIAL
METAPHYSICS. It includes the study of special beings such as material
bodies and souls. The tradition of idealism in the continent and Britain and
America till about the beginning of the twentieth century might be called RATIONAL
SPECULATION—i.e. rational systems that while they did not necessarily
contradict experience were not entailed by it. It is not surprising that the logical atomism of the early twentieth century took
exception to all these matters (yet logical atomism is now seen as
metaphysical which suggests that it is the meaning rather than the existence
of metaphysics that should be in question). At this point it should be asked
whether metaphysics is possible. One answer is that section Being,
which may be called metaphysical knowledge of the world, is already an
elementary empirical, rational and necessary metaphysics (and that elementary
beginning will be developed into a powerful system in the present chapter).
Thus it can be said that there is definitely one necessary and powerful
system that may be labeled ‘metaphysics’. Still it is necessary to take care
to not admit mere speculation or, at least, to label speculation where it is
admitted. That is, while Immanuel Kant pre-eminently raised the question of
the possibility of metaphysics as knowledge of Being
in itself and independent of experience, we show here that there is such
knowledge via experience yet true (emphatically we do not argue that all
knowledge is like that; in fact science is not; much of our common experience
is not; and this is vital to the system to be developed—which will be a RATIONAL-IN-THE-SENSE-OF-CITTA
DUAL METAPHYSICS according to a RATIONAL DUAL EPISTEMOLOGY).
C.
Let us compare modern science and the modern ‘secular’ world view with
the idea of metaphysical knowledge of the world. How are modern theories of
science arrived at? Consider the example of relativity. In the late
nineteenth century it seemed to many thinkers that physics was essentially
complete—even though Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwell’s electromagnetism were
known by some scientists to be fundamentally inconsistent. It was
fundamentally this inconsistency that led to the relativistic reformulation
of mechanics. To do so, it was necessary to modify concepts of space and
time. Though Einstein presented this as a reasoned consequence of the
principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light, it is in
fact speculative. We do not regard it as speculative because of its
consistency and manifold experimental verification (non falsification). The
essential difference between a speculative metaphysics and speculative
science tends to be (a) the elementary concepts of science are suggested by
experiment and measurement and (b) science maintains close contact with
experiment. So what is the difference between a rational metaphysical system
and science? It is one of immediate applicability. But why would we want a
metaphysical system if we have science? Consider the issues—the final
foundation of our science, e.g. the source of gravitation; and the reach of
science, e.g. what came before the big bang, what lies outside the
scientific-empirical cosmos (including the multiverse in so far as it is
empirical), and what is the connection between consciousness
and matter. Here are some possible inroads for
metaphysical system. Thinkers with a positivist orientation will object.
However, (1) as long as exaggerated claims are not made thinking about the
universe in any terms is just what it is (and may have future value), and (2)
in this essay I develop a positive metaphysics.
D.
But the secular view sometimes goes beyond empirical science. It is a
very common often implicit DEFAULT WORLDVIEW that our science has shown
near ‘everything’—i.e., it is a view of SCIENCE AS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE.
However, there is no basis for this. What science has done is to define an
empirical ‘universe’ that we, conventionally andor tacitly, conflate with the
universe and then conclude that science has shown near everything. That is
pure speculation without basis—it is metaphysics-at-its-worst, precisely
because it seems to be rational. Here then is one value of metaphysics.
Almost every human being and culture has at least a tacit metaphysics.
Therefore one value of explicit metaphysics is to bring the tacit out into
the open and evaluate it. Here, I must point out again that the metaphysics
under development in this essay provides a wider view than the scientific or
normally experiential, one that is empirical-rational and that contains
science and experience where they are valid. The metaphysics of the essay
does not deny science but it does—will—deny that science is anywhere near the
whole story—and that we have any sound basis of knowing science to be
anywhere near the whole story.
E.
In looking at what is recognized as pre-modern and modern metaphysics
there is no clear and unified subject. What we find is a loosely related assortment
of topics. Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
lists some problems as follows—divided into an old or pre-modern and a new
metaphysics. Problems of the ‘old’ metaphysics—(1) Being As Such, First
Causes, Unchanging Things, (2) Categories of Being and Universals, and (3)
Substance. Problems ‘new’ metaphysics—(4) Modality—i.e. necessary vs.
contingent beings and essential vs. contingent properties, (5) Space and Time,
(6) Persistence and Constitution, (7) Causation, Freedom and Determinism, and
(8) The Mental and Physical. An issue not mentioned is that of ‘abstract
objects’ and this is pertinent because some modern philosophers see
metaphysics as the study of abstract objects. The differences between the old
and the new metaphysics seem to be (a) a new attitude in which saying that
there are no ‘metaphysical objects’ is a metaphysical proposition (a source
of the more neutral modern attitude toward metaphysics) and (b) a concern
with categories of Being, rather different than
the older categories, that are occasioned by modern developments in
philosophy and science.
F.
But what is common in all these endeavors? It does not seem easy to
say. But looking at the list above we could say that what is in that list
lies under the most general aspects of Being and sufficiently general related
matters (and perhaps add ‘not yet appropriated by the special disciplines’).
G.
Here another remark is appropriate. It is the nature of disciplines of
knowledge that their definition is not just harder than definition of
physical objects but also somewhat different in nature. Why? In part it has
to do with the fact that physical objects are (seem) given to us while the
disciplines are created by us (this is true of other social artifacts as
well). Therefore, as we have seen, the definition of an academic subject will
evolve with history. This is especially true of philosophy and its
disciplines including metaphysics today in a way that it is not so true of
physics (for example). Physics has a fairly definite subject matter in a way
that would not have been true more than about four to five hundred years ago
when physics and philosophy had not yet separated (and such separation occurs
when a discipline acquires definiteness). On the other hand a special concern
of philosophy has been investigation at the edge of what is definitely known
(because of this some philosophers and metaphysicians argue that their
discipline is not about knowledge of the world but about such things as the
nature of knowledge of the world). But definitely there is a area of
investigation outside science—first, the edge and second in that knowledge
itself is part of the world. Definitely this may have a speculative element and
where that is the case it should be acknowledged. Still, once again, recall
that this essay develops positive metaphysics.
H.
That is, for the disciplines, any good definition of an academic
discipline overlaps creation—that is ‘defining’ and ‘creating’ are not
exclusive.
I.
Therefore, for the purposes of this essay, given that such a system
has been developed, I tentatively choose to regard metaphysics as TRUE KNOWLEDGE OF
BEING—and metaphysical activity as the process of coming to acquire
such knowledge (which may require experiential action). The first
justification or that is that the essay develops a powerful metaphysical
system in just this sense.
J.
But there is more. The perfect universal metaphysics (the title will
be justified) to be developed shows that the universe is the realization of
all possibility and is consequently a framework for all true knowledge. That
is all science and endeavor is framed by the metaphysics.
K.
But what of the various topics mentioned earlier under metaphysics.
These too will be seen to be framed. Is there a first cause? The metaphysics
enables an answer (a beginning is already seen in the section on Being). That is the metaphysics enables answers to
the entire range of historical-modern metaphysical problems.
L.
There is still more. The metaphysics shows that in fact there is no
real distinction to the abstract and the concrete—our distinctions are
essentially based on the two main ways of knowing—perception (empirical
including feeling) for the concrete, and higher conception for the abstract.
That is, there is a sense in which all knowledge is and can be framed by
metaphysics. There is an interesting discussion of such points under
‘methodology of metaphysics’ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article
linked above (The
Methodology of Metaphysics—Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
M. In
summary ‘what metaphysics is’ is seems complex. However, I shall use this
meaning—metaphysics as experiential and reflective knowledge of Being. It is
valid to do so provided it is made clear that it relates to only a relatively
traditional meaning and does not reject other meanings. But it should also be
noted that the general issue of ‘what is metaphysics’ is about nomenclature
and issues of priority (read ‘turf’) which ought to be irrelevant. Concepts
come before names or at least in interaction with names—the tendency to focus
first and primarily on words violates the nature of meaning.
N.
Further we have seen that the ‘consensus’—the most general aspects of
Being and sufficiently general related matters falls under and is tied
together by the meaning used here.
5.
METAPHYSICS
is experiential and reflective study and knowledge of Being—the world, the
universe—as it is.
5.1.
Metaphysics—and philosophy—have beginnings in recognizing THE VEIL
between knower and known; and in the attempt to lift the veil. In seeing, as
we will see, places where the veil is essentially ‘transparent’ and places
where its opaqueness is a virtue.
There are many conceptions and
activities of ‘philosophical metaphysics’. This is one. It is here justified
as fundamental in human knowledge and an ultimate metaphysics is
developed—this meaning is not just another meaning.
Other uses of ‘metaphysics’ are
not intended to be minimized but it is important that in reading this work,
attention be paid to its meanings. Some meanings that will be at least
partially subsumed under the present meaning of metaphysics are—metaphysics
as the study of experience, as study of abstract
objects, a reason or Logic, and others.
The present conception of
metaphysics has been criticized on numerous counts. One is that it is not
even possible. However, when the concepts so far—Being and so on—are regarded
with sufficient abstraction, knowledge is precise and will emerge as ultimate
if abstract knowledge of our universe as ultimate in extension, e.g.
space-time and their absence, and variety of Being.
This abstract metaphysics is
ideally useful—in showing us the nature of the place in which we live. To
render it practical it will be consistently synthesized with the practical
knowledge and practice of human tradition, including the modern, and their
means.
Another criticism is that it
contradicts and minimizes our experience and common paradigms. In fact it
does not but even justifies them where they are valid and more—it
illuminates them and gives them context. And far from being minimizing, the
metaphysics of the narrative and its worldview necessarily have roots in
everyday life as much as in the ultimate and bridges the two.
As noted above, the main
justification is post-justification. The metaphysics of the essay is a
metaphysics that is perfect for ultimate knowledge and realization and that
while necessarily incomplete as a static achievement and therefore not in
need of static completion, shows itself to be process complete-able.
It is important to see that
while the idea of ‘given meaning’ is practically needed for communication,
there is a contrary need for open and fluid meaning when going beyond given
contexts. Discussions such as ‘What is metaphysics?” depend crucially on an
adequate meaning of concept and linguistic meaning.
The methods of metaphysics
The
method is reason.; language
is primary means of expression, communication, and part of the method.
Note
that appeal to content, experience, experiment, and action are part of
reason; and that what is valid in tradition is part of this and so on. From Experience, meaning, and reason,
sand Introduction to reason,
and the later section on Reason in light of
the metaphysics, these are very broad.
We
develop a sense in which metaphysics and reason are identical. Abstraction,
for example as in Being, universe,
and the void and further developed in the present chapter and later
in Abstract and concrete objects,
is crucial to the development. That abstract and concrete objects are not
distinct—as seen later—suggests, as argued by W.V. Quine
and others, that valid descriptions of the real carry ‘ontological
commitments’—see (Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
On reflection, however, these commitments are already present in universal
metaphysics, i.e. in the fundamental principle, i.e. in the existence of the
void.
That is,
ultimately, method and reason are not gods to which universe-as-content is
subject. The universe is its content and process and all that may lie in
between (such as relationship, quality, dynamics, agency and so on). Put
another way, as we have seen, method is content and low level content
provides the first ground for experiments in method (reason). This unity will
be seen more flat and well knit with the developments that follow.
Fundamental principle
of metaphysics (fundamental principle, fp, or FP), absolute indeterminism, absolute
determinism.
5.2.
We will find that the universe is the realization of all possibility.
The proof idea is that the void has no laws and so results in realization of
all possibility. Proof, omitted in some brief versions, now follows.
5.2.1.
Demonstration. If the universe is in a void or
unmanifest state, there are no laws (since laws have Being). Therefore, all
logically possible states emerge from that void state for the contrary would
be a law (this proof is also plausible).
5.2.2.
Demonstration—continued. But a being and the void are
just the being, so a void is present with all beings—i.e., voids exist. But
there is no difference between voids existing and there being precisely one
eternal void—the void—that generates all Being including other voids.
5.3.
That is—The universe is the realization of all logical possibility.
This is the FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLE OF METAPHYSICS (also, the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE, fp, or FP). From
earlier discussion this is equivalent to saying that the universe is the
greatest possible universe.
5.3.1.
As noted earlier the burden of consistency in the notions of limitlessness
(and the greatest possible universe) are shifted to Logic.
5.3.2.
The fundamental principle is the pivotal result of the ideas.
5.3.3.
The remainder of this chapter on metaphysics explores and develops the
explicit meaning—the metaphysics it entails and its conceptual meaning,
objections and responses, the depth and vastness of ‘material’ consequences,
and human significance.
5.3.4.
The, next chapter on cosmology explores the implicit meaning of the
principle—i.e. starting with fp and the
metaphysics and then via synthesis of the metaphysics and tradition—coded as
a system of categories, it explores consequences systematically and in
detail, for general cosmological depth and variety, origins of form and
levels of Being, origins of physical cosmology, and agency.
From the fundamental principle,
while the limits are set by the Logic of necessity
(deductive logic and necessary fact), filling out the interior is the task of
reason as set out earlier. That is, since the strict logic is part of reason
the task is that of reason. But the exploration of reason is part of the
undertaking since we have so far explored only its generalities—recall also
that reason is part of content.
Substance
and the properties of the void
The void exists—and as noted, an infinity of voids is equivalent
to a single void. It is EQUIVALENT—may
be thought to generate—to every possible and actual state of every being,
including that of the universe.
5.4.
The void exists. It is ultimately simple; yet it generates every state
and being.
5.4.1.
The void is ultimate in power and potency; it is ultimate in
causation—but this causation is not mechanistic or necessary local.
5.4.2.
(The void is not the quantum vacuum but has similarities to it. The
void generates this cosmos and its vacuum state.)
5.4.3.
Therefore every state has the potential of all Being and is equivalent
to every other state.
5.4.4.
There is effectively a single void (except that there is at least one,
the number of voids has no significance).
5.4.5.
Every being or state, inherits the power of the void and is equally
foundational.
5.4.6.
Every state generates every other state.
5.4.7.
Therefore there is no SUBSTANCE in the traditional sense.
5.4.8.
But every being or state, including the void, may be thought of as the
substance or ultimate cause of Being and the universe.
5.4.9.
The universe is ABSOLUTELY INDETERMINISTIC in that every
state may emerge from any state. It is ABSOLUTELY DETERMINISTIC in that
every state is already given and will emerge from any state.
Some
consequences of the fundamental principle
Universal identity, individual identity is universal
identity, karma, peak, limitlessness, infinite, the; limitless array of
cosmoses, transient background, sentient being, god, Zermelo Fraenkel axioms
for set theory.
Some
consequences of the fundamental principle
It
will be useful to state some consequences immediately—so as to show that a
metaphysics of ‘the greatest possible universe’ is not just rational but also
significant. The metaphysics is then spelled out in a universal metaphysics. Objections
and responses are desirable to consider but taken up later in some objections and responses,
when it is clear that the metaphysics is worthy of criticism.
A first set of consequences is
in the section Substance and the
properties of the void. Some of the consequences anticipate Cosmology.
The principle used below is
that from the nature of logical possibility, many consequences are trivial.
Of course, buried in the heart of logic, which exceeds what we know of our
cosmos, there are many consequences that are non trivial in the sense of
‘difficult’.
5.5.
The universe has identity (sense of self)—i.e., there is UNIVERSAL
IDENTITY. Individual identity shares in universal identity and,
ultimately, INDIVIDUAL
IDENTITY IS UNIVERSAL IDENTITY.
5.5.1.
The individual is an expression of potential
or disposition, comes from and returns to the
universal; has access to this knowledge which is entire in abstract principle
if limited in detail; has ultimate realization as an inevitable imperative;
and while eternal rebirth has validity—that is not karma (here) and, in any
case, that ‘karma’ is at most a fragment of meaningful reality, perhaps
symbolic in its usefulness.
5.5.2.
Karma is not just a limited identity that is reborn as itself. Every
identity is reborn as every other; which includes the least and the greatest.
5.5.3.
KARMA
(here) is participation in ultimate universal process in the present and
toward the ultimate.
5.5.4.
The universe and its identity go through manifest cosmological
and void phases—limitlessly.
5.5.5.
The universe is limitless— has limitlessness—with regard to variety and extension
(sameness and difference and their absence—to be identified as time, space,
and their absence). It is limitless with regard to PEAK and dissolution.
5.5.6.
Note that LIMITLESSNESS is contrasted to THE INFINITE; there are infinitely
many infinities but at most one counts as limitless.
5.5.7.
Ours is but one cosmos; there is a LIMITLESS ARRAY OF COSMOSES of
limitless variety, all in transient communication with the void, sometimes
via a TRANSIENT
BACKGROUND.
5.5.8.
Every cosmos has its ‘laws of nature’; while they may be the same
among some cosmoses, there is limitless variety of the laws, from slight to
great differences; thus there is no universal law (though universal, Logic is
not law); thus the correct view of laws is that they are compound facts on
particular domains (that the facts are laws implies that the essential
information is significantly less than the raw information in the compound
fact).
5.5.9.
A question to be addressed is not whether this obtains but what its
significance is, what are the kinds and frequencies of the various kinds of
cosmoses—and a related question of mechanisms of formation-sustenance-dissolution,
and the place of sentient Being amid this eternity.
5.6.
SENTIENT
BEING is the place of significance. And
as we have seen, given any being or cosmos, there is a greater sentient being
and creation by a sentient being.
5.6.1.
If you wish you may think in terms of ‘GOD’ in relation to ever
greater sentience but the truth is that we participate in and are the
ultimate.
5.7.
Regarding the issue of all possibilities, how can apparently
contradictory possibilities be realized? True contradictions of course are
not realized. However, amid the array of cosmoses there are limitless earths
and near earths and in the latter there are alternate histories that were
they but one history would be contradictory. The term ‘all possibilities’
harbors potential contradiction and care is needed to avoid such
contradiction.
5.7.1.
The relations among perfect identities, near identities, and all
identity, occurs, in one way, via connection in the receptacle
of the dispositions.
5.7.2.
A basis of possibility theory in a system such as the ZERMELO FRAENKEL
AXIOMS FOR SET THEORY, with or without the axiom of choice, would be
worthwhile investigation.
5.8.
Metaphysics, often said impossible, is possible.
5.8.1.
We have just constructed and developed such a powerful if abstract
metaphysics. However, though abstract the existence of the possibilities
shown is demonstrated. We now connect the abstract and the concrete.
The metaphysics under
development, is an ultimate capture of the ultimate universe—i.e. of the
universe as ultimate.
We take up consequences again in the fundamental question of metaphysics.
A
universal metaphysics††
Pure metaphysic, the; pure knowledge, coherence criteria,
good enough criterion, pragmatic knowledge, pragmatics, perfect metaphysics, universal
metaphysics, the; metaphysics, the; perfect dual epistemology, pragmatic
criteria, ultimate criteria.
5.9.
THE
PURE METAPHYSICS is the metaphysical framework consequent on the
universe as realization of all possibility. As derived from abstract versions
of concepts, this is perfectly true though abstract.
Details of the pure metaphysics are
already treated above, especially in the section Some consequences, and continue
immediately below and in Cosmology and
other chapters below. Beginning with Tradition
and pragmatics, the pure metaphysics is joined to tradition.
5.9.1.
Because the fundamental principle was derived from abstract versions
of Being and universe perfectly known according to correspondence criteria,
the pure metaphysics is perfect according to those criteria.
Pure metaphysics is an example
of PURE
KNOWLEDGE—knowledge that is perfect by correspondence criteria. Pure
knowledge is possible when the concepts are sufficiently abstract or
elementary and perhaps otherwise. It has been an ideal of all knowledge. Here
we will the employ powerful abstract case—all possibilities are realized—for
its power. Supplemented by pragmatic knowledge it is a perfect instrument of
realization; this will be seen below.
In earlier writing I have called the pure metaphysics the
universal metaphysics or the metaphysics. I will introduce and use extended
meanings of these terms below.
5.9.2.
The explicit meaning of the pure metaphysics is that the universe of logical
concepts has an object.
While this entails the freedoms
we are discussing, it also entails limits which—even if relative or
contingent—may be experienced as rather absolute (e.g., the apple always
falls). The implicit meaning is the filling out of detail which has already
underway and is taken up in detail in the chapter on cosmology.
5.9.3.
The pure metaphysics may be defined as what Logic
allows. Observe is that this is a permissive rather than restrictive point of
view. Importantly, noting that our logics are not complete, this is an
alternate and more inclusive definition of logic. When enhanced by earlier
observations regarding the idea of logic we find an equivalence of
metaphysics and Logic.
Tradition
and pragmatics
5.10.
We understand tradition to be what is valid
knowledge in the history of human culture including reason.
5.10.1.
In principle tradition contains the universal metaphysics (I am at
least a small part of history) but it is convenient to exclude the universal
metaphysics temporarily.
5.10.2.
Though we distinguish them for convenience, the pure metaphysics is a
limiting case of tradition.
The fundamental principle
implies the experience of limits as we see them, e.g. in our lives and
cosmos.
Whatever the limits of our
knowledge, there is no immediate breaking out of them—even though that is
ultimately given.
Therefore ‘our’ tradition, i.e.
the tradition of whatever civilization we find ourselves part, is the only and
ideal instrument in negotiating the ultimate—shown in and supplemented by the
pure metaphysics.
5.11.
As we (beings) move from civilization to civilization, cosmos to
cosmos, pragmatic tradition is the perfect instrument in that trajectory of
ultimate realization.
5.11.1.
Recall that the sameness and difference—concepts of time and space are
developed later—in which this happens is not just infinite but limitless.
5.11.2.
Even though tradition is imprecise and even though imperfect for local
purposes.
5.11.3.
Of course, its particular form depends on the ‘cosmos’ under
consideration (e.g. our cosmos, or what is becoming today recognized as the
multiverse, and or but which is easily seen not only to be immensely minute
relative to the universe but also small relative to cosmological possibilities).
5.11.4.
Our tradition is the present point in an unending sequence of ‘pragmatic
metaphysics’.
It is at least pragmatic in an
ordinary sense. In itself its criteria are pragmatic which subsumes
approximate correspondence and elements of COHERENCE CRITERIA. In and of its
own criteria, the pragmatic criterion is just a GOOD ENOUGH CRITERION (here)—it is
not ‘being functional in all contexts’ and does not entail correspondence or
coherence; this criterion of PRAGMATIC KNOWLEDGE will be seen perfect for
the purpose or the realization revealed by the pure metaphysics. However it
is pragmatic and perfect relative to realization of the pure
metaphysics—there is no better general instrument and no general need for
one. Instead of calling it pragmatic metaphysics we call it PRAGMATICS
or pragmatic metaphysics.
5.12.
The join of the universal metaphysics and tradition provide a PERFECT
METAPHYSICS (PERFECT UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS OF THE ULTIMATE)
of realization
5.12.1.
Within that perfection, the pure metaphysics and tradition each plays
a perfect role—the pure according to correspondence criteria and tradition
according to pragmatic criteria.
5.12.2.
This perfect metaphysics is also called THE UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS
or simply THE
METAPHYSICS (this extends the earlier meanings of ‘the universal
metaphysics’ and ‘the metaphysics’).
5.13.
This also defines a PERFECT DUAL EPISTEMOLOGY.
5.13.1.
Note again, that the normal problems of epistemology remain for local
purposes. The value of pragmatic knowledge remains. However, the pure alters
the significance of tradition. The latter is no longer our final instrument
for our final knowledge. It is a drop in the universe. Of course it is, for
us, a very large drop—our local and temporary ‘universe’.
5.14.
The pure and the pragmatic form a joint system that is perfect to
the goal of the process of ultimate realization.
5.14.1.
The pure will frame, clarify, extend, and be fleshed by the pragmatic;
the pure illuminates and gives justification to the pragmatic; the pragmatic
is illustrative and, as noted earlier, taken to a limit of reason, it
includes the pure; their criteria are PERFECTLY ADAPTED: each to its ends and both jointly to the metaphysics and The Way.
5.14.2.
The pure part of the metaphysics is perfect according to
correspondence criteria and the pragmatic according to PRAGMATIC
CRITERIA. Since the join is perfect in ultimate realization the
perfect metaphysics is perfect according to ULTIMATE CRITERIA. These are of
course ultimate relative to ultimate aims—local precision does not become a
disvalue (but of course its value is revalued by the ultimate: it remains of
local significance but lesser ultimate significance).
Here, then, we find the
metaphysics as (1) Identity of universal actuality and Logical possibility, (2) In process, (3) A join of logic and science. In abstract and concrete objects the metaphysics is seen to include systems of mathematics as abstract sciences.
The earlier identification of
metaphysics and Logic is now an identification of metaphysics and reason
(understood to include the range from Logic to citta).
5.14.3.
Essential values to metaphysical clarity are truth and understanding.
The perfect metaphysics has the VALUE of (a) showing the ultimate character
of the universe and our ultimate relationship to it and (b) means of
realization. Beyond these general values, there are specific values to the
metaphysics—many are explored below.
Also,
in longer versions of this essay, see The Universal Metaphysics as resource.
Here ‘history of ideas’ is study up to the present,
emphasizing philosophy, science, and the study of religion.
In philosophy it includes metaphysics and epistemology. It
is especially concerned with the nature of knowledge and its possibility for
precision and meaning.
In science, it is concerned with issues of precision and
predictability and with the significance of science for worldviews. It is
also concerned with the empirical boundary—which it regards as the boundary
of what has been seen and not the boundary of the universe which may, even
according to science, stretch infinitely beyond.
The concern for religion is (a) the
meaning of the seen world, (b) reason applied to what might lie beyond, and
(c) the significance, symbolism, and any rational content of scripture,
practice, and dogma, (d) the secular expression of such concerns in art,
literature, music, psychological studies and more.
The main positions here are two—(1) the world and the
destiny of (human) Being is far greater than generally seen in the history of
ideas, but (2) while occasions great enhancements to the history of ideas, it
modifies rather than vitiates their significance.
The fundamental question of metaphysics
5.15.
The question of why there is something at all rather than just
nothingness has been seen as intractable. It has been called ‘the fundamental
question of metaphysics’.
Certainly science, the common
store of experience, and metaphysics so far do not provide an answer though
there are speculations and partial reasons. This question has been called the
fundamental question—or problem—of metaphysics (Martin Heidegger,
Introduction to Metaphysics, based on a 1935 lecture course, in an
English translation, © 2000, Gregory Fried and Richard Polt).
Clearly, this is a fundamental
problem for metaphysics. After all, if our interest is Being, one of our
concerns will be why there is or should be Being? It is of direct
interest—e.g. we may just want to know why we are here. We may want to know
for the implications, e.g. because the answer might be a source of meaning,
because the answering might illuminate many other problems, because if proved
the proof might be a source of method in metaphysics. Above all, however, not
knowing why there is Being means that our knowledge of Being—our metaphysics
is incomplete. And we will see that all of these reasons are addressed here.
It is also a fundamental
problem for science. Consider the equations of any fundamental branch of
physics. They may refer to space and time, have representations of
matter-radiation, e.g. particles and fields. What is the source of these
entities? What is the source of the laws? As physics digs deeper, some of
these questions for some entities may be answered. But they are answered,
invariably it seems, in terms of other posited entities (observed or
hypothesized to explain what is observed). In the end, though we see or infer
the lowest level entities we do not know their ‘why?’ Perhaps physics does
not need to know the ‘why?’ But it does for the why is not idle but would
take physics deeper. And in any case we are curious about our world which is
one of the sources of science. Thus the fundamental question of metaphysics
is fundamental for science and so the recent interest in it, e.g. as in Why
Does the World Exist? (2013) by Jim HOLT.
5.15.1.
Clearly the fundamental principle resolves the problem.
The
fundamental principle includes that given the universe in a void or
non-manifest state, manifest Being must emerge.
Let us
therefore reflect further on why the fundamental question has been considered
a problem.
Why should the problem have
been considered intractable? Suppose we were to show that either modern
physics or some particular metaphysics entails the existence of something.
We would then have to show how the physics or metaphysics obtained. I.e. a
relative answer is inadequate.
On the other hand we might
argue that our experience shows that we exist and therefore manifest Being is
a necessary. But the argument is contingent on observation (in some senses,
true facts may be seen as necessary—if I spilled my coffee this morning, it
will never be true that I did not spill my coffee this morning—but the
necessity we want here does not depend on fact).
We therefore conclude that
5.15.2.
A satisfactory resolution to the fundamental question must be
necessary—and, of course, non relative (to further posits, axioms, and so
on).
But how could we have a necessary answer? It would have to
be that the manifest and the non-manifest are necessarily equivalent—given
one the other must also exist.
5.15.3.
But how could there be a necessary answer? The necessary answer would
have to include that the manifest and the non-manifest are equivalent—given
one, the other must also exist.
Note
that we need only that the non-manifest entail the manifest but given that it
follows that the manifest entail the non-manifest.
We now ask—But why should the ‘something’ be any
particular something, e.g. just our observed cosmos? If nothingness, the
void, were just slightly other than nothingness we can see how it might give
rise to this cosmos but not another. But that is not what is in question. To
be something from nothing the nothing must be perfect—i.e. symmetric in any
sense. Thus if it gave rise to our cosmos, i.e. one possibility, of necessity
it would have to give rise to every possibility.
5.15.4.
From symmetry, if the void or nom-manifest necessarily entails
manifestation of one logically possible state it also necessarily entails all
logically possible states to manifest.
5.15.5.
That is, an adequate proof would prove the necessity of the existence
of all possibilities.
5.15.6.
And that is precisely what the fundamental principle / universal
metaphysics does but science and metaphysics so far do not do.
5.15.7.
Thus the problem of something from nothing can no longer be considered
a problem.
Can we extract
a proof of the fundamental principle from the argument concerning a
satisfactory answer?
Well it exhibits a symmetry between Being and non Being.
It is an ultimate unifier. It sets all Being on an equal footing.
If we are ever to know why we are here it must be the
fundamental principle and its equivalents.
Is there another candidate for the fundamental problem of
metaphysics?
5.16.
A first candidate for a new fundamental problem—why is there experience rather than inertness or nothingness?
5.16.1.
The answer is the same as for why there is something rather
nothing—i.e., given fp, the existence of experience is not fundamental.
5.16.2.
A second candidate—it is also worth asking whether experience is essential to Being. Is it possible that
the universe should be without experience? Clearly, in view of fp, not. But what if we ignore fp
for this purpose?
That seems to be an open question—but it is worth
reflecting on whether it is meaningful. Also, can there be an atom or
elementary being that has no experience? Of course
there can. Mammals have experience, lower organisms have lower grades, and
material particles have none. But it is reasonable to argue that all experience must have form and that some elementary forms
must have experience (emergence being rather
magic-like). Can we say that all elementary forms must have (potential)
experience? I address this after the next section.
5.16.3.
The existence of experience is unquestioned
(following Cartesian style argument). However, all experience has form and
therefore if elementary form did not have elementary experience there would
be magic-like emergence. On fp, this is not magic
but without fp it would be magic-like. Can we
argue that in formed cosmoses all form has at least elementary experience?
This is addressed below.
The fundamental principle of metaphysics is that the
logically possible has Being. However there are two related questions—(1) the
location of such Being, where it exists in our immediate world and (2) what
is the range of the logically possible?
5.16.4.
A new fundamental question of metaphysics is—What has Being?
Here, ‘has’ is atemporal.
5.16.5.
This will be seen to be a collection of questions without definite
end.
Why this is fundamental was addressed just above. However,
to what do we wish to assign existence? There are some thinkers that would
assign existence only to the real and would interpret the real in limited
terms. But to do that would be to go behind existence to another eternal real
where we already know from fp that all that is—is
eternal in a good sense. The fundamental principle tells us that existence is
‘democratic’—that substances, processes, entities, tropes, and Reason have
Being.
But to say that is only to begin discovery.
What has Being? Is an open and fundamental problem. Here
we provide a significant but very partial answer.
An approach to the question is not to enquire of substance
but of power. What things in the universe affect us or me? Only if there is
an effect (atemporal, neutral ‘is’) is there Being. Another speculation would
lead us outside the universe and so outside Being. We know from Logic that
such a speculation would have to be irrational, i.e. non-Logical.
So then, What has Being? Much of what is said here,
above and below, is an implicit answer.
Clearly power is a measure: without power existence is
without meaning. I.e., while there are local substances, substance does not
determine Being. Or, every Being is its own substance and the substance of
the universe. Do ideas have Being? The pragmatic object of the concept of an
electron? Sentences? The TROPE
(“ontologically unstructured, i.e. simple, abstract particulars”—Tropes—Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy)? Power establishes Being for all such as
may affect us even by existing in or entering into our minds. There are no absolute
grades of the real.
5.17.
Power is the measure of Being. There are no further absolute grades of
the real beyond what affects our world. That is, in the ultimate, our world
is the universe.
On the other hand there are relative levels, categories, and modalities.
Regarding modalities, from the realization of all possibilities, all beings
are necessary relative to the universe but not relative to a cosmos; such
beings are implicitly but not manifestly eternal; and the universe is a
necessary and eternal being. Enquiring into these issues is an aspect of the
new fundamental question.
5.17.1.
Beyond power, we can look for levels, categories, and modalities; and
particular entities. What has Being? That is a question that shall ever be in
a process of being answered.
If an object has no interactions—effects present, past, or
future—it is substantially indeterminate and its existence or not is
irrelevant to us. We can imagine or ‘speak’ such an object but we do not
speak of.
‘My universe’ (our universe) is the universe of
interactions.
But does an object need to be perceived to exist? The
obvious answer, though not certain so far, is ‘no’. But there is a difference
between being explicitly perceived and influencing my conscious awareness in
some indirect way such that while there is an effect on my consciousness, I do not assign the particular effect to
an object.
5.18.
Let us call ‘my significant universe’ (our significant universe) the
universe-of-Being-that-has-an-effect-on-our-conscious-content.
5.18.1.
In a sense that is our effective universe.
Now ask
1.
Is it proper to think of the universe as a universe of interactions
even if that excludes other indeterminate objects and so other indeterminate
and existentially moot universes?
2.
Is it proper to think of the universe as the significant universe even
if the latter excludes some things in the universe of interactions?
A pragmatic answer to
both questions is that it is proper. But this leaves us with perhaps some
intellectual discomfort.
It is a consequence of
the fundamental principle of metaphysics that there are no non interacting
objects and that all objects in the universe are significant.
5.19.
There is one universe that is (a) the ‘universe’ all Being, (b) the ‘universe’
of interactions, and (c) the significant ‘universe’.
5.20.
There is no object apart from power and at least indirect effect on experience—but power and experience can be extracted
from the object by abstraction in some cases and according to some criteria.
This is why it is possible and even adaptive to sometimes think in terms of
‘the object’ or objects in themselves. Particularly, the triad of
experiencer-experience-experienced may sometimes
be thought of as ‘in-itself’. Generally, however the object-as-perceived is
not an object-apart-from-perception and thinking of one as the other may lead
to error or imprecision of fact and minor to utter misconception of the
nature of the object. Conversely, critique of the con-fusion and
clarification of thought-conception can lead to understanding limits of
observation and clarification about the nature of the object and constitution
of objects unattainable by care in observation.
Note
that the comment just above could have been placed as early as the section Being, universe, and the void††.
Proof—role
and issues
Limited metaphysics of fact, principle of plenitude, modal
realism, possible worlds, relative metaphysics, non relative metaphysics,
ontological argument, heuristic argument.
5.21.
The essence of the proof is the proof of the fundamental principle.
5.21.1.
It is principled to doubt the proof from the nature of the proof, the
magnitude of the implications, and the apparent contradiction of experience.
This
section addresses the first two of those concerns; the concern about
experience is addressed in the next section. The magnitude of the
implications are not an actual doubt but reasons that doubt should be taken
seriously. What remains is the nature of the proof. What kind of doubt may be
had regarding the proof?
5.21.2.
The proof seems trivial. Note that all necessary proof is
trivial insofar as tautological but here ‘trivial’ means ‘obvious’. This is
not a formal mark against the proof but, especially given the magnitude of
the consequences, triviality suggests something may have been overlooked.
Response. Well, it is not trivial for its
recognition is absent in the literature or at least rare enough that I have
not seen it in extensive reading. Intrinsically, though, the proof is not at
all trivial. It become trivial only after shedding of a vast ontological
confusion, seeing what the confusion was, and careful and iterative selection
of a system of concepts free of constraining and contradictory ontological
commitments.
5.21.3.
Of course non originality is not a mark against the proof but, again,
it might suggest that ‘we already know all that’ so what’s new?’ What is new
is that even if the proof is non-original, it may be original to take the
proof and its consequences seriously and so to be able to develop a potent
metaphysics. I will now argue as to the newness (but also see the previous
section on triviality of the proof).
Response 1. In Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein comes tangentially close to the idea of the
proof in equating metaphysics and Logic. That
would perhaps make the proof trivial and non-original. However, Wittgenstein neither claims nor demonstrates the
fundamental principle, i.e. the universal metaphysics. What he says is that
given the universe as a collection of atomic facts, all the
facts—metaphysics—are just the compound facts and to determine the truth of
any asserted fact is a matter of logic. The present metaphysics is not a
metaphysics of atomic fact and is neutral to the issue of whether facts are
ultimately atomic. It does give priority to logic as and in determining the
boundary of what obtains—it says that logic is the only limit on conception
for realization (this is not a limit on the universe). That is Wittgenstein’s
metaphysics is a LIMITED METAPHYSICS OF FACT and not one of possibility. For
Wittgenstein, in the Tractatus, logic comes in because there is a collection
of true atomic facts and all other facts are true or false in virtue of being
vs. not being a truth functional combination of those facts (including
singletons).
Response 2. The PRINCIPLE OF PLENITUDE, in one of
its forms, is that anything that is possible it will occur. This is an
ancient idea that has recurred in many forms; were it to be the fundamental
principle and were it to have been proven it would show the fundamental
principle proven and non-original. However, it is not the fundamental
principle. It’s deficiencies relative to that principle are (a) it is stated
without proof as perhaps reasonable, (b) perhaps because stated without proof
it is not taken seriously or well understood for its usual applications have
been trivial and taken from normal cosmology or to support traditional
religion, and (c) where there are arguments for it they are deficient.
Immanuel Kant asserted that given an infinite amount of time, whatever is
possible will occur. In the first place this is not true. A possible event
may have zero probability. What Kant might have said is that given limitless realization
all possibilities will occur. But the reason that we see the need for
limitless realization is precisely because of the proof. Also, there is no
hint that possibility itself needs to be explored. Here, the earlier
exploration of the nature of possibility was occasioned by the proof,
and in turn, this led to the present exploration of the possibilities. In
summary, the principle of plenitude is an idea and not a rational
metaphysics.
Response 3. The fundamental principle sounds
rather like David LEWIS’
MODAL
REALISM regarding POSSIBLE WORLDS: possible universes or worlds exist, there
is an infinite number of them, every possible world is a concrete entity, any
possible world is causally and spatiotemporally isolated from any other
possible world, and our world is among the possible worlds. Note that Lewis’
metaphysics is significantly lesser than the one developed here (infinity
instead of limitlessness, causal isolation, somewhat circular in its
development of the concept of possibility) and lacks proof.
5.21.4.
Returning to the question of triviality, it is only after the proof is
given that it becomes manifestly trivial. Triviality however is not an
argument.
5.21.5.
Another argument is that the proof is not founded in fact; and that
every proof ultimately rests on assumption or axiom.
Response. However, we have already seen that the
Being of the universe, beings, Being itself and so on are given as
necessary-facts-from-observation-by-abstraction. Therefore they are empirical
and precise. This is a remarkable exception to the traditional notion that
all philosophy—and science—must be either a RELATIVE METAPHYSICS in being
non-terminating or a NON RELATIVE METAPHYSICS but founded in axiom-assumption.
It is worth emphasizing that this reiterates a interpretation of logic
(Logic) in its traditional sense enhanced by necessary fact (or reason in its
traditional sense enhanced by fact). But note that while the necessary facts
begin as facts-necessary-after-establishment, this restriction is no longer
metaphysically necessary once the proof of the metaphysics is accepted.
Response. Well, yes it is. It is a kind of ONTOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT—an argument that appeals to the nature or properties of
existence or Being.
5.21.6.
Yet another argument against the proof of FP is that, like the ontological
argument for the existence of God, it is a proof by appeal to pure logic and
so, by analogy with the ontological proof, it must fail.
Response. However, this rather repeats the
previous objection where we saw a necessary empirical foundation from which
logic was able to build. Note, also, that this shows that while some
ontological arguments may fail, others may succeed.
Comment. Still we have an obligation to support
the proof. We may do this by providing alternate lines of proof and heuristic
arguments to appeal to intuition.
5.22.
The purpose to HEURISTIC ARGUMENT(s) is to assuage doubt from intuition;
heuristics are not presented as alternate proofs. Here are some heuristic
arguments in skeletal form.
5.22.1.
Existence of the void is equivalent to non-existence.
5.22.2.
Any system of laws of nature apply only to the manifest.
5.22.3.
Ockham’s Principle applied to what does not
exist.
5.22.4.
The principle of plenitude—as discussed
above.
5.22.5.
Also see can we extract a proof of
the fundamental principle from the argument concerning a satisfactory answer?
From this point on, proofs are given only where not
obvious.
5.23.
While proof is critical we also need:
5.23.1.
Significant meaning—occurs in sentience, sentient organism can exceed
knowledge and creation of any ‘inert’ possibility, perhaps the highest significance
as in the aim of The Way is
living-well-in-this-world-on-the-way-to-and-from-the-ultimate.
5.23.2.
What is worthwhile—what is value and what particulars are of value.
5.23.3.
Mechanism and likelihood—to make distinctions of feasibility and means
in the region of limitless possibility.
5.23.4.
Practice, action, and reason—as supplement to knowledge… on the way to
the ultimate. Note that action is already a part of reason as seen earlier.
Objections
and responses to the universal metaphysics
Among the issues of proof, above, are doubts about it. The
following objections are external to the proof itself.
Self-consistent,
externally consistent, normal, normal law.
5.24.
But metaphysics is not possible—in the first place because we
do not have knowledge of the object and in the second place because of the
speculative nature of metaphysics, especially what Kant called ‘special
metaphysics’.
5.24.1.
Response. We have seen that we do have pure correspondence
knowledge of what now emerges of an abstract core to the metaphysics. We will
further show that while knowledge of the interior of the abstract framework
is pragmatic, pragmatism is all that is possible there but also precisely
what is needed in filling out and realizing the ultimate—it is perfect in its
own way. That is, the pure and the pragmatic together will constitute a
perfect dual but unified ultimate metaphysics of knowledge and for
realization—and that is associated with a perfect dual
epistemology (which does not eliminate the local need for normal
epistemology). Finally, note that where not contradictory all special
metaphysics is realized per fp; the question that
emerges concerns its significance. This is addressed below, especially under
cosmology and agency.
5.25.
‘All possibilities’ is a self-contradictory notion.
5.25.1.
Response. The burden of consistency was earlier shifted to Logic. Modern logic addresses contradictions inherent in
careless use of language. Probably not all problems of language are yet
uncovered. The burden of explicit consistency is an in process endeavor. The
universal metaphysics is SELF-CONSISTENT and EXTERNALLY CONSISTENT.
5.26.
It is possible that Earth should not have existed—therefore its
existence is contradictory (this is a trivial example of how all
possibilities may be contradictory).
5.26.1.
Response. Since this Earth exists, it is not possible.
There is no contradiction. In fact, from fp it is
necessary that Earth, its inhabitants, their experience should have existed
and shall exist over and over.
5.27.
But is not multiple earths just repetitious?
5.27.1.
Response. Yes but it is repetitious as part of a
limitlessly greater variety and adventure.
5.28.
Does not the realization of all possibilities include immense pain
and suffering? Response. Yes, but that is not an objection.
Whereas pain might be a criticism of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God,
it is not a criticism of the fundamental principle. In the ‘significant
universe’ pleasure and pain are commingled in proportion and pain has some
meaning and can be employed to positive purpose.
5.29.
If all is possible why is the Earth the way it is?
5.29.1.
Response. See the earlier discussion of necessary fact.
Further, it is necessary that some place be the way Earth is. We call this a NORMAL
occurrence. What, in the normal, is not universally necessary but seems
locally necessary is but HIGH
PROBABILITY (ALMOST
CERTAIN) in the local; this could be called NORMAL NECESSITY; NORMAL IMPOSSIBILITY
may be defined similarly. For example, a natural law of our cosmos is a NORMAL LAW;
our form is a NORMAL
FORM. Similarly our experience of our world is a NORMAL WORLD.
5.30.
The universal metaphysics and its implications contradict science,
experience, and common sense.
5.30.1.
Response. We have just seen examples of how apparent
contradiction of expectation is not a true contradiction. A full response,
however, is to observe (a) that the metaphysics requires our world as a
normal world and therefore is not merely consistent with but requires our
science, experience, and common sense where valid, and (b) it provides a
reinterpretation of the normal world placing it in a larger context.
5.31.
There is and should be doubt about the proof of the fundamental
principle.
5.31.1.
Response. This is addressed in the next section.
5.32.
The concern with the ultimate denies the significance of the
immediate. To ignore limits is to ignore the concerns of everyday
life. It is grandiose and narcissistic.
5.32.1.
Response. It is true that in thinking of the ideas in this
essay, I have been very much concerned with the ultimate. However (a) it is
in part because the universal metaphysics provides a new vision of the
ultimate, (b) a personal motivation was to find what the individual and
society may achieve, (c) the concern here is very much with the
immediate-in-itself as well as how appreciation of the immediate and the
ultimate are both enhanced by the mutual concern, and (d) a practical concern
is living well in this life as being on the way to ultimate realization, and
(e) the very real difficulties of living well and so on are recognized as an
essential part of becoming.
Attitude††
Existential attitude.
What shall we do if we do not accept the proof of the
fundamental principle?
We should of course continue to seek proof. In addition to
symbolic proof, there is proof in action—as follows in discussing
‘existential attitude’.
It is important that the fundamental principle is
consistent with all we know and—as we have seen—it must be. Therefore, to
assume it would not be absurd in the way that so much of traditional
mythology and religion is absurd when taken literally.
5.33.
Since the universal metaphysics is internally and externally
consistent, we may validly adopt it as an EXISTENTIAL ATTITUDE even if we
doubt its proof.
5.33.1.
What should or may we do if we do not accept the proof of the
fundamental principle? Given its internal and external consistency and value,
we can adopt an existential attitude—that the implications of the
universal metaphysics and the fundamental principle are so great in value and
magnitude that there is value in adopting it as a stance and in devoting
energies to it in parallel with other traditional pursuits, secular and
mundane and more.
5.33.2.
If we assign the infinite value to the limitless potential under the
universal metaphysics, then an optimal approach to ‘this life’ is to devote
sufficient energies to the immediate while reserving energy also for the
infinite potential.
Abstract and concrete objects††
Realisms, logical realism, mathematical realism,
scientific realism, death, receptacle, disposition.
5.34.
The universal metaphysics empowers understanding and unification of concrete objects and abstract
objects.
5.34.1.
Object is interpreted generally to include fact, thing, process, interaction,
quality or property, ‘fiction’.
5.34.2.
From the fundamental principle there is no fiction except the
logically impossible and that too can be seen as vacuously satisfied.
5.34.3.
A bound concept is one that is in its nature of an object. A free
concept is not bound—it is at least part pure creation and may seek
attachment to simple and compound objects
5.34.4.
If the universe is the universe of Logic
then all concepts, free and bound, are realized:
5.34.5.
Obviously all concepts, free and bound, consistent and otherwise are
in the universe (the inconsistent objects, vacuously).
5.34.6.
The inconsistent do not define objects, except the null object—the
void whose existence is given as far as power is concerned but moot as far as
manifest Being is concerned.
5.34.7.
All other concepts have objects.
5.34.8.
Relative to human Being, the concrete objects are roughly the
perceived and the abstract are conceived for which a degree of concreteness,
e.g. spatiotemporality—defined later, is not included in the abstract.
5.34.9.
I.e. all objects, abstract and concrete, are in the one universe.
5.34.10.
This constitutes a unification of the abstract and concrete; they are
not essentially different. The difference is one of filtering rather one of
nature. The distinction is conventional. The abstract can be causal unless
causation is filtered out. The abstract and the concrete lie on a continuum.
5.34.11.
The abstract lend themselves to conceptual or rational study and
symbolic representation. The concrete to perceptual or empirical study and
iconic representation. Language straddles the iconic-symbolic divide.
5.34.12.
Logic, potential, reason, concepts, mind-and-matter-in-so-far-as-they-exist, are in the universe—are
real.
5.35.
Thus fp resolves issues of the concrete
and the abstract. fp: every Logical concept has an object.
5.35.1.
Consequences: no essential difference between concrete and abstract objects
or beings (abstraction omits concreteness, e.g. cause and space); Being is a
being; REALISMS—LOGICAL REALISM, MATHEMATICAL
REALISM, and SCIENTIFIC REALISM—are on par: from fp,
mathematical systems are abstract sciences of forms which are real (and in
Platonic worlds as parts of the one universe); all content—perhaps neither
literal nor explicit, e.g. art—that has possible objects has real objects…
5.36.
Further consequences: DEATH, real but not absolute, is
reminder that this life is no less significant than the ultimate and
so to live well; the ultimate abstract is a RECEPTACLE of DISPOSITION
to emerging-merging-reemerging identity of substantial beings…
5.36.1.
Still further consequences: local science as locally valid but
otherwise shed like snakeskin in transcending a cosmos; religions as allegorically real and socially significant
but premature if taken literally; which suggests The Way of Being, the
aim of wholeness, of real religion, as discovery-realization of
immediate-ultimate Being by limited beings using all Elements and Dimensions
of identity and the world.
See Categories of Elements and Dimensions of
identity and the world.
Reason in light of the metaphysics
Abstract-concrete
continuum, religion, mathematics.
5.37.
Metaphysics is Logic interpreted as reason
As reason, Logic has the following extensions to
logic-as-necessary-inference:
5.37.1.
Inclusion of hypothetical or inductive inference that is less or other
than necessary,
5.37.2.
Inclusion of fact or premise and determination of fact,
5.37.3.
Extension of necessary inference and definite fact to the pure
metaphysics.
A final extension is to the perfect metaphysics of the
world:
5.37.4.
Extension of the foregoing to the perfect metaphysics which though a unitary
metaphysics, is dual—the pure and the pragmatic—with regard to function and criteria.
5.38.
Under the universal metaphysics, there is no essential distinction
between the concrete and the abstract;
they form a continuum—the ABSTRACT-CONCRETE CONTINUUM; and ‘all
objects’ exist is the fundamental principle. The abstract and the concrete
exist in the one universe; in the abstract the concrete is suppressed rather
than essentially absent.
5.38.1.
Here, science is interpreted broadly to
include the concrete and the abstract; and non-dogmatic RELIGION
as addressing inner Being in light of both truth and rational imagination
beyond the empirical.
5.39.
In this and the next sections on logic, mathematics, science, and
religion, each topic establishes the general case and then its enhancement or
restriction under fp; this practice is continued
in discussing cosmology and agency.
5.40.
The valid comparison of logic, MATHEMATICS
and science, is (a) discovery and creation of the
systems which is not intrinsically necessary and (b) inference under those
systems which is frequently necessary inference. Specifically, the comparison
of deduction under logic with inference to scientific theories from data etc.
is not a proper comparison.
5.40.1.
We have seen various interpretations of logic beginning with necessary
inference that occurs because the conclusion is implicit in the premise.
5.40.2.
In its beginnings mathematics is empirical and interwoven with what
passes for early science.
5.40.3.
However, we learn over history that some patterns are general and can
be seen to have a formal character. They can be expressed in abstract or
symbolic terms as axiomatic systems. If the universe is the greatest
possible, then any mathematical system that is logically consistent has
objects in the universe which may be seen as abstract.
5.40.4.
Today, mathematics does not use the empirical approach even though it
has objects—for locating those objects would be difficult; and what is more
the symbolic approach gives mathematics a necessity that it would not have if
empirical. This necessity is not at all obvious over history—i.e., its
necessity is after the fact; and there is an entire study of that necessity.
It begins with the idea of definite proof but we know from experience that
that is not enough and so we have the metamathematical disciplines of proof
theory and model theory.
5.41.
But beings have constitutions and perhaps other facts—or states of
affairs.
5.41.1.
More precisely: a fact is correct PERCEPTION of a STATE OF BEING or object.
5.41.2.
We say facts can be correct because claimed facts can be incorrect
(usually, fact will mean ‘correct fact’). How is a fact validated?
Observation, measurement, corroboration, and argument (below) are among the
means.
5.41.3.
There are also COMPOUND
FACTS, e.g. the natural laws. The laws of nature are usually regarded
as tentatively universal; but they may also be seen as local facts; which
view is less problematic. But then: the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is available for
validation: the law is hypothesized and as local may be validated (e.g. a
very limited epoch); which does not rule out law as UNIVERSAL HYPOTHESIS. Unlike the
necessity of logic, science as universal hypothesis is not necessary and goes
under the names of scientific method or inference,
induction, or abduction.
5.42.
Metaphysical language, logic, mathematics,
and science will be the study of the variety implied by the fundamental
principle and harbored in the universal metaphysics.
5.42.1.
While we have already begun this, the concern here is the difficult,
the detailed, and the esoteric but not to the exclusion of the exoteric.
5.42.2.
Tradition as understood in this essay is important. It may be enhanced
in interaction with the present developments.
Regarding
religion
5.43.
Our naïve idea of religion is informed by naïve religion.
5.43.1.
What shall we do regarding the limitlessness beyond the empirical? A
common pragmatic and secular default is that there is no such realm.
5.43.2.
However, we have seen that there is and it is very worthwhile
contemplating, attempting to map, and travel. We are giving tools.
5.43.3.
Among our tools are what might be called philosophical religion,
symbolic religion, reason, and the pure metaphysics.
5.43.4.
Intuition and imagination are essential but are part of Logic in its extended sense of reason.
Potency of the idea of
Being
Potency of the concept of being, foundation, perfect
categories.
5.44.
The POTENCY
OF THE CONCEPT OF BEING of the idea of Being so far includes avoiding
paradigmatic prejudice. The power of the concept includes its indifference to
such high level distinctions such as mind vs. matter and the real vs. the
experienced and shows these distinctions ultimately moot even though
pragmatic. Being is also indifferent to such low level distinction such as
entity vs. event, state vs. interaction vs. process, object vs. property vs.
attribute, place, tense, and gender. It is significant that the indifference
of Being to the distinctions is such that it also allows them.
5.45.
Further, as the pure and the pragmatic,
each on its criteria, are perfect, the FOUNDATION is perfect (this
reflects an idea—perfection does not pertain to the world as whole). Contrary
to a long tradition of post-enlightenment criticism, there is potent
metaphysics as knowledge of Being. Its source: PERFECT CATEGORIES—beings, universe, Being, void, possibility, and pragmatism. This contrasts with the
imperfect if useful categories of Kant and Schopenhauer.
Cosmology
This chapter considers ‘general cosmology’. Typically,
modern default secular cosmology is modern empirically driven physical
cosmology; the universal metaphysics shows this to be extremely limited. In
comparison, general cosmology is limitlessly broader in variety and deeper
regarding the elements of beings.
The functions of the chapter are (1) cosmology as an
application of the metaphysics, (2) part foundation for Agency
and Becoming (Realization),
the next part, and (3) to suggest foundations for physical cosmology from
metaphysical considerations.
Cosmology of sentience, kinds of being, variety of being, extension
of being, duration, general cosmology, cosmology of form, form, physical
cosmology, cosmology.
6.
COSMOLOGY
is the study of the KINDS OF BEING, VARIETY OF BEING, and EXTENSION OF
BEING over all sameness and difference and their absence. Cosmology is
continuous with metaphysics and ontology. Note: extension includes spatial
extension as well as DURATION.
6.1.
Cosmology emphasizes special cases from our EMPIRICAL
COSMOS to the universe—this is the contrast to metaphysics.
6.1.1.
GENERAL
COSMOLOGY is cosmology without particular reference to detail. Its
objects are those of the pure metaphysics.
6.1.2.
Particular cosmologies are defined by aspects of the universal
metaphysics.
6.1.3.
COSMOLOGY
OF FORM is study of FORM, particularly of enduring forms whose stability is a function of symmetry and that
result from processes of adaptation.
6.1.4.
PHYSICAL
COSMOLOGY is defined by laws of physics but not necessarily the
specific laws of out empirical cosmos.
6.1.5.
We will also be concerned with the COSMOLOGY OF SENTIENCE which is its
inevitable as well as chosen and engineered destiny—as far as these occur.
Our interest is to explore
consequences systematically and in detail, for general cosmological depth and
variety, origins of form and levels of Being, origins of physical cosmology,
and agency.
Cosmology began in and continues Being
and Metaphysics; it continues in Agency.
Principles and methods of cosmology: the
categories of Being††
General principle of
cosmology, categories of being and reason, particular principles of special
and general cosmology, identity, time, space, relation (as interaction),
dynamics.
Agency, instrumental means, intrinsic means, element,
elements of being, dynamics of being, dynamics of agency.
Elements of identity, dimensions of growth, nature, place
of be-ing, psyche, universal.
Elements of interaction, intelligent and passionate
commitment, one and many, foresight.
Elements of process, local civilization, population, ways,
disciplines, practices, technology, economics, politics, heart, catalysts,
immersive economics, immersive politics, ultimate and immediate, Brahman, Atman,
universal civilization, peaking, dissolution.
6.2.
The GENERAL
PRINCIPLE OF COSMOLOGY is the universal metaphysics.
To study variety without error requires a concept that
captures it precisely.
An effective approach is to critique common unitive
principles, such as ‘SUBSTANCE
THEORY’. Examples are Plato’s forms, Aristotle’s primary substances or
objects-themselves and secondary substances or kinds of objects, Hume’s
impressions and ideas, and the modern idea of the physical. These can be
thought of as ontological or generative.
We saw that there is no substance of fixed finite
simplicity, yet the void can play the role of ultimate substance of ultimate
simplicity. We take up substance approximations below; this is useful though
incomplete and imprecise.
A metaphysically satisfactory and unitive approach to
variety is via categories. But how can this be done precisely at all? It is
to start with Being and to see if and how the abstract precision can be
inherited by not quite as abstract but still a little concrete ‘categories’.
6.3.
We study cosmology systematically in its concrete aspects of variety,
origins of form and levels of Being, origins of physical cosmology, and
agency via ‘CATEGORIES
OF BEING AND REASON’ which are the PARTICULAR PRINCIPLES OF SPECIAL AND
GENERAL COSMOLOGY.
The Categories
of Being and Reason: principles of form, formation, and dynamics
6.4.
Traditionally, the categories are a catalog of the highest genera. The
systems of Aristotle, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Whitehead are well known.
6.4.1.
Here, the categories of Being and reason
are assigned the aim of an effective foundation for metaphysics. EFFECTIVE FOUNDATION
aims at a metaphysics of maximal power.
6.4.2.
The foundation is the universal metaphysics (cum tradition).
6.4.3.
The focus is to find basis for form (ontology), formation (process,
generation), and dynamics (e.g., for prediction). Note that dynamics might
have been bracketed under formation.
6.4.4.
As genera and for completeness, Being will be a category. As they are
real and interwoven with Being, experience and
reason will be categorial. Note that our tendency to minimize the reality of
ideas is a categorial error that minimizes Being and universe. Inclusion,
means that the categories include their own principles and shall be founded
rather than ad hoc or relative.
6.4.5.
The universal metaphysics and reason are the highest level paradigm.
Abstract science, especially mathematics, are an intermediate level. Tradition,
especially natural sciences of matter, life, and mind, shall provide paradigms at a lower level. Recalling
that reason includes citta
and the functions of art and literature, these are an adequate tentative
initial vertical and horizontal range for the categories.
6.5.
Being and reason;
form and formation are given by the universal metaphysics; the paradigm is Logic; causation is Logic; process is
absolutely indeterministic and absolutely deterministic.
6.5.1.
Experiencer-experience-experienced
(subject-content-object), mind-world-matter and substance metaphors or approximations.
6.5.2.
We have seen that on strict monism, experience
(e.g. consciousness) and experienced (world, matter, experience itself)
must constitute a single substance. Therefore, experience is
interaction, a form of power. This is paradigmatic for any stable
single substance cosmos.
6.5.3.
However, in the general stable case, there may be many substances,
each either a single matter like substance or a experience-experienced
substance. Generally the substances need not but may interact.
6.5.4.
In the fully general case there may be matter-like
Being, experience-experienced like Being, and
mostly experience like Being with simple form. All
these may interact.
6.5.5.
It is an evident principle that experience-experienced
(mind-body) should be studied each on its own
terms and on mutually informing rather than reductive terms.
Categories of Stable
Form and Formation;
Formation of a world or cosmos
6.6.
Indeterminism yields many transients of which few are stable, have well formation and symmetry,
and aware reason. Being potent and long lived these
populations dominate the significant universe. The paradigm
is indeterministic increment and selection; sources of the paradigm are
evolutionary biology and reflection on necessity for origin of novel form.
Stable beings, stable cosmos, and stable physical laws are outcomes rather
than initial causes. However, once established, given any form, sentient
beings are and are agents of higher forms.
Categories of Identity, Space, Time, and
Dynamics
6.7.
The most elementary pattern is difference with sameness across the universe’s oneness. IDENTITY is sense of sameness of object or person. Difference with and without identity mark TIME (duration)
and SPACE
(extension), respectively, which would so be the modes of difference. Then
the universe is Being over all spacetime and its absence (other modes were
just seen improbable). Spacetime (difference) is IMMANENT in the world, not absolute, has and
is of Being; relations among identities across extension mediate change over
duration. Identity is transparent only when local: space-time-identity does
not always separate into its components. Where identity is fully absent, so
is spacetime. process, RELATION (as INTERACTION),
and state have Being—and will found DYNAMICS.
An epoch is a realm of fact relative to which the rest of the universe
is not determined.
The paradigms for identity, space, time, and dynamics are (a) primitives of sameness and difference
in general and in experience and (b) modern physics—classical, quantum, and
relativistic.
6.7.1.
Two sources of identity and dynamics are ‘Logic’ at the most
general level and the stable formation from numerous trials. This would
explain (1) stable second order dynamics, (2) residual indeterminism cum
structure, and (3) why the long range interaction in our stable cosmos,
gravity, is solely attractive.
6.7.2.
So far in this section, identity is material or physical (object)
identity. But the concept of identity above also allows for the self-identity
of beings—individuals and the universe. This ‘side’ of identity is inclusive
of object identity.
The beginnings of its
description and theory are earlier in sections on experience and meaning, reason (and reason in light of the metaphysics); it
is developed further, below, in discussing agency
(psyche, agency, and dynamics and practical dynamics of agency).
The development is employed in the part on becoming.
Note the continuity of the Categories of Identity, Space, Time, and
Dynamics, Category of Agency,
Elements and Dimensions of identity
and the world.
Category of Agency
Agency subsumes the foregoing categories.
6.8.
AGENCY
is the power of sentient beings to see and conceive alternate futures, to
value some of those futures, and to select to act toward the valued futures,
especially those of high value. Therefore it requires also the concept and
understanding of value and ordering of value. Agency requires indeterminism
with structure—the structure is necessary for the seeing etc. and
indeterminism is necessary for the existence of alternate futures. In being
agentive, the agent is involved in creating a future. However, to be agentive
is only to say that there is at least a small effect and not that the agent
can ‘do anything’ or violate physical law.
6.8.1.
In our normal lives, effective agency may be difficult, slow, and
incremental; and may require ‘will’. That is, being an effective human Being
may be a difficult task even when the accomplishment is or seems small.
6.8.2.
Yet, in the larger realm of Being and stable formation, agency is
about effecting significant change. We have seen that there are no limits to
form except Logic, and that given any form there is a higher form and
creation of sentient Being.
6.8.3.
The first paradigm for agency is human
psychology, i.e. our normal experience of the world.
Elements of Being and Dimensions of Identity
and the world
6.9.
Here we enumerate a tentative set of elements and dimensions for use
in agency.
6.9.1.
The paradigm is a traditional organization
of our cosmos into nature, society (civilization), psyche, and the universal.
Psyche could be placed under nature but it is convenient here to keep it
separate because nature will emphasize the INSTRUMENTAL MEANS or (external)
while psyche emphasizes the INTRINSIC MEANS (inner).
6.9.2.
The ELEMENT(s)
of The Way of Being—THE ELEMENTS OF BEING—are primitive basis of a dynamics
(mechanics), the DYNAMICS
OF BEING, DYNAMICS
OF AGENCY, or dynamics of The Way of Being—of
realization. From ‘difference’, there arose
a tentative identity-interaction-process mechanics.
6.9.3.
The elements can be arranged in a table. The rows may be the elements
of mechanics or dynamics, identity, interaction or relation,
and process. The columns may be a set of dimensions of Being, which,
in one tradition, are nature, civilization, psyche, and
the universal—seen later to be reasonable on an atomistic approach.
However, we will not form the table which is implicit in the following
tentative arrangement of the elements of Being:
6.10.
ELEMENTS
OF IDENTITY—DIMENSIONS OF GROWTH: NATURE (roughly,
instrumental: physical, biological), civilization (individual, society)—often tied to PLACE OF BE-ING;
PSYCHE
(COGNITION, EMOTION, integration
as PERSONALITY),
and the UNIVERSAL
(immediate, ultimate).
6.11.
ELEMENTS
OF INTERACTION (relation, sharing) include the natural—FORCE, FIELD, FLOW, CHEMICAL; of civilization and society—COMMUNICATION: BEHAVIORAL, and LINGUISTIC
expression; of psyche—experience, INTELLIGENT AND PASSIONATE COMMITMENT;
and universal—ONE AND MANY. As FORESIGHT,
experience and choice mediate identity and process; the mechanics is
incremental (see Stable form and formation,
and Cosmology and origins of form),
and large step: seeing-choosing-risking-acting-consolidating the SIGNIFICANT and ultimate. It is self-examining-referential, ever under
discovery, an active part of the metaphysics. It employs-develops The
Way, catalysts and ways.
6.12.
ELEMENTS
OF PROCESS include the natural—MOTION, FUNCTION, EVOLUTION;
The following are some details of the elements
of process:
6.12.1.
Of civilization and society—LOCAL CIVILIZATION or POPULATION
(verb) and instrumental means: WAYS
(revelation-illumination), DISCIPLINES and PRACTICES. TECHNOLOGY, ECONOMICS,
POLITICS;
6.12.2.
Of psyche—citta:
cognition (mind-thought)
and emotion (HEART), and action.
intrinsic means: CATALYSTS (fracture-integration), practices, IMMERSIVE ECONOMICS and IMMERSIVE POLITICS;
and
6.12.3.
Of the universal—ULTIMATE AND IMMEDIATE, BRAHMAN
and ATMAN—UNIVERSAL
CIVILIZATION. Universal and local cycles of becoming,
PEAKING, and DISSOLUTION.
Psyche,
agency, and dynamics
The previous section developed an outline of dynamics of
agency. To employ it, it is useful to have further information on psyche,
below, some details of cosmology as in general
cosmology through the origins
of physical cosmology.
Ideas > Experience, meaning, and reason,
Ideas > Introduction to reason,
See, especially, the discussion of citta in previous
two sections,
Metaphysics > Some consequences, especially
comments on identity,
Metaphysics > Attitude
Cosmology > Categories of Identity, Space, Time, and
Dynamics
Outline
of concepts, a supplement for this document, and
Pocket manual for The Way.
General cosmology††
Field of being, field of sentience, choice, conscious
choice, free will, significance, pain, suffering, blood, joy, bliss, yoga,
meditation-vision quest, universal causation, Aeternitas, Perfect Buddha.
The following continues the discussion from Identity, space, time, and dynamics
of which the first paragraph is repeated for convenience.
The most elementary pattern is difference with sameness across the universe’s oneness. Identity is sense of sameness of object or person. Difference with and without identity mark time (duration) and space (extension), respectively, which would so be the modes of difference. Then the universe is Being over all
spacetime and its absence (other modes were just seen improbable). Spacetime
(difference) is immanent in the world, not absolute, has and is of
Being; relations among identities across extension mediate change over
duration. Identity is transparent only when local: space-time-identity does
not always separate into its components. Where identity is fully absent, so
is spacetime. Process, interaction (relation), and state
have Being—and will found dynamics. An epoch is a realm of fact relative to
which the rest of the universe is not determined.
6.13.
The universe is a FIELD OF BEING and a FIELD OF SENTIENCE and
identities (entities, processes, relations—not substances) are its
concentrations.
6.13.1.
Experience—pure and engaged—is relationship,
place of agency which will be seen to require CHOICE (CONSCIOUS CHOICE
and, so, FREE
WILL), and SIGNIFICANCE but experience is not all significance; subject-object meet in experience as one.
6.13.2.
The ‘universes’ of significance and destiny are fields of experience and agency; and sentient agents (beings)
are their concentrations. Assertions and reasoning for sentience follow;
those for agency are similar. All peaks of form are accessible to sentient
form. We might expect that all actuality >> sentient
actuality; but from fp, for any form there is
greater sentient form (and vice versa). The field of experience and agency
has no limit; it is effectively and essentially the universe.
6.13.3.
Only in sentience are there PAIN and SUFFERING—and joy and
agency; which are essential to Being; so in and only in sentience is there price
paid with BLOOD,
their sometime temporal non-overcoming, its universal cycles of release and
overcoming into JOY
(BLISS, calm abiding) and dissolution.
6.13.4.
The Bhagavad Gita’s fourfold YOGA and MEDITATION-VISION QUEST
are identity with the real—present-as-ultimate (in a broad sense practice
includes science, reason, philosophy, and their methods). As expansion of awareness,
meditation is concurrent to discovery and realization of the real. It may
begin with a range of techniques or approaches as a good foundation: SHAMATA,
VIPASANA,
BEYUL,
TANTRA.
See the practical references.
6.13.5.
The universe has identity. Identity and manifestation have no
limits—especially to variety, peak, extension, duration; cycle
endlessly—without simple and universal periodicity—in acute, diffuse, and
non-manifest phases in relatively remote epochs; UNIVERSAL CAUSATION is at
most weak; causal connectivity is at most local (in creation-destruction,
time has causal direction); beyond ours, there are cosmoses, natural laws,
physical and living forms without end or limit; these occur meshed to a
void-transient background; only some occurrences have mechanism; every atom
is a cosmos, every cosmos an atom; individuals and civilizations inherit
these powers—while in limited form realization is eternal endeavor…
6.13.6.
Local civilizations (webs of cultures across time and continents) merge with universal
civilization (capitalized, the matrix of civilizations across the universe) and Being; discovery and realization beyond a cosmos—beyond the normal—is a
limitless and eternal journey. What is the identity of self? In overcoming
limited form individuals realize the ultimate—Brahman
(Upanishad), AETERNITAS
(Thomas Aquinas), or PERFECT BUDDHA. But for process even these are local peaks.
6.13.7.
Is there a cosmos—a field of Being—in an electron? What is the region
far beyond the empirical? Our physics suggests that the electron is truly
elementary. However, that physics must break down at some scale and not only
because of a Planck length limit but also because of fp.
The region far beyond the empirical is not just remote in largeness or ‘there
and then’ but also in smallness or ‘here and now’.
6.13.8.
There are ghosts and ghost cosmoses passing through our cosmos and
every cosmos, sometimes with barely a whisper—but there must at least be a
whisper somewhere and when. Meanwhile normal reality continues on sometimes
with and sometimes without a smile at the limitless.
A similar set of consequences
have been considered in Ideas > Metaphysics > Some consequences.
6.14.
General cosmology does not follow a strict substance metaphysics—one
of fixed kinds and no emergence of or interaction among kinds.
6.14.1.
In monism, experience and Being are
coupled through and through; in dualism their interaction is inexplicable. In
general cosmology kinds and forms may occur independently but must at times
merge, emerge, and export—kinds-forms are not substances and are organic to Being.
6.14.2.
Our cosmos normally approximates monism. The constitution of beings is
normal—only normally inviolable (see possibility):
beings have no absolute real limits or impossibilities.
6.15.
If the metaphysics and cosmology read as fantasy—as if entering a
strange land—their truth is cast in Logic. Where access is improbable, cosmology of form, next, seeks the probable. Then The
Way seeks access to the ultimate (via intelligent commitment that
enhances enjoyment and likelihood), transforming it as needed to the
probable.
It is effective to defer discussion of ‘God’ till the next
section.
Cosmology and origins of form††
Theory of biological evolution, model for normal
formation, variation, adaptive selection, necessary instance, universal way
of origin of form, indeterminism, novelty, determinism, single step origins,
adaptive systems, robust form, robustness via adaptation, robust systems,
significantly robust, singular event, God of monotheism, Abrahamic
monotheistic God, Indian philosophy, pantheistic God, panentheistic God, dark
matter, dark energy.
6.16.
The study of cosmology and origins of form require intersection of the
pure and pragmatic sides of metaphysics.
6.16.1.
In the intersection, the pragmatic gives flesh to the pure, while the
pure illuminates the pragmatic and shows some of its general aspects that may
be raised to the level of the pure without being abstracted out of contact
with our world.
6.16.2.
A pragmatic source is the THEORY OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION as MODEL FOR NORMAL
FORMATION. As such a model only appropriately generic features of
biological evolution will survive any translation to origins of cosmos and
form. The features to be selected from include the primary mechanics of VARIATION
that is at least originally indifferent to adaptation and ADAPTIVE
SELECTION. Analogy suggests the following point but by fp, there are NECESSARY INSTANCE(s) of formation.
Heuristic considerations—at least—suggest that they are probable..
6.16.3.
The UNIVERSAL
WAY OF ORIGIN OF FORM is that of INDETERMINISM for NOVELTY; and
DETERMINISM
for stable form.
6.16.4.
But if fp necessitates only instances, why
is it universal? It is universal because it includes SINGLE STEP
ORIGINS.
6.16.5.
The pure metaphysics allows single steps according to ‘Logic’.
However, we are interested in a mechanism that would generate relatively
stable, enduring, and numerically dominant populations.
6.16.6.
The mechanisms of biological evolution suggests a general incremental
mechanism: indeterminist variation, then selection of adaptive states and a
rough optimum step size: if larger, the probability of non viable organisms
is high; if smaller, larger steps achieve more (this too is allowed and
required by fp). The range of particulars in
biology that this mechanism and epi-mechanisms show and caution suggest that
the particular mechanisms in cosmology and their range remain to be
discovered and or conceived.
6.16.7.
From fp, such ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS origin is
generic if not universal; details depend on context; it is causal in a
general though uncommon sense; it can explain populations in the universe in
terms of the product of frequency of origins and longevity or relative
stability; it would explain the origin of form, cause, and laws for our
cosmos. There may be other mechanisms but from fp,
mechanism is not necessary—there are single step origins.
6.17.
Possibilities that are likely—and of significant population, stable
and enduring, have ROBUST FORM, especially ROBUSTNESS VIA ADAPTATION—i.e., ROBUST SYSTEMS,
e.g., ‘physically’. If also capable of meaning, they are SIGNIFICANTLY
ROBUST.
6.18.
Generally, function and form are in
rough proportion; in a SINGULAR EVENT increase in function is far beyond such
proportion.
6.18.1.
The fundamental principle implies singular events—events at
a threshold of function. Some factors are self-reference and
micro-organization of macro-function. Such events partially explain origins
of life from complex molecules; origins of human and linguistic intelligence;
a hypothesized, perhaps imminent, immense leap in and dominance of
computational and networking intelligence; and, from fp,
conscious intelligence—with our Being among its disposition—as
driver and form of peaks of universal Being. Singularity may be a norm in
origin of essentially new forms and approaches to the universal.
6.19.
Let us now talk of God because of the interest to many people and as
illustration of metaphysical cosmology—omitted in brief versions.
6.19.1.
What can we say of the GOD OF MONOTHEISM? The intelligent,
omniscient-omnipotent-omnibenevolent God? The rather arbitrary justice and
anger and cruelty of that God?
6.19.1.1.
Preliminary note—no intrinsic importance to the Abrahamic God is
implied.
6.19.1.2.
For existence, any contradictions must be cleared—e.g. naïve
omnipotence is self-contradictory.
6.19.1.3.
Once the logical contradictions are removed, existence is guaranteed
by fp. Absurdity is no bar. One type of
absurdity is the arbitrariness. Another is improbability—but note that
improbability relative to the empirical cosmos is not absolute improbability.
It is possible that there is an intervening God from a ‘another cosmos not
subject to our physics’. Also note that absurdity and contradiction are
‘literal’ and do not rule out symbolic and related significance.
6.19.1.4.
Is this God likely or robust? Here there are opposing tendencies. From
ordinary probability and normal formation the ABRAHAMIC MONOTHEISTIC GOD
is unlikely. However, perhaps singularity counters that tendency. It is
important to look into ‘simplicity of form does not imply simplicity of
function’.
6.19.1.5.
Whatever the case, all beings partake in and approach gods.
6.19.2.
The Atman-Brahman of INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
(Hinduism) and other philosophical conceptions of PANTHEISTIC GOD and PANENTHEISTIC GOD
seem far more robust than the Abrahamic God. Atman-Brahman in a general sense
has a role in this work, especially with regard to agency and is developed in
the narrative.
6.19.3.
All Being participates in and is ‘god’.
Levels of Being††
6.20.
The LEVELS OF BEING are stages of inclusivity, power, and sentient and
intelligent agency.
6.20.1.
They range from the primitive to the high. We regard human being as primitive.
6.20.2.
An atomistic approach suggests nature, society, psyche, and the
universal as dimensions of Being.
6.20.3.
The highest conceived is Brahman of the
heterodox Indian Vedanta philosophy. It is the universe in organic oneness
and ultimate and neutral sentience. The highest is also the Aeternitas of Thomas Aquinas.
6.20.4.
These, however, are not the highest—they are processes toward the ever
higher without limit (we sometimes conceive them as static highest).
6.20.5.
Static ‘Brahman’ is at best on the way to the real.
6.20.6.
Perhaps, though, the real is beyond process.
6.20.7.
The Atman is a realization of Brahman in the individual. Sometimes
conceived as equivalent to Brahman, the static Atman is at most on the way to
Brahman.
6.20.8.
As process and beyond process we allow Atman as equivalent to the
real.
6.20.9.
Human being is the lowest form I know that is capable of Atman.
To say
that is not to exclude other Beings on Earth. Perhaps there are human beings
that have sufficient empathy to know more (such empathy has been a project of
mine, especially in the ‘wild’.)
Individual and universe.
Receptacle and disposition.
Atman and Brahman.
Origins of physical cosmology
6.21.
The aim of this section is to show conceptual basis from
general cosmology for an indeterminate space-time, relational-experiential
cosmology.
Some general principles are in
the sections on general cosmology
and cosmology and origins of form.
This section looks at some specifics for a cosmos of our type.
The origins
6.21.1.
Vacuum transients arise in hierarchies of scale from the void.
6.21.2.
All possible worlds occur; an efficient mechanism is informed by
modern cosmology—small near quantum transients combining as large scale near
determinate-symmetric-stable hyper-dense state with some near classical
behaviors.
6.21.3.
A dynamics—change in semi-determinate relational identity depends
on duration of interaction or ‘force’ across extension, and on inertia to
change. Experience as interaction
is integral to the dynamics.
6.21.4.
Essential issues: to represent semi-determinate identity;
whether this entails process indeterminism; account for dual origin of
force-inertia.
6.21.5.
Aim: improve-particularize-quantify. In realms of opaque
measure and difficult analysis, e.g. beyond the empirical cosmos, simulation
guided by cosmology may show a way: see a tentative digital modeling of the early universe whose
principle is LAYERING
from the void and random to mechanism.
6.22.
A hypothesis: DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY as ongoing creation
and / or space-time itself as an object and not merely a framework, e.g. as
the source of Mach’s principle.
Agency
Becoming
(Realization)
The content of The Way is a journal edited for
general use. This is more so in this part.
The Way of Being is an approach to realization with
a foundation in Ideas. It joins the metaphysics
to traditional, reflective and experimental practice to form a
transformation discipline. Once the ideas are absorbed, the task is to begin
or renew the process. Ideas and action are an essential continuity—a
contrast to our modern emphasis. In thought we conceive ultimate ends; in
acting we engage with realization; continuity of idea and action embeds the
real in the psyche—and engages the individual with the real.
This second part of the essay is on realization of highest
forms in immediate and ultimate worlds—even or especially in the midst of
insecurity and uncertainty.
First there is a review of The Way and its aim. The
aim of The Way is presented as a universal aim of Being and as an ethic.
The main chapter is the one on ‘Templates’—there are two
templates, the first on everyday process and the second on universal process.
The aim is to present templates that may be modified and filled in by
readers. The reasoning behind the templates is in the Ideas and so
introduction to the chapter points out the most pertinent sections.
The templates are followed by a chapter on ‘Path’. After a
review of the idea of a path, I attempt to estimate what I have achieved and
then present my thoughts for the future. Perhaps these may serve as examples.
The Aim of Being
Aim of being, ethics.
7.
Here the universal AIM OF BEING
is seen to be the aim of The Way of Being.
Earlier stated in Dedication
and aim, in the Prologue, as:
The aim of The Way of Being begins with living well in this world. This includes the highest discovery and realization for Being, especially individuals and civilization in the universe.
The following amplifies on the aim.
7.1.
The aim of The Way of Being is a shared
endeavor for Being, especially for the individual
and civilization throughout the universe.
7.2.
The endeavor is living well and the highest discovery and highest
realization in the immediate and ultimate world.
7.3.
The means of discovery and realization are ideas, practice, and action
(practice-action) in interaction.
We can now see that
7.4.
The aim of The Way is now seen as a universal aim of Being:
to know the range of significant Being and realize its highest immediate and
ultimate forms for all beings and Civilization.
7.5.
Even if the proof of the fundamental principle is not accepted, it is
self and empirically consistent; and there is an imperative to the
realizations that it entails. Even though the ultimate remain unrealized,
there is value to attempts to realize—the potential, the inspiration, and
what is learned on the way.
7.6.
It is inspiring and rewarding, spiritually and politically, to engage
in the aim.
An
ethic for the aim, implicit in its statement is this:
7.7.
Given that intelligent commitment enhances realization and enjoyment, what
energies should we devote to the aim? The oneness of the universe implies
the worth of devoting resources to the aim as ‘duty’ and joy. Quantitative
choice, individual and social, may recognize that resource allocation is
already integral to our secular and transsecular institutions. ETHICS are
driven by citta, specifically heart, channeled by thought or ‘mind’,
and encoded in culture. ‘Rational ethics’ stems from citta—mind and heart—there
is no ethics without reason, emotion, and value.
The Way of Being
Dynamics of agency, efficient means, templates for the
way, inner transformation, instrumental transformation,
individual-civilization, metaphysics of knowledge and action, the; knowledge
and practice, all, human.
Inner dynamics of the psyche, place of the real, optimal
force and flow, the manifest and the hidden, the dynamics of the
instrumental, powers of nature,
technology-in-the-service-of-populating-the-universe, art as transforming,
immersion-science, immersion politics-and-economy, dynamics of the universal.
Ways of being, catalytic state and process, wholeness of
being, sangha, ideation-practice-action, action-even-in-insecurity, meaning
of being, spirituality, living the truth, seeing – discovering – creating – sharing
– practicing – living – becoming – the – truth, way of civilization, the;
communication, writing, speaking, persuasion, making the truth transparent.
Practical dynamics of agency††
“How to employ agency
and its dynamics.”
The practical dynamics is based in the ideas,
and particularly in agency.
It is a framework for transformation.
It leads via the following sections Attitude,
Ways, catalysts and paths, Living The Way, Sharing or Sangha, to the Templates for the way.
The essence
7.8.
The idea of DYNAMICS OF AGENCY, is that of EFFICIENT MEANS of being agentive
in our normal lives and larger realms of Being. The dynamics may be seen as
part of cosmology.
7.8.1.
The dynamics—as seen above—is based in the ideas, is a framework for
transformation, and leads to the TEMPLATES FOR THE WAY.
7.9.
The essence of the dynamics is (i) INNER TRANSFORMATION and INSTRUMENTAL
TRANSFORMATION of INDIVIDUAL-CIVILIZATION (ii) citta including foresight
applied to relation to effect transformation change (iii) deploying THE METAPHYSICS
OF KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION—which includes ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE.
At the highest level the dynamics employs the universal metaphysics and reason (also see: reason in light of the metaphysics).
Its realms of application are the elements and dimensions of identity and
the world which derives from identity,
space, time, and dynamics.
These provide basis and classification for and may be used
together with traditional means.
7.9.1.
The dynamics emphasizes the inner—INNER DYNAMICS OF THE PSYCHE.
It emphasizes that experience – ‘my subjective
flimsy awareness’ is indeed real and the place where the really real plays
out: the PLACE
OF THE REAL. No, we do not control all aspects in our human form and
so in that form we must adjust so as to have optimal control; that is the
play both forcing and flowing and combining optimally (OPTIMAL FORCE AND
FLOW). And flowing into the ultimate when for an eternal instant we
are the universe. The play between THE MANIFEST AND THE HIDDEN.
7.9.2.
The dynamics emphasizes the instrumental—THE DYNAMICS OF
THE INSTRUMENTAL—the POWERS OF NATURE, TECHNOLOGY-IN-THE-SERVICE-OF-POPULATING-THE-UNIVERSE,
ART AS
TRANSFORMING the inner, politics and economics; and the continuities
of these with the inner: IMMERSION-SCIENCE, IMMERSION POLITICS-AND-ECONOMY.
7.9.3.
The dynamics emphasizes the universal—DYNAMICS OF THE
UNIVERSAL—where the inner and the instrumental meet in ultimate
identity.
Traditional
knowledge and practice
7.9.4.
The practical dynamics may selectively employ traditional ways and
catalysts for inner, instrumental, and universal phases of awareness (and
knowledge) and realization.
What follows is a catalog to
suggest ways and combinations—as a source to guide concrete ways. For
details, see a system of human knowledge
1.
Metaphysics (and philosophy), symbols and signs.
2.
Abstract sciences—of language, logic, mathematics, computer and
information science.
3.
Concrete sciences—of nature, mind,
human being (anthropology) and society.
4.
History.
5.
Applied science, design, and engineering—immediate and
projected application; design and its methods; the major fields of
engineering: chemical, civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering. For
other branches see Modern
Engineering and Engineering
- Wikipedia.
6.
Art (and art as representation on the border between
metaphysics and artifact)—literature, drama, music, painting, sculpture,
architecture…
7.
Technology. Nature and development: scope and history,
organization of work. Elements of technology: materials, energy, tools
and machines, measurement and control, industry and production… Fields of
technology: agriculture and food, major industries, transportation,
information processing – communication – networking, urban, military, earth
and space exploration.
8.
Humanities and the study of systems of knowledge and the
tradition(s).
9.
Transformation of Being—with technology of Being. The concept
of religion as knowledge and negotiation of the
entire universe by the entire individual in all its faculties and modes of Being (potential, un-named and perhaps un-thought forms).
Nature and varieties of religions of the world—hunter gatherer and
agriculture based societies, throughout pre-history and history. Ways and
varieties of religion and spirituality. Catalytic awareness and
transformation—mystic, yogic including vision-quest, nature and culture
immersion (including Beyul as nature immersion in quest of self), modern—e.g.
dream as inspiration, psychoanalysis as depth analysis,
isolation-deprivation-exertion as source of vision, metaphysical insight,
immersive approaches to metaphysics, science, economics, and politics.
Tradition in terms
of key words
Destiny?, Aims of being?, Aims of civilization?.
Primal, secular, science, transsecular, religion, suprasecular,
intuition, dogma, openness.
Philosophy, metaphysics, value theory, humanities,
history, reason, imagination, doubt, methodological skepticism, knowledge
itself.
Concrete sciences, symbolic sciences (abstract sciences),
art, technology, engineering, design.
7.10.
Though we should doubt the universal
metaphysics, it is consistent internally and with all we can
know. Its argument is at least highly plausible—from the proof, and, e.g.,
that as a form of OCKHAM’S PRINCIPLE it is minimal regarding
what is not in the universe (i.e., the ‘strong principle of
plenitude’).
7.11.
We therefore adopt universal metaphysics as an existential
attitude—valuable in itself and as affording the greatest likely immediate and ultimate outcome of life. Without intuition immersed in
attitude, intellect is impotent.
7.12.
While accepting temporal limits this side of death—while living in
this world—we also live in act toward the ultimate.
Ways, catalysts and paths††
7.13.
There is a range of WAYS OF BEING—secular, suprasecular, and
primal. The primal refers to ways before the secular split. I have not found
such ways to be complete with regard to the ultimate. Yet, even where there
is dogma, I have found parts of the traditions useful and inspiring. However,
they are not essential to the practices that will follow.
7.14.
Types of CATALYTIC STATE AND PROCESS—dream, hypnotic,
meditative vision—world-self-unconscious, hallucinatory vision, enhanced body
dynamic; brain states; Catalytic use—focusing dreams etc.; cultivation
and integration in awareness over time; sensitivity to, cultivation of
opportunity
Living The Way††
7.15.
WHOLENESS
OF BEING involves citta (heart-mind): bound experience or perception-feeling
– free experience or conception-emotion
– active experience with volition;
and security in openness-transience, e.g. not depending on proof—the proof is
in the person. This wholeness is essential to The Way.
7.16.
Among its means are: SANGHA, IDEATION-PRACTICE-ACTION, ACTION-EVEN-IN-INSECURITY.
7.17.
Let us now consider the MEANING OF BEING or meaning
of life and SPIRITUALITY—omitted in brief versions.
7.17.1.
Let us consider the idea that their linguistic meanings are LIVING THE TRUTH
or living what is true. This seems to be in opposition to the idea that the meaning of life is the individual’s choice—what they
put in to it. However, there is no contradiction. Truth can be interpreted
individually, universally, or even for a phase of life.
7.17.2.
The idea is that truth in the present sense—rather different than the
earlier use in relation to fact—is an adaptable ideal. Meaning is found in SEEING –
DISCOVERING – CREATING – SHARING – PRACTICING – LIVING – BECOMING – THE –
TRUTH.
Sharing and Sangha
7.18.
Sharing is important as THE WAY OF CIVILIZATIONS moving forward and
outward; and as reinforcement for the individual.
7.19.
COMMUNICATION
is important in sharing. WRITING and SPEAKING are important. Clarity
and reason in these activities are important. Persuasion for its own sake is
not desirable but what does ‘persuasion’ mean? It means such clarity,
emphasis, and reason in writing or speech that the truth becomes transparent.
PERSUASION
is MAKING
THE TRUTH TRANSPARENT.
Templates
The aim here is not to provide a detailed system that is a
way to inner equanimity, identity with or realization in this world and beyond…
The templates are intended for modification, amplification, and adaptation.
To that end, some resources are listed below.
8.
These templates are toward realization in the meshed everyday and
universal—via internal and external action. Their basis is in the development
so far, tradition, and personal experience.
The templates are a particular
in content but general in form. They are intended for adaptation by
modification and amplification. To that end, some resources are listed below.
Resources
In the order in which
they occur: Introduction to reason,
A universal metaphysics, The methods of metaphysics, Attitude, Abstract
and concrete objects, Reason in light
of the metaphysics, Principles
and methods of cosmology, The
Categories of Being and Reason: Principles of form, formation, and dynamics,
Categories of Identity, Space, Time,
and Dynamics, Categories of
Elements and Dimensions of identity and the world, Agency, Practical
dynamics of agency, and the supplementary documents in Resources.
Dynamics, catalysts and catalytic states, Argument,
Beyul,
Digital modeling of the early
universe (for completeness), Pocket
manual for The Way, A system of human knowledge.
See the resources.
Everyday
process template††
This
brief template for daily activity is adaptable and should be adapted to a
range of ways and phases of life, especially those of the universal process template.
The template is ‘comprehensive’ and can be used selectively; the order should
be varied. It requires complement by a practice. Dedication and meditation
infuse and are practice for life. It is crucial that while some system of
practice emphasize personal perfection, process should not wait until the
perfect is achieved.
1.
|
Rise
before the sun. Dedication (W Wilson). I dedicate my life to The
Way of Being—to shared discovery (ideas) and realization (action and
choice); to shedding the bonds of limited self and culture and so to
see The Way so clearly that even in difficulty life is flow over
force (opening to the real in individuals and the world); to realizing the
ultimate in this world and beyond (inner and intrinsic ways in the
dimensions and elements of the real). Shared affirmation (A Gupta).
That pure unlimited consciousness that is all Being alone is supreme
reality. That is the universe—its life and breath—that am I. So I am and
embody the self-transcending universe that is all Being and has no other.
|
2.
|
Review
and meditate on realization and immediate priorities and means.
|
3.
|
Realization.
Work and care. Ideas, writing, networking with the young and the
established; shared action, transmission, experiment: everyday process and universal process. Days
for renewal. Other activities, e.g. languages, art.
|
4.
|
Tasks.
Daily (morning); select / regular days for long term tasks.
|
5.
|
Experimental yoga, general—relation to the real,
postural. Experimental meditation, focus on spaciousness, freeing
from ego-fixation, ultimate in-itself-and-the-present, continuity of
meditation-action-Being. See the references
for yoga and meditation.
|
6.
|
Exercise.
Aerobic: in nature; and photography.
|
7.
|
Evening.
Rest, renewal, realization, and community. Evening tasks, preparation and
dedication of the next day and the future. Sleep early.
|
Everyday
process template
8.1.
Everyday process template—daily activity for realization and
complementary to the universal
process template: it is adaptable and should be adapted to a range of
ways and phases of life, especially those of the universal process. It should
be used selectively—and the order of activity should be varied according to
need.
The everyday template is adaptable to a range of ways
and phases of life. It requires complement by a practice—see, e.g., Some meditations, and Resources. Dedication and meditation infuse
and are practice for life. It is crucial that while some system of practice
emphasize personal perfection, process should not wait until the perfect is
achieved. The explanations enable
selection, modification, substitution and elaboration. Links are available in
the details of the document.
8.1.1.
Rise before the sun.
Explanation. Rising at 4am or earlier gives me a
sense of the special-ness of the world and my enterprise. Then there is a
whole day of light after essential project work is done.
Dedication. I dedicate my life to The Way of
Being—to shared discovery (ideas) and realization (action and choice); to
shedding the bonds of limited self and culture and so to see The
Way so clearly that even in difficulty life is flow over force (opening
to the real in individuals and the world); to realizing the ultimate in this
world and beyond (inner-intrinsic and instrumental ways in the dimensions and
elements of the real).
Explanation. In a static world view the idea,
e.g. in meditation, is sufficient to the best identity with Being and is best
in interaction with shared action. In the dynamic view of The Way
ideas and action are essential to realization. Meditation to overcoming the
limits of self, especially closedness to others and the real, may be
catalytic.
Shared affirmation. That pure unlimited
consciousness that is all Being alone is supreme reality. That is the
universe—its life and breath—that am I. So I am and embody the
self-transcending universe that is all Being and has no other.
Explanation. Ritual reminder of truth. I
experiment with alternatives and supplements.
The Dedication is a modification of the third step of
twelve step programs. The affirmation is a modification of a quotation of Abhinava
GUPTA
from Tantra Illuminated: The Philosophy, History, and Practice of a
Timeless Tradition, 2 ed. (2013), by Christopher Wallis.
8.1.2.
Review and meditate on realization and immediate
priorities and means.
Explanation. The meditation need not be ‘formal’.
The extent of the review depends on need. An accumulated burden of personal
expectation and planning is occasion for extensive review. A change of
‘scene’—a visit to my favorite town or a week spent in my favorite
mountains—are really conducive to review of my life and my projects.
8.1.3.
Realization. Work and care. Ideas, writing, networking with
the young and the established; shared action, transmission, experiment: everyday process and universal process. Days for
renewal. Other activities, e.g. languages, art.
8.1.4.
Tasks. Daily (morning);
meals; select andor regular days for long term tasks.
8.1.5.
Experimental yoga, general—relation to the real, postural.
Explanation. ‘Experimental’ includes building
upon established practice and uses of practice. Experimental meditation,
focus on spaciousness, freeing from ego-fixation, ultimate
in-itself-and-the-present, continuity of meditation-action-Being. See the supplementary
conceptual outline
for a range of meditations from centering to being-in-the-universe. See the references for yoga and
meditation.
8.1.6.
Exercise. Aerobic: in nature; and photography.
Explanation. Having gotten up early, even in
winter there is time for as much as four hours of this activity. I like to
get some good aerobic exercise—but it is best for me when I combine this with
other activity. I often ride my bicycle in local farm and backcountry roads.
The marshes, slews, farmlands, skies, and an immense range of birds where I
live are amazing.
Note. These personal details are intended as
illustrative examples.
8.1.7.
Evening. Rest, renewal, meditation, realization, and
community. Evening tasks, preparation and dedication of the next day and the
future. Sleep early.
Explanation. If I have energy and time, I
work on projects—especially The Way. I like to meet people at a local
coffee house—especially for conversation. I like to do preparation for the
next day that saves precious high energy morning time. If I feel it right I
like to do a twenty minute meditation. I may watch a DVD. I am winding down.
Some meditations
Also see conceptual
outline: vajrayana practice.
The
many purposes support a single main purpose—the identity of Atman as self-spirit-consciousness and Brahman as Universe-Ultimate-Spirit-Consciousness.
Two aims or foci are (a) Being—in identity—meditating,
seeing, vision; and (b) Becoming—within that identity—contemplating, acting.
The
many purposes include:
Gates to Buddhist
Practice (see the references):
Parts III. Refuge and Bodhicitta, IV. Foundational nature, faith, death…),
and V. Guru yoga, the great perfection, nature of mind.
Also see works
on Tantra (see the references);
see Tantra-outline.
A typical
but flexible set of activities. Dedicate-affirm-relax-focus (see below)
tailored to: (i) Rise (ii) Review—the day… and life-death-Brahman-birth (iii)
Realization projects (iv) Yoga-meditation (v) Food-chores (vi)
Exercise-nature-meditate-photography (v) Evening—realize, network, prepare.
Meditation
on Being—i.e. on life – death – life. (1) Death as relative—as gateway to
the real in universal life. (2) Death as absolute—as motivation to the real
in this life. Contemplate the thought ‘LIFE BEGINS WITH DEATH’.
Attachment and
desire / anger and aversion / Ignorance
Add, improve, and order*
Contemplating
the four thoughts (Vipasana), cutting, and Shamatha (relaxation)—
precious human existence / impermanence / karma and rebirth / ocean of
suffering
Shamatha—heart
rate and pressure, relaxation, space between thoughts (see the references, Meditation-Pema
Chödrön).
Vipasana—overcoming
inner constraint due to judgment—being equal on the inside and the
outside—optimize with regard to overcoming vs. achieving.
Work with
negativity in thought and emotion
Uncover my
prejudices and resentments, see patterns of behavior and resenting,
meditate on these without judgment—to accept etc: fourth step for internet.
Dedication—I
dedicate my life to The Way of Being: to shared discovery of ideas and
realization in action; to shedding the bonds of limited (dualist) self so
that I may see The Way so clearly that even in difficulty life is flow
over force; to realizing the ultimate in this life and beyond.
Affirmation—That
pure unlimited consciousness that is all being is supreme reality. That is
the universe—its life and breath—and that alone am I. And so I am and embody
the self-transcending universe that is all Being and has no other.
Self =
universe (Atman, spirit = Brahman, eternal and
ultimate consciousness)—(a) as Being (b) as process.
Ideas into
action into learning into ideas.
Universal process template††
The actions and dimensions of
Being in this template are sufficiently complete. The details show a program
of my design; here they are illustrative and suggestive.
Action
|
Dimension
|
Details (for some of the topics
below, see online resources)
|
Being
|
Pure
Being and a spiritual home
|
Everyday process, bridges
the immediate-ultimate. Vision retreat.
|
Ideas
|
Knowing
|
For
understanding, begin with the ideas.
For further information see the chapter resources above and the document resources.
|
Becoming
with phases of human life
|
Nature
and Psyche
|
Nature as
ground for the real of real and renewal e.g. as in Beyul:
quest for the real as in Tibetan Buddhism. These focus on
nature as gateway.
|
Civilization—with
society and culture
|
Civilization and shared immersion (a shared
immersion approach to transformation, community populating the universe), cultural economics and
politics (a model that includes Marxian and Schumpeterian
political economy).
|
Artifact
|
Artifactual
Being (on the use of computation and networking in
realization—as adjunct and as independent identity) and technology.
|
Universal
|
Catalysts (on catalytic transformation), ways (on religion as a source for
transformation), in everyday process, and renewal, knowledge, technology,
developed-deployed in transforming Being-civilization.
|
Universal
process template
The template
8.2.
Universal process template—a template for general action. It
covers the dimensions of Being—its use will be selective.
Explanation. Arranged according to action,
dimension, and detail. At level 2 (e.g., 10.1.) the action is bold and
the dimension is in italics. Level 3 (e.g., 10.1.1.) spells out
minimal details (for topics for the details, see online resources). Links are available
in the template in the document body.
8.2.1.
Action: Being—dimension: Pure Being and a spiritual
home.
Explanation. Home is ground. I want people around
me who are not steeped in either secular or suprasecular limits of vision or
dogma.
Detail. Everyday process, bridges the
immediate-ultimate. Vision retreat.
Explanation. Being in and search for home and
yogic (universal) connection.
8.2.2.
Action: Ideas—dimension: Knowing.
Detail. For understanding, begin with
the ideas.
Explanation. Ideas are the first place of
Being, significance, and action; and are instrumental in realization. For
further information see the chapter resources
above and the document resources.
8.2.3.
Action: Becoming with phases of human life—dimension:
Nature and Psyche.
Detail. Nature as ground
for the real of real and renewal e.g. as in Beyul:
quest for the real as in Tibetan Buddhism. These focus on nature as
gateway.
Explanation. Nature is inspiration on
multiple counts—an essential place and image of Being, catalyst to meditation
and ideas. Wildlife exemplifies Being. What are the animals be-ing? We are
seeking paths to the real and nature is one (even when idealized).
8.2.4.
Action: Becoming (with phases of human life)—dimension:
Civilization—with society and culture.
Explanation. Civilization is vehicle for and
path to the real.
Detail. Civilization
and shared immersion (a shared immersion approach to
transformation, community populating the universe), cultural economics and politics
(a model that includes Marxian and Schumpeterian political economy).
8.2.5.
Action: Becoming with phases of human life—dimension:
Artifact.
Explanation. Artifact has potential as Being,
reservoir of our Being, auxiliary in our search for intrinsic and instrumental
Being (e.g. the spread of ideas and civilization).
Detail. Artifactual
Being (on the use of computation and networking in
realization—as adjunct and as independent identity) and technology.
8.2.6.
Action: Becoming (with phases of human life)—dimension:
Universal.
Explanation. The path to Being. Where secular
and transsecular paradigms visualize completeness or impossibility of
completeness, there is neither completeness nor impossibility. This action is
on the way to the ultimate.
Detail. Catalysts (on catalytic transformation), ways (on religion as a source for transformation),
in everyday process, and renewal, knowledge, technology, developed-deployed
in transforming Being-civilization.
The Path
The path, destiny, renewal.
9.
Being is ever on THE PATH, sometimes consciously, to design
and affect DESTINY.
Individuals
and civilizations peak at stages of ultimate realization; in death and decay
they dissolve into and transact with the receptacle of eternal Being. The
greatest cultivation of the present occasion of Being is essential: in the
singular case, this life as the only life, it is the occasion; in the
eternal case, the alternative is as if condemned to eternal death.
9.1.
Everyday process is a (personal), flexible, adaptable routine for
living in the immediate as ultimate. Universal process is an adaptable
process for living in the immediate for and with openness to the ultimate.
An approach is to select from these templates;
they are adaptable to a range of situations and phases of life and
civilization—and deploy dynamics and agency. RENEWAL,
critical to practice, is reflected in the templates.
Links
for the above are Everyday process,
Universal process, dynamics, and agency.
9.2.
It is crucial that the everyday and the universal reflect each other
and both reflect the immediate and the ultimate.
9.3.
An evaluation of The Way of Being—the ideas are relatively complete
but always under review. The ultimate is given to all Being but normally only
felt, seen, or potential in ‘this life’—transformation is ongoing.
9.4.
My outline plan is (a) follow the broad picture from The Way of Being and (b) specifically to follow the two templates.
Also
see traditional knowledge and
practice.
Epilogue—The way forward
The
epilogue looks forward to realization and its ways based in the knowledge and
practice of The Way of Being.
What
if we doubt the proof of the universal metaphysics? Because the metaphysics
is self-consistent and externally consistent, and frames all
possible experience, to live under it is existentially optimal.
The
immediate and ultimate are interwoven. A derived ethic is that living well is
living for this world and the ultimate.
The
intrinsic-experiential—the true nature of Being—includes the instrumental. It
is the way to the ultimate.
Resources
Practical References for Becoming,
with notes
In the notes after the titles below I explain how I
have found these books useful.
Baker,
Ian, The Heart of the World: A Journey to Tibet’s Lost Paradise, 2004,
Penguin Books.
Insight into and a great example
of nature pilgrimage as path to the real and evocation of real self.
Chödrön,
Pema, How to Meditate: A Practical Guide to Making Friends with Your
Mind, 2013, Sounds True Inc.
Practical instruction on a range
of uses of meditation; readers can use this book as a base for exploration of
the real; shows that there is no ultimate way—the way is always experimental.
The main focus is on Shamatha—calm abiding.
Easwaran,
Eknath, trs., 1985, The Bhagavad Gita, Vintage Spiritual Classics,
Random House.
The Gita is a source for post
orthodox yoga.
Hick,
John, The Fifth Dimension: An Exploration of the Spiritual Realm,
1999, OneWorld Publications.
Insight into the nature of our
being-in-the-universe within a modern material perspective, and a modern
account of Atman-Brahman; insight into the meaning of religion beyond literalism
and dogma.
Tulku,
Chagdud, Gates to Buddhist Practice: Essential Teachings of a Tibetan
Master, rev. ed., 2001, Padma Publishing.
Tulku’s Tibetan account of other
worlds will strike modern readers as fantastic. However, the practical
psychology of overcoming the ‘bonds of self’ and relating to the real is
excellent. Focuses on dual use of Vipasana (insight) and Shamatha. Also see
the related conceptual outline: vajrayana practice.
Wallis,
Christopher, D., Tantra Illuminated: The Philosophy, History, and
Practice of a Timeless Tradition, 2nd ed., 2013, Mattamayūra Press.
Tantra is a way of relating to
the real (and not about exotic sex). The Kashmir ‘Non Dual’ Saiva Tantra of
this book, which has similarities to Dzogchen, shows how ritual and other
traditional practices may lead to the real. The book has some nice
affirmations.
The
following topics emphasize depth and breadth, ideas and practice: metaphysics,
philosophy and narrative mode; design and planning; science and sciences,
abstract and concrete; ethics; catalysts and ways; civilization; and art and artifact—see
traditional knowledge and
practice in this document and the separate document study topics.
Following
are some main thinkers that influenced my thought in rational and visionary
ways. PLATO,
Adi SAMKARA
(the Vedanta), Rene DESCARTES,
David HUME,
Immanuel KANT,
Charles DARWIN,
Albert EINSTEIN,
Ludwig WITTGENSTEIN, Werner HEISENBERG, Erwin SCHRÖDINGER (and
other creators of quantum theory), Martin HEIDEGGER, Karl POPPER, Kurt GÖDEL, W. V. QUINE, and a range
thinkers and doers in natural science, cosmology, and religion.
Online resources
My
website The Way of
Being, online references for the section universal process template: nature as ground
for the real, Beyul: quest for the real, civilization
and shared immersion, cultural economics and politics, artifactual
being, catalysts, ways, and study
topics.
The Universal Metaphysics as resource
The
metaphysics is an approach to resolution of the essential problems of
metaphysics.
1.
Nature, possibility, and development of a full and robust metaphysics.
2.
Universal metaphysics as absolute-ultimate framework for
knowledge, philosophy, science, mathematics, art, and destiny. It enables a
potent attitude to doubt.
3.
Perfect dual epistemology for the perfect metaphysics (pure
metaphysics-pragmatics).
4.
Necessity, power and robustness of Frege’s concept of meaning
5.
The nature of Being; the universe as the greatest possible.
Resolution of fundamental problems—Human Identity and Source of
Being. Being (void), not substance, as absolute foundation. Nature of matter-mind as Being-relation
in near substance cosmology; necessary general realization of this;
therefore there is no categorial mind-body issue;
so mind is organic and from adaptation, intense
feeling arises with cognitive freedom. The variety of forms of mind-matter is unlimited but
there are no further attributes.
6.
Cosmology—transient origin of stable cosmoses from the void.
Indeterminism as essential in itself and to equilibrium between form-change
and mechanism-chance. Foundation of creative-critical thought and measured
freedom of will. The nature of object identity. Implication for the
interwoven nature of space-time-matter and dynamics of change. Spacetime is
the only measure of difference.
7.
The entire rational system of concepts has an object. This
entails dual reconceptualization of logic and science. There is no essential
distinction between concrete and abstract objects—the abstract are real and
in the one universe; there is no other Platonic universe; and insofar
as the abstract are acausal, atemporal, and non-spatial, it is because those
features omitted in abstraction. The concrete-abstract distinction is not
real but lies in the main mode in which they are known. The concrete are
empirical; the abstract are known conceptually, in symbolic, often axiomatic
terms; and from this greater simplicity, are known with greater definition
and certainty. Natural laws have Being; the void has no laws.
8.
The metaphysics shows and provides an instrument for the highest
realization.
9.
Treatment of all essential metaphysics begins (began)
with the simplest cognition—difference. We then saw measure of difference as
spacetime and no more. Modes of Being are experience-experienced;
no more. Kinds of knowing are concrete-abstract; no more. Modes of
instrumentality, perfect and pragmatic and no more, are sufficient to
ultimate realization. The realm of the will-be-accessed-by-identity is the
limitless infinitesimal to the limitless ultimate; no less.
This
document
1.
Minimize-minimize-minimize. Especially this
and the peripherals, e.g. prologue and resources.
2.
Improve outline and start from there.
3.
The issue of citta vs. psyche.
4.
To the prologue add—The essential issue of what
to do with one’s life ® what a life well lived may be ® sharing and moving
together toward the possible ® civilization and its means ® their standard
limits ®
the actual and the possible ® the importance of an ultimate
worldview-metaphysics ® representation in terms of knowledge so far as a good start.
Human knowledge = the world-and worldview: concrete and abstract sciences –
philosophy and metaphysics – art and literature – technology – religion –
history – knowledge itself – knowledge itself – contingent limits –
possibilities and actualities – some knowledge of the ultimate – ultimate
metaphysics.
5.
Reduce the number of formal language terms to
the essential. Have the first instances of metaphysical terms in small capitals and render most of the remaining instances as lower case.
Replace crossed out small capitals plain small capitals or lower case. Reduce, and redo keywords; do the ‘key terms’
sections.
6.
Work on and eliminate comments.
7.
Symbols that render properly in browsers—", $, É, Þ and so on.
8.
Using HTML 5, CSS, and LATEX. Using collapsible
text and framed tables of contents as a way to make content more accessible.
Developing
modules for future versions
9.
Précis module—this must be very brief,
e.g. metaphysics, limitlessness, examples, realization. Will use a new sign º$ defined as follows:
Being º$ what is there reads
Being is defined as what is there.
10.
Metaphysics.
11.
The metaphysics.
12.
The universe of possibility.
13.
Science, limits, limitlessness, limits of empiricism,
openness of intuition and reason, and the future of science.
14.
Proof, reason, intuition, and attitude (continuous
with the previous module).
Writing
future longer versions
15.
Publish under a pen name.
16.
Find people to share writing, editing, discovery,
and realization; network.
17.
Essential outline with essential points and
links for details.
18.
Work parallel to realization, and use study topics,
and the resources.
19.
Topics to think about—What is logic? Incorporate
to study topics above.
20.
Import remaining planning from conceptual outline.
Document
versions
21.
Frames with TOC?
22.
For short versions write directly, cutting savagely
but precisely.
23.
Later—for long versions use conceptual outline and its sources.
|