Validity: (1) Ideas (pure)—elementary metaphysics: up to existence of the void; existence of the Void—consistency, strength of proof, doubt and existential attitude (2) The metaphysics (FP, formulations) as a knowledge and action principle. Relations between the (pure) ultimate and normal realms—in knowledge and action—the normal within the pure and in interaction with the pure: examples and generalizations.

Presentation: (1) Minimal and logical (2) Parallel developments and explanations (3) For multiple audiences

2. Reach-influence a wide audience range represented by the emphases above

This document

Organize and minimize all topics and comments

Content and book

The material

Think through the logics of validity, significance, and arrangement. Axiomatic or semi-axiomatic?

Essentials—concept and realization. Parallel—(1) Secondary matter (2) Plain language explanation (meaning of the essentials, overviews). Aim—facilitate reading ® comprehension ® use, linear and multi-thread (web) versions. Distribution—think through the rationale—to enhance aims: local-chapter-part

Specific topics

Reflect, collect

A new approach

Develop the metaphysics (worldview) and topics from normal (naïve) experience ® improve from, mesh with the metaphysics

Benefit—may be obtained by doing select topics this way—streamlines development; shows how the universal metaphysics makes improvement; it helps identify and develop the proper normal approach.

Note—the benefit may be obtained by doing just a few topics this way

Plan. Do this for some select topics (so far: metaphysics, mind, space-time); search for, reflect on others—e.g., origins, (abstract) objects

Source—improved development of the metaphysics.

The book

Pictures—comments at specific pictures on connection with specific inspiration

Tables of contents—one or more. If more then multiple according to emphasis andor level of detail.

Covers—appeal, inform, and sell—review this, other texts: academic and general

Preliminary pages—careful design for appearance and content. Review this, other texts: academic and general

Words

Collect words

Coin a set of fundamental words—so that capitalization is not needed, confusion with common technical and everyday use avoided

An initial set:

Being, Existence, Experience, Laws, Universe, Possibility, Creation; Void, Limit, Logic, Science and Realism; Object, Identity

Space and time words…

Replace academic / intellectual disciplines by conceptual disciplines. Then, the disciplines are: conceptual, practical, and human

Being. When used in the sense of that which marks existence—being. ( colloquial use, e.g. ‘this being the case’ need not be remarked. For particular beings—entity (or process, interaction, quality…) regardless whether concrete or abstract.

Existence. This word will be unremarkable except (1) The given that there is existence (2) differentiated from Being as follows: Being will be neutral to marking substance or non-substance, the being of or in space and time (especially universality of space and time), being as entity vs. process vs. quality vs. interaction) and (3) The problem of the non-existent object will be shown trivial.

Experience. This word will be reserved for the range of meanings captured by ‘subjective awareness’ (seen as relation). For cumulative experience I will use ‘cumulative experience’. Alternate. Use awareness instead of experience (and point out that at root there is no awareness without elementary consciousness)—in this use ‘awareness’ will mean ‘content or feeling of awareness’ whether elementary or compound, perceptual or free concept and or symbolic; use experience for cumulative experience.

Concept. Use concept for mental content—which will include free concept and percept; use higher concept for higher concept; use representation for purportedly referential concept (actually referring or not).

Extension. Use extension to refer to proto-space (extension as the range of reference of a concept will be a secondary use restricted mainly to its mention). Use duration for proto-time. Use extensive variable to refer to markers of identity and, perhaps, quality to refer (tentatively) to distinctions that may mark either the same or different identities

Logic. Use realism. Mention Logic.

Concept ® (1) Higher / unit of meaning (2) Mental content (includes higher concept and percept) (3) Referential ® purporting (via form of the concept) to have reference

Web Format

TOC’S—academic, explanation, accessible, realization… for sequential and ‘random’ access to the content window

Content files—a sequence of files according to the TOC categories

OUTLINE WITH COMMENTS

Preface

Preface: orientation (1) Overview (2) New (3) Facilitate reading ® comprehension ® use. Introduction: to the narrative, its main ideas

Orientation to the text and narrative

Narrative center—discovery-proof of FP: universe as realization of all possibility. Meaning—subject to realism, all ideas are realized. Particularly, individuals realize this limitlessness of the universe.

First experience—breathtaking panorama of universe—of being and knowing. Like stumbling—revelation—than discovery. Parts—Wittgenstein, Upanishads… Significance: amazing, new vision, power, proof, system, manifold consequences

Journey—discovery and implications for realization for individual and civilization as journey. Being—pivotal in discovery and realization.

Three poles. Origin—(1) Standard worldviews of universe, individual, civilization, destiny; limits (internal, other). Two foci—(2) The metaphysics, sources, proof, meaning, primary implications—cosmology, identity and destiny. (3) Journey—nature and way.

The text—achievement, base in literature, method.

The pictures—significance

Note—the concept of meaning is now discussed in later section on meaning

Meanings—it is crucial to understanding that (1) While main concept-words have many common technical and everyday uses, their meaning here is carefully selected and specified (defined) (2) The system of concepts is selected-evolved to have net meaning (far) greater than the ‘sum’ of individual meanings (3) The view lies outside and beyond common intuition and the standard religious, traditional, and scientific worldviews—understanding will require immersion in the system rather just technical facility

Capitalization—some words will be capitalized to denote the meaning in the text; non-capitalized versions may also be assigned meanings (common uses may be useful here). I will avoid the possible confusion that may result from the convention in English that sentences begin with a capital

Arrangement of the text—designed to facilitate, in sequence, reading, familiarity, comprehension, and facility with use or deployment

Outline

Narrative foci

An organizing principle—the foci—(1) motivation-grounding: destiny; second, knowledge-method: metaphysics; third, action-realization: journey.

1. Destiny as we understand it—meaning, extension, cultivation: disciplines, institutions, integration with this world.

This requires an adequate picture of the universe and our place in it: a worldview or cosmology. As background I will outline and assess our standard or inherited worldviews (1) Secular and (2) Trans-secular.

2. A new universal metaphysics: FP—being is limitless, expression as Realism. Issues: origins and proof of FP; doubt, consistency, strength of proof, faith, existential significance, knowledge-action principle… Development. Implications for ideas and being, disciplines and endeavors (details above…)

Significance for destiny. Destiny for finite forms as a journey without ends or borders or limit to variety and freshness of being and experience.

3. Journey of realization: description—endless variety, extension, freshness, recurrences of limited and limitless duration; significance (freshness, pain and suffering, engagement…); means-vehicles-places-modes-disciplines and mechanics—essentially experimental within which intrinsic-instrumental sciences play—catalysis or catharsis of being and psyche, buildup as in healing and reason; permanence vs. transience: permanence is realized in and via transience…

Conceptual developments—FP, forms: esp. limitlessness and Realism; metaphysics; consequences—all disciplines and endeavors; mechanics-method for knowledge and realization: container, increment, and interaction; engagement enhances enjoyment and effectiveness

Individual, civilization and destiny—realization of ultimate is given; individual engagement fosters civilization, civilization nurtures the individual; Civilization is the matrix of civilizations across the universe. The ultimate is an Individual in which individuals participate: endless variety, freshness, recurrences are of limited and unlimited duration. Uncertainty and doubt are existentially essential as in all significant endeavor. Engagement is openness to opportunity-challenge-non avoidance of pain (pain, suffering not sought but not eliminated—rather to be dealt with effectively, given meaning)

Introduction

Journey in Being—origin, and nature of journey. Significance of Being as container for ideas and realization. Through experience, exposure, reflection I arrived at a universal metaphysics and implications for destiny—for a journey in being.

Inspiration—comment at first picture; add comments to specific places of inspiration—nature and culture have been inspiration. We tend to emphasize cultural inspiration for ideas. However, I’ve found crucial inspiration from and in nature.

Narrative aim to give relief to essentials. Reading, comprehension, facility, and use.

Outline follows the narrative foci above—(1) ground, worldviews (2) metaphysics, development (3) journey, realization

Prologue

Significance of a worldview or cosmology

Discussion will be brief.

The standard cosmologies and their limits

The modern standard and inherited worldviews are (1) Secular which emphasize science and common experience (reduction to materialism obtains only in some ‘positivist’ versions) (2) Trans-secular, e.g., myth, religion, and metaphysics.

Secular cosmologies are rooted in common experience, especially science. A typical cosmology is the inflationary model with fixed light speed and so limit to known size and age; less restricted models—e.g., bubble universes—are still materialist and obey similar physical laws. Only some positivisms reduce all understanding to matter, so even material secularism may allow considerable freedom of being and experience.

Secularism is widely accepted. What is its validity? Theories of science can be seen as valid for limited domains and precision or as universal projection. It is a common default to see science as essentially complete. But this is circular—the result of vision that sees in terms of scientific cosmology; it tacitly assumes its conclusion. So, on its own ground, secularism is incomplete.

How incomplete? Knowledge of the universe is expressed in concepts that fit facts. The only necessary requirements on concepts, therefore, are agreement with one another and with fact—i.e., logical and scientific. The realm of fact has large and small scale boundaries; there are also discontinuous boundaries—e.g., a ghost cosmos not currently interacting with ours. If our concepts are logical and locally factual, they have no conflict with experience or reason. That is, experience and reason—science and logic—allow that the secular worldview may be massively incomplete. This incompleteness allows a metaphysics whose only conceptual limits are agreement with science and logic in their valid domains.

Later fact and concept—science and logic—will be unified under a single notion named Realism or Logic. The universe will be shown in the sense stated above and we will consequently establish new conceptions in which the Real is the object of Logic. This is the greatest possible metaphysics: the most liberal yet realistic—the greatest freedom consistent with non-reductionist secularism.

Later, we find that in this greatest universe, discovery must be ever open to a limited form. This will imply that Logic has no a priori—that it is an outcome of process, a reflection of the one universe, that it is ever in a process of experimental discovery.

The religious and mythic cosmologies are best understood (a) as pointing beyond experience—as standing against the tyranny of common experience (b) as semi-literal or metaphorical rather than strictly empirical descriptions (c) in terms of psychological, social, and moral implications. As metaphysics they are deficient in ultimate character and or proof.

The Upanishads give a partial intimation of the ultimate formulation but no proof. In absence of proof full formulation, meaning, and reliable cosmology and use are impossible.

The metaphysical but not specifically religious cosmologies have a long history that terminated in the grand idealist systems of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. With few exceptions, that kind of cosmology has fallen into disfavor. Metaphysics has been revived but only by reinterpreting it as, e.g., the science of abstract objects—by contrast to physics as the science of concrete objects. The reasons for failure can be classed broadly (1) the metaphysical systems were speculative, i.e. not based in experience and (2) ideologies, e.g. Marxism, based in systems such as the idealism of Hegel, are regarded as failed. However, that a train of systems are not based in experience or that they are failed, does not mean no system can be based in experience or that all such systems must fail. The generalization is rather like what it intends to criticize. If we regard the old style of metaphysics as knowledge of the world as it is the essential criticism is that knowledge distinct from the known

Let us draw out and analyze this criticism. On a concept-object (‘re-presentation’) model all knowledge is projection. So, faithfulness has meaning only to the extent that we can show or get outside projection—e.g., (a) show faithfulness to be given or (b) use criteria alternate to faithfulness (use the term ‘representation’?), e.g. adaptation which neither needs nor implies clear meaning or realization of faithfulness. Since there is some error relative to faithfulness, there cannot be metaphysical knowledge of all things. But we do not need such knowledge even though it is often a tacit requirement. Here, we will show perfect faithfulness for a set of ‘objects’ that will, perhaps surprisingly, turn out to be ultimately broad and powerful. There will be a price—application will need interpretation and squaring with experience and science. There will also be rewards—the resulting metaphysics will ultimate as described above; it will be container and boundary for all science and experience; and it will show a meaning of identity in which all beings are identical to the universe. There is an apparent contradiction of limits seen in science and common experience; this contradiction has already been resolved above but it does need to and will be shown how to mesh science and experience with metaphysics.

All metaphysics must be found—as in seek and find—in experience (comment on pertinent uses of experience; remark—‘experience’ will be clarified)

Possibility and givenness of metaphysics

…and ‘what is metaphysics’—preliminary discussion

Foundation

Alt titles—Being and Foundation in Being. Check—this is foundation even though it seems there is more founding in ‘chapter’ Metaphysis

Changes from first edition:

New structure: the entire main narrative Journey in Being is divided into Preliminary, Metaphysics, Journey, and Epilogue. I have tentatively eliminated the heading Journey in Being. Should I re-introduce it?

Interchange sections on experience and being as—add essence of following as comment—being more effective and no less fundamental (being and experience are intertwined… neither is more primal)

Eliminates the section on existence (though not of the idea)

~~Introduce a section on meaning devoted to analysis of meaning~~

Being

Omit “A ‘universe’ of narrative would have no definite beginning”

Being is that which exists—i.e., that which ‘is’.

To explanatory module: issues regarding existence?

Goes to explanatory module? Being—unlike ‘kinds’—will be used as indifferent to matter vs. non-matter, mind vs. non mind, substance vs. non-substance; to the distinctions of thing vs. process vs. interaction vs. quality; and, whereas, ‘existence’ is often used to signify being in space and time, being will be used as indifferent to being in or the being of space-time. Add comment on ‘Being over all extensive variables’?

…discrete or not; singular or not; beings vs. the Being of beings… (here this is contra-Heidegger)

Heidegger claims that traditional ontology has prejudicially overlooked the question of the nature of Being—dismissing it as overly general, undefinable, or obvious. He is right. It is most general but whether overly general is a matter of working its metaphysics; undefinable, if such is the case, is not the same as incapable of specification; and obvious does not mean trivial. Heidegger argues that the totality of Dasein must be grounded in temporality. He enquires of a primordial time that is the ground of experienced time. He asks some questions which are vague—but, for him, necessarily so since he is seeking something yet unrevealed / undiscovered: How is this mode of temporalizing of temporality to be interpreted? Is there a way leading from primordial time to the meaning of being? Does time itself reveal itself as the horizon of being? In the present metaphysics we will find that we do not need to invoke time; time arises out of absence of being… coeval, perhaps, with the atemporal origin of manifest being. And ‘Dasein’ has some access to that primordial situation.

Goes to explanatory module? It is useful to say something about space and time without trying here to be definitive. There are a number of ways in which the nature of an entity can be described: it may be red, warm, a foot across, have existed for five minutes. The first two are ‘qualities’, the latter are quantities. The distinction is not absolute for, in order to be a foot in size, the entity must have spatiality. Still we may say that some qualities such as space and time are extensive while others are intensive. The intensive qualities do not refer to size and so on. Mass is extensive—depends on size but while space and time are measures of extension, mass is usually seen as a function rather than as a measure of extension. Density (mass / volume) is intensive and this is perhaps the source of the term ‘intensive’; for a continuum density has a value for a point—as does color and this is a source of regarding color as intensive even though color is not a density of any kind (but may be a function of a density such as amount of red-light reflecting molecules per unit surface area). Are space and time (or space-time) universal and are they the only measures of extension? There are perhaps realms that are so limited in structure as to have no such measures; realms in which there are proto-space-time. Are there other true measures of extension? Perhaps. However, later analysis of identity will suggest that there are not.

Goes to explanatory module? Substance—what is it? The word has a number of meanings in the history of attempts to understand the world. If, in an attempt to explain and understand the world, I say that the world is made of matter I am regarding matter as a substance. The power of the idea is that I am explaining the world in terms of something simple (the weaknesses are that perhaps our understanding of matter is incomplete and that there may be more to the world than matter. For matter to be truly fundamental it should be the constitution of all things and there should be no ‘stuff’ that is more basic. For ultimate simplicity substance would, perhaps, be eternal, unchanging, uniform and not further reducible (thus, with present understanding, matter is not ultimate substance). Informally, the idea of substance is used to project what we find fundamental in experience to the universe. If our chosen substance is based in limited experience then the projection may be in error. A key to ultimate understanding, therefore, is to find whether there are aspects of experience that project without limit. We will find that there is no ultimate substance but that there are aspects of experience that do project (and aspects that do not) and this leads us to Being which is not a substance. We could regard being as substance but that would be no gain and might be confusing. The present development shows the untenability of substance and does not depend on it and therefore further analysis of substance is not needed. There is another meaning of substance, one in which Aristotle asked ‘What is the substance of any species of thing such as, perhaps, a could or an animal species such as the horse?’ He is asking, in material terms, for an alternate to Plato’s explanation in terms of ideal forms. We will find this to be a good explanation—relevant perhaps to proximate explanation in science and mathematics but not significant for general understanding (metaphysics).

Goes to explanatory module? Uses of ‘is’. On robustness. ‘Ordinary language and experience’ have a net of perfect precision.

Goes to explanatory module? On other analyses of Being. For Heidegger, Being is far from neutral. It derives from ‘Dasein’ and never leaves this origin. Here, we begin from generality but—in the considerations of Experience, Identity and more: we should say what—connect up with this realm. Further, for Heidegger Being does not encompass time—for him, Being is a ‘kind’. Heidegger does, of course, (attempt to) transcend the kinds of matter and mind. Sartre’s Being and Nothingness are psychological terms and not metaphysical.

There is Being.

Perhaps all is illusion. Without Being there would not even be illusion.

This begins to show the power of the idea of Being. If we say—but we have experience of matter what we mean is that there is something that corresponds to our experience. However, not all experience is precise. Therefore the experience of matter may be imprecise—and indeed the most precise of our definitions of matter as in physical science are subject to imprecision. Being is not subject to this imprecision. Use of Being allows the fundamental kinds to emerge.

The discussion above shows a connection between Being and experience and reflection suggests that the relation may be fundamental. Thus far, with the ideas of Being and experience hardly developed, this is only a suggestion. When we develop the ideas to the point where they constitute a foundation for universal understanding as far is it may go (metaphysics) we will find Being and experience to be a truly fundamental pair. This will require clarification of ‘Being’ and development-evolution of the meaning of ‘experience’.

We will find Being and concepts built on it to provide a precise container within which imprecise but instrumental kinds find great effectiveness.

Experience

The title has been changed from ‘Experience and Foundation’ of the 1st prod. Is it important to put ‘Foundation’ back in? Where?

The following from 1^st prod should come after developing the idea of experience: Experience—awareness—is the place of knowledge of things…

The first meaning of experience is that of subjective awareness.

This is related but not identical to cumulative experience.

Experience names, for example, our sense of being (in the world).

There may be error in some experience—but the fact that we have this sense is a fundamental given.

That it is a fundamental given means that it requires no proof in other terms.

Human experience is ‘reflexive’—i.e., we have experience of experience—but not all experience, human or other, is reflexive.

There is experience.

The sub-sections below are new although the content is not new (but may be new to the production versions).

The nature of experience

Much of experience seems to be ‘experience of’ something of ‘the world’ or of action. Thus experience seems to be relation or interaction. But what of what we experience as pure experience, e.g. stream of consciousness? It is recall of elements of experience arranged as potential interaction. And at an elementary level it is interaction in the brain.

Is there Being without experience? This is not the question ‘Can something exist without Being experienced?’ It is more like ‘Can something exist without the possibility of being experienced—if only indirectly?” This raises, again, the question of the nature of experience. It is relation. But what of pure experience? Internal / recalled / future experience! Fundamentally, is not all experience interaction? But is all interaction experience? What is the internal nature of interaction? On materialism it is very elementary experience. On any metaphysics, there is no element that has no relation at all. On universal metaphysics we will find that all relation is past, present, or future experience; there is no element without the possibility of relation, i.e. without some relation.

The real world

But could it not be that the world is illusion? It could not be that the entire world is illusion or mere experience for those too are part of the world. But it could be that there is only experience and the fact that experience seems or purports to refer to something outside it is illusion.

This purported ‘outside’ is sometimes called the external world but I prefer the term ‘real world’.

Thee is a real world and experience is part of it. Proof. I there is only experience then it either does or does not range over its idea of the world. The latter entails contradiction; the former is an alternate labeling of the world which is real and which contains experience.

Analysis of experience shows experience itself and the concept of the real world be non-illusory and significant and this constitutes a certain robustness of the concepts of experience and real world.

Doubt—solipsism. The arguments here constitute an argument against solipsism which may taken to be the view that ‘the world is my experience’. Solipsism is neither interesting nor—upon reflection—coherent as a philosophy. Its interest is in considering it we learn about the nature of the world and experience and find that in entertaining it we are making false Cartesian assumptions about the nature of the world. The power of doubt—whether realistic or whimsical—is that it teaches and clarifies. Comment. Wittgenstein argued against solipsism reveal in a particular way the general proposition seen here that solipsism is either (a) a mere relabeling of the world as centers of experience in the world or (b) a factual statement that is self-contradictory. Particularly, Wittgenstein argues that while only I have my experience (a grammatical construction), experience is not essentially and invariably private (an ontological observation).

First comments on mind

Title?

Experience is a first experience of mind. What is it? Is it all of mind?

The question ‘what is something’ means explanation in terms of something else. The question regarding mind means is it a fundamental category or is it a manifestation of another category such as matter. We are not yet in a position to answer these questions because our experience of experience is clearly primal in coming before matter but matter is perhaps the modern paradigm of explanatory category. However, we have not yet clarified the being and nature of matter.

For the present we take as premise that matter is a fundamental category or substance. We will find this premise to be rather approximate—is matter the sole substance, are there substances at all and if so is matter the sole substance—but analysis of mind in its terms will be illuminating because it provides a first approximation that may be corrected later.

If matter is a substance then mind is either conjoint with matter as part of the same substance, present with matter as a second substance, or it emerges with organization of matter. The final possibility is unable to explain experience as experience. The second one is unable to explain the interaction between mind and matter. We are left with the first possibility—matter and mind are coeval.

What then is mind? If we think of matter as substance in itself then, from the considerations on experience, mind is substance in relation. In other words mind is the interaction of matter. If the only interactions of matter are the known kinds (force) then this is what mind is. But surely this is very remote from what we experience as mind. The explanation of this difficulty must be that in the complex cases—animal mind—what emerges is not mind as such but aspects of mind—feeling-emotion-cognition, afference-efference, levels of mind, self-reference, brain autonomy or freedom from environment (thinking, concept formation). The difference between particle interaction and experience is that of degree and not that of kind or category.

While the conclusion seems paradoxical (panpsychism) it follows from the premise. Later we will loosen the premise and correct and improve upon the conclusions.

Meaning

New section; content implicit in 1^st prod; may import or repeat Preface-Introduction comments on new / system meaning but in a form appropriate to this: ‘newness’ ® contextual; system ® whole context

Discuss (1) Meaning: concept-object-word (2) Its power (3) Analysis and Synthesis of Being

Experience refers to part of the world—and object. This reference is actual or potential.

Here the primary meaning of ‘concept’ will be mental content and not that of ‘higher concept’ or unit of meaning. A percept is a concept (in the present sense). In this section ‘concept’ will mean ‘referential concept’—concepts that purport to refer to something in the world.

A concept and its object (‘reference’) constitutes meaning. Having a concept does not guarantee reference. Simple concepts with meaning may be combined and the compound concept may have or lack meaning. There is a grammar of combining concepts. Such a grammar would be impossible to elucidate in absence of knowledge of the nature of the world (no perfect grammar without perfect metaphysics); and even with this knowledge its elucidation would be complex. Such combinatorics are acquired in evolution and development.

In language signs such as words are associated with concept-object pairs. In language concept-object-symbol constitute meaning. This provides efficiency in representation, communication, and transmission (but also loss of detail which is partly compensated by context). Alphabets improve efficiency of word generation and representation. Word concepts may be combined in sentence concepts according to descriptive grammars. Such grammars presume at least a local knowledge of the world; and reflects in the shape of sentences; further shape factors may be convention / attitude / poetic / power / lack significance / ‘erudition’. They are no doubt discovered by trial and error over combinations. Because of the apparent precision of symbols at least formal languages and their grammars have an appearance of necessity and from their remote origins present as a priori. Are they necessary? Are they a priori? Are they empirical? Traditional answers tend to the necessary and the a priori and away from the empirical. We are not yet in a position to evaluate this strong traditional and perhaps intuitive tendency. We will be able to make an evaluation later after development of metaphysics

What is the foundation of meaning? It must, since we never get outside it, be the organic relation between language and its use. However, while particular words may lack identified objects, from the point of view of neutrality of being there may always be implied objects (this will be confirmed via the metaphysics to be developed).

Metaphysics

The order below is not ironclad. Should §§ Universe—Void be in foundation?

Notes and changes: Universe through A Perfect, Unique, and Ultimate Metaphysics with a new section at the end: Knowledge. Add a section Method (search first—it may already be there or implicit)? Transfer the following to that new section: Note on Method: method = developing and demonstrating content (how and proof, discovery and justification) which are traditionally distinct. Traditionally proof is emphasized because proof is public and critical. However, careful analysis show that the separation occurs only in isolated problems and static knowledge; in the whole and dynamic case, perfect separation is impossible. Here’s a brief outline of Method revised from previous treatments. (1) Recalling that a percept is a concept, almost all knowledge is projection; therefore if there is to be perfection it does not follow from the concept-object notion no matter how apparently precise. It must follow from some other source and this cannot be universal because we know that there are cases of error (some people conclude that knowledge is inevitably tinged with error but this is erroneous). (2) What is an essential outline of justification? In some cases the concept is a given! These turn out to be non-trivial resulting in metaphysics—including the universal metaphysics. This frames all knowledge. It also shows ultimates but the way to the ultimates is via the proximate for which, therefore, error is not only tolerable but also good. This applies not only to knowledge as such but also to value, particularly ethics and aesthetics (check against first production), and moral codes (and norms and laws)… which leads to a place in which we find that logic and grammar, which we may have thought a priori, are themselves experimental—provided we go far enough back there is no a priori (3) What are some methods of creation? It all has to do with finding concepts to match the object. This is the generating principle. Particulars include trial and error, particularly extended iterative improvement; wide experience and learning; interpenetration of criticism and creativity; respecting tradition without subservience; use of whole being—emotion, cognition, action… Particularly in the arrival at metaphysics care is needed but not more care than fits the situation; which allows and encourages ‘creation’; however, this balance between care and forward movement is not known in advance and itself is part of discovery. There are special situations where local knowledge may be shown to be perfect via analysis of concept-object perhaps in light of the universal metaphysics. . Where to treat Applied Metaphysics; and what shall it be called—‘Applied Metaphysics’ or some alternate?

Universe

Use sources.

Change 1^st prod as follows: The Universe is All Being. Therefore: There is one and only one Universe.

Change 1^st prod as follows: The Universe contains all creation but is not created. Any creator is part of the Universe—The Universe can have no external (consider omitting word ‘creator’ or putting it in after the comment; note that creation implies a creator—self-creation is impossible except once in existence something can participate in its further evolution; ‘creation’ does not apply to something out of nothing which is better described as origination) creator.

Uncreated

No outside

Possibility

Laws

Laws have Being

The Universe contains all Laws

Comment on power of being (in explanatory module)?

The Void

Use sources.

Explanatory module for The Void

The Void deserves its own explanatory module because (1) It requires to be clearly distinguished from other conceptions of it and from related notions—especially conceptions that arise from an incompletely neutral conception of Being and which therefore do not result in a precise conception of the Void (or of the Universe… or of Law). (2) Because of the difficulties attending the question of its existence.

Explanation for existence of the Void. (1) Various proofs. (2) If the Universe were in a Void state ® various consequences including the fundamental principle. This shows the existence of the Void.

Fundamental nature of the Void. (1) Its power. (2) Equivalence to all particles of Being and to all Being. (3) Relation to related conceptions, especially the quantum vacuum, (4) Number of Voids.

The Universal Metaphysics

Development

Proof. Start with ‘if the universe were in a Void state’. (My written sources for this.)

Explanatory module for the metaphysics

This includes explanatory discussion of Law and Universe—all appropriately done together with discussion of the metaphysics.

The explanation. Two things are crucial (1) The concept of Being (2) The system of concepts—Being, Experience, Meaning, Universe, Law, Void. Experience provides connection (relation) and robustness. Meaning provides method of discourse (including Logic). The fundamental metaphysical system is, then, Being, Universe, Law, Void, and Logic. Beginning with Being as neutral and Universe as all Being—it follows that all Laws are in the Universe, therefore the Void has no Laws and therefore can have no limitation and it is this that leverages the fundamental principle and so the system of metaphysics including Logic as realism.

Regarding proof and interpretation. Have a separate section?

Doubt

Mention. This is the one residual doubt. Note—consistent with all valid knowledge and experience. Strong reasons. Knowledge and action principle. Faith and attitude. Optimal resource allocation. Need not mention again. Existential attitude—in this way incomplete certainty is better than certainty.

Other doubts and counterarguments. Mention / list / detail?

Meaning of the metaphysics

Regarding proof and interpretation. Have a separate section?

I use the word ‘limitless’ to signify actual rather than potential infinity and to emphasize lack of any kind of real limit rather than some particular infinity.

Realism and Logic

Logic (includes fact, science without specific specification because percept = concept)

Relation to many worlds

Word ‘Logic’ to not appear in general text?

Knowledge and freedom

The metaphysics shows the universe as ultimate; we know this

However, our knowledge of detail is limited in extent and precision

We have a concept—fact and pattern—the empirical universe which lies in but does not cover the universe

If we knew the entire universe as fact we would not need knowledge of pattern. Our being would be the being of the universe. We would be ultimate but there would be no further realization but dissolution.

In a sense, therefore, not knowing the whole is a freedom—the possibility of a journey into realms unknown to our being

The ‘greatest’ being does not have this freedom. A lesser being—relative to us—e.g., an elementary particle, has great freedom but lacks explicit knowledge of it (at least on our models). Therefore the effective freedom of the particle—it’s knowledge and experience of freedom—is limited. The ‘least’ being has greatest freedom but no effective freedom

Which being or beings have the greatest effective freedom? That is what being or beings has the greatest experience of freedom?

Ask, first for a characterization of our freedom. It is that our knowledge—fact and pattern or percept and higher concept or, simply, concept—is sufficient to show the nature of our real and given potential it is incomplete relative to the whole. We know and will realize real potential but have not yet realized. We have and know the opportunity

There is a range of being that is sufficient to know ultimate (given) opportunity but is sufficiently incomplete that a challenging and rewarding journey remains

‘Being’ cycles through the primitive, potential, and realized states

Objects

This section is fundamental.

This section and the next are not new to my thought but are new to the essential edition.

Form and its lack of ultimate importance

Mathematics…

Knowledge

Should this be explicit? Should it be here? Combine with Knowledge and freedom above?

In the ideal case every concept in the field of logic has an object and this is profound for attitude and action.

What is the implication for the practical case? Thus far I have been thinking that this means that approximate knowledge is ideal or can be seen as ideal. Now perhaps I see it differently. Given the ideal, there is no need for ‘practical perfection’. Given the ideal framework and existential doubt (is doubt the word I’ve been using?) frankly approximate knowledge is best from the ideal point of view and the practical—the latter being increment and correction within the ideal frame. In other words the imperfect is perfect.

Method

Should this be explicit? Should it be here?

Pure and Applied Metaphysics. These names? Here? This has been simplified immensely (to three phases: pure, container for practical, special).

On rationality

This may be drawn within method

What is rationality? The idea of rationality is that of a way to choose the best path of action—or, at least, good paths. Issues (a) what is the meaning of ‘good’ (b) how to get valid knowledge is a part of rationality

In absence of ability to conceive, choice does not arise. In omnipotence the ‘good’ is given. Rationality is an issue for beings lying in some range between ability to conceive and omnipotence

What is the ‘good’? We do not precisely know. We can say with some reason that it is connected to survival and quality of life. We can talk of best but there may be more than one good path of action and, generally, there will be no single best path. In some situations there will be no known good path (we will then have to experiment)

In other words, though we know what rationality is, we do not know that it is always relevant except in the sense that it includes knowing that sometimes ‘blind’ experiment will be the only known course and that when we know more than just that we may have only guesses as to the good and how to achieve it. That is the realm and practice of rationality are vague and imprecise

The nature of rationality is a question of rationality

All knowing and acting above a certain level of significance is like that. The question ‘What is philosophy?’ is an open question and in particular it is a question of philosophy. Similarly, the question ‘What is mathematics?’ is an open question; it is a question for mathematicians of course but it is not completely answerable within mathematics (Gödel showed it to be partially but incompletely answerable within any formal system of mathematics); it is also a general question of the nature of our understanding and as such it is a question of philosophy.

These conclusions of openness follow from the open nature of the universe and being-knowing in the universe. However, the expression of the metaphysics as Realism and the understanding that that brings shows that the questions ‘What is rationality… philosophy… mathematics?’ and so on have more precise general answers than mere openness or vagueness suggest. Here we are in the process of providing such precise answers.

Science and the sciences

What should the essence of this section be?

Title? Here? Keep?

Cosmology

The following concerns arise here. 1. Should I keep just this one subsection to Cosmology? Even if I eliminate the title, I should probably emphasize that it is physical cosmology? 2. Should Individual and Identity be made a subsection of Cosmology? Where should Mind and Life be placed?

Modification from 1^st prod: The Universe has neither beginning nor end. In a sense Of ‘is’ that accords with earlier remarks on the extension of the meaning of ‘exists’—The Universe is.

Modification from 1^st prod: ~~However~~ That is, breadth is ever open—particularly, the extension, duration, variety, Summit, and dissolution of manifest Being have no limit. Subject to Realism, systems of physical law are without limit.

Addition to 1^st prod after comment that there are no indivisible particles: There may be undivided particles of limited duration…But there are no particles that remain undivided over all extension.

Physical cosmology

How to characterize physical cosmology? Is it the cosmology of extension and duration? Of ‘matter’? Of what?

Cosmology and destiny. Destiny of what?

Where / when to discuss multiverse, quantum theory, fungibility, determinism; remember that quantum theory is itself being and does not define the universe; if the cosmos is a multiverse—it is still is a speck; remember the non-universality of the speed of light (and of ‘matter’, space, time…)

Creation

§ God?

Mathematics and physics of infinity as an approach to measuring relative significance of self-adapting or normal evolution and guided or created evolution

Individual and identity

Is creative intelligence the apex of Being? Universe?

Addition to 1^st prod after comment ‘Apparent limits are part of the constitution Of the forms of Being: Form and limit are positive and negative aspects of a being.

Mind

Life

Is ‘life’ necessary here? What is life in this context? Is / how can life be an instrumental / central concept? Relate to mind.

A Perfect, Unique, and Ultimate Metaphysics

Keep this section? Keep its heading level? Keep it here?

Metaphysics and action

Journey

Critical evaluation

Validity and significance

Here? Note its done elsewhere in concentrated form and in bits and pieces

Journey

The order below is not ironclad

Begin with possible new section Individual and Engagement and retain the sections Civilization and Realization, A Way of Realization, and Transience and Arrival. Add section System of Experiments at end?

Nature of the journey

Keep this? Keep title?

Neither the journey nor its contours were conceived in advance—and, though the statement of the metaphysics may have been conceivable, its fact, proof, and implications and nature of the journey were inconceivable without a journey: having a hope, seeing a glimmer, and following it rather than some definite promise. Further, the living details of realization are inconceivable for a limited being at outset—this is a direct implication of the metaphysics

Engagement

Keep this? Absorb to above? Keep title?

Attitude and realization

Civilization and realization

A way of realization

Keep title? Ways?

More on ways and the way (of being); more on catalysts and their experimental nature than in 1st prod (p 20); more on evolving the way (and how that is, after all, part of the way); and more on an immediate program.

Approaches

Emphasize the intrinsic and the instrumental (which are not distinct) Different societies have had different emphases. It may seem that the instrumental has outstripped the inner today (to the extent that the inner-as-realization is ignored in the mainstream: what the mainstream has is enjoyment-of-a-fixed-inner-capacity). However, the inner is essential to full being. And, the instrumental is also at a beginning

The world

‘The proximate’

Keep this? Place here or after transience and arrival (and if placed after, then comment at last picture at bottom of page?)…or after Civilization and Realization? Keep title—I’d originally wanted to call it ‘The World Today’ but that is too limited? Still I can also discuss ‘The World Today’ for it is important in itself and to the connection of this work to the world today and that connection is (another?) connection to destiny!

A separate section or part of this section? Problems—opportunities. Relation to journey.

The essence of being in the world

Keep? Title?

Some practical dimensions

Keep? Title? Combine with previous

A separate section or part of this section or the previous? Problems—opportunities. Relation to journey.

A story of world takeover by the military-industrial complex via manipulation of the political system… there is no conspiracy but naked power… paradox of Eisenhower… …role of intellectual in American vs. European history

Challenges and opportunities

A separate section or part of this or the previous? Title was: Problems—opportunities

Relation to journey.

Politics and economics

What should the essence of this section be? Separate into two sections? Relate to the section ‘Science and the Sciences’?

Title? Here? Keep?

Transience and arrival

Keep title?

Conclusion

Last picture at end, not side, and with comment on pictures. Here if there is no epilogue—otherwise at epilogue.

Epilogue

What would this be? Any combination of: (1) Invitation (2) Ongoing journey (3) Ongoing narrative?

Index

Invitation

Place in epilogue and or combine with Author? If both then just brief mention in Author.

Author

Reconsider! Keep? Title (note the change from 1st prod)—‘The author’? Incorporate essence to another place, e.g. Intro, Journey… or Engagement (there should be no need to introduce a section ‘Individual’ for that is the role of ‘Engagement’—but I may change from ‘Engagement’ to ‘Individual! Emphasis?