Any view or metaphysics is unlikely to be entirely new. Aspects of the present view have been seen before. What is new consists—in addition to some novel features—in the choice of elements that are put together, the logic that binds them, the demonstration of the view and of its ultimate character, of the development and application of the view, and of the extent of domains of previous thought and action that are included in it and illuminated by it

These domains include philosophy—metaphysics, logic, theory of objects, ethics; science and mathematics; the study of human being and society; and faith and religion

Illumination

An Ultimate and novel view

The view

The view that is developed is a picture of the nature of being and of the magnitude and variety of the Universe (use of capitalization is explained later.) I.e., it is a metaphysics and a cosmology

The view is ultimate and novel. There can be no greater view; in its outline the view is equal to the general features of the Universe which is revealed in its greatest and hitherto at most vaguely seen aspect; therefore, there is no need for a greater view. Although there are intimations of this view in the history of ideas, the following are novel: (a) the variety of elements that are subsumed and the coherence of their arrangement and connection, (b) that the view is demonstrated and not in the least posited in terms of premise or axiom, (c) that—simultaneously—the concept and method of demonstration are developed, and (d) the—demonstrated—finiteness and ultimate character of the depth of the view, and the demonstrated infinite variety of being revealed by it

A note on lexical meaning

Later it is seen that meaning varies according to context. Therefore the meanings of many terms, even common ones, depend on world view, context or metaphysics

The important terms of the discussion include being—the more important concepts are italicized, journey, existence, idea, transformation, foundation, intuition, object, experience, concept, percept, reason, reference, abstraction, universe, possibility, actuality, necessity, logic, substance, determinism, metaphysics, philosophy, rationality, depth and breadth of understanding, method, form, particular object, abstract object, grammar, meaning, mechanism, causation, human being, society, culture, institution, civilization, faith, religion, science, knowledge, ideational form, and dynamics of being

Many of these terms have multiple common uses and within each general use may have shades of meaning

However, on account of the fact that the metaphysics developed here is ultimate and novel, almost every term assumes a new meaning. Consider abstraction which is occurs when only those features of a concept are ‘abstracted’ that make the concept necessarily faithful. Thus the result of abstraction is not abstract and is strictly empirical andor Logical

Special uses of Capitalization here are (1) to indicate a meaning as used here and (2) the immanent form of a concept. Since these two uses coincide to a large degree the dual special use of capitalization is not inconsistent

The new and ultimate meanings of terms may give audiences difficulties, first, in distinguishing the present from common meanings and, second, in recognizing that an ultimate meaning is employed. The scheme of Capitalization will assist the audience in the crucial task of paying attention to the present meanings

Clash with common and scientific views. Difficulty of understanding. The Normal

It is not unexpected that the view may appear to clash with scientific and common views of the world. However, provided that ‘scientific’ and ‘common’ are adequately understood, there is no clash; in fact, with these provisos, the scientific and the common are—shown to be—necessary

Although there are criticisms of science, the function of these criticisms includes showing the place of science and not rejection of it. There is no anti-scientific intent or sentiment to the present work. A critical view is an understanding; it shows truths and limits. Provided that it is understood that the understanding of the nature and method of science may evolve andor capable of alternate interpretation, it is revealed that the final ideal form of understanding may be that of Science—distinguished from present science by capitalization

What is shown here is that the only Law—Laws—of the Universe is Logic. This is to be understood with the proviso that it amounts to a concept or definition of Logic whose specification is to emerge rather than to be posited at outset—hence the capitalization that distinguishes the present concept, Logic, from logic and the classical logics. Two difficulties of understanding arise immediately. First, is the traditional view of logic being rejected? No—what is valid in logic and the traditional logics lie within Logic. A second difficulty is that if the only Law regarding what obtains is that of Logic does this not imply that the Universe is infinitely more varied than as understood, for example, in modern theoretical physics? The answer is ‘yes.’ For those for whom modern physics defines the universe there may be a clash of the view from physics with the view from Logic. This clash or jar of views has been experienced by the author

The resolution of the apparent clash is via the—introduced—concept of the Normal. Given Logic, it emerges as necessary that there are contexts or domains such as the local cosmological system that may be labeled Normal domains and that have Normal behavior. The apparent physical necessities, then, are Normal or very probable; the apparent physical impossibilities are very improbable

The progression from the Normal to the Logic-al view is analogous to progress in science. In the transition from Newton’s mechanics to Einstein’s theory of gravitation—general relativity—the very concepts, e.g. of space and time and matter are changed and the large scale behavior of the universe is vastly different. However, Newton’s mechanics had been vastly successful within its own domain of validity. The newer theory is able to show the limits and the reasons for the limits of the older and, naturally, there is excellent agreement between the two theories within the domain of validity of the older theory. The view from Logic is in agreement with the Normal view in the latter’s domains of validity; however, outside the Normal, the Universe as revealed by Logic is vastly different than it would be according to the Normal—including modern science

The audience may find the explanation from the Normal to be plausible but not necessary

Demonstration

The following are demonstrated. (1) The Law of the Universe is Logic. (2) The existence of Normal domains including that of this cosmos is necessary

This world, this cosmos—i.e., our world, our cosmos—are Normal concepts

Additionally, the nature of ‘demonstration’ is clarified, grounded and advanced. Since a system of thought cannot found itself it is often thought that no absolute foundations are possible. However this is the foundational fallacy—the idea that only thought can found thought. A founding or grounding in—our—being is demonstrated or shown

Immediate / Ultimate

Although the present view is ultimate, it is shown, e.g. via the Normal, to necessarily harbor the immediate and the necessary connection between the immediate and the ultimate

Ideas / Transformation

From an instrumental view, ideas are means. Transformation in being-identity, without which ideas are seeds, is—essential to— journey

Ideas are essential in conceiving, mapping and appreciating the journey (being.) There is normal but no ultimate distinction between idea and identity

Audience—to whom the narrative may appeal

General—meaning which includes understanding and significance; transformation of being and identity; state of the world, analysis, value, choice, charismatic and rational influence and action

Technical—the natural and social sciences; an understanding of technology, the arts, history and religion; philosophy and its nature, meta-disciplinary studies e.g. ‘What is philosophy’ and “What is the nature of questions such as ‘What is philosophy?’?,” metaphysics, study of the meta-Object, and the theory of transformation; symbolic studies, logic and mathematics; desirability, feasibility, choice, design—planning—and action

Influence

What influence do I want to have?

The influence of resonance—of selective listening, understanding and use… not copying

Outline

Ideas

The ideas present a system of understanding of the Universe and, simultaneously, a method of that understanding

Naturally and inevitably both system and method inherit much from tradition. In fact one aspect of the central concept of Intuition is the—more or less obvious—point that the certain abilities are significantly innate and non conscious, i.e. pre-reflective. These include the ability to see in terms of common categories such as space, time and cause and to think in terms of images and language. That the abilities have some innateness, i.e. that the innateness is a template, allows both biological development and ‘nurture’ which is not merely passive enculturation but includes development that results from the exercise and incidental as well as intentional and reflexive nurture of the abilities. The fact of non-consciousness refers to the ability and not the exercise of the ability—the development of the ability is significantly outside our control; the exercise of the ability lies on the boundary between control and autonomy; and the content may lie on the conscious-unconscious continuum

Although much is inherited, both method and understanding have been developed. The development is ultimate in ways that are described in what follows

Foundation

The foundation for the system of ideas occupies much of the sections Intuition through Objects. The development of method is interwoven with content but is encapsulated and consolidated in Method. The dual development starts with an analysis of the idea of Intuition which is, roughly, the cognitive-affective apparatus with which we negotiate the world. There is discussion of the ‘limits’ of Intuition. Since ‘objects’ as experienced are at least partly the result or creation of intuition it is not given in advance what the meaning or significance of limits and faithfulness may be

With the broadest meaning of Intuition that is used here, there is no getting out of it and it is therefore not clear that ‘limit’ has the common interpretation of error or deficiency. Perhaps ‘limits’ can be transcended and the process of transcendence is one of vital and intrinsic significance in living. This point is clarified and affirmed in the development and it is important that the meaning and nature of limit and transcendence be carefully thought out and understood

The fact that we do not get outside of Intuition means that there no external mooring or foundation for understanding. It was suggested in the previous paragraph that this is a source of opportunity and adventure. The lack of external mooring does not mean an absence of foundation. The fact of our ability to negotiate the world, i.e. of a degree of adaptation implies that the Intuition has some validity even if it is only implicit

Analysis of Intuition will allow the construction of a foundation for understanding that has some ultimate characteristics. The understanding will take the form of an ultimate ‘Universal metaphysics.’ The ultimate character lies in the facts that no actual Object of the universe lies outside its scope, that the explanatory system is finite, and that the foundation is absolutely demonstrated. Thus the foundation is ultimate in breadth, depth and necessity. It will be seen that the foundation is explicit with regard to depth and necessity but implicit with regard to breadth. I.e., even though every actual Object lies within its scope, the system does and can not generate a description of all Objects… which—if living in a Universe of ever-freshness is a value—is good

Development of the ideas

While a preliminary variety of Objects is developed together with the understanding of Objects, variety is taken up in detail in Cosmology and Normal worlds

Journey

The Journey is one of transformation in Ideas and in Being-Identity—from the immediate or contingent or Normal world to the ultimate world of the Metaphysics through Cosmology

Supplement

Objections and counterarguments

The purposes of this section include (1) displaying the structure of some aspects of the arguments, (2) improving the flow of the main discussion

The main text will have fundamental as well as some minor objections

Topics from the history of thought

These are important topics to which a contribution has been—is felt to have been—made. This contribution, however, is secondary primary objective of transformation in Ideas and Identity. Primary contributions that are immanent in the developments are not emphasized in this section. The contributions include (1) the nature of metaphysics and philosophy, (2) the problems of metaphysics—illumination and resolution of the famous problems as well as new problems and resolutions, and (3) a system of knowledge in light of the new metaphysics

Primary contributions that are immanent in the developments are not emphasized here

The purpose of the section is to show the contributions and the power of the new metaphysics

Ideas

The body, this section and Journey, will contain (1) Illuminating comments, (2) Theorems—propositions—and hypotheses, and (3) Truths

Intuition

Introduction

~~The idea of Intuition used here begins, roughly, with that of Kant and is enhanced to all cognition-affect~~

~~Introduction of the compound term ‘cognition-affect’ is explained later and, with greater detail, in the essays—Home~~

a. Intuition is the sum of the individual’s capabilities to know and relate to self and world. The Intuition includes feeling, iconic, and symbolic capabilities

Although we have the ability to see in terms of space, time, and causation, an explicit analysis of the ability is difficult if at all possible. Although such perception is conscious, the perception is presented in consciousness and its formation is not conscious or constructed out of symbols. Rather, the perception remains at an iconic level (which is not at all to say that an analytic-symbolic superstructure cannot be integrated with or implicitly subsume the structure of the iconic.) The perception is, on analogy with computation, ‘hardware’ and the symbolic analysis is ‘software.’ The analogy is of course very rough for it is not the case regarding cognition (let alone cognition-affect) that there are but two layers ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ or that the continuum of layering is decomposable

In Kant’s time Euclid’s geometry and Newton’s mechanics were regarded as the final description of space, time and causation. Therefore, Kant held that the Intuition, even though it is capable of improved precision, concerned—is of—the very nature of the world

The later development of science showed (1) profound limitations to the picture of the world revealed by the Euclidean-Newtonian science of Kant’s time and suggested strongly that (2) no scientific picture so far may be taken as final

It is sometimes thought that the progression of science has revealed that no scientific picture can be final. Although the likelihood of a final picture may be questioned, what is truly in doubt is how such finality might be demonstrated. This doubt was emphasized by Hume’s thought. The analysis of the present development shows directions—which directions are not subject to Hume’s critique—in which finality is actual and is demonstrated. One aspect of seeing the necessity of the various necessary claims that follow is that they are not subject to Hume’s critique

Kant’s analysis of Intuition remains fundamental in showing that what faithfulness Intuition has is part of our constitution without regard to analysis of it. We now know that the source of Intuition is adaptation (which does not require evolution even though we may think that Darwinian evolution and development constitute by far the most reasonable explanation of it)

Human knowledge may start with Kant’s Intuition but this is built upon by symbolic analysis. However, the capacity for such analysis is itself Intuitive although the area of intuition is not identical to that of the more ‘primitive’ intuition, e.g. of space-time-cause

b. The Intuition is sometimes regarded as restricted to the innate or partially innate pre-conscious capabilities that make possible the more or less conscious categories of the world, i.e. space, time, cause… Since there is no getting outside of these capabilities, at least in their own terms, they have no intrinsic but explicit measure or meaning of faithfulness. It may be thought that there is some getting outside in science or by symbolic means. The precision of some areas of science and the discrete character of the symbol lend to the idea of a getting outside of the nature of knowing. However, there is no a priori reason to suppose that relations among symbol systems (e.g. logic) precisely mirror Object (world) relations. Therefore, symbolic knowing (including logic) is also assigned to Intuition. (Limits and the nature of such limits of science are discussed later)

Here, then, we think of the extension of Kant’s Intuition by symbolic analysis (language…) as Intuition. We do so because symbol and icon have common origins and because the assignment of absolute character to the symbol lies in Intuition. Although there may be some ways in which symbol transcends the limits of the icon, there is no universal way and what ways there are should be demonstrated and do not lie in the final nature of the symbol even though the assigned discrete character of the symbol and the development of logic encourage a view of universal transcendence of icon by symbol… Then, Rationality refers to the processes we have available to us for the valid development of understanding. Rationality will initially refer to reasons that are valid (a) on the observation side, i.e. empirical and (b) on the symbolic side, i.e. logical

Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason included an extension of his concept of intuition by symbolic analysis. This was to have been the perfect analysis of the perfect object of—Kant’s concept of—intuition. We will find logic to be empirical, as later logicians found, logic to also be limited

However, we will find directions in which there are perfect objects of perception and Logic. These will frame the Universal or ultimate metaphysics that will be developed below which will, in turn, frame the analysis of contingent or Normal objects and worlds

Intuition and Object

There is a ground level at which the organism is bound to the environment in primitive action. We will see later that this and even lower levels involve a primitive intuition—that will involve an extension of the concept of intuition

~~Idea and action in interaction—higher level experience but not of the Object~~

~~At a ‘higher’ level there is Intuition of Objects, i.e. there is the concept of the Object. Faithfulness, such as there is, may be implicit~~

~~Intuition of the Object shows the Object but is not necessary for it~~

~~There is no final external measure faithfulness or final meaning of explicit faithfulness. However, adaptation—ability to negotiate the world—implies at least partial faithfulness~~

There is a sense in which we do not ever get completely outside Intuition to be able to verify its faithfulness—this raises the question of the meaning of faithfulness and suggests that, in general, there is no final measure or meaning to it. There is no a priori reason to suppose that even logic is capable absolute faithfulness

However, adaptation implies that Intuition must have sufficient if implicit faithfulness. We will see that, in general, there is a sense and value in terms of which sufficient faithfulness defines the objects of our world. These general considerations do not imply that there can be no areas of high precision. Physical science is an area of high precision

c. We will explore and find directions of limited faithfulness and of limitlessness. There are some areas in which faithfulness can be given absolute meaning. These directions will form, roughly, a metaphysical framework for the entire enterprise of Intuition

Some absolute Logical limits will be found; note, though, the distinction between Logic and logic that will be developed later. The contingent or Normal limits may be negotiated and it is herein lies adventure

d. ~~All Intuition has an Object~~

~~The purposes to the introduction of this assertion, its meaning and significance are roughly those of the corresponding statement for experience in what follows~~

Notes on Intuition

…from the presentation slides

Intuition I

How we experience the world, e.g. in terms of space and time and cause and properties, occurs outside experience

Why we see in certain terms—space and time, red versus blue and so on—may be explained by adaptation

That we see in such terms has been labeled ‘Intuition’

We understand the world in certain terms but it does not follow that we understand the understanding; therefore the terms in which we see the world are appropriately labeled Intuition

Intuition II

This sense of Intuition was used by Immanuel Kant (philosopher, 1724-1804)

In this sense, Intuition is the ability to perceive and concerns subjective experience of and is ‘bound’ to things

Reasoning regarding things involves free images and symbols

Detail for the notes on Intuition …with comments on meaning

‘Intuition’ has a variety of meanings or uses

A term, e.g. Intuition, may have, in use, a single core meaning or, alternatively two or more core meanings. The core meanings may be closely or loosely related… or even unrelated. The lack of relation may be due to divergence of related meaning or ‘convergence’ of signs of unrelated ideas

Often when there is debate about the meaning of a word, such debate carries on at a futile level because different core ideas are being compared at cross purposes. What is required, then, is, first, recognition of what is happening and, second, separation out of core ideas which are the real focus. Because use and definition remain meshed, this separation out is not always going to be a clean process brought to termination. However, having a framing system of thought is a context in which such separation can be done. If the framework should happen to represent reality or a portion or abstract of it then precision of meaning may be possible for the relevant domain. As will be seen, the ‘Universal metaphysics’ is perfect for an abstract of the entire Universe. Here, it should be noted ‘abstract’ refers to empirical knowledge of general features and not a removed concept of all features

The core sense of Intuition here is touched by the idea of knowledge that precedes analysis, e.g. the Intuition of space, time, and cause. Even though the Intuition of space, time and cause is distinct from the idea of intuition of events occurring without clear and direct knowledge of them (due perhaps to the presence of knowledge of features at a sub-conscious level) the two uses are related in being cases of knowing whose process is not wholly within consciousness

Kant may have used Intuition as, roughly, perception and not reason under the idea that reason is explicit and has a precise and perfect symbolic foundation at least in logic. However, as we have seen, even the foundation in logic is not perfect, logic is synthetic and not entirely analytic and even logic lies in Intuition. Therefore, the approach here is to regard the entire scope and mechanism of human knowledge as lying in Intuition and to ask what portions, if any, of this scope is perfectly faithful

Intuition III

Here the meaning of Intuition is extended to cover perception and reasoning

Conception—having mental content—is perception and reasoning. Then:

Intuition is the ‘faculty of conception’ or, in modern terms, ‘the ability to have conceptions’

Intuition IV

Perception—the empirical side of Intuition—is perfect for the simple objects being, all being, and absence of being

The reasoning or thought side of Intuition has been held perfect for logic. However, logic itself is experimental

A new concept ‘Logic’ will be found to be perfect logic—non-empty and powerful

Unity of Intuition

Thus far Intuition is the dual that is roughly perception and reason

Perception is bound to the Object; reason is free and occurs via recollection as icons and symbols

Alternately expressed, reason is remotely or loosely bound—even pure experience has a remote and a potential Object

The origin of—the capacity—reason is in perception

Though Normally bound, even perception has freedom—this freedom is not fundamentally pathological but lies in the nature of being (see Metaphysics)

Perception and reason constitute an original unity

This unity also lies within Experience

Intuition and metaphysics

e. The necessary aspects of Intuition—perfect perception of the simple objects and Logic are the two pillars of an ultimate metaphysics… that lies within intuition

f. This metaphysics is foundation for the depth and variety of being and, with particular disciplines—e.g. the sciences, understanding of specific areas of being

The sciences do not—initially—lie within Intuition. However, the possibility of science lies within Intuition and, as will be seen in Metaphysics, the sciences have a mode of necessity whose character will be developed

Experience, concept and reference

g. ‘Experience’ is the subject side of Intuition. ‘Experience’ connects our being to being. These thoughts emerge as truth in what follows

The idea of experience—feeling

Experience may be characterized as what is felt when there is awareness—this is the meaning of ‘experience’ as used here. This meaning is used extensively in the study of mind. In the following, the audience should exclude all other meanings of ‘experience’ except when they are explicitly used

In the subjective awareness of a shape, a quality such as fragrance, a thought, an emotion, an intention to act, and in the feeling of one’s body in motion—in all these there is feeling—primitive and compound, iconic or distanced from the object—symbolic, bound as in perception and free as in thought whose icons and symbols are, roughly, ‘memory traces’… In the present sense, experience is synonymous with feeling

h. All experience has an object

Exceptions—pure experience. The Objects of pure experience may be seen as a potential Objects. However, it will be seen in Metaphysics that every experience has an Object

Objection—solipsism—the idea that experience alone exists. Response—see the section on Objections and counterarguments—Experience and existence—for this and further objections

The concept of an Object is the sum of experience of it—enhanced by the capacities of experience

Since we never get fully outside Intuition or experience, the concept defines the Object. Except when the distinction is significant, e.g. when attempting to understand the nature of Objects, it is convenient and valid to conflate concept and Object.

While we read law and form as concepts, what is read, Law and Form are Object-like and are immanent in being. Later, Law and Form may be seen as Objects

Critical objection—since we never get outside experience, the meaning of faithfulness is in question. Response. Adaptation—that we negotiate the world with some success—implies that there is at least partial and sufficient though implicit faithfulness and, further, that there is no universal logical wanting or desire of anything beyond this. In fact, of course, there are common and scientific cases of ‘extreme’ accuracy. The discussion is taken up again in Experience

Since the foregoing is a very condensed form of Kant’s argument—and includes both perception and thought—such Objects may be called ‘Kantian’ or Intuitive

Intuitive (Kantian) Objects include the cases of concept in inseparable interaction with process and ‘immersion’

Exception—illusion, hallucination and delusion. These cases may be subsumed under—group—process and trial and error

We will see in Metaphysics that, despite reservations associated with subsumption under process, there are immensely important cases of absolute faithfulness—the necessary Objects. The necessary Objects are also Intuitive; to distinguish those Intuitive Objects that are not necessary; they will be called Contingent Intuitive or, simply, Contingent—or Normal

While the necessary Objects are important, most Objects of our world that we deal with on a practical and day to day basis are Normal. While these cannot be absolutely faithful, they may be sufficiently faithful. It is necessarily the case, from adaptation, that there are sufficiently faithful Normal Objects. It is revealed in Metaphysics, that this practical necessity lies within Logical necessity. The sufficiently faithful Normal Objects include cases high precision as in common perception and action and immense precision as in physical science

That is, whatever the limitations of experience, intuition and the Intuitive Objects, there are very significant ways above in which these limits are peripheral to our being and other very significant ways that follow in which the limits are absolutely overcome

With regard to faithfulness, Objects are either necessary or Normal. Later it is seen that the Normal Objects have a kind of necessity but not in the immediate way of the necessary Objects

Exception—contradiction. The problem of contradiction is taken up briefly in the discussion immediately below and in detail in subsequent discussions, Objects and On Logic… The problem of contradiction, i.e. of Logic, is already implicitly though incompletely accounted for in symbolic and iconic Intuition. Consequently, concerns about contradiction need not cast their neurotic shadow on every practical moment. However, Intuition is not at all a priori complete with regard to Logical concerns and therefore Logic and the logics are topics of importance to be taken up subsequently

Necessity of complete reference

Although illusory ‘Objects’ do not exist in this cosmological system, it will be seen later that every consistent concept has an Object

For the Object of reference to lie in a specific context, every ‘atom’ of the concept should have reference in the same context. If all such atoms have reference in a context, the concept has reference in that context

Existence

Subtitle: The idea of Demonstration

Experience in itself exists—as demonstration of the existence of Objects of experience this is of course ‘sophistry’ even though true (since, as will be seen, experience is capable of being its own object)

The Object of the concept exists. Applicable objections, especially solipsism, are stated above and resolved as noted

The Object is Capitalized. Capitalization at the beginning of a sentence is shown by an altered font. Capitalization is also used for Special Meanings. Since, as will be seen, such special meanings are often ultimate, the two uses of Capitalization are mostly consistent. It is not necessary to be entirely consistent about this use or to maintain it invariably

Objection. Various concerns regarding ‘existence.’ These objections, some well known, are stated and resolved in Objections and counterarguments—Experience and existence

i. Thus existence is a proper concept; there is existence

From the discussion of the Objections, it is seen that the proof lies in what is given in experience and analysis of the name ‘existence.’ This ‘proves’ by example the possibility of Demonstration—proof that requires no unproven axiom. This concept is further developed below

Since we never get outside experience, the idea of precise and final lexical meaning is without ‘meaning.’ Meaning incorporates Intuitive—Normal—and implicit as well as necessary and explicit objectivity; this means that meaning has no final mooring in general; however, this is good for that is the way it is and stands at the beginning of and allows discovery; and, it shows, that meaning is already empirical

Being

j. Being—that which has existence in its entirety. There is being

See Objections and counterarguments—Being—for observations, objections and responses

Global and local description

Description may be local or over all space and time. Since space and time or space-time may perhaps not be the only ‘coordinates’ of difference, we use the distinction global versus local (rather than spatio-temporal.) It is not at all clear that there is a universal coordination. Thus description may be patchy, i.e., limited with respect to large and small

~~The words ‘is,’ ‘exist,’ and ‘being’ may be used globally andor locally. In the global sense being includes becoming~~

Metaphysics

~~‘Metaphysics’ has rough meanings as (1) the study or science of existence, and (2) as the study of the occult. Here, it is the first meaning that is used~~

In the present development, ‘method’ emerges in parallel with ‘content.’ It is found that this is necessary in that method and content are fundamentally related. It is consistent with this finding to allow the precise sense and subject matter of metaphysics to emerge rather than attempt to make specifications at outset

k. ~~The metaphysics that is developed, the Universal metaphysics or Metaphysics of immanence is demonstrated below to be ultimate in depth and breadth~~

~~The senses of ‘depth’ and ‘breadth’ will emerge as part of the development~~

Necessary Objects

Being

l. ~~Being—existence—is a necessary Object~~

All being

Consider ‘all being.’ If this refers to ‘everything’ in all its details, it is not empirically known. However, if ‘all being’ abstracts all distinction, it is empirical and, trivially, precisely known

m. ~~Therefore, all being is a necessary Object~~

Domain

~~Similarly, difference and therefore part or domain is necessary~~

~~Since complement is defined in terms of domain, complement is necessary~~

Unitary character of rationality, i.e. the apparently dual empiric-logic

n. Here, we see the dual origin of empiric-logic (sense and symbol) which will receive completion below in consequence of the fundamental principle to be established under Void

~~The dual use of sense and symbol lies in Intuition; however, since sense and symbol have common origin the use is unitary. Since the use here is valid it is Rational~~

Universe

~~The Universe is all being, i.e. all that exists~~

Fundamental consequences

o. ~~The Universe exists; there is exactly one Universe; the Universe has no Creator; the Universe contains all Objects—all Ideas, all Forms, all Laws, and all Creators~~

~~A God that created the Universe makes no actual or explanatory sense~~

~~It will be seen later that Ideas, Forms, Laws are Objects~~

Possibility and Actuality. Introduction to Logic

There is no measure of Possibility other than Actuality—whatever is Possible is Actual. The common concept of possibility is a local (contextual) concept that assumes another world, universe, or context. It is trivial that what is Actual is Possible

p. ~~Therefore, the Possible and the Actual are identical~~

~~Note: Logic begins to be seen as immanent in the—idea of the—Universe~~

There is one Universe

~~The Universe contains all actual ‘kinds.’ If there is mind then all mind is in the Universe. If there is matter, all matter is in the Universe~~

From the given character of experience, mind exists and is fundamental; the concept of mind starts with experience and not somewhere else. Some textbook examples study questions ‘what is mind’ beginning with a list of characteristics that appear to be ‘of mind.’ While that approach is not entirely useless, it is not especially useful. It is perhaps less than useful if the initial list is regarded uncritically. This narrative is not a textbook and the audience is not treated as caricature schoolchildren… Later, it is seen that all being may be associated with Mind—Mind is universal even though mind is not

The being of matter is a theoretical concern. This does not imply that matter does not exist but that precision is required regarding the term ‘matter.’ For example is there an Object of the concept of matter from modern physics? In the present cosmological system, that concept of matter defines an Intuitive object with great local precision. It does not follow that this precision extends to the Universe and we will see that it does not

~~There are no separate universes of matter, of mind or mental Objects, of Forms~~

~~We may talk as though there are separate worlds of actuality or matter, Form and Mind. However, there is exactly one world~~

~~There is one and only one Universe~~

~~This assertion is logical. The Universe will be later seen to be more than a merely logical unity~~

Space and time

q. ~~Universal space and time are coeval and relative (meaning is later given to ‘origin of space and time’)~~

~~Relative: immanent in rather than—absolute—framework for~~

~~It will be seen below that local space-times may be as if absolute even when fundamentally—i.e. in relation to the Universe—relative~~

~~‘Universal space’ refers to what spatiality there is in the Universe and the reference is not intended to suggest that this space is Universal in ‘extent’~~

Domain

~~There are domains~~

~~See Domain for details~~

~~Domains may create other domains~~

~~Creation, Form and Law may be imposed by one domain on another. Mind may be imported from one domain to another~~

~~A limited god may make actual and explanatory sense. This argument gives no support to a literal god of this cosmological system except perhaps to remove some sense of absurdity to such a god~~

Thinking metaphorically yet still concretely there is no reason to not think of the sun or the creation of the cosmos as god; and there is a legion of somewhat reasonable metaphorical interpretations of ‘god.’ It may be interesting though not a new idea to seek the essential psychological meaning of ‘god.’ However, the present development, especially that of the next section, Void, may give this line of thought a fresh slate

r. ~~Local space-time may be absolute in relation to its region of immanence~~

Void

~~The Void is the absence of being, i.e. the Void can contain no Object—no Idea, no Form, no Law~~

Existence of the Void

~~The Void is the complement of the Universe in itself. Therefore the Void exists~~

This proof and assertion constitute the cornerstone of the ultimate Universal metaphysics that is emerging and, therefore, scrutiny and criticism are paramount and considered together with various objections in Objections and counterarguments—Doubts about demonstration of the nature-existence of the Universe and the Void

s. ~~The Void exists and contains no Objects—no Ideas, no Forms, no Laws~~

The Universal metaphysics

Introduction

The system of understanding that is being developed is called the Universal metaphysics or Metaphysics of immanence

~~The ‘Universal’ character of the system lies in—the demonstration of—the results that the Actual Universe could not be larger than it is and that every Actual Object is at least implicit in it~~

The system is a Metaphysics of immanence in that it is not ‘entities’ that count as Objects but the Objects of the metaphysics include Form and Law—i.e., Form and Law are immanent in being as are what are called the abstract Objects. In some systems of thought the real is made of a number of worlds, e.g. the world of matter, a mental world, and a world of Platonic or ideal forms

In the system to be developed here there is exactly one world, one Universe. It may be useful to think as though there are distinct worlds; however, such thinking will be seen to be based on misunderstandings

~~The cornerstone of the emerging metaphysics is the fundamental principle of the Metaphysics of immanence~~

Fundamental principle of the Metaphysics of immanence

The principle will be the most important result of the metaphysics—it will be pivotal in showing the ultimate breadth and depth of the Metaphysics of immanence. The principle will be called the ‘fundamental principle’

~~If there is a consistent concept whose Object does not manifest, that is a Law of the Void. Therefore, the following preliminary statement—~~

~~Every consistent concept has an Object (fundamental principle)~~

~~‘Anything is possible’~~

That, of course, sounds absurd therefore consider, more precisely but still roughly, that all consistent concepts have Objects, i.e., subject to logical requirements there are no impossibilities. Conversely, inconsistent concepts have no reference or, alternatively, inconsistent concepts have empty reference

~~For doubts and responses see Objections and counterarguments—Formal problems concerning the fundamental principle and Adjusting the fundamental principle and its consequences to realism~~

t. Principle of reference—all consistent concepts and only consistent concepts have (non-empty) reference

The detailed essays——have some experiments with logics that suggested this principle and the importance of reference. The proof of the principle, however, was not at all dependent on the suggestive arguments

~~Provided that the concepts contain no contradiction, Intuitive Objects are necessary in this sense~~

On Logic

In this section the lines struck out are playful

u. ~~The only restriction on actual states is that of Logic (final and most precise form of the fundamental principle)~~

~~This defines the concept of Logic—as distinct from logic and the logics~~

~~We saw earlier that the Universe contains all Objects~~

~~Concepts that violate Logic have no Object~~

~~Alternatively, the Object of a concept that violates Logic is the ‘zero’ Object~~

~~The Void is equivalently the absence of Objects and the system of zero Objects, i.e., the zero Object~~

~~With the extended meaning of Object, i.e. allowing the zero Object which is contrasted to actual Objects, the Universe contains all Objects~~

Even though the assertions ‘Concepts that violate Logic have no Object’ through the previous one appear to be little more than word play, they may turn out to have significance. In any case, the flexibility of thought cultivated in these assertions may be useful

It is of no consequence whether the Universe is regarded as containing or excluding the zero Object or the Void

Objection. Immense conclusions are made here from the concept of Logic. However, since ‘The one Law of the Universe’ or of all being defines Logic, how is it now possible to conclude anything at all from the ‘fact’ that Logic is the one Law of the Universe? Response. The motivation to the ‘definition’ was not definition per se, i.e. not the introduction of a new concept, but the possible contradictions arising from ‘the set of consistent statements…’ and the extension of Logic is at least some large set of consistent statements, i.e. the immanent and ultimate realization of the idea of logic

v. A principle of reference—a logic is a system or grammar that ensures that all sentences of the system have reference (or, in a context, be capable of reference)

The definition of the concept of Logic is implicit; it is the principle of reference that permits its realization as logic or logics. The principle of reference will be the measure of the principles of logic which include, for example, the principle of non-contradiction

w. The Objects and the Logic of the Universal metaphysics are both necessary consequences of the analysis of Intuition

Project. Develop this thought further

Objection. The following claims have been made. (1) The fundamental principle is derived from Intuition (experience.) (2) The Logic of the derivation is also derived from Intuition. Is it not circular that Logic can be so derived? Response. The kind of circularity in question is the derivation of logic from logic. There is no such circularity. However, there is a problem. It does seem absurd that Logic can be derived from an analysis of Intuition. This appears to contradict the later discussion of the bringing of logic from the realm of the absolute to the realm of the contingent or Normal. However, here a very simple logic is in question. The logic necessary for the developments above is the simple one of set inclusion, i.e. the sentence or propositional calculus. It is known that this logic is consistent and complete, i.e., it belongs to Logic. Now, another problem arises. Are not the Objects to which the sentence-Logic applies normal Objects? I.e. is there not uncertainty about their status as domains? No there is no uncertainty because their Object status has been established as necessary. When the Logic is applied to an arbitrary domain that seems to contain another, there may be doubt about the fact of containment but there is no doubt that there are containments and this is all that is necessary to the discussion for the conclusions that are being derived

A cosmological variety

The content of this section goes to Cosmology

x. A principle of reference—a logic is a system or grammar that ensures that all sentences of the system have reference (or, in a context, be capable of reference)

y. Cosmology begins in Logic—there are no fictions except Logical fictions

Subject to Logic, every fiction, every story, every myth, every scripture, every legend, every novel, every science, every imagination, every truth implicit in an affect or in a work of art, architecture or music is real

What is actual is necessary. This—our—cosmological system is necessary. Every individual is necessary; and their identities are necessary. The non-fictions include infinite recurrence of every limited domain; every part of the Universe may interact with every other part—stronger version of the unity of the Universe; Karma; ‘Jesus Christ rising from the dead’ occurs in countless cosmological systems—this does not at all imply its occurrence in this cosmos although it may remove some of the sense of absurdity surrounding the rising from the dead; the manifest Universe may be subject to annihilation at any time; the identities merge in Identity

Limited gods are necessary. This gives no support to the idea of a god of this cosmological system except that it shows that that idea is not absurd

z. The Universe must pass through both Void and manifest states—this explains why there is—must be—something rather than nothing which has been called (e.g. Heidegger) the fundamental problem. As will be seen, this implies that the fundamental problem of metaphysics is ‘What exists?’

There is no limit to the extent of the Universe. Objection. It should be equally true that there is a limit. Counterargument. The presence of a limit is a law; the absence of this limit is not

The Normal

~~The fundamental principle and its consequences have the apparent absurdity that they violate common sense, science, and our common pictures of the universe~~

~~These appearances of absurdity are resolved in the concept of the Normal~~

~~There are contexts in which the possibilities of the real are limited and take on apparent necessity. These limited but apparently necessary ‘realities’ are Normal~~

~~aa.~~ ~~The Universe is one of limitless actuality. Contexts or cosmological systems in which behavior is apparently limited by ‘Laws’ such as the laws and theories of science are termed Normal~~

~~The behavior of this cosmological system is Normal~~

~~An explanation of Normal behavior is possible; see Mechanism below. However, explanation is not necessary~~

~~bb.~~ ~~The existence and necessity of Normal states follows from the fundamental principle~~

~~cc.~~ ~~The fundamental principle resolves its own apparent absurdity~~

The idea of the Normal in relation to science and this cosmological system casts serious contingent doubt on but is not a logical rejection of the idea of a god of this cosmos—at least in the literal interpretations of the standard scriptures (so far as they have internal consistency)

The edge of the Normal

What is this cosmological system? What lies at the edge of its putative spatial boundary, at the edge of time, at the threshold of its very small? There is a positivism that answers ‘Nothing!’ However, the putative edges are the edges of our contingent or Normal sciences and even those sciences admit some warp in validity—some warp in space, and time and magnitude—that is a window beyond the putative boundary… which of course is required by the fundamental principle

Substance, determinism and explanation

~~Substance arises in the search for explanation—explanation of the complex in terms of the simple. The pertinent meaning of substance is that of substratum of the world or Universe~~

From simplicity, substance in this sense, must be simple—uniform and unchanging; and its manifestation as the world must be deterministic—else there is no explanation; finally, substance must be of the world—else it is mysterious rather than simple

~~dd.~~ Clearly, from the fundamental principle, the Universe is not merely indeterministic but absolutely indeterministic—all states are accessed from every state. Substance, therefore, is untenable but also unnecessary

~~ee.~~ ~~Substance and determinism would be explanatory duals. If substance were tenable, determinism would be its explanatory dual. Each is empty without the other. Together, however, they crumble~~

~~Heidegger’s critique of substance metaphysics stopped short at critique of determinism~~

~~The Void or any state fills the ‘void’ created by the denial of substance. However, on account of indeterminism, the Void is not substance in the classic sense (above.) Yet, the following is shown~~

The Universal metaphysics is ultimate in depth and breadth

The emerging Universal metaphysics is a non-relativist metaphysics, i.e. it is founded in a terminating scheme of explanation (the Void.) However, this is accomplished without substance—in contradiction to the strong tradition of thought that only a substance metaphysics can have a foundation, i.e. a terminating system of explanation

I.e. the Universal metaphysics is ultimate with regard to depth in that it provides a Rational (empirical-logical) foundation for being in being itself, i.e. without substance or need for substance. That is the depth lies in ‘superficiality.’ In a sense this is not a true depth but a clearing away of confusion regarding depth explanation

~~The metaphysics is ultimate in breadth in that its Object contains every Object; the breadth is implicit in that this does not imply that the metaphysics can be used to specify every Actuality~~

~~ff.~~ ~~The Universal metaphysics is a non-relativist metaphysics of ultimate depth and breadth~~

Completion of the rational (empiric-logic) ‘Method’

~~The Rational system began with primitive experience. It is completed in the demonstration of the ultimate character of the system~~

Form

F~~orm is immanent in being and requires no explanation—there is, however, explanation of Form in Mechanism, below~~

Limits

Normal laws that are not Logical are ‘contingent’ or at most very probable in some contexts. Similarly the contingently or Normally impossible is at most very improbable or infeasible in certain contexts

~~gg.~~ ~~The only limits are Logical limits. The Logically impossible is the only true impossibility and, in the Universe, the only non-Actuality~~

~~Our ‘common reality’ including science and even logic may be experienced as necessary; this, however, is a Normal necessity; i.e., it is very probable. The necessity of Logic, however, is absolute~~

Objects

In the following explain how the theory of objects is implicitly established! Does not the making explicit do precisely this?

The theory of objects is implicitly established. It remains to make the theory explicit, to re-verify and elaborate it

Concept and Object

Necessary and Normal Objects

The development so far has identified necessary and Normal or strictly Intuitive Objects

Form is an object. Entities are Objects and may be thought of as ‘concrete’

Since every concept has reference, process and relationship are Objects

Being, Universe, mode of Difference (space, time, other,) Domain, the Void are necessary Objects

Particular and Abstract Objects

Entities are the prototype for Objects. In classical thought a property such as redness was contrasted from a red Object. While the red Object is particular, redness is common to all red Objects and therefore a Universal. A Universal is, at least intuitively, rather abstract. This is a source of the particular / abstract distinction. Entities are the prototype for particular Objects and thus, Universe, Domain, complement, Void are necessary particular Objects

Do mathematical, logical, and ethical ideas define Objects? Since number, for example, is not apparently in the actual world, such objects are thought to be abstract—if they are Objects at all. The abstractness lies in their conceptual and apparently intangible insensible qualities; in that they do not appear to lie in space, in that they appear to be timeless

hh. Since every consistent concept must have reference, the distinction between particular or concrete and abstract objects breaks down, i.e., while there may be distinctions such as partial and full (Objects,) and genera and instance, there is no categorial distinction of particular and abstract

The reference of number, for example, may be taken to be an aspect of what is common to classes of entities

Character of particular and abstract Objects. What is called ‘particular’ is suited to empirical study; what is called ‘abstract’ is suited to symbolic study

Number and Euclidean Geometry, for example, begin as study of particular objects, i.e. early in their history or intuitive pre-history, but it is then found that they are most powerfully amenable to study in symbolic terms—they ‘become’ abstract; the non-absoluteness of the distinction is underlined by the bringing back of mathematics into the semi-empirical domain by the computer assisted proof of a number of fundamental theorems. Logic is an Object; that is, Logic is defined by the principle of reference

These reflections make analysis easier by clarifying the conceptual side of various abstract mathematical and logical objects; however empirical problems remain regarding, for example, actual infinities and the meanings of actual infinities… and other abstract concepts

This shows that abstract objects do not exist outside space (or time) but, rather, that their being in or outside extension is, according to the case, partly or totally irrelevant to their being. Similarly, the immanence of reference shows that abstract objects are not characteristically intangible. It is only the incomplete prior understanding of abstract objects that renders them apparently intangible and apparently not resident in space (or time)

Sources of abstract character. Mathematical Objects are those whose form is simple enough to be capable of symbolic study and sufficiently universal to be usefully applicable. It is sometimes thought that mathematical proficiency is a fortuitous result of other proficiencies that are adaptive. It is not clear that this is altogether true, first, because, as the principle of reference reveals, mathematical and physical intuition are not disjoint and, second, especially though hypothetically in that even though mathematical ability is not universal it may have been selected for in cultural adaptation. Universals have an abstract character in that they are generalizations of aspects of particulars; in fact, universals now appear to be a cross of particular and abstract aspects. Values are abstract in that they are not present actual Objects but preferred potential Objects whose preference is determined by some combination of adaptation, adapted-ness, and intuition-symbolic process

A system of Objects

Being, the Universe, Difference, the modes of difference, Domain, Complement, Entity-Process, the Void… are particular objects. Relation, property, form, mathematical objects, value, morals, ethics, truth… may be regarded as abstract; however, even in abstractness the abstract have an aspect of the particular, e.g., the particular relation. An Entity as entity—as distinct from entity-process—is abstract. The Jesus Christ of this earth is particular; but this particular defines a recurrent particular Object that is also an abstract Object that may also be called ‘Jesus Christ’

Every particular Object defines a variety of abstract Objects. The set of all identical Objects recurrent over space at a particular time is abstract; this abstract Object may have temporal features. The set of identical Objects recurrent over all extension and duration is another abstract Object. This Object may be thought of as atemporal or, perhaps more precisely, as one that is not atemporal but one whose temporal features are not of any relevance to its nature

Although a simple emotion may be seen as referring to the body, its Object may be regarded as an action or the outcome of action. An emotion may be experienced as vague; however, if the outcome is a simple polar continuum such as move closer or further away, then the emotional Object may be regarded as capable of precision. Whether this line of development is interesting is left for development. More interesting and even profound is interaction between cognition and low level emotional-feeling in which cognition without feeling is empty even if present and emotion is a function also of cognition is developed in the detailed essays—Home

The fundamental concept of the metaphysics

ii. The Object emerges as perhaps the fundamental concept…

The foregoing thoughts show the immense and profound depth of the fundamental principle

Logic, Grammar and Meaning

The logics and what is constant in grammar may be seen as the requirements on concepts (including conceptual systems) in order for them to have the possibility of reference and no impossible reference (and therefore actual reference)

Thus Logic and Grammar have meaning

The ultimate depth of the metaphysics shows final meaning of the associated necessary terms. Experience with the system shows that even in this final case, ‘meaning’ can be distributed in various ways among the terms

In the implicit breadth there is of course flux of meaning without finality—this infinite flexibility lies within the final meaning described above

Generally, meaning is immanent in use-in-context; even lexical meaning lies in system and not words alone; the system of meaning and therefore particular meanings is dependent on context and therefore system; while context is roughly ‘situation’ that is only an approximation—in any given situation, individuals perceive and interpret at least somewhat differently and therefore may be said to have a different context in the same situation

Cosmology

The concept of cosmology

jj. Cosmology is the study the variety of being

Variety includes particular entities which includes thing, relationship, process, origins and ends of manifest being; and abstract objects including the mathematical and logical objects as well as the ethical such as value and justice. Truth straddles the ethical and the actual

Variety

The discussion of variety in Metaphysics, above, is adequate

Ideational form

Science and religion are examples of ideational form in that they provide a picture of the world or, at least, the base for a partial picture

The mesh of modern economics and ideational forms, e.g. secular humanism, is such that a return to a religious paradigm of the past is difficult to imagine

The idea of ‘Ideational form’ is here specified by example. Explicit definition is in notes to slides ‘Normal worlds’

The difficulty—but not impossibility—is compounded in view of the immense improvement of the political and economic status of the common individual

The future of the ‘ideational form’ may be difficult to anticipate but Universal metaphysics emphasizes the practical necessity of its future evolution

… of course the Universal metaphysics requires further realizations of ideational form that may be remote from contemporary thought but whose best expression may be realized in perception

This evolution will be likely though flexibly tied to the evolution of political-economics; truth requires reason but its spread is interwoven with political-economics—the understandings of immediate and ultimate truth may impinge upon one another

The world is not divided into two ‘spheres,’ the sacred and the ideal or ideational and the mundane that includes the political and the economic

Death

As a result of the scientific world view and the advent of secular humanism one dominant modern Normal view of death is that it is absolute: individual consciousness begins with birth and ends with death

The Metaphysics shows, however, the merging of individual identities in Identity. Thus the Normal view of death is a relative one

In life, this world is, roughly, finite; in life, the Universe may be experienced as infinite

In death, therefore, it is as if the infinity of the Universes collapses to the individual; alternatively, in death the ‘finite’ individual becomes the infinity of the Universe

...which from the theory developed for Identity—ultimately from the fundamental principle—has literal truth

A goal of the journey is to attempt to realize this truth regarding death in this life

Process

Mechanism

Origin of non-ephemeral or quasi-stable system whose stability is a function of ‘near’ symmetry by incremental variation and selection is a reasonable ‘mechanism’

Incremental process may occur, as in life on this earth, by selection in already quasi-stable populations. It may also occur as in a hypothetical cosmological case as the occasional near stable cosmos from among ephemeral ones. In this case the increment is over states rather than populations

Local dynamics may emerge in the same processes

By the fundamental principle incremental variation and selection it is a necessary mechanism in that it must occur in some cases

By the fundamental principle, ‘saltation’ or single step origins must also occur

The incremental variation and selection described above is at most Normal or (highly) probable

In general, origins may include the saltation as well as the incremental

It is often thought that indeterminism cannot result in structure. However, absolute indeterminism must result in structure—this is contained in the concept of absolute indeterminism (no inaccessible states as required by the fundamental principle.) The ‘mechanisms’ of emergence are as above—incremental andor saltational

Causation

Causation is an aspect of dynamics and therefore not universal—unless, of course, causation is given an interpretation other than the one in which the caused is a strong function of the cause. In such an alternative interpretation, it may be said that the Void ‘causes’ the manifest universe

Space, time and being

Even though we intuit only space and time, there may perhaps be non-intuitive modes of displacement other than space and time

However, it appears intuitively that being is not further analyzable with regard to displacement. Further we have found no necessity of further modes thus far. This suggests that there are no further modes of displacement. Alternatively, it reveals the limits of our intuition / variety of our cosmological system

Manifest being appears to be characterized by extension and duration. However, the measures of extension and duration may be patchy and (as in quantum gravitation) ‘foamy’

There appears to be no logical preference for any dimensionality of space. However, non-logical considerations, e.g., of complexity, stability, and emergence of sentience may select for certain dimensionalities

In this cosmos, time appears to be locally ‘universal.’ This is perhaps the result of selection. More generally, in a weakly correlated system there may be more than one time. Multiple times could be localized or strongly correlated within a weak correlation. Dimensionality of time appears be to fundamentally different than dimensionality of space

The foregoing suggests an explanation for the meaning and possibility of origins of time and space—i.e., of more or less coherent space-times

As noted earlier, any universal time and space are immanent and therefore relative. There is nothing that excludes this logically relative character to occasionally manifest as absolute. Further, there may be absolute space and time in limited domains

Local / physical cosmology

There are clear mutual implications among the Universal metaphysics and the study of the physics of the local cosmological system including the study of the fundamental forces, force—gravitation-matter-space-time, and the quantum vacuum and quantum theory

Such studies have not yet been taken up but may be an aspect of the ‘experiments’

The present development has considered implications for the extent of the Universe, the origin of the laws of this cosmos and their non-universal character, the non-origination and non-ending of the Universe, recurrence, annihilation, the relative character of any space-time for the entire Universe, the necessity of both relative and absolute space-times for local systems, the possibility but general improbability of entirely saltational origins of local cosmological systems, an incomplete loss of information in transitions through the Void state, universal interaction, the origins—and possibility and meaning of origins—of Laws and of space-time, and the non-universal character of the speed of propagation of the fundamental forces

When light is regarded as an isolated phenomenon the fundamental character of its speed in this cosmos may seem puzzling. However the ‘speed of light’ is the speed of propagation of all fundamental forces of this cosmos and is therefore bound into the very constitution of the elements of this cosmos

Mind

kk. Experience is the first characteristic of mind

The question is not ‘what is mind?’ There is no question. Asking this question reflects misunderstanding of the nature of mind. Experience has been seen to be at the center of our ‘personal’ universes—the being of those slightly metaphorical universes. An explanation of experience is not to be sought in something else for experience is at the center. Attitude and action which have been regarded as definitive of mind along with experience may be seen as experience together with secondary modes. Below, the character of experience will be extended and Experience will be seen to extend to the root of being

In a local cosmological system, mind may emerge in the following ways. (1) Spontaneously, (2) Emergence from material elements, and (3) Import from another part of the Universe

The second case is, on first reflection, perhaps most likely and stable; it is perhaps the Normal case. In this case, mind must already extend to the ‘material’ elements; however, higher mind will emerge by organization and layering. Human (animal) consciousness will be layered, reflexive, multiple, with degrees of focus; thus there may be apparent awareness without consciousness but this is awareness without central consciousness; thus, consciousness may be appear to be on-off but it is the aspect of reflexivity / focus that is on-off. However, human (animal) consciousness will not be categorially distinct from, e.g., the internal adjustment of one fundamental particle to another

In cases, (1) and (3) mind may be locally dual to the already established material elements. Due to such elements superposed on the Normal case, Normal mind may reach down to the elements of being and the duality may merge into a local monism. Even in the Normal case, true creativity requires indeterministic elements (by the definition of ‘new’) or, more likely, the interaction of the indeterministic and the structured. The ‘creativity’ of indeterministic process and the necessity of such process as part of creativity are discussed above in Mechanism

In the Universe, case (3), above is logically excluded. However, since (1) may play a role similar to (3), the Universal case is not fundamentally different from the local case in its possibilities for mind

Phenomena as object binding—how and why the shape, color and so on of an entity are perceived as one, object constancy—how an entity appears to be the same entity from different angles and distances and under some different lighting, and ‘unity of consciousness’ are explanatory problems from the point of view of neurobiology and the idea that the perceptual object is the sum of the perceptual parts. However, entities come first in a sense and the entities or objects of our world are those in terms of which we adapt. Therefore, unity of consciousness and so on require no explanation; such ‘phenomena’ have an intuitively primary character

These thoughts are not against explanation or its uses but show the relative character of its necessity to understanding

Principles of thought and action

Treated in Method, these are principles of construction—creation—of fruitful ideas, concepts and theories. They are somewhat distinct from ‘method’ but have application to method, and in criticism. They are especially applicable to cosmology

Normal worlds

Alternate title: Normal sentient worlds

Subtitle: Human world / human endeavor

Introduction

While the topic of this chapter concerns the Normal worlds of sentient beings, the vehicle for discussion is Human world / human endeavor

Understanding is enhanced by awareness of similarity and difference. Therefore from the point of view of understanding, human being is seen as animal being but without suppression of distinctions

We can only gain in the sense of adventure when we feel kinship with all / animal being but are not limited by the feeling

Human world: individual and society

This section contains what is useful to the Journey. For a more complete treatment see the essays—Home

A fundamental distinction is that of free versus bound icon. ‘Icon’ is used generically to refer to ‘image’ but not only to visual image; instead, icon may refer to image in any feeling or, roughly, sensory modality. An icon that is bound to the Object is a bound icon. One that is recalled and therefore free is a free icon. The symbol is a case of free icon

Human being

Concepts—feeling, afference, efference, bound feeling, memory, body feeling, kinesthetic feeling, inner—body—affective feeling and modality, outer feeling-sensing and modality, free feeling, compartmentalization, interaction, layering, higher feeling, emotion-cognition, consciousness, self-reference, volition, language, expression, communication, culture

Concepts—freedom, choice, action, charisma

Affective feeling is an aspect of body-kinesthetic feeling

Social world

Concepts—society, institution, lineage group, culture, cultural group, knowledge, creation, education

group process, economic, moral-legal, politic

Civilization

The Identity and continuity of—all—societies and cultures

Concepts—civilization, society, identity, continuity, connection, history, animal, extra-cosmological

The state of civilization

Modes—impurity, i.e. overlap and ‘interaction’ of institutions

Assessment—the world today—opportunities and problems (and the nature and problem of opportunity and problem and such thinking)

Solutions—

Faith

Faith is taken up, above and in what follows—in religious and animal modes

Common and experimental endeavor

Concepts—common, norm, adaptedness, stability, adaptability, experimental, adapting, decay, competition, changing circumstance, construction, creation

An issue—tension between adaptedness and adapting

A system of modes of being and knowing

Introduction

Concepts—nature, society, psyche, universal

The modes

Concepts—natural, action-idea, intuition-symbol, category

Categories—Object and Humor

Object—given object, natural, social, psychological

Humor—potential object, existential

Some human modes, common and experimental…and their limits

Concepts—animal, primal holism, myth, legend, Religion, religion, meaning function, non-meaning function, Science, science, technology, secular humanism, literature, sacred text, drama, ritual, music, art, architecture, sacred form and space, sacred ritual, thought, philosophy, metaphysics, scripture, unnamed ideational form

The animal

The animal ‘is’ its contingent or Normal possibilities and limits

Primal holism—early religion-myth, and science

Insofar as these are flowing, limits are tacit

Religion / religion

The obvious limits of religion concern the archaic cosmologies

However, the functions include the meaning and the non-meaning. Meaning includes the non-literal as in ‘rising from the dead’ pointing to our limited understanding of death. The non-meaning include social bonding which may be enhanced by literal meaning

The impurity of institution is a partial mark against criticism of ‘non-religious’ function of religion. All institutions are subject to abuse. The overlap of institutions has the probable result that religion is ‘here to stay’

The criticisms are criticisms of—some—actual religions but not of Religion—future, unnamed ideational form—which, here, is negotiation of all being by all modes available to individual and group

Secular humanism

There are two kinds of limits. The first is general—secular humanism comes nowhere near satisfying all Religious function including the spiritual (which in isolation is rather odd and limited.) Since secular humanism draws from science, a second kind of limit derives from the limits of science

Science / science

Current science has limits

Physics and physical cosmology defines their own limits—at the boundaries of the very small, the simple—and the complex, the distant, and the remote in time. The Universal metaphysics shows that these limits are indeed infinitely limiting; it also shows the limitations of biology in relation to other necessary life forms and their science. Modern psychology is clearly limited with regard to the necessary transformations of Identity

Essential limits of science

Recognizing that our understanding of the nature of science and its processes may change, it follows that any essential limits of science may well be essential limits of human being. There are, however, no necessary limits of human being—even though there are Normal limits

The future of the ideational form

A past form is religion. The present form may be called secular humanism which is some amalgam of science, especially, scientific method and approach, an emphasis on modern economic values that is balanced by an emphasis on human values; elements of religion; and perhaps some elements of ‘spirituality’

Although the future form may be labeled ‘Religion’ or ‘Ideal form,’ it is not clear or known what the extension of these ideas will be. It is not clear to what extent the ideas will be pure and to what extent in interaction with action and transformation

Subtitle: The role of reason, politics and economics in the acceptance of ideational form

ll. This form which has no necessary limits may be called ‘Religion,’ ‘Science,’ ‘secular humanism,’ … or may be unnamed

It is commonly thought that the primary source of the ‘demise’ of religion is the ascent of science and reason. Of course, science and reason are not absolute and as we now know in the early years of the twenty first century, religion is not at all dead. Yet there is a fundamental change in attitudes toward religion and in the place of religion in day-to-day life. In Western Europe, the place of religion is at its lowest ebb. On the other hand, there is a new fundamentalism in many places in the world and in a significant portion of these it is a militant fundamentalism. However, even the ascent of the new fundamentalism, religion is not so much woven into daily life as it is an instrument—a refuge, a political instrument…

The reason for the demise of religion as interwoven into daily life is not directly the ascent of reason. It lies, instead in economics and politics. In the new economics and politics, i.e. roughly since the middle ages, the freedom of information and reason has become instrumental. Older economies and politics were bound by tradition and authority. In the newer, the instruments of economics and politics are significantly free and distributed; of course such change is never absolute but even the politically and economically powerful gain by the new arrangements. The new arrangements make traditional belief far less relevant to daily life and this is perhaps the immediate cause of the demise of tradition that include religion. Of course, the new arrangements require reason and information to be immanent in society and are significantly dependent on reason for the transformation. However, it is not the case, as is commonly thought, that the demise of traditional belief is primarily the result of the explicit assault of reason on tradition

Method

Subtitle: Ring of ideas

Introduction

The method explicitly mentioned and implicitly completed earlier begins with the analysis of experience that is not only applicable to conventional Objects but also to method itself as an Object and sees content and method as bound together

Objection. See and reflect further on the next objection and its applicability to the apparent circularity above. Note. A different conception of method

Here ‘method’ is not understood as algorithmic. As far as I can tell, openness to creativity and criticism is may be required at all levels—Object, meta-Object… (The meta-Object is an Object and therefore not absolutely distinct from the Object)

‘The’ method now presented in a ring that is also a summary of the main ideas

Experience

Concepts—experience, capacity for experience (intuition,) pure experience, attitude, action, concept, faithfulness, reference, adaptedness, adaptability, Kantian Object, Intuitive Object, Contingent Object, Normal Object, demonstration

Method I. Rational, i.e. empirical-logical character of experience. Normal Objects

Introduces the empirical-logical or rational character of experience with emphasis on analysis of experience and concept. Meaning is immanent in context and is already empirical and logical

Objection. Every rational scheme requires at least one unproved axiom and at least one unproved rule of deduction. Note that this objection has been considered in relation to the derivation of the Universal metaphysics. Here the concern is with rational schemes in general. Preliminary response. The doubt remains as still requiring clarification and address. However, the argument so far is sufficient to show that the objection is not obviously true and to cast doubt on it. The requirement of ‘one unproved axiom’ is obviously false; whether the present rational scheme requires an unproved axiom is a question that requires clarification. That experience refers, at least to itself, is an axiom of being that is given rather than unproved; and the requirement of reference, i.e. of ‘reality,’ is that of Logic against which the intuition of logic may be sharpened. Primary response. We always remain in Intuition and, until the establishment of the Universal metaphysics; we remain in the Contingent Intuitive or Normal where there is neither getting outside nor any other overcoming of ‘limits.’ Where there can be no overcoming there is no limit; it is only relative to a nonexistent ideal that a limit may be posited. The truth within Normal Intuition is capable of refinement but there is no getting out. This is true also of logic. It is in the nature of the Normal Intuition that its truth derives, finally, from adaptation and not from evaluation or external criticism—there is nothing that is finally external. It is essential therefore that there will be something ‘unproven’ by explicit devices. However, there are—as has been seen and as will be reinforced—directions in which, even though we remain in Intuition, there are Objects as Objects-in-themselves and these Objects are seen to be instrumental, as noted, in developing what amounts to an absolute foundation for the metaphysics…

Project and comments. Develop and integrate the responses to this objection. Integrate the necessity of reference of the sentence calculus and of other systems with necessary reference. Express the necessity of reference in other equivalent ways. Emphasize that logic is brought down from the realm of the absolute, placed alongside science in having an empirical and progressive character

mm. Method. Method and content emerge together. The method is a rational or empirical-logical analysis of experience or meaning, i.e. of fact and consequence. ‘Consequence’ is not derived by ad hoc rules.

Being

Concepts—existence, name, being, Necessary Object, local description, global description, Law, Form

Looking ahead, the classical distinction of being-in-itself or being versus being-in-relation or existence will be dissolved and therefore there is no distinction between existence and being

Method II. Necessary Objects

Necessary Objects, i.e. Objects that are inherently empirical and precise are introduced. Existence is a name for what is already empirical

All Being

Concepts—all being, abstract, abstraction, Universe, creator, Form, Law, Possibility, Actuality, Logic, Universal space, Universal time

Method III. Abstraction as empirical

The first Necessary Object that is also an entity is introduced (being and experience may be seen as objects but need not be seen as conventional entities.) Abstraction makes the Object, all being, empirical rather than remote

‘Being’ per se is a quality rather than an entity. Later in consideration of abstract Objects, being will be seen also to be an entity with an extension of the meaning of ‘entity’ (the meaning of ‘abstract’ in abstract Object is not identical to the idea of abstraction used here)

Domain

Concepts—difference, dimension, extension, duration, space, time, domain, complement

Dimension is mode of difference which includes but is not necessarily limited to extension and duration

Method IV. Experience and difference

Experience of difference implies existence difference in Objects. See earlier sections and Objections and counterarguments for discussion of relations between concept and Object

Void

Concepts—fundamental principle, Logic, principle of reference, fiction, cosmological system, individual, identity, recurrence, Identity, essential unity of the Universe, Karma, the Normal, substance, determinism, absolute indeterminism, explanation, ultimate depth of the Universal metaphysics, ultimate implicit breadth, limits

Method V. Rational or logical derivation

Rational derivation from empirically established Objects

Object

Concepts—principle of reference, particular Object, abstract Object

The Object emerges as the fundamental concept of the Universal metaphysics (in the broad sense that includes theory of Objects and Cosmology)

Method VI. Use of the principle of reference to bring uniformity to the—ad hoc—distinction of ‘particular’ versus ‘abstract’

The essentials of the theory of Objects have already been established. Here the principle of reference is used to show there is no essential difference between the particular and the abstract, that the distinction is the practical one of method of study—sensory or symbolic but that while one or other may be emphasized all Objects partake of both… and, further, the aspect that is emphasized may change in the history of the Object

Cosmology

Concepts—variety, process, space, time, being, mind, local cosmological system, physical cosmology

The concept of cosmology:

Concepts—variety, process, origins, ends, particulars, abstract objects

Variety

Concepts—fundamental principle, the normal, fiction, identity, karma, Jesus Christ, recurrence, annihilation

Process

Concepts—process, determinism, indeterminism, causation, dynamics, mechanism, adaptation, variation, selection, incremental, saltation

Principles of thought and action

Principles of thought are distinct from ‘method.’ Method is ‘necessary;’ principles of thought are creative. Of the two the principles are perhaps greater because they encapsulate creativity and criticism—and reflect the fact that construction and criticism are each, roughly, empty without the other

Imagination is used to study cosmological variety. Ideas from the history of thought are instrumental. Here, an encyclopedic awareness of—immersion in—human thought is instrumental

‘Scientific method’

Principles of thought—reflexivity—that may be seen as a dual source of paradox and the essence of creativity and genesis. Method should perhaps be everywhere in quotations marks

Action ‘begins’ in thought; therefore principles of thought are principles of action. However, there are principles of productive action that may be distinguished from those of productive thought—these are emphasized in Journey. In that thought is a mode of action principles of action apply to thought. The principles consider adequate balance and relations among the modes

Human world / human endeavor

Concepts—feeling, higher feeling, consciousness, language, freedom, charisma, society, culture, institution, science, technology, civilization, identity, faith, common endeavor, experimental endeavor, category, Object-category, Humor-Category, Science, Religion, literature, drama, music, art, architecture, thought, unnamed ideational form

Method VII. Intuitive theory as the intersection of the necessary and the Intuitive

The intersection of the earlier necessary theories and particular conceptual encapsulation of empirical studies of the dimensions of the human world. Objectivity limited only by the precision of the Object on the human world side. Otherwise, study of the pertinent Objects may, in principle, be elevated to an ultimate level

nn. Method for Intuitive Objects has the same characteristics as that of method for the necessary Objects except that results are limited by the precision of the Intuitive Objects

Not limited to ‘human’ but includes animal and local cosmological

Includes the principles of thought employed for Cosmology above

Rather than argue the possibilities of Science / Religion, reference may be made to an as yet unnamed Ideational Form

Journey

Concepts—journey, ambition, goal, desirability, feasibility, dynamics of being, transformation in idea, transformation in being-identity

Method VIII. Dynamics of being

The way from the human or here and now to the ultimate. Although the use of ‘method’ above is not intended to suggest algorithmic activity, here the move is further away from that concept of method

The theoretical bases include the Dynamics of being that is an incremental approach toward achieving possibility (in light of the fundamental theorem.) Also included are bases from the history of thought, e.g., Samkhya from Indian Philosophy and Freudian and subsequent psychodynamic thought and offshoots including Jung and, perhaps, Maslow

Use of catalytic states and enhancing or inducing factors

Group and social endeavor

Action, immersion and experiment

Summary

Intuition and Object

In the sense used here, Intuition includes perception as well as iconic and symbolic thought; thought includes logic; all these fall under conception

It has been established that the discovery of Objects is generally empirical and symbolic

‘Science’ is not used in reference to the formal sciences but any process that in which a guess or hypothesis regarding new knowledge is made and predictions compared against reality which may permit improvement in the hypotheses. The idea applies to perception, the formal sciences, conceptual analysis and logic and the logics

Faithfulness—its meaning and range

What has been established sets boundaries to the meaning and extension of faithfulness from zero to one, i.e. from complete absence to perfect faithfulness; the actual situation was seen to necessarily lie in between the extremes

In the history of thought the estimates regarding the actual status of human knowledge has ranged between the extremes

Here, we have seen that there is no universal estimate of the faithfulness of knowledge. The actual status depends on what is being considered

One and Many—The Universal metaphysics

The outcome of the analysis is that when the Universe is considered under the aspect of its being ‘One,’ absolute faithfulness may emerge and the results include the Universal metaphysics and Logic. The perfect faithfulness is a consequence of the simplicity of the ‘One’ and the results are naturally trivial. However, even though trivial, the Universal metaphysics and the Logic are profound

One and Many—Normal and Local studies

The study of Normal worlds falls under the many; these, of course, have local unities. The local unities result in simplicity and improve confidence though generally not to the point of necessity

The Universal metaphysics necessarily forms a framework for the local studies

Action

How contingent or Normal knowledge is regarded is not a the result of its faithfulness alone. The absence of universal and absolute faithfulness which has sometimes been regarded dismally may also be seen as an opportunity for discovery and realization. The end of Intuition is not invariably or perhaps even primarily in knowing but also lies in realizing, in remaining in interaction with acting or becoming

Perfection

While the Universe and its inhabitants generally remain in becoming, it occasionally enters into or passes nearby states of ‘perfection’

Contributions to the history of ideas

The following are among those tendered as significant:

Metaphysics, Logic, Theory of Objects, Cosmology

The possibilities of Human and Animal Being

Human knowledge

Potential contributions to logic, science…

Secondary contributions later… in Topics from the history of thought

Journey

Concepts—journey, ambition, goal, desirability, feasibility, dynamics of being, transformation in idea, transformation in being-identity

A principle of the journey

In Ideas, numerous doubts are stated and resolutions given; and yet doubt remains as can be seen in the responses and in the writer’s being

oo. The principle—without journey, without action, without transformation, being is incomplete, a shadow…

It may be added that a life that is concerned strictly and only with action is impossible but were it possible it would be empty. There is a minimum of ideation that gives action its character over and above mere physical process and it is perhaps true that the life of greatest enjoyment and perhaps even of value is one in which idea and action give significance to each other

Concept and character

~~Journey~~~~—the way from the immediate, from limits to the ultimate—transformation in ideas and identity~~

~~pp.~~ ~~Transformation is essential and includes ideas and being-identity~~

~~Ideas, Identity and Identities are not distinct~~

~~(1) Instrumental—the present does not contain the future. (2) Journey as life—truth is not forced—the eternal present~~

Origin and evolution

~~(1) Individual—a life. (2) Shared. (3) Emergence of focus, ambition and goals~~

Transformation… and its theories

See the essays—Home—for greater details

Dynamics of being

…Theory of transformation

Dynamics of being is an approach to transformation in which, with bases in the foregoing—especially the actualities revealed by the fundamental principle. The following are iterated (1) experiments are conceived and acted upon, (2) outcomes are interpreted and enhanced experiments in transformation are conceived. The Normal is not fixed and Normal possibilities and feasibilities stand relative to our knowledge and are therefore subject to transformation in the iterative process described

The intent includes but is not limited to incremental negotiation of normal limits

Essential concerns of the dynamics of being

Negotiating the feasible, i.e. knowledge and experiment are instrumental in determining what is feasible

Exploring what is desirable… even if there is an objective ethics, its realization may depend on kind and state of being and, further, knowledge and interpretation of it may change

Incremental andor large scale—saltational—change

Exploring the means of change—physical, psychological, social, technological

Catalytic states and modes of transformation

Concepts—physiological sensitivity, psychic sensitivity, receptivity, readiness

These are states of physiological and psychic sensitivity, receptivity and readiness… and are not restricted to any compartment of mind or physiology

Concepts—dream, hypnosis, vision, heightened awareness, focusing, integration, cultivation, sensitivity, opportunity, idiosyncrasy

Types of state include dream, hypnotic states, vision, heightened awareness to self—including of course the unconscious—and world. Catalytic use includes focusing dreams and so on and integration in awareness; cultivation over time; sensitivity to and cultivation of opportunity and idiosyncrasy

Concepts—meditation, yoga, exposure to and intuitive integration of archetypes, archetype—exposure to, archetype—intuitive integration of, dream-symbol-Art-myth-Faith, mysticism, induction, contemplation, shaman, groups

Approaches include meditation and isolation of the psyche, suspension of judgment, exposure to and intuitive integration of archetypes through dream-symbol-Art-myth-Faith…and induction of states by contemplation, via shaman and equivalents, and in groups

Concepts—physical isolation, deprivation, physiological alteration, exposure, shock, trauma, pain, fear, crisis, anxiety, imposed, volitional, exertion, exhaustion, march, rhythm, dance, inaction, fast, environmental extreme

Enhancing or inducing factors—physical isolations and deprivations, physiological alterations from exposure, shock or trauma, pain, fear, crisis, anxiety—imposed or volitional and purposive, exertion and exhaustion, march, rhythm and dance, inaction, fasting and diet, and extremes in environment

Development of the dynamic

The structure of the dynamic may be inferred from the indeterministic-selective character of the process. The process includes many other ‘methods’

Common elements emerge from examples as follows:

Desire for andor awareness of immersion in change with or without an informed goal

Experiment and evaluation of outcome—modification andor enhancement of knowledge of limits, means and goals

The process and context are now experienced as dynamic and changing

The dynamics itself becomes or is seen as dynamic (meta-dynamics) and is integrated into intuition—what is latent becomes actual, reflexivity enters awareness as an explicit tool—and is applied to being itself which includes individual, identity, and world

The transformations

…or experiments

A minimal system

Concepts—home, work, society, world, the universal, theory, design, simulation, construction, variety

Four phases

Ideas

Being and identity: the present—home, work, society, and world—to the universal

Society, ideas, and action

Theory, design, simulation, construction of a variety of being—physical, psychological, social, technological

The journey so far

Concepts—universal—the, personality, ideas, charisma, mental function, self, awareness, healing, medicine

The—universal—ideas and application to the system above

Examples of the dynamics. Ideas. Personality and charisma. Dynamics of mental functions and—self—awareness. Healing and medicine

Assessment; the way ahead

Concepts—conception, perception, fear, defense, self-analysis, risk, action, moral design, shared formal commitment, psychic energy, being-in-knowledge-of-the-ultimate, death, doors to the ultimate, construction, arching-journey, be-in-the-present, unseen path

Ideas—success so far is conceptual; emphasize perception

Personality and charisma. Success in use of energy to development of ideas and overcoming fear and ‘defense’—continue perception and trial in this area. Social influence is weak… seek this for ideas; at work—self-analysis and needs, plans, and risk; general action: moral design for influence; cultivation of charisma; sharing; risk—action for influence—and dynamics; shared formal commitment perhaps in a group or institutional setting, existing or separately established toward developing and acting on the designs and plans

Mental function and healing. Use awareness of ‘defense’ to deploy psychic energy toward ideals and goals

From the present to the universal. Foundations lie in the foregoing points, especially understanding of the present and the ultimate. These doors to the ultimate have been recognized: being-in-the-ultimate, being-in-knowledge-of-the-ultimate, death, and construction—the arching-journey. The way ahead: be-in-the-present, see and explore unseen paths, undertake the arching-journey

Study

See the essays—Home

The future

Being and becoming

Supplement

These are details whose emphasis will vary according to objective, audience, and time

In the PowerPoint presentation the details may be placed in slide notes

Even in the case of minimal emphasis, some attention will be given to the topics

Demonstrations

Currently, the demonstrations are adequately distributed in the body text

Objections and counterarguments

… and problems, paradoxes, concerns… responses and resolutions

Some of the following objections are more practical than others. Some might seem neurotic. However, all doubts are serious. The practical ones demand a response. The neurotic doubts are the occasion for refinement of understanding and method

The foundational fallacy

The foundational fallacy is the twin idea that no foundations are possible and that absolute and complete foundations are possible

Stated simply, what has been found is that while depth foundations are possible, the exploration of variety is an ‘adventure’

Experience and existence

Experience

The primary objection is that experience may have no Object

The fundamental theorem implies that some experience must have an Object. The Universe may be seen as a solipsist; this, however, is mere renaming. Can ‘my’ normal experience be solipsist—i.e., pure experience without an Object? First, eliminate renaming in which Objects are redefined as ‘experience.’ If there is a purely logical argument it might depend on showing that experience is a relationship. The remaining argument is contingent: the solipsist acknowledges that there is more ‘information’ in the world than he or she has

In a different vein, is it not true that the kind of experience that can be named is experience of experience—which is a case of experience having an Object? How far can this line of thought be taken in countering the solipsist position?

The strongest solipsist argument is that there are two possible interpretations of experience, the normal one and the one that says that experience is all there is, and that we cannot choose between the two. The response is as follows. We discount the case in which there is a universal-experience, e.g. the mind-of-god, which is a re-labeling of the normal interpretation. In the remaining case, there is a distinction and, further, the experience-is-all-there-is case is incorrect. One proof of incorrectness is that the EIATI metaphysics is impossible; one way to show this is the Wittgenstein style argument that EIATI violates EIATI'S use of normal grammar

Existence

Objection—the allegation that existence is trivial, that it is not a concept. Counterargument. Existence is trivial—this is the source of the fundamental character and power of the idea, e.g. foundation of the Universal metaphysics, displacement of substance; similarly it is a concept that is trivial and powerful in its generic character

The problem of the non-existent object, e.g. what does it mean to say that unicorns do not exist, i.e. what is it that does not exist? Response. That an Object exists means that there is an Object corresponding to a concept; that an Object does not exist is a shorthand in which the there is no Object corresponding to a concept—the objection is not a true objection but arises because of the common practice of conflating concept and Object names. Elaboration. Unicorn and Jesus Christ as abstract objects

The first existential problem of being—whether anything exists. Resolution. Experience and its objects

The second existential problem of being—what exists? Resolution. The forms of experience… and their objects… and the theory of Objects. Objection. The forms of experience cannot be said to define objects. Counterargument. The objection and its source have been dealt with in the idea of Concept as immanent in object and in the Kantian / sufficiently faithful concept

Being

Observation. The phrase ‘in its entirety’ is not necessary. Its function lies in the fact that concept and Object are often conflated and it is then a reminder that the every part of the concept should have reference. These words may seem to contradict the earlier assertion that all experience has an object; however, the present concern is practical and includes the case that discourse may be limited to a context

Objection. The verb ‘to be,’ e.g. ‘is,’ has not been analyzed. Response. There is more than one meaning of ‘is.’ However, use as the verb ‘to be’ is standard and has received implicit analysis in the analysis of experience

Objection. Various special uses of ‘being.’ Response. The special uses are not part of the sense of the present basic, fundamental use of ‘being’ but may lie in its range of reference. It would be a mistake, however, to think that these contingent references specify its sense. Audiences are reminded that understanding of the present development and appreciation of its power requires focus on its meanings even though related meanings and uses may be suggestive

Objection. The classical distinction between existence as being-in-relation and being as being-in-itself. Response. The fundamental principle of the Universal metaphysics, below, dissolves this distinction

Doubts about demonstration of the nature-existence of the Universe and the Void

The primary issues are whether the Universe contains all Law and so on and whether the Void exists. The first issue is dealt with adequately earlier

The proof of existence of the Void may be criticized (1) on the account that it is purely logical and (2) that in case the Universe is the domain in question there is doubt that its complement exists

The first objection has been dealt with adequately in the discussions of method

The second objection may be dealt with by providing alternate proofs. A number of rational as well as heuristic (plausible) proofs have been given in the detailed accounts. Perhaps the best alternate proof is as follows

There is no distinction between existence and non-existence of the Void. Therefore the Void may be taken to exist. The fundamental principle now follows. This implies the existence of the Void

There is also a doubt from the nature of the quantum vacuum that is the ‘zero’ state of quantum mechanics but is far from absence. The counterargument is that the fundamental principle shows that quantum theory cannot be the fundamental theory of the Universe

Formal problems concerning the fundamental principle

The essential problem is the one regarding the Void that is resolved above

There is also the fundamental intuitive concern that so much is derived from so little. One response to this concern is that ‘so much’ is the sweeping away of preconception e.g. substance and what is perhaps false humility

Residual doubt will remain. I have it

There is no final argument against this but to act and enter the journey. This is essential in any case because ideas are not complete realization. It is important to enter ‘animal faith’

There is a fine distinction between essential and neurotic or destructive doubt

Adjusting the fundamental principle and its consequences to realism

This adjustment is formally accomplished by the fundamental principle itself which requires ‘realism’ and therefore places realism on stronger footing than common sense ‘realism’ and even science. The problem of living in a ‘world’ that is simultaneously limited and unlimited (except for Logic) is resolved by the concept of the Normal

Objections not based in Rationality—content or method

These are not objections to the developments as such but include such concerns as (1) the problem from the established character of science and common sense and (2) arguments regarding the background and so on of the author

These ‘objections’ are important because they may arise explicitly and therefore preparation is useful, because they may be subconsciously held by others and the author and should be brought to surface—for without explicit recognition they cannot be addressed

The first counterargument is to make the ‘objections’ explicit

‘Establishment’ is addressed by careful analysis, application, showing significance, making plausibility arguments to supplement the formal, and by repetition

Regarding my background, although I am somewhat outside mainstream academia, my background in academics is significant and probably far broader than that of most academics. My abilities may be assessed from the resume on my website. It may be argued that being peripherally rather than totally or not at all immersed is the best preparation for this endeavor. Repetition and reaching a broad audience may be effective

Topics from the history of thought

These are topics that have general significance but are secondary to the main development

Philosophy and metaphysics

What is perhaps the problem of the nature of philosophy is—includes—that it has come to have specialized and limited connotations as in analytic and continental circles via its history and relation to other disciplines. What is the status of these limited connotations? Are they necessary?

The response is that the Universal metaphysics shows that self and externally imposed limits on philosophy can be and are transcended and, further, in the ultimate character of the metaphysics goes beyond anything thought and earlier recorded. Although there are intimations of elements of content and the ideas of the method, the various elements and ideas have not been put together before—either separately as content and as method or combined as content-method—and the dynamic result is a system of immense consequences that is new, ultimate—in depth of understanding and breadth of being revealed; and surprising—perhaps even intoxicating

The surprise lies not only in the ultimate character but also in the economy of the development

However, a focus on hastily thought out reflections based on suggestion from limited contexts is reflected in the recent history of academic philosophy in which every generation barely refers to the work of the previous while the works and questions of the seminal thinkers remain fundamental

In paragraphs that follow, some possible reasons for the uncritical acceptance of suggested limits will be given

Critical philosophy has the following uses. First, it attempts to eliminate error. This is important. However, elimination of error, even though we accept its fundamental importance, can be overrated—for errors of method do not invariably imply errors of content… and it is often important to act even in the presence of error or in the absence of knowledge that error has been eliminated. A second use of critical philosophy, one in which criticism is not an end in itself, is that it may suggest or force the overcoming of error and the development of methods of greater power than available previously. As we have seen, even neurotic criticism may be of immense value. All too often, however, criticism is seen as an end in itself and philosophy and thought then suffer a self-imprisonment in which they labor under falsely held and, paradoxically, uncritically critical ideals

In any case, the present development, demonstrates the possibility of overcoming the critical momentum of recent thought and simultaneously realizes that possibility in the ultimate Universal metaphysics

Therefore consider the following

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the discipline whose concern is the outer limits of being; whose method—the method of the rational or empirical-logical analysis of experience-meaning—shows how to study at those outer limits; and which is revealed as a study of being of ultimate depth and variety

The goal of metaphysics may be said to be to bring all experience—and intention and action—including the forms of experience into a single coherent system of description of the universe. The final concept will not include all forms because, due to consistency the requirement, there is no Object that is the referent object of all forms. However, the final Object will implicitly contain all forms of experience-in-themselves, i.e. as concepts. Metaphysics may be said to be the result of this goal

Philosophy

It is now possible to see philosophy as the discipline whose limits are the outer limits of being; whose method shows how to study within those limits—the method of metaphysics and the interactively modified methods of less general contexts; and which is revealed as a study of meaning but also of fact and significance and a study in lateral analysis but also in analysis via depth. The firmness of the foundation of metaphysics is carried over to the foundation philosophy where the limit of firmness or certainty is the modified firmness or certainty of the special context or discipline

Where philosophy has been seen as limited on account of its boundaries in relation to other disciplines, such boundaries may be seen as contingent or Normal. The Normal boundaries may be seen as apportioning of subject matter, division of labor, territorial concerns. We do not claim that the apportioning of subject has no basis—only that it is and cannot be absolute and this has been shown. That philosophers occasionally show naïveté regarding science shows the naïveté of the person and not a necessary limitation; the physicist even as physicist occasionally needs to turn to philosophical concerns that overlap the physical

Philosophy has been held to be ‘merely’ conceptual. However, as has been seen here the conceptual is not ‘mere’ in any sense but is fundamentally empirical at root

Certain movements in Continental philosophy have abandoned the ‘grand narrative.’ If ‘grand narrative’ refers to the positing of a vast speculative scheme then there is some validity this abandonment (the validity is not entire because there may be value in a grand speculation.) Modern thought reveals the emptiness of certain grand narratives of the past as does history. What history may show, however, is that certain speculative schemes are empty; and modern thought itself has been shown here to be immensely contingent even though it regards itself as natural—which is the case with the thought of every age. What history cannot show, however, is that systematic and comprehensive metaphysics is impossible. History may suggest this impossibility and the suggestion may turn out to be valid or not. Perhaps, then, reason may show the impossibility of systematic-comprehensive metaphysics. Since Kant it has been thought to have been demonstrated that this is in fact the case. The implicit error in this thinking has been shown. It is, first, that while there is an aspect of detail in which the central metaphysical concepts ‘all,’ ‘part’ and ‘absence’ may be incapable of being known by a—finite—being, the abstract versions of these concepts, i.e. the versions devoid of detail, are supremely, necessarily, and precisely empirical and faithful; in fact it is only in the case of such concepts that faithfulness has explicit meaning. The second part to the error in the anti-metaphysical thinking is the supposition that no absolute (non-relativist yet non-substance) demonstration is possible; such demonstration has indeed been performed here with the result that the Law of the Universe is Logic

It may be a failure of nerve, a self-aggrandizement, a parochialism that generalizes from—e.g. historical—sequence to concept; the thinker who so generalizes commits the error that he criticizes. It may have been a similar failure to think from empiricism and Kantianism that no systematic-comprehensive (Universal) metaphysics is possible—it is perhaps the case that the implicit errors in empiricism-Kantianism were neglected in the parochial and self-aggrandizing rush to abandon the Universe in favor of the backyard. Perhaps we should not be critical; perhaps we should think, simply, that certain details were not noticed, certain lucky inspirations were not had—for it is not clear to the writer whether the present developments have occurred because of attention to detail and luck or due to persistence and insight

Here, we have developed an immense view of the variety and connectedness of being which is not grand in the sense that it emerges from a simple view of the elements of being, in that it is not posited, not speculative

Extensions

An extension to these thoughts on metaphysics and philosophy is implicit in Journey. This extension may be called the reflective life which is not one of pure reflection but one in which reflection and action interact to enhance and illuminate one another in greater realization and meaning

Problems of metaphysics

It is clear that numerous classical and modern problems of metaphysics have received illumination and resolution. Such problems include identity, mind-body, substance, the fundamental problem of metaphysics, the possibility of metaphysics… The problems and their resolutions are catalogued at http://www.horizons-2000.org

The essential problems of the discipline of metaphysics concern the nature of the objects—and categories—identified above and the problem of fitting them into a coherent (consistent) system. A review of the actual problems reveals this to be the case and it is not necessary to re-list the problems to prove the point

What are the important Objects? First are the important metaphysical Objects taken up earlier—being, all being, void, identity, mind, matter, human being… Second are the Objects of intrinsic importance to human beings, e.g. knowledge, peace, love (it sometimes seems that love does better without analysis although some clarifications and removal of confusions of sophistry might be useful—there is perhaps a twofold philosophy of emotion or feeling, first, in the integration of cognition-feeling performed here and in greater detail in other essays of http://www.horizons-2000.org and, second, in a two-way ‘conversation’ between cognition and the emotions in which each learns from the other; this would, perhaps, be vastly better than any attempt to bring emotion under the rule of thought or the alternative abandonment of reason altogether in the domain of pure feeling.) The two classes of Object are not distinct; the analysis of the first is exhaustive; that of the second cannot and perhaps should not be exhaustive but attention to it eclectic (except of course as noted that the system of concerns is not decomposable into Objects to be addressed in isolation.) A final Object is the meta-Object such as metaphysics itself that is also addressed

Some significant problems addressed and resolved in the present development

The problem of final or ultimate explanation. The problem of grand narratives—the problem is not of the actuality but that of positing such a narrative for, if such a ‘narrative’ emerges in cold Rationality there can be no stand against it except cold argument

The problem of a non-relativist philosophy without substance… of final or ultimate explanation. An encapsulation of the resolution is to recognize the sense in which such explanation is possible and actual. First, it is explicit with respect to depth—the foundations are trivial even though immense and profound in implication; and, of course, seeing the foundation is not at all a trivial endeavor. Second, the ‘final and ultimate’ explanation is implicit with respect to breadth—All Being is its implicit Object; however, the discovery and Experience—Capitalization implies becoming the Object rather than merely conceiving it—is a process, a journey

The nature of the ultimate breadth and depth of metaphysics, i.e. of the Universal metaphysics or Metaphysics of immanence

The problem of ultimate explanation that has no application. This problem is resolved, first, in revealing the falsity of the practical / theoretical / immediate / ultimate dichotomies; and then in showing, in their common meanings, both applicability and application

The problem of mere being. There is no mere being—except as approximation. Human being is not ‘mere;’ animal being is anything but ‘mere.’ Greatness does not require being greater than

The fundamental problem of metaphysics. This is the problem of why there is anything. Its resolution; its fundamental character is rendered trivial. The fundamental problem becomes ‘What things exist?’

The idea of method

This is discussed adequately above

A system of human knowledge

The scheme is and numbering is that of the Britannica—15^th edition; the letter scheme is introduced here. The Britannica scheme is significantly enhanced as noted next

As a consequence of the Universal metaphysics, each discipline assumes a form that has an ultimate aspect that is limited of course by the Normal Object of concern

Such limits should not be thought of as entirely the result of limited faculties but at least partially in the nature of the—Normal—Object. While improvement in understanding is possible and often good, the search for perfect understanding of Normal Objects may stand in the way of adventure in the infinite Object, i.e. the Universe. When we sense the presence of an Object it does not follow that it is entirely determinate. When an Object is incapable of precise understanding, there is no value to the search for such understanding—put this way this is of course obvious: it is the present development that has made this understanding—of understanding—obvious

A. Symbols and Knowledge

10a. Symbols and signs; semiotics—the study of signs and sign behavior. Symbolic Systems including language, logic, and mathematics. 10b. The Humanities and Philosophy; Study of Science and History

B. The Universe

1a. Metaphysics and general cosmology, nature and unlimited variety and extent of Being, which includes Logic, Value or ethics and aesthetics, epistemology; nature and varieties of Knowledge, where, note, Belief is fundamental and the varieties of belief include Faith as (primarily) Belief-Action, Knowledge as Belief-Justification; 1b. Physical science, nature, behavior of energy and varieties of force and material object including physics, physical cosmology, and chemistry; 2. Geology; 3. Biology, life—its nature and variety and origins of life and variety; Medicine; 4. Mind as the study of psyche in its integration and its ‘functions;’ nature of mind; 5. Society, nature, institutions (groups) and change… and aspects including culture (institution of knowledge,) economics, political science and philosophy (and Law;) and 6. History

C. Artifact

7. Art, nature and varieties of (literature, music, painting, sculpture, architecture…;) 8. Technology (elements: energy, tools and machines… and fields: agriculture, transportation, information, earth and space exploration…; Engineering; and 9. Faith, literal and nature and varieties of non literal meaning and non meaning functions; religion, its nature and varieties: religions of the world—hunter gatherer and agriculture based societies, throughout pre-history and history. The concept of religion as knowledge and negotiation of the entire universe by the entire individual in all its faculties and modes of being. The relation of this concept to possible and potential realizations of as yet unnamed and un-thought ideational form