The word ‘Universe’ is capitalized because it is used in a particular sense that is introduced later. The development in the narrative depends crucially on particular and often new meaning and shades of meaning. As alternative to introducing altogether new terminology, the narrative may employ capitalization where words would normally be lower case

The main source of ideas, principles, and details for this narrative is the Journey in Being (JIB) website, http://www.horizons-2000.org. A greater variety of material and detail may be found in documents linked from the upper right of the home page of the site. In this text, these may be referred to as ‘other documents’

The reader not interested in background may pass over the Introduction, read the summaries of the first two divisions—Universe and Religion, Science, and Humanism—and then proceed to the final and main division, Journey

There is a briefer version of this narrative, Journey—Pathways. The Pathways version omits the first two divisions and reproduces the final division. The function of Pathways is to provide a template for a Universal Journey. Although the template will benefit from further thought, experience, and expression it must remain a template. This is because the journey has been shown to be one that does not and cannot end

To summary of first main division Universe

A brief Appendix on Source Material focuses on influences on the narrative and material for further development and the ongoing journey

Introduction

The journey is an exploration of our world, the Universe, and the embedding of world in Universe. It is an exploration in Ideas and in Being; it is a realization of the meaning and Identity of individual, world, and Universe

In the introduction a number of terms—Universe, Ideas, Being, Identity, metaphysics, limits, ultimate, greatest, possibility and others—are used without immediate explanation or definition. This introduction is not intended as systematic development—explanations andor definitions are given later as part of a natural development

The idea of the journey can be explained by beginning with its view of the Universe

Many religions and philosophies of life have an explicit view of the Universe. And in perhaps every individual's imagined path through life there is an at least background and implicit ‘world view’ that may be formed from Experience and absorption from the common culture. When developed in explicit (e.g. linguistic) terms, such views may be labeled ‘metaphysics.’ The implicit views are also metaphysical even if not so labeled. When extrapolated beyond their domains of validity, views from science and common Experience are also metaphysical

At the core of this view is the Principle of Being (PB)—i.e. the assertion that The Universe has no limits

The Principle of Being and its consequences will be called The Universal metaphysics (UM.) UM will be shown to be an ultimate metaphysics. Since, as it will be seen, there can be at most one true metaphysics, this metaphysics may also be called the metaphysics

This metaphysics provides context for journey. Since meaning depends on context, the meanings of terms as used here must await development of the metaphysics for their specification. When readers encounter terms such as ‘science’ and ‘religion’ they may think, not without validity, that their Experience gives them some handle on the meanings of the terms. However, the possibilities inherent in the meanings depend on the possibilities of context. As an ultimate context, the Universal metaphysics provides ultimate possibilities for meaning of the elements of culture such as science and religion

If it is true, the Universal metaphysics is immensely powerful (the statement of the Principle of Being may, however, not make this explicit.) Consequently, demonstrating the view and bringing out its power should be one aspect of its development

As an example of power, an alternate expression of the Principle of Being is The Universe is the greatest possible (Universe)

Modern science and common Experience reveal apparent limits to the world—the world behaves according to the laws of physics; its behavior is limited to these laws; it appears, then, that the metaphysics and physics are in contradiction. Therefore a second aspect of the development should be to show that the metaphysics and science / common Experience do not stand in contradiction

A consequence of the Principle of Being (the Universe has no limits) is that there is no limit to the kinds of thing or entity in the Universe. Ask Are all things material in nature? An approach to a metaphysical system that attempts to answer this question at outset takes the risks of error and over-complication that burden all subsequent development. An answer to the question may be given later but at outset it is efficient to assert that, with Being simply as that which Exists, all kinds belong to Being (for this purpose other meanings and connotations of ‘Being’ are excluded.) While this avoids risk, it appears to be—and may be—trivial. It will turn out to be immensely powerful, to have momentous consequences, even if trivial

A third aspect of the development of the metaphysics is to develop consequences for Being

A primary implication of the Principle of Being for journey is the Principle of Identity (PI)—i.e., the Identity of Self and All Being which is demonstrated later. The narrative also uses terms from Indian Philosophy—Atman or, roughly, Self and Brahman or All Being

In the following we use Allbeing to mean All Being, Brahman, or the Universe (in its oneness.) ‘Allbeing’ may be pronounced ‘All Being’

This idea is not new but the fact of its demonstration is new and immense in its implications

The principle has been seen in other forms in prior thought even though there appears to be no demonstration. One form is Aristotle’s version of what has been called the principle of plenitude (by the historian of ideas, A.O. Lovejoy.) Aristotle’s version of the principle is that no eternal possibility will be unrealized. This version assumes an eternity but otherwise may seem to be self-evident because it seems that if an event is possible it will have probability of realization in a finite interval of time must be greater than zero and therefore it must be certain to occur in an infinite amount of time. However, the premise is not true: it is possible that any real number may occur in a random sequence of real numbers; however the probability that any given number will occur is zero. This is because the order of infinity of the number of items in a sequence is a lower order than the order of infinity of the real numbers

A first implication lies in the fact of the demonstration which gives credence and certainty to what is otherwise a cognitively plausible idea. A second implication is that the method of demonstration provides analytic tools that enable coloring in the picture of the Universe and therefore of Identity as hitherto not possible. Thus, though there have been glimpses of the view in the common literature of history of thought, their cognitive content is infinitesimal in relation to the present development

However, the symbolic and affective content of the historical views may be significant; this idea is elaborated in the section Modern, Traditional and Primitive Religion of division Religion, Science, and Humanism (here, symbol has the connotation of significant symbol for human meaning… and includes the archetypal symbol. The narrative also employs ‘symbol’ in an abstract and more inclusive connotation as a sign with reference.)

In Indian Philosophy Atman (the Self) is thought to be identical to Brahman (Universe.) Here, for finite Being, it will be seen—shown—that the Identity is a process rather than a state. The process is one through endless variety (no limits,) is spatially unlimited and endless in time, experiences summits and dissolutions and in which there is no limit to the elevation of the summits

What, then, is the journey? It has three interwoven stages

Discovery of the Principle of Being, its demonstration, and its power. The principle—the Universe has no limits. The power will be made manifest in the narrative; an example is that in contradiction of standard thought, there is no limit to the variety of Being. In that the discovery and demonstration are due to the author, this discovery is individual or personal. As an example of the power of the principle, it follows that there are infinitely many cosmological systems in which the principle has been discovered and demonstrated. This limits the significance of individual aspect of this stage. The trivial character of the demonstration seen later also limits this significance

Elaboration of consequences of the principle as the Universal metaphysics (UM;) and, in combination, with the traditions—including science—as Applied metaphysics (explained later.) Elaboration shall include fundamental exemplification of the power of the UM. This, too, is a personal or individual stage

Journey to the Ultimate… as revealed and shown possible by UM and with beginnings in the immediate—personal Experience, the Traditions—combined and illuminated by UM into a dynamic process. This stage is Universal in the Experience of the Ultimate is Universal

Emphases in this narrative—the personal is deemphasized in the three stages, leaving (1) The demonstration of the Principle of Being, (2) Consequences of essential significance to the journey, (3) Journey to the Ultimate—for which this narrative provides a template (with sources)

The journey to the Ultimate or Universal Journey is the main emphasis. It is perhaps only in providing a template that there can be Universality

Naturally, perhaps, there is no claim to have completed the journey; the journey is at a beginning. For finite Being, every stage of journey partakes of ‘beginning’

How can we proceed? (1) The metaphysics or view of the Universe with its own logic illuminates the entire process including experiments in transformation of Being which are essential to realization and appreciation (2) Turn to tradition—science, technology, myth, shamanic practice, depth psychology (further detail in the narrative)

Briefly, the port of entry is the body… in the non-reductive meaning of body as including psyche and, from the Principle of Being, on up to the Universe (this use of the idea of body is developed in greater detail in the later section The Ultimate in division Journey)

Outline of the Narrative. The main divisions of the narrative are (1) Universe, (2) Religion, Science, and Humanism, and (3) Journey. These are followed by an Appendix on Source Material

Universe—the first core division of the narrative—defines the range of Being. Includes metaphysical overview including the central demonstrations (proofs) but details and the development of the metaphysics may be found in other documents. The metaphysics, called the Universal metaphysics or, simply, the metaphysics shows limits and contours of the Universe. This demonstrated view of the Universe is ‘context’ for journey

Religion, Science, and Humanism—the second division—has two functions. (I) Estimate what standard traditional and modern systems say of the local and ultimate dimension—shape, size and duration—of the Universe. It will be seen that what these systems say is local and that even where there is local validity, what is revealed is infinitesimal in relation to the Universe. Some modern thinkers conclude that the dimension of the Universe is essentially as revealed in science; here it is shown that science and its reason are silent on their shadow or ‘outside’… even on its probable dimension. It is therefore concluded that there is no conflict between the standard systems and the Universal metaphysics. (II) Note an immensely significant refinement of Knowledge—Applied metaphysics (full development is in other documents)

Journey—the third division and main emphasis. The development has two aspects (I) Particular—an outline for a Universal journey (II) Universal—this outline is written also as a template for general development of a system of knowledge and action that goes beyond the relatively static systems of cosmology, moral knowledge, and action of traditional religion and modern secularism (the Ideal or Ultimate religion referred to above)

This ultimate and Universal notion of journey is developed in this third main division. The first two divisions are preliminary and are provided with summaries for audiences who are not inclined toward their modest level of detail

Appendix on Source Material provides some information on resources. Because the journey is in-process it seemed best to provide a brief, eclectic, suggestive, and in-process collection

Since the picture of the Universe is greater than the standard and common pictures, including those of science and myth, the metaphysics is new. Since the picture reveals that the Universe is the greatest possible (universe) the metaphysics is ultimate in capturing (in ways that will emerge) and revealing a Universe that is also ultimate

Modern humanism—which draws its metaphysics from science—and traditional religion have limited awareness of the necessity of an unending journey

Audiences should therefore anticipate that they will be covering material that they have not encountered before; much of this material is new at least to the known literature. The meanings and conceptual systems of this narrative may, on this account, require effort to be understood. Although they are now familiar to me, I first encountered them as one might a dawning Experience of a strange, exotic, and beautiful planet circling some distant sun

The net meaning of the metaphysics and the meanings of the terms are new. Even when the terms used are not new it is sometimes necessary and sometimes efficient to assign the terms new meanings. In order to follow the development and to understand the metaphysical and other understanding developed it will be necessary to attend to the meanings as defined here. Readers who are experienced in metaphysical thought and therefore think they already know the meanings of the terms may face especial difficulty unless they are willing to re-educate their metaphysical understanding. Most of the metaphysical definitions are found in the division Universe

Many archaic and modern texts—religious and other—are of such length and detail as to be in themselves an adventure. They provide enormous amounts of material that provide occasion for immersion, debate, entertainment… The individual enters into a literary world that is a diversion from the actual world. The subject of religion becomes, largely, the system of belief rather than living in the system of the world

In order to make this narrative accessible, useful, and demonstrative rather than merely revelatory or entertaining it must be brief

The narrative is not a scripture. There is no system of material that must be taken as dogma. There is nothing to believe. Where the narrative is certain, belief is irrelevant; where it is uncertain, the reader is not asked to believe; in either case, the interaction of ideas and action is essential; in the first case—certainty—action may be imperative, in the second—degrees of certainty—the basis of action is an estimate of the best outcome… and the attitude of action is trust or faith (with faith as the attitude, not of belief, but that which is conducive to the good outcome.) The narrative is not a treatise on metaphysics, science, or religion; it is not a text or treatise in the standard senses. The ideal audience would be simultaneously receptive and critical… and immensely so

It is not the purpose to develop ideas of metaphysics, science, tradition, or humanism. However, some useful developments are sketched; details may be found in other documents

Universe

Summary

This essay introduces and demonstrates the Principle of Being—the assertion that The Universe has no limits. Although simple in form, the consequences of the principle are profound

In other forms the principle has been glimpsed before. However, the present assertion infinitely more powerful than its earlier forms (1) Because the form of the statement makes its power apparent (2) Because it is demonstrated and therefore secure—it is not merely a plausible speculation, and (3) The method of proof was occasion for development of methods of analysis that are pivotal in developing an immense array of consequences. The consequences bring out the significance and meaning of the principle to an extent not possible without the demonstration and its methods

The Principle of Being is the foundation of a metaphysics and cosmology whose subject is All Being—i.e., the Universe. This demonstrated metaphysics is therefore called The Universal metaphysics. It is shown that there can be no more than one true universal metaphysics and so this metaphysics is also called The metaphysics

For the present metaphysics may be regarded as perfect knowledge of Being, i.e. of that which Exists. These ideas are of course laden with difficulties that require resolution. Therefore, definitions, explanations, doubts, objections, and resolutions are essential and are given later in this division

The Principle of Being is equivalent to the assertion that the Universe is the greatest possible; e.g., it is unlimited (and infinite) in its variety of (kinds of) Being and in Extension and Duration. The metaphysics is ultimate in showing and implicitly capturing this limitlessness. It will be shown that the metaphysics is also ultimate in providing an absolute foundation for metaphysics

Some cosmological examples of the power of the metaphysics are (1) Although some parts of the Universe are implicated in the creation of others, the Universe itself has no external creator (it is reasonable that the most stable and robust of cosmological systems are those whose creation is immanent; this, however, does not disallow infusion of seeds and elements from other systems) (2) There is an infinite number of systems of physical laws of which ours is one example. Each physical law is realized in an infinite number of cosmological systems. Each cosmological system is repeated an infinite number of times, both precisely and approximately (3) Any cosmos may suffer instantaneous annihilation; and even if not robust, there is also instantaneous creation (4) There are ghost cosmological systems passing through ours at this instant

This metaphysics may appear to contradict science and common Experience. However, the cosmology and science are shown to be consistent with the metaphysical cosmology providing a framework and our science filling in local detail (this idea will be developed as synergy of the metaphysics and the traditions including science and religion)

The consistency between the Universal metaphysics and what is valid in modern physical science and cosmology is elaborated in the next division Religion, Science, and Humanism. There is a common though not universal attitude that science has more or less reached into all aspects of the world and what remains is relatively small in magnitude and kind. Here it is shown that while what lies immediately beyond the empirically known may be similar to what has been seen in science, science is silent on the magnitude of and kinds of Being beyond the empirically known

For the purpose of Journey, the main implication of the metaphysics is the Principle of Identity—The individual or Self has identity with All Being. For finite Being, this identity is realized as a process—a journey in endless variety, summits whose elevations have no limit, and dissolutions

The metaphysics suggests but does not show how to enter the journey and its process; that requires experiments in transformation of Being (self, body) in which the metaphysics, science, and other elements of human culture provide guides; this process, the journey and main emphasis of the narrative, is the subject of the final main division Journey

It is implicit in the idea of ‘journey’ that this life—the here and now—is not suppressed; journey weaves together immediate and ultimate; and from the metaphysics the immediate / ultimate distinction is void. In division Journey, it is argued that good—perhaps best—realization is an ultimate value

To summary of next division Religion, Science, and Humanism

Being

Definition. Being is that which Exists

Consequence. There is Being. Explanation. The definition and consequence are not circular because ‘is’ in the definition is ‘is defined to be’ and in the consequence it is ‘is in fact.’ That there is Being simply says that something(s) Exist; and if that were not the case there would be neither facts nor appearances nor illusions—e.g. that you are reading this narrative (or not reading this narrative.) More robust explanation / proof may be found in other documents

Universe

Definition. The Universe is Allbeing

It is important that ‘All’ in ‘Allbeing’ is not restricted to any kind of Being or any set of places or times; the following make this explicit—The Universe is everything that Existed, Exists, or will Exist. A corresponding and similarly explicit definition of Being is Being is that which Exists somewhere and somewhen (or, perhaps, at one or more locations and one or more moments) and without restriction to kind. Note that these comments take time and place for granted; the development of these ideas from the metaphysics is found in other documents

Some consequences of the definition follow

Consequence. There is a sense in which we know the Universe. It is important for the development of the metaphysics that we can claim precise or perfectly faithful knowledge of the Universe. Certainly, it seems, we do not have knowledge of all details of the Universe—and perhaps that we do not have perfectly faithful knowledge of anything at all. However, detailed knowledge is not necessary for the metaphysics. What is sufficient is that we refer to an abstract of the Universe—one that is sufficiently coarse that any information that is retained can suffer no distortion. For example even though I do not know the Universe in all its detail, I can know the Universe as a single object without reference to detail; that knowledge is perfectly faithful. I can know the fact of the detail even if I do not know the content of the detail. It is in this sense, which is further refined and deployed in other documents, that the Universe and other concepts of the metaphysics are perfectly known in Experience

Doubt. The abstract concept that suffers no distortion may be too trivial to be significant or useful. Response. In fact, the resulting metaphysics is of immense significance. It is abstract but immediate; it is remote from detail but the remoteness can be ‘patched’ by working with the metaphysics and knowledge of the local cosmos; where such knowledge is imperfect it appears that it can meet the limit of knowability inherent in the context and this imperfection is a matter for celebration for it is not merely ‘as good as it gets’ but the revelation of opportunity

This version of the narrative does not develop the metaphysics and its branches—ontology, theory of objects, cosmology, theory of identity and others—in depth. This development may be found in other documents. Those documents employ abstraction in the present sense toward a perfectly faithful study of topics such as theory of objects, study of mind, study of Extension-Duration-Being and its refinement as space-time-Being. The abstraction allows perfect faithfulness and the results may be used as frameworks for detailed but approximate study

Consequence. There is precisely one Universe. Explanation. On other definitions or notions of the ‘universe’ there may be many universes; e.g., if the cosmos of modern physical cosmology is taken to be the universe there can, at least in principle, be other universes—even an infinity of universes. However, it is inherent in the notion of Universe as All Being, that there is one and only one Universe

Doubt. But surely this is just one possible notion of ‘universe’ among many! Response. The assertion is correct but not to the point. If we have a vague idea of a concept, many tentative definitions are possible. Each definition corresponds, in fact, to a (at least somewhat) different concept and it might be effective to use different words, universe₁, universe₂, and so on. Doubt. How can it be said that the present definition is the definition? Response. That is not the claim; what is claimed is as follows. (1) Formally, the present definition is part of a conceptual system, the Universal metaphysics that is being developed, and while working with this system this is the definition that is being used. Other systems with other definitions are possible and for those systems their definitions must be used (2) It is demonstrated that there is one metaphysics, the Universal metaphysics which is ultimate (in senses described in the development.) Therefore, while other notions are possible, the present notion is part of what is perhaps the most powerful and consistent system possible, and (3) Thus while the present system is conceptually effective it is, as shown in the subsequent section, There is precisely one Universe, also factually and dynamically effective

Consequence. The Universe has no external creator. Explanation. As Allbeing, there is nothing outside or external to the Universe

Consequence. For the Universe, possibility and actuality are the same. The Universe is all possibility. Explanation. Possibility refers to states that may or may not obtain but are consistent with the constitution of a context; for the Universe there is no state other than the actual states—for the Universe, that a state does not but could obtain has no meaning—and therefore to be possible, a state must be actual; and since it is trivial that the actual is possible it follows that, for the Universe, possibility and actuality are identical

Consequence. The meaning of ‘The Universe has no external creator’ is the same as—i.e. identical to—the meaning of ‘The Universe can have no external creator.’ Explanation. See the discussion of possibility

Consequence. The Universe contains all Laws. Explanation. A law is our reading of a pattern; the Law is the pattern; therefore, a Law has Being

Observation. The conclusions so far are certain. Explanation. The conclusions are based in perfect knowledge

An observation concerning force and energy that is not part of the main development. Force and energy have significance in the physics that describes our cosmos. Force is an interaction and, generally, objects do not exert forces on themselves; there may be apparent exceptions for distributed objects when there is delay and reaction may be delayed relative to action; however, the concept of force is (generally) that fundamental objects do not have self forces. In the case of the Universe, there is no external object and therefore the idea of an external force for the Universe has no meaning. Since the Universe as a whole does not obey our physical laws, conservation of energy does not apply to the whole. If conservation of energy did not apply to a domain for which energy has meaning, e.g. a domain such as our cosmos, and if energy suffered uniform loss or gain increasing with energy density (e.g. proportionality) the result would be runaway gain or deflation toward zero (i.e. exponential behavior.) Such a cosmos would lack the stability of ours; this suggests that among a population of cosmological systems there might be a natural selection of those with energy conservation like behavior. What kind of ‘physics’ would lead to exponential energy behavior? One example is the case in which action and reaction do not balance in their net energy effect (e.g. action and reaction are not equal and opposite of which a special case is self-force)

Definition. The Void is the absence of Being

Consequence. The Void Exists. Explanation. Given a part of the Universe, its complement—the rest of the Universe—Exists. Regarding the Universe as a part, its complement which is the Void must also Exist

At this point doubt is introduced. In other documents, alternative demonstrations and plausibility arguments are given. Perhaps the most powerful of the demonstrations is that there is no distinction between Existence and non-Existence of the Void and therefore the Void may be taken to Exist. However, doubt seems to remain. Still the Existence of the Void does not so far seem to be an important conclusion and therefore it is not yet clear whether this doubt is significant

The Principle of Being—Being has no limits. Explanation. Since the Void is the absence of Being it has no Law. If the Void had a limit that limit would constitute a Law. Therefore the Void and, consequently, Being have no limits

Another form of the Principle of Being—The Universe has no limits. Explanation. The Universe is Allbeing

Significance. A little imagination reveals and it will be soon seen that the Principle of Being is immensely powerful

Doubt. Therefore the doubt regarding the principle is significant. However, the doubt is not that the principle is in any sense—in terms of meaning or logic—absurd. Rather the doubt seems to be a feeling of unease regarding the various proofs, e.g. equivalence of Existence and non-Existence of the Void. Because of the importance of the Principle of Being it is important to not ignore or minimize this doubt. As noted there are alternative demonstrations but doubt remains. A plausibility argument uses the scientific principle called Ockham’s Razor that says, roughly, that explanatory or predictive hypotheses should be as simple as is consistent with facts. Applied to what is not in the Universe, the simplest hypothesis is that nothing is not in the Universe and this implies that what is in the Universe is ‘everything’ or, in other words, the Universe has no limits. However, plausibility is not proof. It is therefore important to address the doubt

Need for Action; Faith. Presence of doubt does not eliminate the need for action. Faith may be defined as the attitude that is most conducive of positive outcomes. In view of its consequences, it will be seen to be worthwhile investing faith in the Principle of Being. Practically, this entails devotion of some effort to acting upon the principle. In terms of attitude this entails some investment of faith

Maximizing outcomes. Grant that the Identity of Atman and Brahman, though not absurd or paradoxical, is not certain (this lack of certainty is not on account of any incoherence of the Universal metaphysics—it satisfies strict Logical principle—but on account of uncertainty in its foundation.) The opportunity presented is immense (on some valuations.) Identity is one outcome of life and being. Other valued outcomes are the life well lived, the good society… These outcomes are not exclusive. Given that Identity is valuable if remote, the maximum net expected value is likely to be achieved by distributing resources judiciously among the various outcomes (a trivial implication of what is called ‘optimization theory.’) Faith is the attitude that is conducive to a net good outcome under uncertainty (and uncertainty can be seen as a value in that it enhances reward or value of outcome)

Our World

Our world or cosmos has limits and laws (a world such ours with laws and that is structured and more or less stable will be called Normal)

Doubt. Assertions that (1) Our world has limits and (2) The principle that the Universe has no limits constitute and apparent contradiction. I.e. the Principle of Being appears to violate science and common Experience. Resolution. The limitlessness of the Universe implies the necessity of our cosmos with its Laws and limits. That same limitlessness implies the necessity of many more or less stable Normal worlds (of Normal behavior—i.e. of laws and limits) against a background of formlessness and minimal form

Logos

From the Principle of Being it appears that every concept that is in the form of a reference to an object or state of affairs has a realization in the Universe

Objection. Some descriptions can violate logical principles. E.g. ‘An apple that is simultaneously entirely green and entirely not green.’ The description violates the principle of non-contradiction which is the most secure of logical principles. Response. That a concept or description that violates logic does not mean that the concept cannot be formulated; it is therefore not a limit on concept formation (it is perhaps a necessary aspect of the creation of concepts.) That a concept can be formed but has no realization seems to be but is not a limit on the Universe: e.g., that there are lions in Africa and there are no lions in Africa cannot obtain is not a limit on the Universe (that there are no unicorns in Africa—or in this Normal World—e.g., as suggested by the fossil record, is a limit on the world but not on the Universe)

Objection. However, even the principle of non-contradiction has exception—e.g., as in ‘non-alethic’ logics; although apparently a priori, logic is empirical over descriptions; remoteness of origins and that logic is not empirical in the way of factual data gives it the feel of the a priori. Response. Define Logic—capitalization distinguishes the concept from logic or the logics—as the requirement on concepts that they should have reference in the Universe (this entails the concept of Logic as deduction by considering the fact that when two or more concepts have simultaneous reference, this may imply a relation among the concepts.) Also, Logic is not empty because the logics are at least approximations to it or parts of it

Objection. Some descriptions are semantically empty—i.e. have no meaning. E.g. ‘The Universe as a whole was moved a mile to the right.’ That assertion has no meaning because it locates the Universe in space but there is no space apart from the Universe (the Universe is Allbeing; and note that by the same reason, space as a whole must be immanent and relative even though it may be as-if independent and absolute for a part of the Universe.) Another example is that of irresistible force meeting immovable object; together, the two notions constitute a violation of viable semantic form / logic. Response. Thus concepts must have adequacy of semantic form; generally from semantic and logical considerations Logic is adequacy of referential form. This suggests that Logic must be far greater in range of application than the logics and that Logic and science may intersect at root. It would not be that there are limits to the validity of traditional logics but to situations where they are applicable (meaningful;) in and out of such contexts, Logic has unlimited application. The discovery of Logic is an immense project

Significance. This is perhaps the first coherent conception of Logic; other conceptions are either approximation or generalization. The present conception may turn out to be one of first rank and with immense consequences

Definition. The Logos is the Universe in all its detail

Consequence. The Logos is or contains the object of all concepts of adequate referential form (the Logos is the object of Logic)

Cosmology

In today’s world, cosmology is often taken to be physical cosmology. Here, cosmology is the study of the variety, extension, and duration of Being in the Universe. It may be argued that on this definition, cosmology is physical cosmology. However, it will be seen that cosmology is far more than modern physical cosmology. It may therefore be appropriate to use the term general cosmology which is what we shall understand by cosmology

Objection. From modern science, cosmology is and must be general cosmology. Common Experience suggests that there cannot be anything outside what is revealed in common and scientific observation. Response. The present general cosmology has been demonstrated by via reasoning that is necessary. Continued objection. Naturally, doubt will remain. Is not modern physics our best source of information on cosmology? Response. This concern is addressed in the next division Religion, Science, and Humanism

On demonstration

From the Principle of Being, demonstrations of consequences are generally trivial (exceptions will be noted and treated appropriately.) The following are non-trivial (a) What to prove (b) Meshing consequences with our world or cosmos (c) Otherwise interpreting consequences (d) Whether the consequences are significant (robust) and what that significance is or may be (e) Realizations of consequences

Therefore consequences are stated without explicit proof—explicit proof is not needed

What to prove is motivated by intent; the intent includes showing the power of the metaphysics and envisaging and setting up realization

Meshing with our world may be experimental or conceptual. The experimental mesh is taken up in the division Journey in connection with realization; conceptual mesh, e.g. with the theories of physics or biology, is taken up in other documents and may be taken up in relation to realization as occasions may arise (but also see brief discussion of Applied metaphysics in section Future of science, religion, and the culture of knowledge in division Religion, Science, and Humanism)

Significance and robustness is addressed in this section

There is precisely one Universe

The conclusion is inherent in the present conception of Universe. The goal here is to show its effective truth

Imagine the Universe as two or more domains which are in eternal isolation. Each domain is then effectively a Universe for which the Existence of the others has no significance; in this case we may say that there are, effectively, many Universes. However, the Principle of Being implies that such eternal isolation is impossible. Therefore there is effectively / factually precisely one Universe

Similarly there can not be two entities in the Universe without interaction. This is a dynamical sense in which there is one Universe

Variety

In modern physical cosmology it is known that there is a small range of parameters of the fundamental constants that make for a cosmos with rich structure including life

The Universal metaphysics requires realizations of the entire range of parameters. It does not distinguish between the values that make for richness versus poverty of structure. However, together with physical cosmology, the resulting Applied metaphysics suggests the greater likelihood and robustness of the rich structures

However, subject only to Logic, the Universal metaphysics also requires an infinity of kinds physical laws (each with a set of parameters that may lie in a continuous or discrete range… and perhaps there may be other kinds of variable that define each kind of law.) It may be reasonable to expect that a cosmos with life has a particulate character (which is not exclusive of continuum;) however the metaphysics shows that this is not necessary

Each system of physical laws is realized in an infinite number of cosmological systems. Each set of realizations has an infinite number of repetitions and a further infinity of variations (in law andor configuration, minor and major)

These realizations occur against a background of formlessness and Absolute Indeterminism (e.g. no universal laws or patterns,) minimal form and randomness

Our cosmos may destruct due to internal or external causes at any time

There are creator, annihilator, and ghost systems; a ghost is one that passes through another with minimal effect; there are ghost systems passing through ours at this time

It has been seen earlier that space is immanent in the Universe rather than absolute and external to it; i.e. for the Universe as a whole, space (and time) are relative (i.e. part of the fabric of the Universe.) A discussion of extension-duration is taken up in greater detail in other documents

Doubt. These conclusions appear to violate science and common Experience. Response. This is a repetition of the doubt at the beginning of the earlier section Our World which has a response to the doubt based in the Universal metaphysics. Further doubt. The earlier response is complete but does not directly address the common feeling of reality that science and common Experience define the outlines of our world and therefore gross deviations violate this sense of reality. Response. In the division Religion, Science, and Humanism it is shown that the envelope of standard human culture—which includes and is defined by science, religion, and humanism—is neutral to what lies beyond its borders. I.e. if we feel that culture defines the Universe, that feeling is mistaken; culture allows that what lies outside its standard boundaries may be infinite. When we feel that standard culture defines the outline of the Universe it is the result of common but circular reasoning: we have common view that what is there, and therefore what may be seen, is limited by what we have seen. The Universal metaphysics is not a deviation within the boundary of standard cultural knowledge; it fills in the infinite region outside that pervious boundary

Void State

The Principle of Being requires that the Universe enter the Void state; and that once in the Void state, a state of manifest Being will emerge (from earlier considerations of the nature of possibility there is no distinction between ‘will’ and ‘must’ emerge)

The question of why there is Being at all (something rather than nothing) is considered to be a major problem of metaphysics; Martin Heidegger called it the fundamental problem of metaphysics; it is regarded as unresolved and perhaps unsolvable. The Universal metaphysics shows that resolution is trivial: if the Universe is in the Void state, manifest Being must emerge

Considerations of Logic suggest that the Universe enters the Void state but also that there must be interaction across this singular state. We saw that when there are apparent logical conflicts, the resolution lies in Logic. This suggests that the ‘Void’ may be a state of minimal Being (as in quantum theory) and that there is therefore communication across the Void

Scripture

The Principle of Being requires that subject to logic, the various scriptures have realization (on some cosmos; such realization has no implication for actual history on our Earth)

Thus while there is no God the external creator of the Universe, there are local gods

The theory of biological evolution and the far more recent and more speculative theories of cosmological evolution suggest that while all Logically consistent ‘fictions’ must be realized, the significance of mere fiction in terms of stability and population is minimal

There are robust configurations such as our cosmos and life on our Earth, these were earlier called Normal. It is the robust or Normal configurations that, it is suggested, have the greatest significance. It is probable that we have little clue as to the range of robust configurations against the background of formlessness and Absolute Indeterminism

Immanent creation, as in evolutionary biology and cosmology, and immanent causation—where there is causation—appears to be more robust than external creation and god-causation. However, parallel infusion from one cosmological object to another does not appear to be improbable or non-robust

A description of the Universe in anthropic terms is unlikely to be robust. A description in universal terms is far more likely to be robust. Thus the idea of Atman or self as identical to Allbeing or Brahman is more robust than the mythic stories of the Abrahamic religions (whose symbolic and affective significance is not rejected.) While one domain of the Universe may function as creator for another, immanent creation is more robust than ‘intelligent design.’ The robust character of immanent creation does not exclude the introduction of seeds from other domains of the Universe

The Universal metaphysics fills out the picture of self as Allbeing

Identity

Since finite Being as finite does not realize the Universe, realization for a finite Being, which by Logic is necessary, must occur as an endless journey in variety, summits without limit in variety and without limit in ‘elevation,’ and dissolutions

Such is the merging of identity with Identity

The experience of identity as Identity is a pathway of Experience in the transformation of finite Being

Pathways

The previous section reveals realization of the ultimate as a journey. The idea the journey is one of experiments, consciously chosen and iterated or otherwise, that result in pathways. Many paths have blind ends; a few continue on; goals arise and emerge and sometimes die along paths; some that seemed to have blind ends come to life later; paths merge. The idea is of course somewhat metaphorical

Process and becoming are more general than journey. The idea of a wavefront moving ‘outward’ is a second and coarser metaphor. While journey connotes first individual then group and aggregate search, wavefront has the connotation of group then individual and inexorable process. The two metaphors are not exclusive. They occur together, the journey within becoming, becoming as the sum of many journeys

Metaphysics

Foundation or depth

It is clear that the Void—or any state of Being—may be regarded as the ‘substance’ of the Universe; but, then, as expression of Absolute indeterminism, any state of Being may be regarded as the substance of the Universe; however, if we require that a substance be uniform, unchanging, and deterministic then there can be no substance and the Void is not a substance (due to Absolute Indeterminism)

It is clear, though, that the Principle of Being provides a foundation for the Being of the Universe and therefore for metaphysics. Though trivial, the metaphysics is ultimate with regard to depth (foundation.) This result is unanticipated in modern metaphysical thought where it is held that a metaphysical system requires substance for its foundation—i.e. without substance, metaphysics can have no foundation (or the un-foundation of infinite regress)

Variety or breadth

The metaphysics shows that the variety of Being in the Universe is without limit

This variety is implicitly captured in our representations; as finite Beings with finitary symbol systems, we cannot explicitly capture the entire variety via symbolic representation

To the extent possible, the metaphysics is ultimate with regard to breadth or variety; its capture of the Unlimited breadth is implicit; the explicit capture is partial

The problems of metaphysics

On account of the ultimate nature of the metaphysics, it is clear that it has the potential to resolve all meaningful and significant problems of classical, scholastic, and modern Western metaphysics as well as the meaningful issues of other metaphysical systems. This is because there is one true metaphysics, the Universal metaphysics, and the standard major problems are the result of other, untrue, metaphysics which is guaranteed, not only to give rise to problems, but to be a problematic

Such resolution as well as detailed considerations on breadth and depth of the metaphysics may be found in other documents. These documents also treat problems that are not mentioned here, e.g. the theories of particular and abstract objects where it is shown that there is no ontological distinction between the particular and the abstract (a conclusion that goes against modern thought)

Theory of Objects

The Theory of Objects developed in other documents includes the following topics. First, it provides an account of knowledge. Since knowledge and knower are distinct the question arises How can we claim to know anything at all? Second, What kinds of ‘thing’ or object are there in the Universe? It is consistent with the purpose of this document that no more than the following brief treatment should be provided

How can we support our knowledge claims? What do we know? A partial answer has already been provided: via abstraction we do, in specified senses, know the Universe, the Void and other objects of the metaphysics. The claims of the Universal metaphysics. It is seen in other discussions in this narrative that the gaps in this knowledge may be filled in but at most at the limit of the context. We sometimes approach this limit but the fact of the limit and the fact that we do not always achieve it is not an occasion for lament. For many practical purposes the ‘good enough’ knowledge of adaptation is all we need; there is risk involved but risk is the part of the order of Being

What kinds of Object are there? The following discussion is incomplete with respect to both kind and argument; the other documents fill in the incompleteness. Here we outline the treatment of the particular and the abstract Objects

Theory of particular and abstract objects—an outline of main ideas. The theory of particular and abstract objects is developed in other documents though not here. This theory identifies two kinds of objects, particular or concrete and abstract. The particular object is roughly what we regard as concrete, e.g. bricks and electrons. A typical abstract object is a number. The number ‘one’ is not concrete—we cannot touch it, and it does not seem to be located in space or time. There are a number of modern accounts the nature of abstract objects—i.e., precisely what are they? This is where the present treatment departs from the modern accounts. It is shown that whereas abstract objects may have Experiential roots, their conception has become essentially conceptual or symbolic while the particular objects retain some degree of rooting in Experience—even though we understand them via concepts. However, the Principle of Being implies that, subject to Logic, every concept has an object. Therefore, the (concept) of an abstract object defines a real object but on account of abstraction, spatiality, temporality, and causation have been ‘abstracted out’ to some degree; in some cases, as in number, temporality is altogether abstracted out. Abstract objects are not atemporal: their temporality is irrelevant to their Being; thus the present treatment departs from and resolves the main difficulties of the modern theory. The relevance of this development of the theory of objects for Being in general and Human Being in particular is the possibility of inhabiting abstract objects

Religion, Science, and Humanism

Summary

The default cosmology or picture of the Universe in any culture is the picture provided by the Experience, myths, andor sciences of the culture. It is characteristic that such views are taken as definitive

It is typical of even reflective individuals to subscribe at least tacitly to the default view. In the development of an individual this begins with absorption, enculturation and education. For many common purposes it is efficient to live and think as though the default view is the one and valid view of the Universe. An individual may question the view for intellectual or spiritual purposes but still subscribe to it for practical and day to day purposes. It may be the view to which a reflective person reverts in non-reflective moments

The acquisition of the default view as an element of cultural history is not an easy task. It may have required the labor of the finest intellects. There is a degree of pressure to subscribe to the view; such pressure may be external but its most effective form for many is perhaps the innate desire to know and to be known as knowing. And since there is limited compass beyond the accumulated knowledge of a culture there is little direction in imagining and even less direction in reasoning in the realm beyond the pale of culture

The standard culture often assigns—sometimes tacitly—a value of infinitesimal or even zero to the region beyond the border of its known and defined universe. Here, however, that region is shown to be limitless

It is shown in this division that the standard culture provides no estimate of the shape, variety, Extension, or Duration of the region beyond its borders of Experience, imagination, and reason—beyond what the culture typically regards as the universe

The general human culture may be presented in terms of Religion, Science, and Humanism. This provides provide understanding of culture and its limits

A more specific reason for the presentation is this. The individual who enters the realm beyond the boundary may be possessed of special insight. Alternatively, such persons may enter into the region beyond the cultural border via thorough enculturation and recognition of the pervious character of that border. Such reflective enculturation may combine with special insight. Careful reflection on the default—here presented in terms of Religion, Science and Humanism—should be one aspect of preparation for entering the realm beyond the cultural pale

If the culture provides no estimate of it, is there any estimating of its ‘shadow’ region? A positive answer has already been given in the form of the Universal metaphysics

The Universal metaphysics, which is not in contradiction of what is valid in the cultural picture of the universe, reveals the region beyond that domain of validity to be without limit—particularly, it is without limit to its variety, Extension, and Duration. This Universal metaphysics is the result of imagination and reason—of conceptual play and insight in the realm of Experience which has been subject to the sieve of reason (the actual process has included trial and error)

We saw that for a finite Being, knowledge of this region does not occur by ideas alone. It requires Experience

This Experience this must be in the form of an endless journey or adventure in endless variety and with summits of Being without limit to their elevations … and dissolutions. This Experience must take the form of transformation of the identity of the individual as it merges with greater forms of Being

It follows that the essential truth of any future science andor religion will require an endless Journey in Being for its realization. It will require participation and immersion in Being

To the main narrative division Journey

The Envelope of Human Culture

Religion—modern, traditional and primitive religion and myth—constitutes early culture that has overlap with what could be called early art and early science; and it constitutes a component of modern culture. Humanism is a modern substitute for religion that emphasizes that at root the Universe and world are as seen in science. Therefore modern humanism is often equated to and may therefore also be called secular humanism. However, humanism does not insist that human value and quality are reducible to scientific description. For value and aesthetics humanism turns to philosophy, art, and history. Humanism may turn to the allegorical side of religion and to religious interpretations of science for inspiration. Humanism sees the goal of life as leading a good and rewarding life, and contributing to and receiving from the common good; therefore technology may be an instrument of humanism

Traditional religion, science and humanism may be seen as defining the envelope of standard or patriarchal human culture

The goal of this division, first, is to show the intrinsic limits of this envelope. What lies outside these limits may be called the dark regions of human culture. A second goal is to show that standard culture says nothing and estimates nothing regarding the shape, Extension, and Duration of this dark or shadow region (even though it is often thought that estimates are available.) A final goal is to note that the Universal metaphysics shows that the dark region has no limits

Science

It is shown in other documents that the major scientific theories are (a) factual over some significant domain and (b) hypothetical over an extended domain. However, for theories that describe behavior in detail this extended domain does not extend to the entire Universe. What is the size of the region outside the domain of application of the scientific theories? What is the variety of Being in that region? Because the modern secular Human Being takes science and standard Experience as typical of Being, the size of the region is often taken as described or estimated in the latest physical cosmology and the variety of Being is often taken by default as more of the same. However, science is strictly silent on this question of size and variety. It is also not commonly recognized that the region outside size is not restricted to the remote in time and space but may also be phenomenal; e.g. science permits local unseen behavior—the ghost cosmological system. These define the limits of science. Is it reasonable to assume that the behaviors that lie outside science are ignorable? If there were no further information it might be practical to do so for day to day purposes; it would however not be scientifically or logically correct to do so. Further, it would not be historically correct for the region of validity of science, e.g. physical cosmology, changes as fundamental theories change and as new data and cosmological explanations become available

From the Universal metaphysics we know that the dimension and variety of the region outside the domains of modern science—science c. 2011—is unlimited. We also know, on account of unlimited variety, that no science of detail can capture the unending character of that ‘outside.’ This thought is continued in the later section Future of science, religion, and the culture of knowledge. The statement could be made more precise, first, in terms of orders of infinity and, second, by making it conditional ‘it is unlikely that any science of detail…’

Modern, Traditional and Primitive Religion

What is the nature of religious content? I.e. what can we say about the meaning and content of the stories of creation, Being, and destruction from religion? This content is typically in literal form. The Universal metaphysics shows that, subject to Logic, every myth is realized somewhere. It may be argued that even the poetic and the symbolic have literal interpretation that is therefore realized subject to Logic

What is the significance of this Object content of religion? Universal metaphysics suggests that where it is lacking in robustness, its significance is very little—especially for any given relatively stable world: being true somewhere does not imply either truth or psychic significance on this Earth or in any more or less stable cosmos. Along the same lines, the significance for life in a relatively stable world is greater when a Universal story is stated in Universal rather than human or anthropic terms. Thus the idea that the Being of the individual mirrors the Being of the Universe has a more reasonable literal meaning than the converse which includes the idea that God is a person that welcomes us in heaven. That the literal meaning is more reasonable does not imply truth; and it does not imply that the cultural or symbolic significance is greater

Without Universal metaphysics, however, the identity of self and Allbeing—Atman and Brahman—is merely reasonable; and the full magnitude remains unimagined and unrecognized. With Universal metaphysics literal content matches even poetic and symbolic content (for Human Being poetic-symbolic expression remain valuable)

A doubt. The previous paragraph begins ‘Without the Universal metaphysics … identity of Atman and Brahman is merely reasonable.’ Is this true? Response. It is true that the identity has been shown from the metaphysics. However, has / can it been shown from the metaphysics that there is no other way of this knowledge? The answer is that it has not / apparently can not. What does the modern paradigm of scientific empiricism say? It does not say that such knowing does not exist or that it is not possible; at most it says that such knowing has not been identified by the paradigm and that it is apparently not possible via its method (empiricism and reason.) It is not ruled out that there is no mystic apprehension of the Ultimate. Therefore while I cannot assert the truth of such apprehension, it has not at present been refuted. The point is important in relation to the journey (division Journey, below) because mystic apprehension and other ways deserve experimental trial

The original inspiration for the Vedantic image of Atman and Brahman is not merely intellectual. It is born also of insight and feeling. What is the significance of this insight and feeling? It has psychological interpretation but the significance is not explained away by such interpretation; the significance remains an open issue from considerations so far (except that there is the significance of experiment with such insight)

The symbolic content from the history of tradition may be immense. Ask What do we know? The positivist may assert that we know—or even that the Universe is—only what is demonstrated and the skeptic asserts that we know nothing. However, the positivist’s assertion depends on the meaning of ‘to know.’ And if the skeptic is true, how does he or she know that we know nothing? The skeptic responds with arguments from illusion and an essential gap between knower and known—Well… I mean that you do not know that you know anything and so the burden is on you to show that you know what you claim to know! Later it is shown that we have an immense amount of knowledge. Here, however, we respond to the skeptic that though knowing that and how I know (certainty and its degrees) is important in some realms it cannot have Universal significance because we are often called to action, even critical action, in situations where we have no certainty. In such situations, intuitive, pre-conscious, symbolic, and affective content may be crucially important and even if they do not constitute ‘certified knowledge’ they may still have valid or faithful content. The point is not an assertion of the validity of such knowing but that, despite positivism-skepticism and certain kinds of criticism, it is important to be open to the possibility of such knowing. Journey includes exploration of this possibility. It is clear that it is more than possibility for intuitive, pre-conscious, symbolic, and affective creatures succeed in negotiating their environments. This facet of exploration, then, concerns the role of such content in realization of Allbeing

A simple account of insight and feeling. Cognition is about the ‘shape’ of the world! Perception is normally bound to shape (hallucination is unbound ‘perception;’) thought is (relatively) free formation of images and symbols and so potential or hypothetical binding to yet unknown shape (realism is introduced via archetypes that arise in pre-development—e.g., evolution, in development, and cultural institutions such as reason and science which also have processes that impart at least degrees of realism;) and there are similar degrees of binding to affect… Simple emotion and feeling connect via body to action; lower intensities are dispositions, higher intensities more or less binding (talk of action does not imply behaviorism.) Cognition and feeling are interwoven, lower levels of feeling shade cognition and result in realism (vs. autism;) higher intensities of feeling may stop free thought when action is imperative; also, cognition and emotion shade into one another and merge in attitude; there is no perfection here nor meaning to perfection but various errors of emphasis and self-corrections occur; metaphysically, there are states of openness and states of connection to Being-as-Being, to Allbeing

Religion and Science

In religion two fundamental questions are (1) What are the Universe, its nature, its power, and its variety? (2) How do individuals and groups connect to that power, what kinds and ways of connection are there?

So conceived, religion is the immanent seeking of our lives; it is immanent in our daily affairs (without being named, or conceived, or consigned to a contrast with the material or scientific)

In this conception, religion and science—and metaphysics—overlap but are distinct activities; although religion is often opposed to the scientific and the secular in referring to different ‘spheres’ or ‘planes’ of Being, that is not the case; there is but one sphere of Being; stories of religion address Being and psyche (via the symbolic which may include the literal; hence the significance—though not literal justification—of counter-scientific stories)

The absurdity / un-robust character of literal interpretations of many mythic accounts, is obvious. However, in the present view, the point to the religions is not limited to the literal (in other perspectives—e.g. as instrument of enslavement of minds, it may be precisely the point) In the present view, one point to the religions is the symbolic truth of the fragile accounts; but that is not all; we would also seek literal truth; we may think that here, Religion, stumbles but what stumble are the religions; literal truth is found, for example, in the Universal metaphysics

As has been seen there is one Universe which has non-manifest phases. In other phases, e.g. ours, there is structure and process which must therefore have had genesis. Since there is nothing external to the Universe, this genesis is immanent in the Universe—creation is immanent. As individuals we have certain creative powers. As manifest in civilization and artifact, our total and cumulative creative power is far greater than that of an individual. However, this total creative power is not only a part of Immanent Creation (i.e. of the Universe) but it is also true that our creative power was created in Universal Immanent Creation. Since there is one Universe, there is one Universal Immanent Creation (which may be dissected into many.) In some religions there are many gods, in some there is One God. The many gods may be wood spirits and so on. Sometimes the One God is given an image, e.g. as a person. These devices are not Universal Creation but ways of conception and connection. A problem remains. It is evident that Universal Creation is infinitely greater than the total and cumulative creation of our species. The problem is (a) to understand this power and (b) to relate to it and to derive from its power. These are the problems stated at the beginning of this section. This lies at the center of Religion

Modern rational man, material man, literal man, and scientific man, have largely mistaken the nature of religion; in this they are perhaps not to be blamed because even modern religious man has largely mistaken the nature of religion

Because religion is an element of culture and because we are among the creators of culture, positivist, empirical, anthropological, paleological, or historical approaches to the conception of religion are always incomplete (unless the culture under study is the ultimate Universal Culture)

For natural objects, however, our contribution to their known nature is limited to how our cognitive system contributes to the forms of the appearances—or so it would seem. However, Universal metaphysics shows that any domain or part of the Universe may be implicated in the creation of the (form of) any other. We may imagine, as a thought experiment, a god working out various ideas experimentally until hitting upon the structure of our / other cosmological systems. The Universal metaphysics shows, however, that this is not merely a thought experiment and that, whatever ‘god’ means, we participate in it / him / her. Our contribution to nature may be ignorable but is not zero

In defining—reflecting on the nature and content of—religion and in practicing it we contribute to its conception. Regarding Religion as, fundamentally, connection to power (above understanding, say scientific, of power,) Religion must be not merely of another or imaginary world but must be the realization via an entire Being and community of Beings of Allbeing; it is the realization by Being in all its dimensions of Allbeing

Universal metaphysics shows the envelope of this Ideal and Ultimate conception of Religion. The Ultimate in realization is Brahman or Allbeing

In the ideal there is a merging of the activities of science and religion; and, as seen from the Universal metaphysics, this merging is greater than even synergistic combination (because such synergy, though greater than either science or religion, does not entail the Universal metaphysics that must be an element of Religion)

For finite Being the merging is the journey in endless variety, summits without limit to elevation… and dissolutions

Secular Humanism

Taken literally regarding their intended literal subject matters, secular humanism and religion are typically mere shadows of the truth revealed by Universal metaphysics. As literal, science does not come close to the variety, extension, and duration seen in the metaphysics. As literal, the truth of traditional religious metaphysics is extremely fragile (un-robust.) As metaphor and symbol (and in some cases as plausible,) it is traditional Religion that approaches the truth of the Universal metaphysics but the approach remains fractional for it often shows only a fractional idea but not the full fact of Being-as-journey-without-limit-to-variety-or-summit; and where it suggests the fact it lacks demonstration and is therefore deficient in the metaphysical aspects of the means of journey

Conflict between secularism and religion is unfortunate. The literal truth of secularism—including science and common Experience—is immensely limited; the literal truth of religion at best suggestive or remote. The Universal metaphysics reveals a far greater literal-‘material’ domain

The appropriately interpreted symbolic truths of secularism and of traditional religion complement one another and may be suggestive of the truth in the Universal metaphysics. In the Universal metaphysics the literal and the symbolic are united (the symbolic remains useful.) The conflict between secularism and religion remains a veil, one of many, shrouding the ultimate. Men remain in conflict among the foothills when, instead, they might unite to ascend the mountain

Future of Science, Religion, and the Culture of Knowledge

For finite Beings, realization of the Ultimate must be an endless journey in variety without end or limit, summits without limit and dissolutions

This must be the future of any viable ultimate form of what is essentially true in science, religion, and humanism—of the envelope of culture. This is not a prediction for our or any human civilization. The Universal metaphysics shows (1) That it must occur, (2) That its occurrence for finite Being will be in process and by immersion, and (3) For our civilization and our particular Being it will occur via Identity if not in fact; but if it occurs in fact it must occur via journey and immersion and will and can not occur as cognitive process (on standard interpretations of ‘cognition.’) Further details and demonstration may be found in other documents

Any science, religion, and the culture of knowledge of the ultimate future will be ‘knowledge’ by participation and immersion rather than by remote re-presentation (and the Applied metaphysics mentioned in the Introduction will be an aspect of this process)

The Applied metaphysics combines together the Universal metaphysics and traditional knowledge and claims to knowledge (myth and religion, science and philosophy and other elements of world culture) The actual development is in other documents

The Applied metaphysics is a synergy of the Universal metaphysics and the local and traditional disciplines (which include the modern.) It is a synergy in that the Universal provides a framework and enhancement of the local; and the local illustrates the Universal. Though typically particular, the Applied metaphysics is perfectly faithful in some general treatments, e.g. of mind and of space, time and Being; here the Applied metaphysics is metaphysics even though particular or specialized. It may reach the limit of faithfulness possible in some contexts, and may be sufficiently faithful to be useful in still others; in these cases the Applied metaphysics is not true metaphysics. Although necessarily a knowledge patchwork, the Applied metaphysics the best possible knowledge of the entire Universe—as noted it is a synergy of the Universal and our local understandings. Therefore, while Applied metaphysics is an epistemic (knowledge) patchwork, it is perfect from the point of view of the value of knowledge and, from this point of view, may be considered to be part of the Universal metaphysics

For a finite Being the culture of immersion and participation will be a journey or adventure without end

Journey

Summary

The journey is introduced as a way of fullness in Being. The process is realized via ideas and experiments in transformation of Being. Sources for the ideas and experiments are the Universal metaphysics and its implications for Being and process; Experience and reflection; engaging in and learning from experiment; and human culture—traditional and modern

As understanding, ideas are pivotal in thinking about the process; as Experience, ideas are appreciation—i.e., Ideas are essential. However, in their Normal meaning, ideas are an incomplete mode of Being and realization

Therefore, division into ideas and transformation sets up a journey. The actual journey lies in the process of adventure without end in variety, summits-whose-elevations-are-without-limit-followed-by-dissolutions

The conclusion to the division and this narrative opens up to a Journey in Being

Traditional developments have theories of the immediate (science, human nature) and ultimate; and ways and catalysts. These are found in the following—developed; and given rationale, illuminated, integrated by the metaphysics

Today we think of science and religion as distinct. Originally, perhaps, there was no distinction or even naming ‘religion’ (or ‘science.’) Culture was more an integral whole and, rather than having distinct elements with individual and internal criteria, the whole was subject to external criteria of adaptation (this is of course simplification and the truth must invariably lie within a continuum.) The concern with literal truth was not as explicit as it has become. An aspect of the emergence of philosophy and then science was the emergence of the possibility of and criteria for explicit truth, though incomplete and not entirely perfect, of specialized forms of knowledge. This forced myth / religion, whose meaning may be regarded as symbolic, into a reactive and unnecessary defense of literal content

We may view science (and philosophy) on the one hand and religion on the other as follows. Science is understanding of the Universe; Religion shows how to relate to the Universe (it is obvious that the power of the Universe is far greater than individual power but it is not obvious how the individual may relate to or draw from Universal power)

The Universal metaphysics and its development result in the following conclusions. The magnitude, duration, and variety of the Universe are infinitely greater than seen in modern science. Generally, the literal truth of the historical and major religions is at best fragile. The their future / rational / ultimate development, science-philosophy and religion merge in a journey of ideas and transformation of being—i.e., journey-adventure of unlimited variety, endless summits of unlimited elevation, and dissolutions of Being at its summits

An ideal of rationality might eliminate myth as an instrument of transformation. However, the Universal metaphysics shows that as finite Being we do not outgrow experiment. Myth and faith, perhaps never precise, are essential instruments of finite Being in its enterprise of realization of the ultimate. And the ultimate for finite Being is not in Ideas (in their Normal form) alone but must be in the body which includes feeling, all psyche, and flesh

This division is a template for myth and representation; for relation of the finite and the unlimited

The Idea of the journey

The journey is a way of fullness in Being and living—it is use of all dimensions of Being toward a good—perhaps best—realization of Allbeing

The terms ‘good’ and ‘best’ suggest concern with ethics and morals. Given that our Being is infinitesimal, the essential problem of ethics is one of discovery. In that ultimate realization what will be the ethical ideal… will it be anything like our human ideals… will it have any significance? We see and will continue to see that the answers must, for finite Being, be in-process and not to be given in a treatise or a speech or an imploration and then taken as given; even the thought that we, in our present form, are moving in the direction of some Universal Ideal is in error; any ideal requires that our form be in process and that we do not conceive the ideal while in this form. In our present form we have the following practical and interactive sources of morals and ideals (1) Being—our body and psyche, (2) Practical ethics—e.g., the ethical systems of the various religions and related systems; these include local oral traditions, and (3) Conceptual or philosophical ethics

This notion of journey would be a definition of a concept of Ideal Religion—Religion as deployment by Human individuals and groups of all dimensions of their Being in the best moral-aesthetic realization via all modes of process and relation (perceiving, cognizing, feeling, changing, becoming) of Allbeing, immediate and remote

Talk of the ‘good,’ of ethics and aesthetics suggests seriousness and intellect for it is true that these ideas have been taken over to a significant degree by philosophers and self-proclaimed moralists. There is a role for careful reflection and, of course, for caring morality. Nothing in these thoughts, however, excludes enjoyment or exuberance in Being

Journey emphasizes the endless of realization in variety, summit without limit, dissolution. It is experimental, without dogma of mere belief. It is of this world and the Ultimate—each mirrored in and enhancing the other. Realization is in process interaction between the world and the Ultimate; it is neither easy nor difficult: it is being on the way to the Ultimate. Journey is not about showing the way—teacher and pupil—it is about the relationship of persons to truth

An Ultimate Value—for finite Being, realization of the Infinite and the Eternal—the Unbounded and the Unlimited—is Ultimate

Attitude—for action: faith. Preliminary attitude—willingness to relinquish preconceived self-affirming, self-limiting character of standard world views; Tantric neutrality toward the draw and repulsion of the Normal

The Universe

The Universe has no limits

Individuals have no absolute limits except as necessary from coexistence

The Experience of limits of this world is Normal

Journey is process in two worlds, Normal and Universal, and in relating these worlds

Logos is the limit of understanding of Normal and the Universal. Cosmology reveals the variety, extension, and duration of Being. Understanding of Identity reveals the already present of image the Universe in the individual… and journey as realization. Metaphysics shows the closed and open parts of understanding—i.e. depth and breadth (or foundation and limitlessness, or the unformed and the formed)

Limits of our standard culture are embodied in common forms of science, religion, and humanism; these stand in contrast to but within the Universal metaphysics; our world is an infinitesimal fragment of the Universe. This is an occasion for the Journey in Being

The Journey is endless realization of finite Being in variety, summit without limit, dissolution. It is experimental, without dogma of mere belief. It is of Normal worlds and the Ultimate—each mirrored in and enhancing the other. Realization is in process interaction between the world and the Ultimate

From the World to the Universe

I.e. from the Normal to the Ultimate—e.g., from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:

From the unreal lead me to the real;
From darkness lead me to light:
From death lead me to deathlessness.

The Normal

The Normal and its modes and limits are adaptive

Body—Whole Being. Includes but is deeper than psyche; this is a more inclusive view of body than (reductionist) views that see the body is merely a base component—as a lump; the two views are not necessarily in opposition but their difference can be seen as their having a different conception of ‘body.’ This greater view of body: an expression of adaptation—sufficiently complex to contain a variety of physiological functions for self-sufficiency-in-an-environment, interdependence-communication, and self-expression

Psyche—Cognition-emotion is about the shape of the world and human action which require degrees of binding and freedom (see the earlier discussion A simple account of insight and feeling) and which obtains in background, pre-conscious, conscious, and symbolic levels; Humor is adaptation to the unpredicted and unpredictable; A personality is, approximately, a style of cognition and emotion in relating to self, other, world; Psychosis is, in one aspect, disintegration of psyche, on another about re-integration and inclusion (of other, of Identity)

The ideas of Spirit and Soul are already present in those of Body, Psyche, and Identity. Spirit and soul are therefore rendered unnecessary (though not, therefore, without use)

The Ultimate

Fullness of Being—the best realization of Allbeing is an ultimate Human value (as we are in the process, quality of action and goals are rewarding)

A way to the extra-normal is via the Normal—

In the Normal, the body is the organism which includes psyche. In the extra-normal, the body is also its flows and relations, the communal body, the world, and in the ultimate, the Universe

Ultimate form of the body. The way to the ultimate is transformation of body. Willing self-sacrifice, denial of body-needs, crucifixion are examples. They have symbolic content for others—are powerful for some; transformative content for the crucified (crucifixion without internal / external meaning is empty as in derogative uses of the term martyrdom.) Yet, these are scratches on the surface of the ultimate. An incremental approach, perhaps combined with body-sacrifice involving the whole body (psyche, community, species…) will be most effective

The port of entry to the journey to the ultimate is the body… in the non-reductive meaning of body as including psyche and, from the Principle of Being, on up to the Universe. I.e., the ‘body’ is the body and psyche of the individual, the body of the community, the body of the world… the body of the Universe; which, in the ultimate, have no absolute distinction. In this general and non-exclusive interpretation, body is Being

In transformation there may be physical travel. However, the journey must essentially include descent into self, i.e. in the body. Symbolic, cognitive, affective content—aspects of psyche—are not other than body. Again, given that the body is—merges with—the Universe, there is no distinction between inner and outer, between travel and change

The idea of a way

Connection of the dimensions / layers of individual and group to the World and Universe in their dimensions and range (variety, extension, and duration)

The Ways—a beginning

This section on The Ways lays out a practical approach to the way from this world to the ultimate. It is in outline because, in entire Human History, we seem to have made but a beginning. That assertion remains true even when Universal metaphysics is taken to be part of that history; this is because the form of the metaphysics is that is a system of ideas. We therefore cannot lay out systems such as in the texts of the major religions; what truth those texts contain is truth presented as Truth. From the aspect of Being, Truth is realized in process (per the Universal metaphysics.) The approach comes from an interactive combination of the traditional systems and the Universal metaphysics. It addresses the layers of the person as in the section The Normal, above. The ways are paths through some traditional dimensions of Being—Nature, Culture and Society via Psyche and body, that aim to the Ultimate. The process is an iterative one of experiment, revelation, and reflection

Aim—bridge from world to Universe; Self to Universal Identity—Atman to Brahman

Approach—the ways begin by addressing the aspects of Human Being identified in the section The Normal, above

Experiment—In ideas and transformation… on the way to Identity; Minimal system—a minimal system to cover the range of Being

Psyche—Yogas of Gita, adapted to the present metaphysical psychology; Raja Yoga as meditative connection; Gnâna Yoga as direct knowledge with support from perception, conception and being-in; Karma Yoga as connection through service; Bhakti Yoga is, roughly, the Yoga of Worship and full absorption in ‘God’ but may be, instead, interpreted as connection to the Ultimate expressed lightly in how we live and relate and are

Body—rite of passage; catalysts as on the way to body transformation. Body includes psyche and person, body of community, body of the world, the Universe; in this non-exclusive sense it is the instrument of transformation. Inclusive of and further reaching than the Yogas (above.) We want to see the body (in the present extended sense) as including the expression of the Ultimate in the individual

Mystic immanence of Ultimate Identity—pre-conscious, symbolic-emotive—‘Lift a stone and I am there’

Transparent immanence—cognitive, symbolic—subject to adequacy of form, every concept is realized

The individual—ideas and theories, catalysts to extra-normal states

Culture—relations to others (morals) and group process; symbols; patriarchal or normal institutions and shared practice, stories, art, places, communities—and action; charismatic influence

Symbolic meaning of Judaic and Christian faith; realism of an angry god; golden rule as self-improving

Samkhya, Gita, and Buddhism as preparation for (a) Yoga of the individual—and Theravada Buddhism, (b) Yoga as equality and unity of humankind—Mahayana Buddhism

Nature—place of intimacy with Being and connection to the Ultimate; nature as ground to the Ultimate and on the way to it…

Deep knowledge—knowing as living-in... Being-in-nature… sky… perception over thought

In Tibetan Buddhism—a goal of pilgrimage or sacred journey to a remote place of natural beauty and sacred significance is the journey which awakens the qualities and energies of the site which also and ultimately lie in our Being. If the idea seems far fetched from the point of view of science and reason, reflect that our evolution occurred in the context of place; adaptation—physical and mental—is therefore natural

Vision—place and catalyst—disintegration and reintegration of psyche; a place of mystic immanence

Charisma—and Vision

On Fear. There are persons who fear death; in the Normal context, death is unavoidable. There are persons fear pain or loss of mental faculties though not death itself. Pain may be unavoidable. Is it irrational to fear what is unavoidable? The rational part of that fear may have the function of avoidance of unnecessary pain or self-destruction. The following response is possible—Why should I fear that which I do not know whether I will or will not be able to manage, e.g. pain or loss of faculties? Why should I fear what is either avoidable or unavoidable? Why should I fear what is in the future? When the time comes I will manage or I will not but why should I fear now? Even if natural, is that not a mistake? The answer is somewhat complex since, first, fear of what cannot be controlled may be a mistake but it is not easy to distinguish what can be controlled; and, second, there is a functional degree of fear that motivates appropriate action

Emotional responses are often regarded as fully determined by situation but are not because they interact with perception which may be in error, with thought and interpretation which are often in error; and further, dysfunctional emotion may be ‘retrained.’ Additionally a person’s emotional responsivity may change as the body changes, e.g., with age (the reflections of this paragraph probably have some similarity to the Rational Emotive Therapy of Albert Ellis, 1913-2007.) However, the retraining of cognition-emotion may require time and application, first, in reflection during times where there is no actual crisis or perception of crisis but in which the conditions of crisis may be simulated, and, second though not entirely distinct from the first, in actual crises of fact or Experience. Such change is multi-factorial depending on application (retraining) and general patterns of living and thought (healthy.) One goal is the achievement of a healthy pattern of cognition-emotion-action. However, a higher goal may be sought. This goal is not achieved with appropriate crisis response; the individual may attempt to move from a negative region of cognitive-emotional-active patterning to a positive region; this is significantly enhanced by having a balance between living in the here and now and positive though sufficiently malleable goals that are responsive to circumstance and understanding of the world. In the limit, by reaching through self and body, the individual finds and is in an approach to the Ultimate

On Death. In the Ultimate there is no death-as-final. In the Normal there is death and Experience of death (as an idea, as in the experience of ebbing of life, and as in the death of others.) In the Normal, the Experience of death must have an as if finality (even though not invariably absolute finality.) This finality, even if but apparent, is immensely significant. The individual who addresses the issues of death and pain has addressed a block, perhaps the fundamental block, to fullness of Being. Perhaps even more importantly, in those that have not Experienced infinitude, the crisis of finitude is catalytic to that Experience. The crisis of death has always the potential to catalyze transformation. In an Existentialist psychology, the crisis of death forces, catalyzes, or precipitates appreciation of life and its value. In a Universal psychology, one derived from both Universal metaphysics and normal Existential human nature, the crisis of death catalyzes the same Existential appreciation. However, on a Universal (supra-Normal) reckoning, it also catalyzes, first, appreciation of the magnitude of the Universe and the Identity and, second, entrance into a real journey of realization. The reckoning with death and pain is a fundamental instrument in Be-ing

The Appendix suggests sources for further development

Journey and process

The adventure now facing us is that of realization

This adventure will require imagination (to see possibilities,) reason (to test for reasonableness,) and experiment and risk in realization

A central guide will be the Universal metaphysics

Another guide will be the traditional systems mentioned above

These may be found in detail in other documents. Following is the most recent detailed document Journey in being: a detailed version

That document narrates some preliminary experiments

Here, since the Universe opens up before us and what has come before in our lives is infinitesimal, we provide no further detail

We will return later with stories of our Ideas, Experiments, and Adventures

Appendix on Source Material

This appendix functions as an outline of sources. A primary emphasis in the selection of sources is the material of the section From the World to the Universe of the previous division

Individual

Ideas (theories.) The metaphysics and its methods; dynamics; psychology of depth; science and technology. India: Veda, Upanishad, Samkhya, Gita

Catalysts. E.g., Shamanic—e.g., isolations, exertions, extreme environments; Yogas; Mystic practice, meditation, mantra, affirmation; modern e.g. isolation tank and hypnosis; disruption and opening-up of psyche to inner-outer truth; living through and rebuilding

System of experiments—minimal; cover range of Being

Culture

Culture—institutions: self, group (society)—relations and mutual process (morals;) symbol and system, language; culture—creation, expression (art) and transmission. Patriarchal institutions—religion, church-structure; science, technology, art, history, secular structure. Charisma—influence of person—intelligence, magnetism, energy, ruthlessness…

Patriarchy is standard; it provides guarantees; it has guarantees even while it has degrees denial of individuality and freedom; it is of this world… Charisma is singular; if always present, its moment or one of its moments is the breakdown of patriarchy; it has no restriction to this world… Therefore, the measure of effectiveness as the effectiveness of patriarchal institutions is ever incomplete; but the measure of charisma which is essentially singular, is, even if thinkable, close to being irreducible to causal or statistical formula

Shared practice—sharing; cumulation of insight-accomplishment from special psychic and physical energies

Stories, sacred and shared practice—Art, literature, music; Ritual; Architecture, and place

Cultural process—action (creation, knowing, choice, decision) and trans-action

Some sources. Major religions. 1. Trans-cultural—Abrahamic religions (includes Mysticism,) Religions of Indian origin (Samkhya-Yoga, Bhagavad-Gita…,) … and of Iranian origin; 2. Indigenous. 3. New religious movements. Other modern sources—Behavioral, faith based and 12-step programs. Sects. 1. Gnostic. 2. Mystic. Culture. Instruments of knowledge and relation

Nature

Process. Evolution, Dynamics

Being. Physical—elementary through molecular through bulk or macroscopic. Organic—molecular through organism. Of psyche—organic through psyche (psyche: mind-person-body; spirit is implicit)

Nature and ways of realization. Nature as a place of intimacy with Being and connection to the Ultimate. Human Being knows this and something of it. Nature is of the Ultimate and on the way to it. Common Experience and representation of nature is that it is of the Normal; but it is not entirely so; and it is therefore of the Ultimate

Deep knowledge. Knowing as living-in... Being-in-nature… the sky… perception over thought

Sources

I know little—from UM little can be known—about the destination of the journey which is, anyway, a process

It therefore seemed that—for present—a brief, eclectic, suggestive, and in-process collection is best

Sources I have used may be found at A General Bibliography. This bibliography, though dated, may be useful (since the time I constructed the bibliography I have found it more useful to be eclectic than comprehensive)

Here is the most detailed recent document with extensive sources on traditional approaches to transformation of psyche—Journey in being: a detailed version

The texts of the major religions may contain useful source material. I find the following to have use

The Bhagavad-Gita; the Yogas of the Gita include what in another setting would be called ‘mystic practices’ for direct rather than merely intellectual connection with a greater real

The Advaita Vedanta, of Adi Samkara, 788 to 821 CE

The Upanishads appear to be suggestive but require further study before definite listing

Regarding the texts of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, I have found eclectic inspiration. I have found their metaphysical systems to often be at least apparently fragile. At present I have neither resources nor sufficient familiarity to make recommendations on these texts

I have learnt much from my exposure to the history of thought. This influence may be clearer and is made explicit in other documents. Here, as acknowledgment by a writer and as suggestion for readers, I note the names of the main influences without citing texts. The selection, which has no intent to be comprehensive over my thought or historical importance, reflects influence on my thought more than importance; the focus is on influence on this narrative

In philosophy—especially metaphysics but also logic, ethics and natural philosophy under which, for purposes of this essay, I include the theories of science and mathematics—Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Adi Samkara, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, Giordano Bruno, René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, William Blake, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Arthur Schopenhauer, GWF Hegel, Franz Brentano, Bernhard Riemann, Charles Darwin, Gottlob Frege, Georg Cantor, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, Albert Einstein, Karl Popper, Kurt Gödel, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, PAM Dirac, Ernst Mayr, John Searle, John Bell

There are modern stories of adventure: Darwin’s Voyage of the Beagle, Einstein’s ideational adventures in space-time-being, Watson and Crick’s work in the structure and replication of DNA; these works, though limited from the perspective of experiment, reveal much about the world that is useful to ‘journey’

I have found little of value to journey in works that see Religion through a reductionist prism of our modern paradigm of empiricism and reason; the tendency of such works is to exclude what is valuable in our world and the culture being studied

Here are some accounts at the boundaries between our culture and indigenous cultures

Black Elk Speaks: Being the Life Story of a Holy Man of the Oglala Sioux, The Premier Edition, 2008, SUNY Press

The Heart of the World. A Journey to Tibet’s Lost Paradise, 2004, by Ian Baker has some interesting syntheses of modern thought and Tibetan Buddhism rendered as a journey

Make Prayers to the Raven: a Koyukon View of the Northern Forest, 1983, Richard K. Nelson

In-process

The following sources record changes and ideas for change. AREX version of April 24 and journey-version of April 24

Some changes are implemented in the present document