all choice is influenced by perspective—typically a mix of truth and error, the explicit and the tacit; an explicit view may enhance awareness, truth, and wholeness

resource

gives realism and closure to understanding and action, meaning and coherence to the variety of human endeavors

informs us as to what is real, what possible, what feasible, what worthwhile

how

reason

means of effective understanding and action

concept formation and criticism—direct and reflexive, implementation in action, review, learning

no a priori

in an extended meaning of the a priori

abstraction

knowledge

value

agency

reflexivity

level 0—direct

level 1—of paradigms of concept formation and criticism

level 2—interaction of all elements of process, sought efficiently

the view

the fundamental principle of metaphysics

the universe and the individual are limitless—the greatest possible

intension or meaning—the kind of possibility must be logical, for which our logics are examples corresponding to some modes of expression

extension or cosmology—all logical concepts are realized; limited individuals realize the limitless

is this hubris

it is true

it is consistent with experience (and science), for our experience is among the possible, but only part of it, for beyond (and underneath) our experience, cannot be contradicted by our experience

it is not a promotion of any limited form

what it says in depth is closed

breadth is infinitely open as long as we are limited

it is the end of philosophy (or science) as foundational of our being

and the beginning of action

the real metaphysics

this principle joins to what is valid in (human) knowledge to constitute the real metaphysics with a perfect aspect in the fundamental principle…

and a pragmatic aspect in reason and the range of human knowledge (from the view of limitlessness, for limited beings the pragmatic is perfect in being the best)

significance

goes limitlessly beyond standard secular and transsecular views in meaning, significance, extension of the universe and the individual

proof: consistency with what is valid in all paradigms, knowledge, and interpretations of experience; doubt; alternate attitudes

on meanings

in going beyond limited notions of experience, we must go beyond and adjust received meanings and system meaning

aim of the way

shared and reasoned discovery and realization of the ultimate in and from the immediate

the aim of the way will be found to be the aim of being

enjoyment

appreciation of a world that has contentment and dissatisfaction, conflict and cooperation, self and other, success and striving, pleasure and pain, reason and chaos

preview

the way

the way has a base in a demonstrated principle—the universe is the realization of the greatest possibility

it follows that the universe has identity, which is limitless in variety, extent, duration, peak, and dissolution; that individuals though limited in present form, inherit the limitlessness of the universe, which they do in merging into peak identity; that there are paths or ways beyond the limits of human power birth and death; and that if enjoyment—appreciation of pleasure, pain, perception, thought, will, and action—is a prime value, it is then desirable or imperative to engage in shared discovery and negotiation of pathways

the way of being will be of interest to those who think

there is truth in the human traditions including science and search for the ultimate, but that truth may be only a fraction of the whole truth—for while experience may be limitless, human experience so far and its paradigms may be far from the range of experience to be had

while subsequent paradigms may be difficult to foresee (e.g., what comes after general relativity and quantum theory, and what comes after that, and so on), the limit of paradigm is easy to see—it is the limit of logic, which is the constraint on any system of concepts to be realizable

that, as will be shown in the text by a consideration of the nature of being – the void – and the universe, the universe is the realization of the greatest possibility (which is logical possibility); and that in combining this principle with the suggestive power of the paradigms of tradition and imagination and experiment, the ultimate can be envisioned and pathways to it developed

and to those who are interested in following, negotiating, sharing, and continuing to develop such pathways

main concepts

being

a being is that which may be said to be; being is what characterizes beings

‘to be’ is exemplified by any combination of verbs ‘is’, ‘are’, ‘were’, ‘will be’ and so on

being and existence are identical

the value of ‘being’ is (i) as foundation for knowledge it is, unlike matter and mind, given, though open to discovery (ii) framework for living in the immediate and realization of the ultimate

experience

experience is any form of animal awareness

in the text, the meaning of experience will be given foundation, and its scope broadened to be co-extensive with being

the value of experience is (i) it is the place of all significance (ii) we do not get beyond it, for the measure of experience is experience (ii) it is therefore co-foundation for knowledge and action (iii) as the dimension of our ‘inner’ life, it is the place of significance and of our being (iv) it is therefore co-framework for living in the immediate and realization of the ultimate

beings

laws

laws are patterns over some region of being, e.g., a cosmos

laws are beings, for it a law can be validly said to be (a first significant application of the concept of being)

the void

the void is the absence of being

it contains no being; its existence and non-existence may be taken to exist; it is the unique being for which it is not a contradiction to say that self creates (a second significant use of ‘being’)

the universe

the universe is all being

the universe can have no creator, but it may spontaneously manifest from the void, which is an apparent violation of causality (but there is no reason causality as we understand it should apply to the void), but not a logical contradiction (a third use of ‘being’)

because the void has no laws, any possible being or state must emerge from the void; and so emergent of the void—the universe—are limitless; which is a trivial demonstration of why there must be phases of something rather than an eternal void (the power of ‘being’ shows itself)

some further concepts

possibility, logic, science, tradition, and imagination

here, it is pertinent to touch on these briefly

possibility, logic, science, tradition, and imagination, enable the development of the basic ideas above as an instrument of knowledge and action

doubt, attitudes

doubt is critical (i) in criticizing and so strengthening the development (ii) in seeing that while the principle of limitlessness is consistent with experience, that the principle ought to be doubted, even though a demonstration is given, and this raises the question of what attitudes we ought to have toward a consistent principle of such power

two attitudes will be suggested (i) to see it as a metaphysical postulate that consistent with experience, science, and logic (ii) to see it as an existential principle of action toward the ultimate

2 The world

to know the world

all beings inherit the power of the universe

issue—begin with (i) being—i.e., the abstract or (ii) experience—concrete, immediate, given?

resolution—start with the sequence being (for beings, give only a def) ® experience ® beings

for experience conclude only about what is actual in it but otherwise possible (mention possibilism) ® conclude what is actual in the universe after FP

being

what

a being is that which is; being is the characteristic of beings as beings.

alternate definition—being is the characteristic of that which is; a being is that which has being

is being a being? the concepts are distinct, but with and only with sufficient abstraction, the objects are the same

neutrality of the concept

toward differences among beings, kinds, and categories; examples—

though we think of beings as manifest, even that distinction will not be sustained in admitting, later, the void as a being

toward be-ing vs becoming (vs relation, interaction)—i.e., to form (with extension and quality) and formation (change, with relation)

substance distinctions

toward any view of the universe as what has been revealed so far in our experience including science (that is, universe as being is consistent with experience and science) … further, universe as being is logically consistent with the content of experience as fact but this says nothing

though it is neutral to the distinctions above, it allows them (as well as their ruling out) and the possibility of their reality—i.e., it allows, within it, a range of special connotations of ‘being’

characteristics

“what being is” (the object and the concept)

existence

but note, existence is an equivalent, not another concept

the distinction between ‘being’ and ‘existence’—e.g., independent vs dependent existence or being is fundamentally nil, because, as will be seen, to talk of being as distinct from experienced being is null (see discussion of experience)

the claim that existence is trivial is true, but the trivial may be potent; the claim that there is no concept of existence stems from the thought that the putative concept makes no distinction, which in turn results from suppressing the concept, which in turn results from thinking ordinary things exist in isolation from their concepts, which the analysis of experience below will show to be untrue

the ‘problem of negative existentials’ is trivially resolved by analysis of (the meaning of ) concept meaning

no further essential characteristics—being is just the characteristic of beings as beings

real

removes ‘mystery’ regarding what is real—given that something has being, there is no further question of its reality (e.g., is it material, is it transcendent…)

… but does not remove the experience of the real as mystery

there of course the question of how being-hood is determined, and this is taken up in considering experience, below

power

later

form

the knowable characteristics of a being

which have ‘dimensions’ of extension or immanent spatiality, duration or immanent temporality, and, perhaps, abstract dimensions

later we find the notion of the abstract to be a metaphorical fiction; therefore, the dimensions of form are extension, and duration—and their absence

sometimes ‘form’ will refer only to extensional or spatial form

introduce this distinction by using ‘Form’ for the general sense and ‘form’ for the spatial?

being must have extensional form

exception—absence of manifest being

just being—spatiality—does not entail duration

non-durational, changeless, or static form is conceivable, therefore logically possible; later we will see that the logically possible is realized, therefore there are static cosmoses, which are of limited significance and cannot support sentient beings

becoming, e.g., origins and change, if there is any, ‘entails’ duration—immanent temporality

becoming

thus, being includes becoming, action, relation…

non-characteristics

“what being is not”—some other uses of ‘being’

being does not refer specifically to the special—e.g., ‘higher’, ‘spiritual’ – or ‘material’, ‘essential’, ‘independent be-ing’, ‘human’, ‘sentient’…

includes these modes, so far as real—i.e., though being is neutral to these non-characteristics they may lie within or constitute sub-divisions within being

criticism

not a concept

trivial

significance

it is the concept that excludes no object

seemingly trivial, being is—will be seen—powerful as ground and container for the world and its variety, for special and general kinds

ontology

the study of being

there is being

why

foundation without infinite regress, coherentism, or pitfalls of substance—see infinite regress arguments

frame for understanding and action

does not refer to particular or special beings or kinds—which enables founding and framing them

as will be seen, enables objectivity without relinquishing significance via closure in depth but ever openness in breadth—i.e., via ‘philosophical algebra’

foundations

on foundations and foundationalism—an appendix to ‘why being’

and foundationalism

neutral

regress

pragmatism

transience

cartesian skepticism

coherentism

negative

anti-foundationalism

pyrrhonian skepticism

positive

substance

what (positive)

‘depth’

pro, con

alternatives

being

the foundational character of being is that, unlike substance, it is not a posit; it is the unknown of a metaphysical algebra; and the power, then, is it allows and levers unfolding of metaphysics as study of the real and, further, since being is ‘that which is’, as study of the immediate and the ultimate

how

“how being is known and studied”

ontology

mentioned for completeness; may point out developments here; may further develop later

the study of being

abstraction

if a concept pragmatically identifies an object

to abstract is to delete some details from a concept

either to focus on the essential or to leave only the undistorted or ‘perfect’

thus, objects may be labeled ‘abstract’ or ‘concrete’, but lie on a continuum—are not fundamentally distinct

the abstract is often defined via free, especially linguistic, concepts (‘concepts’) and the concrete by bound concepts (‘percepts’), which renders the abstract suitable for correspondence perfection and the concrete inclined to pragmatic sufficiency

later we develop a join of the perfect and the pragmatic in a real metaphysics that is perfect in a way that will be defined

the abstract inhabit the concrete; the concrete populate the abstract

abstraction enables perfect knowledge, e.g.—

there is being

abstracts

will provide some examples—as examples on the concrete-abstract continuum to be used, and as a preliminary showing of the power of the concept of being

reasons

distinguish from ‘reason’

a reason is that which has entailment of a (state of) being

a state may be a quality of a being, particularly its existence

a reason may be a fact that obtains or a state of being

a reason may be abstract or concrete; however, the distinction not intrinsic but relative to (our) mode of conception—‘direct’ as in perception, or representative as in iconic-symbolic conception

consequent

the entailed state

classes of reason

logical

the relation between reason and consequent is logical

‘logic’ and ‘real’ are defined later

real

the relation between reason and consequent is in the world

self

the reason is located in the consequent

full

a full reason is a reason

absolute

a full but empty reason

deterministic

full

partial

a partial reason is contributory to a reason

necessary

the consequent is certain

possible

the consequent is not ruled out

impossible

if the reason is given, the consequent certainly does not obtain

indeterministic

neither deterministic nor impossible

probable

the consequent is likely

cause

another term for a reason

self-cause is logically possible

it is obviously possible for complex entities

it apparently occurs for ‘particles’ in physic

effect

another term for a consequent

to be a consequent includes but is not limited to temporal consequence

power

power is concrete cause (and effect), the action of a being on self or other

the being that has no power, self or other, does not exist; power is a measure of being

monadic, dyadic, perhaps polyadic

creation

create

to materially cause the existence of a being

creator

being that creates (a being)

self-creation

impossible, for it presumes simultaneous existence and non-existence

exception—the void, for, as will be seen, the void is the being for which existence and non-existence (non-manifestation) are the same

spontaneous creation or origin

logically possible

appears to violate usual notions of cause, so one might not want to call it ‘cause’ but that is somewhat a matter of terminology, for while physical cause might not be applicable at that level, the level is at least apparently not physical in our common sense of the physical—i.e., the void (nothingness) does not seem physical

experience

what

could begin with experience, especially as it is the place of significance and of ‘our being’, but it is convenient to begin with being, weave experience into the discussion, and then elaborate on being… this will be followed by establishment and development of the ‘real metaphysics’ as worldview

use of ‘awareness’ vs ‘experience’ vs ‘consciousness’

‘experience of’ (first use)

i.e., ‘experience of’ ‘the experienced’; i.e., awareness directed toward-from the world (attitude and action)

the etymology of experience—ex: ‘out’, per: ‘try’—is not particularly helpful to the meaning of experience used here but is so for the following

here, does not refer to the related use of ‘experience’ as the process of getting knowledge firsthand—i.e., doing, feeling, seeing, or thinking about

is there ‘experience of’ etc? at least a manner of speaking (metaphor) we use till what obtains is clarified and shown

detail

an ‘experience of’ is a concept (‘mental content’) and examples are feelings, perceptions…

‘the experienced’ is the object (‘material’ or formal—i.e., of form) and an example is the world, which includes experience itself

‘mind and matter’

the material is being as such; the mental is relationship; a further ‘kind’ would be relationship of relationship which is relationship—i.e., there is no further kind; mind and matter are the only elements of what Spinoza thought to be an infinite series (but there may be limitlessly many Spinozan attributes)

‘mind’ and ‘matter’ can be seen as attributes of experience, as experience is intrinsically ‘mental’ and extrinsically of form; and thus, seeing mind as temporal and matter as spatial is limited as experience has both temporality and spatiality and as experientiality is seen below to be the greatest real view of the universe

experience is extensional

experience is durational

from experience there are ‘mind’ and ‘matter’; later from possibilism (FP), it will follow that the universe must be experiential and there must be mind and matter

modes

experience is attitudinal-active; bifurcates as attitudinal and active; there is no strictly pure case, for there is always potential relation to the world

attitude-action

experience directed toward self in relation to (form and formation of) the world

note—even though there is distinction, attitude and action are integrated and it is therefore better to conceive and define attitude-action than to define attitude and action separately

attitude

emphasis on form and world over of formation and self

but note in the more inclusive senses, form includes formation and world includes self (and with reinterpretation, the inclusions could be reversed in direction)

action

emphasis on formation and self over form and world

‘pure’ experience

case that the directedness is null (but inner or potential)

dimensions

or functions

inner-outer, form-quality, bound-free, iconic-symbolic, imperative-neutral, state-function-recall (memory)

research this based on other documents

develop the logic and the implications for cognition, emotion, feeling, memory, personality…

animal awareness in all its forms (second use, abstracted from the first)

is there non-conscious awareness? will find awareness to be a kind of relation between sentient and world and conscious to non-conscious awareness a continuum (multi-d) of degree, not kind

awareness is relational

the above may have been repeated below

relational being in all its forms (third use, justified below)

tie this into being as relational

as ‘experience of’, experience so far is relational; pure experience is internally relational and potentially relational regarding the world

substance

substance theory is rejected here—but taken up as an aid to analysis of the place of experience in the world

substance theory is also considered under being as an aid to supplanting the idea of substance as fundamental by being as really fundamental

a substance is (here conceived as) a particular that exists independently of other beings

one purpose to substance is as founding the existence of all beings on existentially (ontologically) independent beings

take up other properties traditionally ascribed to substance, e.g., simplicity—therefore uniformity and changelessness and non-interactivity with other substances (which means that though changeless, substance must allow or require emergence of change)

if ontological independence includes causal independence, only self-caused entities like Spinoza’s God can be substances; though this can be gotten around (the void is self-caused), it is an unnecessary sophistication (and from its complexity and power, Spinoza’s God is unfounded, as are all substances)

shortfalls of substance are (i) a substance is a posit (ii) a substance is inadequate to variety (iii) multiple substances do not interact

dualist foundation is incoherent; substance foundation must be monist

a strict material cosmos is one in which matter is the only substance and experience (‘mind’) is no part of matter

therefore, our cosmos cannot be a strictly material cosmos; it is at least approximately substance, but the substance must be experiential—and as experiential to have form and change which is experienced as ‘material’; but this is no foundation because as a strict monist world there is no explanation of its being

a possibilist cosmos is one in which the greatest possibility is realized

in a possibilist cosmos, experientiality may reach down to the root

it is later seen that the universe is possibilist

being is experiential-relational, where the experientiality down to the root is of the same kind as conscious awareness but of lower degree; and also extends up to the greatest being (whether an actual being or an open hierarchy)

there is experience

and experience of experience

the notion of an ‘external world’ is metaphorical

experience is recursive

and an as if world which includes experience

later ‘as if’ will be removed

experience is part of the world

even ‘as if’ is not removed, the as if world is a world (of sorts)

why

place of our being and significant meaning

experience is the place our being and place (if not source) of all significance

not transcended, for the measure of experience is experience; therefore, for us, being is experiential and, ultimately, as experienced

as will be seen, we are entirely experiential; the universe is entirely experiential

the place of all change, intrinsic and instrumental

relational; therefore, being—the world—is experiential

the being without (with no trace in) experience, self or other, is effectively non-existent

later ‘effectively’ will be removed; this will require expansion of the meaning of ‘experience’ to the root (to make elimination of ‘effectively’ meaningful and FP to make it true)

co-foundation

…together with being

necessity—experience is our only window on being (for we do not get outside it); it is therefore necessary to foundation

sufficiency—and therefore sufficient to whatever foundation there may be

with adequate, unconditionally sufficient, e.g., to being

will be seen perfect, relative to the aim of realization

experience incorporates reason

effective—optimal—way of achieving good—valuable, optimal—outcomes (ends, right ways, virtue)

includes determining value

includes attention to received reason

note the distinction—reason vs reasons

understanding, inference, and feeling—and their products (knowledge, rational action); received reason

includes learning

source of all knowledge—the world

being and experience complement one another as object and subject side of the world and approach to the world

take up in detail next

interpretations of experience and the world

experience as if of the real may be (i) categorially in error in mistaking what is ‘as if of the real’ with the real (ii) imprecise, even if categorially valid

the aim of this section is to (begin to) derive valid description(s) of the real from experience

the full account will be completed after establishing the real metaphysics

since we always remain ‘in experience’, the notions of ‘world’, ‘validity’, and ‘the real’ will necessarily be derived from the entire range of experience

what

in this section, an interpretation is a description of the world that is consistent with the entire range of experience

more generally, ‘interpretation’ may be used to refer to description of some object that is consistent with some system of experience

the interpretations may include patterns (‘higher’ concepts) projected on ranges of direct experience (percepts or ‘lower’ concepts)

why

interpretations are pragmatically useful

since not posits, even if categorially and objectively unfaithful, are open to refinement and correction

analysis of a range of interpretations that are consistent with experience may and will lead, by demonstration, to a true picture of the world and the real (this will require clarification of the meaning of ‘true picture’)

the interpretations

the main interpretations are numbered (i) and (ii)

there is experience—for to doubt experience is to have an experience, positively—experience is the medium of our being and window on being

there is experience of experience—for without it, we could not know there is or report experience

there is a world—if only that the range of experience is itself a world

there must be a world—this will be shown after demonstration of the fundamental principle; heuristic—the standard world view, below, and its apparent stability; existential heuristic—from meaningfulness

the world is strictly materialist—this seems to follow from some interpretations of science and the apparent objectivity of ‘matter’, but, as we have seen, it is not a consistent interpretation of our world; however, from possibilism, developed later (the fundamental principle), there are strictly materialist worlds and other barren worlds that are dead to process, life, and experience

the world is monist, with experience as the substance and as having a matter-like aspect in having form and formation—this is at least an approximation to proximate experience (i.e., to our experienced world, e.g., the world of modern cosmology—the big bang or, perhaps, the multiverse world)

(i) a common world view that we call the standard secular view (SSV)—the world is a place with selves and others (including animals) and an environment (including plants), where the environment is not experientially null but has experientiality at a low or zero level

(ii) the world is the world experience as if of a single experiencer, but without the experiencer; though seemingly absurd, this is logically possible; here are two sub-cases (a) the experiencer has the experiential capacity of a human being as it is typically held to be—if our world is as rich as generally held, this cannot be our world (b) the world or universe itself is the experience of an experiencer of sufficient experiential capacity—from the earlier discussion under ‘substance’ this is not absurd, and it incorporates interpretation #i (SSV) above; it shall be named a field of being and experience (FOBE, FOE) interpretation and is an interpretation for the universe; if possibilism (FP) holds this is the maximal universe and includes all other possible interpretations of experience above; FOBE would phase into and out of manifestation, and the manifest phases would include human beings merged as ultimate in peak being

characteristics

i.e., further characteristics

form

experience has form (with extension and relation) and formation (with change)

form and formation are in more than one place

may define identity, sameness, difference, spatiality, temporality here

given experience as premise, there must be form and formation; but are form and formation will later be found necessary without further premise—but there are no further modes of difference but for absence (there may be multiple spatialities and temporalities in the same region)

experiential relations

what to title this—*experiential relations*?

note earlier material repeated below; eliminate or join or leave as is?

experience of

‘pure’

experience is relational

icon

iconic concept

sign

symbolic-iconic concept

language

symbolic-iconic

syntax is iconic

languages

a metaphysical language

the experienced

world

includes experience—i.e., experience is experienced

object

experiencer

self (also experienced)

relational nature of experience

meaning

knowledge

beings

a catalogue

of beings and kinds, made rational—first in terms of the intension vs extension of ‘beings’

since beings are seen in aspects—even a whole may be seen as an aspect, the rationale is being ® aspects and their kinds

classify the kinds rationally

intension

actual and possible significant beings—actual because they are; possible, for later we find all logically possible beings to be beings; significant because non-significant beings are effectively non-existent (later, they are found to be non-existent)

extension

beings and kinds

grouping

particular vs kind

kinds

being vs essence

an essence is ‘what a being really is’

for being as such, its being-hood is its essence

essence

an aspect of being ‘most’ significant to itself or another

essences arise as part of discovery and realization, not as defining

characteristic

aspect

part of a being; a being seen from a perspective

an aspect of a being is a being

aspects—

abstraction

to abstract is to filter out detail by working with the concept side of a being

with sufficient and appropriate abstraction, the concept may be perfectly faithful to the abstract of the being

abstract being

there are no abstract vs concrete beings, rather there are continua of abstraction, and ‘abstract being’ and ‘concrete being’ are metaphorical uses for places on the continua

aspects of beings

entity-hood

process

relation

state

i.e., a state of being or affairs

form

forms as snapshots

formations

material or substance aspect

property

quality

quantity

form

includes formation (and ‘static’ form)

and how there is no further attribute to form, beyond form and formation

reasons

considered earlier

object

identities

concept-object

make consistent with and eliminate repetition of earlier treatment of abstraction; perhaps combine the two treatments

concept-object as the essential object—from earlier analysis of experience

therefore, there are no abstract objects as distinguished from concrete objects

of course, some objects may be properly called abstract or concrete from other perspectives

rather, objects lie on a concretion-abstraction continuum

and the distinction is one of how the objects are known, rather than their constitution

and, so, from that perspective we consider—

concrete objects

the term is metaphorical, and used for objects known perceptually (i.e., via bound concepts)

abstract objects

used for objects known in terms of free concepts

and, so, from that perspective we consider—

value

values as real

the abstract and the concrete

the abstract and the concrete are not distinct kinds but lie on a continuum (or continua, for there is more than one mode of abstraction)

the abstract or ideal forms are immanent in the concrete, so, from the theory of being, there is neither need nor justification for their distinction according to kind

what is more because our ideas are (co-) forms, we attribute substance (reify), but there is no need or justification to do that; substance therefore is a reification—and not a justified one at that

parts

proper parts

wholes

parts

voids

parthood

whole

or ‘all’, ‘the being’, e.g., universe (below)

part

e.g., cosmos, individual

null

the void, below, the being that contains no being

experiential

or sentient

elemental

through feeling, cognitive, agentive, through…

idea

subject aspect of form

concept

sign

elements of language

phonemes, words, parts of speech (see Part of speech - Wikipedia), tropes

intelligent beings

intelligence is ability for meaning as significance and reason

a hierarchy of intelligent beings—

living

animal

plants? viruses?

societies

self-aware beings

identities

identity

sense of sameness of self or object

here, focus is on self as object

self

why is my-self this self

or, why is one who they are and not another

‘are you in fact You’—or is self a fractured version of Self

agents

free willed beings

free will—what it is or may be; conditions for possibility of; human free will, issue of

persons

humans can know that their real being is greater than their form—but are at a primitive level and so this knowledge is not common and takes effort

but this knowledge is possible—later we find the universe limitless; therefore, all beings are limitless; and realize Brahman (below)

societies and cultures

human societies

…

gods

there are remote gods; but we are not other than gods; we are on the way to becoming god(s)—we are ‘eruptions’ of creation, a wave front as much as rays, manifesting agenthood, on the way to ultimate agenthood

Brahman

thus far in the narrative, gods and Brahman are hypothetical

particular beings

universe

all being; all beings

there is precisely one; no other

if there are two never-interacting sub-universes, for a being in one sub-universe, it is effectively the universe

for a being, the effective universe is all being that has power with the being

will see later that there are no distinct never interacting universes

nothing outside; neither form, nor matter, nor idea, nor foundation, nor creator, nor potential…

contains all possibility

for the universe, the possible, actual, and real are the same

creator

the creator of a being is the reason or cause of its being (existence)

no being self-creates (can self-create) for that requires simultaneous existence and non-existence

exception the void, because its existence and non-existence are equivalent

a creator is other than the created being

the universe has no creator—for there is no other being

it is logically possible for the manifest universe to spontaneously originate from the void or nonmanifest

part

a being

repeat

cosmos

creation

stable

essence

pattern

law

a law is a being

limit

individual

occurs in more than one place; finalize

identity

the void

the absence of being; the being that has no parts

the void is a being, for its being and non-being are equivalent

this is a first form of the fundamental principle of metaphysics, abbr. fundamental principle or FP

its existence is necessary; its destruction leaves it intact; it may be said to self-create

there are no laws in the void

quantum vacuum

the void is not the quantum vacuum

in considering the origin of our cosmos, it is worth looking at the origin of the quantum vacuum from the void, rather than looking only at the origin of the quantum fields

metaphysics

the concept—study and knowledge of the real

has begun

therefore, possible

trivial so far

trivial means easy to the point of tautology, but, as will be seen, not empty or lacking power or potency

not trivial in that the conceptions of being (and its relation to experience), experience (awareness), reasons, power, beings, the universe, the void required interactive refinement as part of the metaphysics under development

will continue to develop into a metaphysics of ultimate power—the real metaphysics

therefore, the present conception is an excellent one

does not and is not intended to exclude other conceptions of metaphysics

but will include and subsume some of those others

and may require or suggest rejections of further others (a) as metaphysics (b) altogether

existence of the void

above

fundamental principle—limitlessness of the universe, its identity, and the individual

if a possible being, i.e., one corresponding to a consistent concept, did not emerge from the void, that would be a law of the void; therefore, since there are no laws in the void, all possible beings emerge from the void, i.e.—

the universe is conceptually limitless

the universe has identity

the universe is realization of the greatest possibility

which will be seen to be logical possibility

this is the second form of the fundamental principle

the demonstration is an ontological proof (one that appeals only to the property of being or existing)

Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s existence, ‘the ontological proof’ is an example of an ontological proof

the individual inherits the power of the universe, for the contrary would be a limit on the universe

cosmology of limitless identity

developed below; place here?

possibility

possibility as a property of concepts and their potential objects rather than a property of an object

paradigms of possibility

intrinsic

i.e., logical

third form of the fundamental principle

kinds

kinds and modes of expression or concept

extrinsic

i.e., real

kinds

kinds and modes of being

metaphysical

general

identical to intrinsic

thus, note the oneness, at the most inclusive level, of the intrinsic and the extrinsic

and, below, note that mathematics and science fall under logic as particularizations in the abstract-free concept-symbolic vs concrete-percept-world directions

special

real in having some features of the real but not necessarily of any particular being (cosmos)

cannot violate logic; may violate law but that is not a primary intent, except to understand law and laws

purpose—to analyze the real or aspects of it without encumbrance of particulars

real

form

i.e., form and formation > extension, change

theoretical

limited by theory, hypothesis, or law

scientific

limited by theory, hypothesis, or law

e.g., physical, cosmological, chemical, geological, biological, psychological, social, economic, and political

mathematical

sentient

intelligent

self-aware

able to inquire into the nature and meaning of (its own) being

logic

knowledge may be classified by how it is right or wrong—if it conflicts with itself, it is logical (and good if it does not conflict); if it may disagree with the world, it is empirical or scientific (and good science if it agrees); and mathematics is the case of science for abstract or possible worlds

science (and mathematics) presume logic; logic may be seen as (proto) science (it is from here that the sense in which logic is empirical is derived)

there is a sense in which science says nothing of the world—the world is there being the world, doing what it does—science is merely saying what it does (but is of course informative to limited minds); similarly, logic, too says nothing; logic (as including science as including mathematics) are aids to limited minds so that the minds can say something and aids to potentially erroneous minds so that they avoid saying less than nothing

mathematics

science

real metaphysics

join of the abstract metaphysics above, with tradition, and reason

description

perfection

residual significance of ‘limited world’ philosophy—metaphysics, epistemology, value

issues

newness

doubt

alternate proofs, heuristics

residual doubt

consistency

alternative attitudes

metaphysical postulate

existential principle of action

meaning of the real metaphysics

i.e., meaning and implications of the real metaphysics and the fundamental principle

intensional

intensional or explicit—limitlessness, the only inconsistent concepts have no objects

fact and nature of the demonstration

analysis of possibility

extensional

extensional or implicit—the variety of being

being and universe

metaphysics of experience

developed below under world > interpretations of experience > revisited

implications for optimal action

distribution of effort – allocation of resources

modified Pascal’s Wager

reason

the concept of reason

doubt

attitudes

interpretations

… of experience

revisited and ‘finalized’

functions

of experience, the

revisited, grounded in cosmology and logic, finalized

cosmology of limitless identity

description (cosmological)— identity of universe and individual, Brahman, extension, duration, variety, peak, cosmoses, transaction

the ultimate

and the individual

individuals

proximately limited experiential beings

death

real but not absolute

realization

enjoyment

appreciation of the quality of living, intrinsic—pleasure and pain, and being in the world

pleasure

pain

value

see enjoyment above

ethics, aesthetics, intelligence, and their relations

intersection of value and being (previously: values are beings)

ethics

aesthetics

intersections of ethics and aesthetics

imperative

path

would be part of ‘cosmology of identity’; promoted because of its significance

existence, principles, general characteristics, sources in tradition

detail and practice are in the next division—the way

givenness of realization

beings already participate in the identity and limitlessness of the universe

effectiveness of intelligent engagement and development of pathways

intelligence

define

is there a better word than intelligence?

world

interpretations of experience

revisited

dimensions of being

could be placed in cosmology; is here because it is ‘vertical’ first and ‘horizontal’ second

descriptive metaphysics

here? finalize placement

logic of the problems of metaphysics

classical through current problems of metaphysics

the logic

the descriptive metaphysics

emphasize those problems not already treated

cosmology

part of metaphysics

dimensions of being could be placed here

description of the universe and its forms or patterns

form includes formation

patterns allow extrapolation, prediction

general cosmology

logical

logical cosmology is general cosmology

philosophical

method

‘reason’

paradigms

paradigms are part of reason but are mentioned explicitly here because their use is significant

determinism

part determines whole

is that not what a pattern is?

change color or bulleting of Style Definition

… and indeterminism; kinds of determinism; absolute determinism and absolute indeterminism

block universe

as perspective or description rather than feature of the real

relative nature of the determined

and merging of identities

cosmology of form

form and formation

method

method for general cosmology

real metaphysics, received and reasoned paradigm

reason—review and extension

our cosmos

‘physical cosmology’

method

method for general cosmology and cosmology of form

methods of physical cosmology

astronomy

theoretical physics

cosmological modeling

cosmological realms

origins and reasons… galaxies… solar systems… planets… life and its creation and origins

dimensions of being

here or in ‘metaphysics’ or in experience

dimensions of experience here… or under experience?

paradigms

the pure

the pragmatic

path

combine, minimize the occurrences of ‘path’

also considered below; here the aim would be to derive and show the essentials, to share

3 The way

to be the real

the world and the real as one

aim of being

the aim of being is the aim of the way

realizing

the way and its means

reason

also considered above

received ways

integration

of reason and received ways

paths

also considered above; here the aim is practical, detailed, to share rather than to merely inform or instruct

principles

template design

immediate to universal

all activities and dimensions of being

adaptable to a range of circumstances

individuals to civilization

templates

dedication and affirmation

everyday

universal

world problems and opportunities

world problems and opportunities.html (for details, see Journey in Being-detail.html)

4 Into the world

may add ‘epilogue’

to be real in the world

return

being in the world

one world

the immediate and the ultimate are one

becoming and being

commitment

renewal

retreat

the secular and the transsecular

problem and opportunity

see earlier, under—The way > paths > templates > universal > world problems and opportunities

have this in two places (here, and earlier—the two places having different emphases) or one

sharing

ideas, the world, and history—continuity

oral and ritual tradition

continuous text

historical integration

cyclical

flesh out from outlines…

resources

this is very incomplete—but there are resources in other documents… which ones?

database of concepts

plan

the way

life

death

visioning life, death, and their resolution

site

texts

reason

combine the various occurrences of ‘reason’

discovery and action

feeling and cognition

value and object

critical and creative

no a priori