|
The Way of Being Anil Mitra © February 11, 2020—March 27, 2020 Outline This is the greatest of all
possible universes. There is and must be exactly
one universe. This is a resolution of the problem of why there is Being at all. The ‘cause’
of the existence of the universe is necessity.
The Way of Being
A question asked by many persons for themselves and for civilization is of what is possible1, what is of value, and how to achieve it. This leads to the question of how to know and achieve what is of the highest value2. A means of achievement is given in ‘tradition’—what is valid in knowledge and practices of action over the history of human culture from the primal to the modern. However, tradition is limited. The secular3 tradition sees the universe through the lens of cumulative experience—which cannot be knowledge of the entire universe. The transsecular4 is invariably essentially speculative and dogmatic. It can be shown that the following is true and consistent with what we know— This is the greatest5 of all possible universes6. How is this known? Let us show it to be true. A being7 is an existent; Being8 is existence. The universe is all that there is over all extension and duration. The existence of the universe is neither caused nor created by another being for there is no other being. The void is the absence of being. The universe as the manifest universe-and-void is eternal; its existence is therefore necessary for, in this context— Necessity is that which must obtain. —for what always obtains and what must obtain have no distinction. But this necessity is not based in presumption9. But for the universe to necessarily be just the void or just manifest would require presumption—therefore the universe must phase between void and manifest states. And similarly, the universe cannot be just our empirical cosmos or some particular possible world—it must be all that is possible in the greatest consistent sense of possibility. This concludes demonstration that This is the greatest of all possible universes. Whatever is consistent—logical10—must be part of the greatest; but that which is not consistent11 cannot exist. Therefore the greatest and logical possibilities are identical. Therefore metaphysics12 is possible, actual, and its content is what is allowed by ‘logic13’14. The metaphysics above arises from experience for Being-as-just-Being, the universe-as-just-the-universe, the void, and logic are all experiential concepts devoid of distorting detail. Similarly, tradition—as it lives in the individual and culture—is active and experiential. As the metaphysics and tradition flow from experience, they are ontologically one. However, they are also epistemically one in that (i) the metaphysical side is perfectly faithful in its capture of the universe and its ultimate forms, including those forms as determining values (ii) the tradition side is ‘good enough’ for local purposes but so far as it is all we have with regard to detailed knowledge, it is the perfect instrument for achievement of the ideal15. The metaphysical side and tradition form a perfect instrument for achievement of the ideal that may be called the perfect metaphysics, the real metaphysics16, or just the metaphysics. Some consequences follow17. There is and must be exactly one universe. This is a resolution of the problem of why there is Being at all18. As noted, the existence of the universe has no material (physical) cause, but— The ‘cause’ of the existence of the universe is necessity19. The universe has no creator20. The universe has identity. The universe and its identity21 are limitless in extension, duration, variety, peak, and dissolution of Being. For example there are cosmoses and physical laws without limit—all in transaction with one another and the void. The individual and civilization inherit this power. All beings are on the way to the ultimate. The individual in a limited cosmos inherits the limitlessness of the universe (or else the universe would not be the greatest). In doing so they merge with universal identity—death is real but not absolute. The universe is spiritual in that there are higher phases that are not yet known to some beings and civilizations. It is not spiritual in the sense of a non material realm. From the real metaphysics there are no fundamentally distinct modes such as matter and mind. Experience or mind is relation and form; form may be seen as body and matter; and relation is a driver of change. Which may be seen as material cause and which is distinct from necessity as cause. The common path is living well as preparation for death and beyond. The uncommon path22 is realization in this life—the individual who finds a direct path from immediate to ultimate Being. The real metaphysics23 is the means of realization; it is reason interpreted as direct knowledge and inference. There are and will be ennui and pain; they are unavoidable24. But the limitlessness of variety and peak and dissolution is also ever fresh25. The paths will involve ecstasy and pain. They are unavoidable. However the good (optimal) path does not seek ecstasy constantly or avoid pain obsessively. The path is practiced calm enjoyment of thoughtful engagement—as suggested in the traditions and which are built upon as part of that same engagement26. Though ecstasy may be diverting it ought not to be entirely avoided and may add to the experience and motivation of realization. The problem of pain is acute. Where it is not debilitating and the individual retains mental and physical abilities, pain—physical and psychological—ought to be addressed by the best available treatments of the era; however, healing ought not to divert the individual from the path for healing without meaning is empty and the path often contributes to the healing. Realization does not wait for perfection according to mundane criteria. What of meaningless pain—the pain of a cancer patient, an infant, or the pain of severe depression27? In the first place, we should provide the best available treatment. Secondly, the rest of us ought not to allow it to deter us from a path—for the same reasons as above. That is, we ought not to say “We shall not be on a path of realization because there are people suffering in the world28”. And thirdly, we recognize that even the sufferer of meaningless pain is on a path of realization which, if blind in the present, has been and will be sapient in another past and future. Notes
1
Possibility is that which can happen or obtain. It may be difficult to
know what ‘can obtain’ but the concept of possibility itself is definite. It
has been called a contradictory concept because of the idea that it is
possible that the possible is impossible. However, the italicized phrase
in the previous sentence is an invalid use of possibility as just defined
because with that definition it reads it can happen that that which can
happen cannot happen. If we knew ‘everything’ the need for a concept of the possible would not arise. Because we do not know all things, something that occurs once or that is consistent with what we do know (e.g. our laws of physics), may be deemed possible elsewhere or on another occasion. But this ‘deeming’ is, given no further information, not certain; even if we feel it certain, it is really or ought to be just pragmatic certainty. Even something that is actual, given no further information, is not certain elsewhere or on another occasion—and so the common meme ‘that which is actual is possible’ does not say as much as it might seem. 2 Not all persons explicitly care about these questions or the form in which it asks of the highest value. And while the question is often implicit in actions and attitudes. Yet it is and has been a guiding principle—and it is therefore important to ask the question explicitly, even if a precise answer should not be attained. 3 The secular focuses on the ‘material’ to the exclusion of the ‘spiritual’, regardless whether the latter is seen as real. 4 The transsecular focuses also on the spiritual which is taken as existing. The transsecular may also insist that the spiritual is the source of meaning, greater than the material which is preparation for eternal spiritual life. 5 Greatest does not mean best. However, the greatest must include the highest good (as well as the greatest evil). 6 This assertion is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics and Being. 7 That is, ‘a being’ is simply that which may be validly predicated (described) by some form of the verb to be. The standard forms such as ‘is’ and ‘were’ are insufficient for ‘a being’ may refer to something that ‘is here’ and ‘were there’ (the confusion of singular present and past plural is only apparent for it is allowed that a ‘thing’ may multiply and that a multiplicity may join as one). Note that in saying ‘a being is that which may be validly predicated…’ it is implied that a being is not just the thing-itself but the concept-and-thing. It is not being said that conceiving creates Being but that the two are bound together. Consider, for example, a mountain. We have a recollected image of mountains which enables recognition of a mountain as a mountain. But what is the mountain itself? How do we know it? We know it, first, from the image that lies in our experience; secondly we may walk around and to it, touch it and climb it and view it from different angles—but all that registers in and only in experience; then we may take in the reports of others and geological studies of mountains and so on—and all that registers in and only in experience. In saying that ‘all that registers in and only in experience’ it is meant that while we may think there is objective information beyond experience, it turns out that that further information is not beyond experience (which does not mean that there is no objective information in the sense of reliable information but objective information in the sense of ‘of the object’ is never just of the object but may be as if of the object). That is it is in the essence of a thing or object is that it is a concept-object—i.e., objects are essentially concept-objects (the term object therefore is not restricted to ‘thing’ but is identical to ‘existent’). And a nonexistent object may be defined as a concept-object for which the object is null. 8 The use of ‘Being’ here is different from some of its common and philosophical uses. The difference is that whereas it is often used to mean something like ‘the essence of what is’ or ‘the higher forms of existence’ here it simply means ‘what is’. I will return to this point at the end of this footnote. As defined here, ‘Being’ (capitalized) is an apparently trivial concept for it applies to ‘everything’. It has therefore been called a non concept. But it is not a non concept—rather it is non discriminatory. And in that sense it is trivial. However, its use, as seen in what follows, is non trivial. Rather, it may be described as ‘profound’. How is that? In the first place ‘that which exists’ is a definite concept whose foundation requires no reference to a further concept. When asking ‘but what is existence’ it is often thought of as difficult but the difficulty is in thinking that existence ought to be defined in terms of something else—e.g. mind or matter, which is problematic (i) what are mind and matter and are they things or kinds of things at all (ii) why mind or matter, even if real, should define existence. But clearly something does exist or else there would not even be an illusion of existence. So taking ‘that which is’ as foundational is not problematic in the way substance, e.g. mind or matter, is problematic. But now another problem arises—the problem of what has Being. While this is problematic, it is a second reason for the ‘profundity of Being’—in the following way. It leaves the question open rather than a substance approach such as materialism which attempts to define the known before it is known. Surely, even if we do not have an immediate answer the question of what has Being, it is preferable to a possibly mistaken answer such as a substance answer such as mind or matter (or even process). The approach from Being also leaves open the question of what lies beyond the empirical. It is not clear to me why so many persons prefer an answer to the question of foundations that is even from their perspective probably mistaken (and as seen in what follows is definitely mistaken). Perhaps it is a need for security of thought and what there is rather than an openness to ‘Being’. Perhaps it is the thought, perhaps implicit, that ‘what we have experienced as we have experienced it is essentially all that there is’. Regardless, it is mistaken. And it is also tragic. For in thinking that our experience, e.g. our big bang cosmology, defines the extent of the nature of the universe, we miss, as seen below, awareness our greatest opportunity in Being in ‘this world and beyond’. If the use of ‘Being’ here is superficially more plain than other uses of the term, it contains and enhances what is valid in the depth and breadth of those other uses. 9 Commonly, necessity is an inference—e.g., if X then Y (where X and Y are assertions or propositions). In this case, however, X is the ‘empty proposition’. 10 The idea of logic is, simply, whatever it takes for our referential concepts to be consistent. Logic arises in experience as follows. For a concept in referential form to capture a part of the world, it must conform to the world—to facts via observation and patterns or theories by hypothesis and their adjustment to facts. However, the very structure of a concept may render it incapable of reference at all and the constraints that render concepts capable of reference constitute logic (or logics). It is worth noting that the theories (science) may be regarded as precise if they refer only to what is so far empirical and if the criterion of capture is pragmatic, e.g. ‘good enough’ for some purposes. But it is part of their empirical nature that they are not known to be universal or perfectly precise. And universality and precision (i) would be improbable (ii) will be seen to not obtain. The precision of logics is due to the choice of simple and discrete forms of expression whose primitive forms can be inspected without error. The limitations of logic in relation to knowledge are (i) even where a logic is precise, its symbols may not capture the world precisely and (ii) there may be primitive forms that are not as discrete as the traditional forms and are therefore subject to distortion. 11 How can a ‘thing’ be not consistent—or consistent—is a natural question to ask of what is being said at this point. The response is that when we talk or think of a ‘thing’ we (must, as noted above,) have a concept in mind or else we are not truly referring to anything at all and this is the way—one way—to paradox. That is, a ‘thing’ is a referential concept—a concept that is capable of or intended to refer to something—and its referents. If there is a referent, we say “it exists”; otherwise we say “it does not exist”. 12 Here, metaphysics is (defined as) knowledge of the real. 13 This is logic in an ideal sense as follows. Our logics follow from consistency of common forms of reference—e.g., the propositional calculus from consistency among propositions without consideration of their form; the predicate calculi are the same and, further, include consideration of subject-predicate form. Limitations of our logics are (i) where the forms are inadequate and consistency inadequately implemented (ii) due to as yet unknown forms of reference. Ideal or absolute logic refers only to the result, perhaps only ideal, of lifting these limits. One might react to identifying knowledge of the real—i.e., metaphysics—with logic with the thought that “but logic is sterile”. However, logic itself is neither sterile nor rich. What is required by logic may be sterile; however what is allowed by logic is rich—there is nothing that is more plentiful. However, it is true that what is given in identifying knowledge of the real as logic requires ‘critical imagination and action’ to know and realize the implied richness. 14 This is a specification of the concept of the vastness of the universe but not the vastness itself—i.e., not the referent of the concept. The ‘actual’ vastness of the universe—the object of the concept of the vastness—remains to be discovered and realized. This is the Adventure of The Way of Being. 15 Tradition remains imperfect according to traditional criteria of perfection, e.g. perfect faithfulness to referents. However, the appropriateness of such traditional criteria is open to question, even for local purposes. 16 Those persons and ideologies that deny metaphysics have been misled by some combination of (i) excessively speculative metaphysical systems and (ii) attributing excessive concreteness to ideologies such as materialism and certain dogmatic religions. Where the Buddha eschewed metaphysics, he was not denying it but, rather, directing the individual to the importance of living well in this life; it was a reaction, perhaps, to the metaphysical denial of this world in the metaphysical thought of his time. 17 Only consequences for realization of the ultimate are taken up. There is a range of consequences for metaphysics, cosmology, science, and society that are not taken up here. It may be noted that the consequences are fundamental in depth and universal in breadth. 18 This problem is famously regarded as unsolved. It was named the fundamental question of metaphysics by Martin Heidegger. As noted above metaphysics or knowledge of the real requires critical imagination, the apparent fundamental question of metaphysics is What is it that has Being? 19 That is, the cause may be said to be ‘modal’. 20 Nor is it ‘self created’. After it has become manifest, what is manifest may create further manifestation. However, becoming manifest is ‘modal’ and not an act of creation. We might say the manifest is created by the void but that would be just an empty phrase. Given necessity we might also say that every being, including the universe, is created by any being. 21 That is—the universe and its identity, may be regarded as of ‘matter’ and of ‘mind’ (quotes indicate neutrality to the ontological or existential status of matter and mind). 22 This uncommon path is at least rare—and it is not clear that any human being has ever achieved it. It is possible, however, and it is certain that it has been achieved in some world in the limitless universe—and that its achievement recurs without limit. Those persons who have been recognized as achieving the uncommon path, e.g. the Buddha, may be just approximations to it and pointing an approximate way. But how does the ordinary individual achieve the ultimate in the common path? From the fundamental principle—(i) the universe is absolutely indeterministic in that no part of it determines the whole, (ii) this absolute indeterminism contains time and space limited regions of near stable, near deterministic form, whose local creative power arises from interaction of form with residual indeterminism, (iii) regarded as a ‘block over all extension and duration’ a being at a given place and time is at the intersection of limitlessly many histories which constitute its identity, and (iv) via these histories, the individual being diffuses into (and forms from) the universe at large and into mergence with the ‘highest’ Being. We cannot say there are no remote Gods but (a) where they may be, they are part of and not creator of the universe and (b) they are, from the instability inherent in their description, insignificant phases of the universe-as-block. Where words such as God, Brahman, and Aeternitas (a term due to Thomas Aquinas) apply in a robust sense, they refer to the Identity of the Universe in which we all participate. 23 As noted, it incorporates traditional practice—subject of course to experiment, hypothesis, and criticism. 24 And any tradition that denies them in a final realm misleads us as to the nature of this world and the ultimate. 25 This is the beginning of a true answer to the problem of suffering. 26 At present this is in other documents at The Way of Being website http://www.horizons-2000.org. 27 Adequately understood, this pain is not meaningless for pain is adaptive and what we call ‘meaningless pain’ is the result of ‘perfection’ not being pertinent to evolutionary adaptation. 28 But neither ought we to ignore suffering in the world. The proper path ought to include address of others’ suffering. |