Some
lessons for The Way of Being | A Journey Anil
Mitra, Copyright © December 24, 2019—August 7, 2021 Contents Therefore readers should understand
concepts as defined here. It is a search for the
ultimate in and from the immediate. We (humans) became able to
image and therefore seek beyond what is in external experience (so far). The main modern paradigms
of seeing, thinking, and living are the secular and transsecular. The essential limits of the
paradigms are the limits of science and religion. Science is empirical and
its theories are conceptual models of the empirical—so far. It is an error to presume
that current theories of science describe the entire universe. The dual limit is
destructive shutting down of modern critical imagination. But what is the relation
between the real universe and the greatest possible universe? The universe is all that
there is over all duration and extension. In its dominant modern
sense, cause is interaction between two ‘bodies’ or parts of the universe. If necessity is the reason or cause for the existence of the
universe— 3. Therefore,
the only ‘states’ not realized are the ones defined by logical impossibility. 4. That
is, the universe is the greatest possible universe. Identity is sense of self
or be-ing. However, it does not reveal
effective paths of realization—how to realize the ultimate. This section revaluates
‘God’—particularly the Abrahamic God. I will not develop (and
enhance) the use of traditional ways here. The
Lessons Plan
This temporary section lists topics to
be integrated and makes comments The logic of the lessons What everyone wants The ultimate and the immediate The secular and the transsecular The fundamental principle and
issues—meaning (intrinsic—alt formulations – logic – the sciences – the human
endeavor, some instrumental; extensional—consequences), consistency,
validity, heuristic, attitudes, real metaphysics Fundamental concepts On meaning and knowledge On metaphysics—what it is; metaphysics,
logic (epistemology), and values Introduction
About the lessons
This necessitates that the account be
brief and technical material be minimized. Material that is secondary to the
aim is placed in endnotes. A difficulty is that The Way of Being | A Journey is an
attempt to advance understanding into regions where common paradigms1
are inadequate. On meaning
When an advance in understanding extends
into a region requiring a new conceptual apparatus or paradigm, the meanings
of terms is altered. Therefore readers should understand concepts as
defined here. Some important terms are defined in the
glossary, p. 1. This does not imply that readers should
discard received meanings. It does mean that the received should be set aside
at least temporarily while absorbing the new meanings and shades of meaning. It is important to think in of meaning
as systematic. What this means is that the meaning of a system of ideas lies
in how they relate to one another2 and not only in how the individual
ideas relate to the world. A human endeavor
Though we live in a world of apparent
limits, human beings have a gift3 of vision; we can see or imagine
worlds beyond the immediate world. In its better forms, that search does
not deny or abandon this immediate world—the world of apparent limits. It is a search for the ultimate in and
from the immediate. History of the endeavor
When in our early (human) evolution,
thought emerged as free of what was merely seen, we became able to think of
reasons for things seen. This was a source of truth and superstition. In early primal tradition, truth and superstition4
are interwoven. Civilization on a large scale made it
possible to enhance criteria for truth and to distinguish truth and
superstition. But even today, we have not accomplished a complete separation5. A consequence of this historical thread
is— We (humans) became able to image and
therefore seek beyond what is in external experience (so far). Ways or paradigms
If we think of the primal as a way or
paradigm of seeing, thinking, and living then its sequelae in large scale
civilization are the secular and transsecular paradigms. The secular focus is on the experienced6
world. It is neutral to worlds beyond the immediate. For higher aspirations,
it appeals to secular ethics and aesthetics rather than to worlds beyond7. The transsecular focus is on worlds
beyond the experience—and to which it appeals for higher truth and goals. The main modern paradigms of seeing,
thinking, and living are the secular and transsecular. The limits of the paradigms
The essential limits of the paradigms
are the limits of science and religion. Science
Science is empirical and its theories
are conceptual models of the empirical—so far. It is therefore an error to claim, from
science and its method, that its theories describe the entire universe. As an
example, it has been claimed that some models of the universe8
do not have a time before the original singularity and therefore there is no
such time. This conclusion may seem reasonable but its
reasonableness presumes (i) that the entire universe is as in the model and
(therefore) (ii) that general conclusions, even those that extend beyond the
empirical, from the model must be true. Now, if you were to ask a physicist
who favors such conclusions whether they are really true, they would most
likely say something like ‘well I’m not sure, but I think we should not
speculate beyond, and it is a good default position’. However, we ‘should’ speculate9
beyond, for this is how we transitioned from the Newtonian to the modern view
of the empirical universe10. Especially today11
when progress in physics seems blocked because of a paucity of critical
experiments. Critical conclusions regarding this
discussion of scientific paradigm are (i) the limited view from science does
not follow from science itself, (ii) science (physics) allows a greater
universe than the limited view presents, and (iii) but an uncritical
acceptance of pictures from science lead to common12
acceptance of the limited views. We can summarize the discussion of
science as follows— It is an error to presume that current
theories of science describe the entire universe. That we do not observe all
possibilities does not contradict this as possible, for what we see is one
possibility—and not another. Cosmology13 of religions14
The fundamental limit of the religions
is that or when they posit cosmologies as truth15.
The hold of the religions is multifold—promise of a higher life16;
binding a people together; and, since religious ‘truth’ is not manifest, a range
of powerful psychological devices to bind minds to dogma17.
Where they adhere to dogma, religions abandon their symbolic value. But in just non-dogmatically pointing
to the reasonable possibility18 of a world beyond the sensible
world, religion could be a useful and valid complement to science19. In summary of this section— The dual limit20
The dual limit is destructive shutting
down of modern critical imagination. Knowledge vs realization
There is much in the secular and
transsecular traditions that suggests that knowledge of the ultimate
is the ideal, the end of search21. However, even ultimate knowledge22
falls short of ultimate being. It will be seen that knowledge is an
essentially incomplete realization of the ideal. Transformation of the entire
being is essential23. From here…
We have seen that we24
tend to see the world in limited25
terms; that the limits are not entailed by reason; and a much greater reality
is possible. This is important because of the
widespread view that a greater reality is impossible and the consequent
shutting down of imagination and potential. But— 1.
That something is possible means only that it may occur or
be true, not that it will occur or that it is true. Can a greater reality be
demonstrated? 2.
If it can be demonstrated, what are its variety, extent, and
duration? Is there an outer limit to such a reality? If so, what is that
limit? 3.
If such a reality is shown, what is its implication for
human individuals and civilization? What can or shall we realize? How may we
do so? Let us now take up these issues. The possible
From our freedom to form concepts, we
make pictures26 (hypotheses) about the world. Where the hypotheses are not in
agreement with the empirical, we correct them they agree. The agreement is
over the empirical and cannot be guaranteed to extend beyond27. (But) within the current28
empirical realm, we regard science as true29.
Given modern physics, what is in accord with it is physically possible and
what is not is physically impossible30.
More generally, the kind of possibility in question is scientific or ‘real’. There is another kind of possibility.
If the concepts of a theory are in conflict on account of their form and
structure, they could not be realized31
in any world. An example is a square circle. We can form the concept32
but it is unrealizable. It is unrealizable in any possible world33.
This is logical impossibility. On the other hand if
there is no such conflict, the compound concept is realizable and we call it
logically possible. Physical34 possibility presumes logical
possibility35. What is the greatest possibility36?
If something37 is logically impossible it is
absolutely impossible. Therefore logical possibility
bounds the greatest possibility. However, if something is logically possible
it is realizable in some world38. Therefore
the greatest possibility is logical possibility39. But what is the relation between the
real universe and the greatest possible universe? Existence—its cause or reason
Why does the universe exist40?
What is the cause of or reason for its existence? Was it created? Here, definitions of the universe and
of cause are critical41. The universe is all that there is over
all duration and extension. In its dominant modern sense, cause
is interaction between two ‘bodies’ or parts of the universe. So let us ask
why the universe exists? Did something cause its existence? The cause of existence, if there is
one, cannot be another existing or preexisting42
entity43 for the universe is all that there is
over all duration and extension44. Could it be ‘self
cause’? No, for what that says is the universe causes itself which says effectively nothing45. If the cause is not and cannot be
another ‘thing’ what could it be? Perhaps it is
possibility46? But that would say nothing47
for to say realization of an idea is just possible is to say that it may
obtain but it also may not obtain. In other words to
say that the universe is possible is to say that it is an accident. Perhaps the cause is probability.
However, probability is merely the assignment of a number to possibility.
Probability, like possibility, is not a good cause, reason, or
explanation—except in one case, the case of necessity in which the
probability is that of certainty48. However, to say that necessity would be
a good reason is not to say that it is the reason for we have not yet
demonstrated that it is. That will be the next task, but before turning to
it, let us reflect on necessity49 as cause50
or reason for existence of the universe. If
necessity is the reason or cause for the existence of the universe— 1. It is not a material reason or cause—i.e. it has neither form nor structure—but it is surely
acceptable as a reason. 2. As necessity is void of manifest
Being—it is formless—it has perfect symmetry, so necessity cannot explain the
existence of just the empirical universe. 3. Therefore, the only ‘states’ not
realized are the ones defined by logical impossibility. 4. That is, the universe is the greatest
possible universe. Let us now turn to showing that
necessity is the cause of the universe’s existence and so to concluding that
the universe is the greatest possible. A fundamental principle
In this section we demonstrate the fundamental
principle51—abbreviated FP: The
existence of the manifest universe is necessary; it is the greatest possible
universe; it is the realization of logical possibility. If the existence of the universe is not
necessary, it must occur in a void52 or non manifest state, for if it never existed in a non manifest state, it would be necessary53. In the (true) void there are no
laws—constraints—of science, particularly of physics. But if there is a possible
state that does not emerge from the void, that would be a constraint. Therefore
all possible states obtain. It is now worth rereading the numbered
observations at the end of the previous section. The next section is a set of
consequences essential to realization. Brahman
Identity
Identity54
is sense of self or be-ing. The universe has identity; the universe
and its identity phase in and out of manifestation; the manifest is limitless
in its variety, extension, duration, peaks, and dissolution; for example it has limitless arrays of cosmoses of
limitless variety. The individual realizes universal
identity and in doing so the individual merges with the universal; this is
given; there are however, effective paths of
realization that enhance enjoyment; so far as enjoyment and minimization of
pain are of value, there is an ethical imperative to discover and be on paths
to the ultimate55. This merging is given by the
fundamental principle; mechanisms are suggested in essays at the website The
Way of Being | A Journey (home—http://www.horizons-2000.org/2020/
and older—http://www.horizons-2000.org/);
however it is essential to see that merging is given, regardless of efficient
mechanism. How may paths to the ultimate be
determined? A first answer is that in
knowing there are paths to the ultimate and committing to a path, one is
already on the way and some would claim that we are
essentially already there56. However, while I agree that we may
have a real57 image of the ultimate in our minds and hearts, I do
not think that the image and the ultimate are identical. A second answer is that while I
know there is a path, I do not know any path all the way to the ultimate. I
emphasize that it is I the author of this essay that is ignorant for I do
think that, just as there are people who know less in these matters than I,
there may also be persons who know vastly more than I do. A third answer, implicit in the
development so far, is that given that there are paths and given that to be
committed in mind and heart is to already be on the way, we can only do—it is
imperative to do—the best we can with the resources we have58. We now turn to the attempt to do the
best we can do. Perfect knowledge
This ideal knowledge (or metaphysics59)
regarding the universe, identity, and its realizations is ultimate in its
truth and the ultimate that it reveals. However, it does not reveal effective
paths of realization—how to realize the ultimate. The best available knowledge is tradition,
which is here conceived in what is valid in the entire history of human
culture and exploration. It includes modern science and reason. The best in
the tradition understands its own limits. These limits remain locally
important. However, they—the limits—are now revealed as not important relative
to realization60. For the local criteria of science
and ethics are not essential in realization. Rather what is revealed is (i)
we can know the ultimate at least in abstract terms (ii) local
knowledge—tradition—is instrumental in beginning to move toward the ultimate;
and when ‘we’ have moved forward, there will be new local knowledge. How might ‘we’ employ such perfect
knowledge? 1. First in understanding the nature of
the term ‘we’. The local does not show that we connect to the ultimate—it
does not show that our Atman connects to Brahman61;
this is revealed by the ideal. 2. Second in identifying how to proceed to
the ultimate (from and in the immediate), the paradigms of the East and the
West may be combined as Reason. Reason is the best developed and developing
means of knowing and realization. The practices of the East, especially
yoga in an expansive and experimental rather than just received sense, and
the practices of the West, e.g. science, logic, and
reason, may combine under one umbrella that may be labeled Reason, Logos, or
Yoga. This is the generalized means of realization. Reason is not an end but
a process of Being (and rendered in symbols). Here is a summary from accounts at The
Way of Being | A Journey (home—http://www.horizons-2000.org/2020/
and older—http://www.horizons-2000.org/).
The standard view of our limited be-ing has validity over the empirical
universe. But the entire universe is a field which is of one kind with two
aspects—experiencer and experienced or ‘mind and body’. This provides two
indistinct means of moving into the field, the inner (exploration and
construction of and within experience) and instrumental (exploration and
construction of and within the experienced). In ‘this life’ we have images of and
movement toward the ultimate. Do we realize the ultimate? Yes
but in merging with it (with action and construction, not just with the human
mental), we transcend this life. However, while realization is incomplete in
this life, and the typical passage begins with death and its cycles, a direct
link to the ultimate is possible and does occur, even if it is rare. That is,
‘Being’ does not always have to lose consciousness to gain Consciousness. 3.
Third, as an example of how the ideal and pragmatic may be
combined62, we may import the evolutionary paradigm from biology
to understanding efficient sentient process in the universe. Mechanism
explains process within a cosmos. But what is the origin of a cosmos? Insofar
as from the void, it must be indeterministic. The process of indeterministic
variation and selection for near symmetry of form suggests how higher
sentient form may emerge and capture blind process on the way to Brahman. In other
writing this perfect knowledge is called the perfect metaphysics, generally
referred to as the metaphysics. God
This section revaluates
‘God’—particularly the Abrahamic God. The metaphysics above shows existence
of this God provided its contradictions are removed—particularly (i) the idea
of a creator of the universe for there can be no being that is such a creator
and (ii) the superlative characterization of this God, it involves a number
of logical and factual contradictions; what results is a God rather like
human being, but perhaps more powerful, occasionally not so powerful, and
capricious—like the Greek Gods. However, a caring and remote God of
this kind is barely significant—just as an intelligent and caring king is
barely significant as a god. Why are such Gods not seen in our
cosmos? Simply that it is almost certain that they are not here—except
perhaps that there may be some intelligent alien species that might have care
but not too much care about us but whom we might begin to revere. But regarding
the reality of such Gods in our lives here and now, it is important that the
sources of the beliefs are myth and awe (reverence) and not reason
(observation and inference). However, it is important that that the
entire myth-as-real minimizes functions of God and religion as symbol and
social binding. There is yet another possibility that
is minimized or ignored. It is the idea that life arises spontaneously and in
so arising we—humans and other animals—are tentatively on the way to the
potential of the universe. In this spontaneous arising
humans are not a final but perhaps the first step in discrete
conscious awareness of this process. Thus— If one thinks of all Being having
phases of perfection, and all life on earth perhaps approaching such a phase
despite imperfection, then we are all a phase of such a God63.
However, such a God is but a phase of the Vedantic notion of God. Paths
The traditions64
provide some tools. The main aspects of those tools for the present work are
the inner (e.g. meditation and yoga as mental
preparation and work toward the ultimate) and instrumental (e.g. use of
science in exploration of space and the medical and information possibilities
of bodies and matter); which are not taken as a priori or ultimate but as
experimental and directed toward the goal. Ways and templates
I will not develop (and enhance) the
use of traditional ways here. Readers may refer to the website The
Way of Being | A Journey (home—http://www.horizons-2000.org/2020/
and older—http://www.horizons-2000.org/),
where I have suggested adaptable programs or templates for everyday and
universal action. Glossary
The glossary collects together some
concepts for The Way, focusing
on (i) those directly important to the content of The Lessons and (ii)
others from The Way that might
present problems of understanding or reasons for use. Bold font indicates the essential terms
for the lessons.
Notes
1 From science, philosophy,
and religion. 2 That is meaning is holistic but I do not use the term ‘holism’ because I am
not referring to meaning holism—i.e. I am not asserting that meaning lies only
in the system of meanings. Nor am I thinking to impose system on the world as
in ‘systematic metaphysics’; any system that arises emerges from reasoning
about the world. Finally, in the present sense, system does not connote
method. However, it is tacit that effective systematic thought is
careful and rigorous. 3 Given our capacity for
delusion, is it a gift? I say that it is for we cannot just posit new
understanding but must guess at it and then correct it. The formation of new
understanding is inevitably bound to the possibility of error. Still, the
gift is a two edged sword well recognized in many
traditions. 4 Regarding primality, we
ought not to think of superstition as irrational—for adequate means of
rationality in our terms are not yet available. Yet, primality is empirical
and, as anthropological studies show, beliefs may be strengthened when
confirmed and weakened when disconfirmed. 5 But we ought not to assert
that a complete separation is—or is not—meaningful, possible, or desirable. 6 That is, what has been
experienced so far in human history together with investigation into what is
capable of being experienced. 7 It does not deny the idea
of spirituality but asserts that the meaning of the spiritual lies in this
world, especially its ethics and aesthetics. 8 Based in the general theory
of relativity and quantum theory. “The conclusion of this lecture is that the
universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had
a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.”—Stephen Hawking, The Beginning of
Time. 9 It is important to
distinguish between rational speculation and mere speculation. Mere
speculation is having a random idea and thinking it is real. Rational
speculation is invariably based in some aspects of experience and subject to
rational critique. Rational speculation is in fact formation of hypotheses
and subjecting them to logical and empirical criteria. In physics the empirical
region is empirical knowledge of the physical universe. Now what we will do in this
essay is (i) formulate hypotheses over experience so general as to be
necessarily true (e.g. there is experience, there is
a universe) (ii) subject the formed system to rational critique—therefore the
resulting system will be necessarily true (iii) adjoin this ideal system to
pragmatic knowledge (iv) show that according to values emerging from the
ideal system the combined system is perfect in being the best possible system. 10 Of course
we should not conflate hypotheses with truth; nor ought we to think that by
considering hypotheses not directly consequent from the empirical that we are
doing physicists. On the other hand physicists who
tell us that we ought not to speculate are, in so far is the issue is one of
what is correct, speaking beyond the natural domain of their authority. 11 2021. 12 Normative reality is
emergent at a critical threshold of acceptance among the population. 13 Though religions are more
than their cosmologies, the interest here is cosmology. 14 The plural ‘religions’
emphasizes that the discussion is about the religions of the world and not an
ideal concept of religion. Whereas an ideal conception of science is that it
is the study of the world via conceptions designed to explain the empirical,
ideal religion is understanding 15 This is the dogmatic aspect
of the religions. Perhaps this is inevitable for the appeal of the religions
is especially to those who do not have the time and resources for the leisure
to be reflective. That in doing so and otherwise, the religions perform a
function, does not alter the fact of dogma. Indeed, dogma may be central to
the psychological and social functions of religion at the present
developmental state of humankind and society. 16 And escape from this life. 17 A source of violence in the
name of the religions. 18 It will be seen that this
possibility is factual, indeed necessarily factual. But I use the world
‘possibility’ because the fact has not yet been shown. 19 But then why not appeal to
secular ethics and aesthetics? This is reasonable. However, the secular
thought tends to be infused with the normative (and common) limit to the
merely and current empirical. 20 These are strong limits if
not universal. Normativity is an essential part of their sometimes
seeming universality. 21 This is especially true of
western thought and the Abrahamic tradition. Eastern traditions emphasize
transformation of the entire being and see knowledge with practice as the way
to realization. However, Sufism, the tradition of Christian Mysticism, and
modern western existential thought also emphasize the entire being. 22 In the sense of knowledge
as concept. The sense of being as knowledge is not used here. 23 Focus on entire being is
reasonable ‘common sense’. What will be shown is (i) its necessity and (ii)
ways of transformation. 24 That is sufficiently many
of us that it is seen as normative or consensual truth. 25 Severely limited. 26 Though this sounds as though
it is taken from Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, it is
actually due to Einstein—using words similar to Wittgenstein’s. 27 They often do and this is
part of their usefulness. However, the history of science shows limits are to be expected; and scientific reason so far denies
guarantee of ultimate extension. 28 That is—the current at any
given time. 29 On the other hand if our ideal of science is universality, then all
science is hypothetical (except where the empirical realm is itself known to
be limited). 30 The range of the physically
possible, even when limited to today’s physics, is not clearly well defined
but that is not important to this discussion. 31 Have an object. 32 Some thinkers would
question this. They might say that since it is contradictory, the concept
cannot even be formed. The response is What is it that cannot be formed?
What they ought to say, I think, is that since the concept cannot be
realized, it is un-realistic rather than un-formable. 33 Provided, of course, that
‘square’ and ‘circle’ can have their usual meaning in the worlds. 34 Or, more generally, real
possibility. 35 But is often tacitly built
in and so need not be mentioned. 36 Greatest does not mean
‘best’. The greatest possible universe is one in which all possibility
obtains. 37 That is, a concept. 38 For the collection of
realistically possible worlds is one in which all constraints of realism are
absent and the only ‘constraint’ is the logically possible. 39 This is not quite correct
for if something never occurs over the entire duration and extension, limited
or limitless, of the entire universe—i.e. not the
empirical universe—can it be called possible? We ought therefore to talk of
the greatest conceivable possibility. However, this will turn out to be
unnecessary. 40 It is not assumed that the
universe has an origin (or boundary). What we are asking is what, if
anything, sustains its existence and whether such ‘sustenance’ is necessary
to its existence or understanding its existence. If the universe had an origin then that would be part of what is to be explained. 41 To some extent there is and
ought to be latitude in definitions. However, even among definitions that
seem empirically and logically consistent, some definitions are more
empowering of understanding than others. The definitions I choose here are
ones that I have found by trial and error to be maximally effective—that is,
I have found them to be generative of an ultimate system of understanding and
have found no system of definitions that is more powerful. 42 Or even post-existing. 43 E.g.
a creator. In any case, to posit a creator requires a different definition of
‘universe’ than the present one and whereas an alternate definition is not
objectionable in itself, it is impotent as it leads to infinite regress
rather than a reason for the existence of the universe. 44 If the universe were not
defined as ‘all that there is’, its cause could be
another existing thing or being. But then the cause or reason would be
relative, not absolute. This is a reason behind the chosen definition. 45 It is possible to imagine a
spark of existence that somehow creates more, then more, and so builds up
into a universe but this is not self-creation since
it assumes the original spark. It also ignores questions of mechanism but as
we will see, the question of mechanism is moot. 46 To talk of possibility as
cause is to abandon the dominant modern sense of cause. This is why the term
‘reason’ is preferred. Alternatively, we may begin to think in terms of
non-classical cause. 47 And since we know that the
universe is possible, it adds nothing to what is already known. 48 The numerical value of the
probability is 1. 49 I can imagine someone now
saying—so there is a God after all and it is
necessity. The essential objection to that claim is that necessity has almost
none of the characteristics of the notions of God from the religions. 50 Of course
in a sense other than the dominant modern meaning. 51 Elsewhere I call it the he fundamental principle of metaphysics. 52 ‘The void’, which is not
the quantum vacuum, is defined in the Glossary. 53 For any object, to be
sometime and somewhere manifest is to be possible (at some other times and
places). However, for any object to be always manifest is to be necessary—the
distinction between be-ing and being necessary breaks down. 54 This incorporates both
material and self identity. It is an important
philosophical concept and not thought to be entirely understood. The present
development does not eliminate need for local understanding but makes that
understanding of diminished importance relative to realization what is
possible. 55 Of course, from and in the
immediate. 56 Buddhism and Christianity
assert this possibility. 57 If incomplete. 58 “Be willing to be a
beginner every single morning”—Meister Eckhart. 59 Understood as knowledge of
the real; which, as is shown here, is constructed and so possible. 60 Of course
it remains important to acknowledge them. 61 From Indian thought. 62 The main essays at http://www.horizons-2000.org/ have
more on ways (method) of joining the ideal and the pragmatic as well as
further examples of join. 63 Nature is one place where
one may experience this—when beautiful or when harsh (for there is no logical
reason to think of ‘God’ as altogether perfect: that is but a religious
projection). But whether in nature or ‘civilization’ the aim in this matter
is to feel at one with the process of the world (even amid pain and chaos);
and in so feeling, to have some transcendence of self. Yoga, meditation, and
reason provide tools to this end. 64 Reason—with science, logic,
philosophy—and in its most inclusive sense as incorporating the traditions of
practice which include Yoga, Tantra, Buddhism, and Christian Mysticism. 65 That is, it is not a
relative foundation or a pseudo-foundation by infinite regress. In other
words, Being provides a perfect foundation. There is of course a limit in
that the foundation that Being provides is for the dual of ideal metaphysics
by ideal criteria joined to pragmatic knowledge by pragmatic criteria.
That is it does not found pragmatic knowledge as
perfect depiction. But Being also leads to the result that perfect depiction
in the pragmatic case is of greatly diminished significance relative to its
traditional importance. 66 Note that it is not an
error to assign reality to this experience; the—common human
projective—error is to think it has special status, which means not only
higher or lower but other (to project, in this case, is to hold either
explicitly or tacitly that “the world is like my experience in the
world). 67 All possibility except
impossibility (the latter may be seen as the cause of something not
obtaining). |