I found I did not know my true origins or my true destiny. What sense did it make, I asked, that my awareness came into being, that it will end, and that it has isolation from all awareness in the universe. Those thoughts further motivated my search.

I explored ideas from world cultural traditions—framing them in terms of paradigms such as materialism, naturalism, individualism as the notion that my awareness a distinct awareness, critical philosophies…, their oppositions, generalizations, and syntheses. This led to a framework based in being and the idea that knowledge is essentially connected to action—acting and knowing do not exist without each other. The merit of a foundation is being is elimination of hypothetical foundations. Critically, the foundation will be nontrivial.

What is the being—the essence—of beings, of our being? Is this famous question in the history of ideas answerable? Precisely? How may we frame the question? Is an answer worth the attempt? The projection of this work onto the space of these questions is an answering. It is an intending and an emerging.

I discovered that the universe is limitless, i.e., that all consistent possibility is realize. The universe is the greatest (possible) identity and, consequently, I am the universe—but also a limited individual that does not fully see and experience my identity with Identity. Community and relationship are embedded in Identity.

This work is a story of ongoing discovery and realization.

Into the way

The way of being has five divisions—(i) this division, into the way ,in which ‘into’ is metaphorical, for the way is where we are—in the world, (ii) ground, which lays out some foundational ideas for which any newness is in the way of presentation, (iii) the limitless real, that presents and develops a view of the universe as far greater than our common views of it, (iv) realization, on realizing the limitless or ultimate, and (v) return, also metaphorical, about living in ‘this world’—with renewed vision of and being in the immediate-and-ultimate-as-one.

This division is an informal introduction to the way. It introduces sources, motives, a brief description of the way, aim, means (worldviews), and imperative. It then discusses the nature of the work and audiences to whom it may appeal.

The way is introduced via its aim.

Aim

A question of meaning

A source and motive for the way of being is a question—What is the best we can do in the world?

This fundamental question may be approached in the context of two further questions—What is the best that any being can do and what is the greatest possible universe? That is—What is (the) real?

The best we can do is and has been fundamental at all times and in history for many individuals and societies. In attempting to elucidate it, our resources include experience, reason, and action—our own and those of other persons and societies, today and in history. The question about our greatest possibility may be called the fundamental question of meaning—in a sense that suggests ‘the meaning of life’ rather than semantic meaning.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant asked three questions that he reasonably considered to be fundamental to human meaning and philosophy—What can I know? What must I do? And What may I hope for?

We will find that Kant’s three questions are implied by and may be subsumed under the fundamental question.

What was my motive in asking the fundamental question? A partial answer is as follows. I have found the beauty of and in the world to be inspiring, even overwhelming. I wanted to cultivate it. That search led to the fundamental question.

A response to the question

The way of being is offered as demonstrating an ultimate view of the world with consequences for knowledge and destiny. If this is achieved, not just the content—what we know—but the method or how we know, too, must be ultimate in some manner, for otherwise, the content could not be known to be ultimate. Is the ultimate significantly greater than is commonly thought? This will indeed be shown true—it will be shown that the ultimate is the realization of all possibility and, therefore, that all beings access the ultimate.

The ultimate content is that the universe is the realization of all possibility. This implies that the destiny of all beings is that of the universe itself, which includes universal heights and depths. This is what we might naïvely expect regarding the ultimate. It does not, however, imply that we will always feel perfection as part of a process of realization.

The ultimate method begins with an examination of received reason—its genesis and nature, especially its context or scope of application and its critical and constructive or creative elements. The received is enhanced with regard to the context, the critical, and the creative. What we find regarding method is that the ultimate is roughly a mix of perfection and pragmatism in a traditional sense.

What is the meaning of the term ‘ultimate’, above? For limited beings it is that a framework of perfection can be developed, but that knowledge of what is framed, the world of detail, is not and cannot be perfect by traditional criteria. But if perfection cannot be achieved, surely it is in terms of an imperfect sense of perfection. The narrative will develop a more perfect sense of perfection.

The way is grounded in the history of thought and exploration—and derived from study, experience, reflection, and synthesis. As far as judgment of originality is a concern, it is left to readers.

The sources for the way are vast; some are discrete, but much is diffuse and diffusely absorbed; links to sources are in the resources.

Aim

The aim of the way is shared discovery and realization of the ultimate in and from our world (the immediate).

How is this to be approached?—In will be in terms of a comprehensive and principled view of the world – which will include, frame, be in, and rise above the ‘world of ten thousand things’—of the disorder within order. Such a view for a part or phase of the world is a paradigm.

We shall first consider received paradigms for the universe—i.e., the paradigms we consider are received worldviews. Critical examination of the received views, and of content and method, may—and will—suggest a way forward. The narrative will implement the suggestion.

Is the ultimate too great or remote to know or realize? The greatest ultimate will contain the immediate. We will show that it is accessible from the immediate world and that there is an imperative to the ultimate.

Into the way

Knowledge and action never separate, for even ‘pure thought’ remains (potentially) connected to the world and, besides, knowledge is a form of action.

However, it is effective to occasionally withdraw from immediacy of acting, to reflect, to understand, and to make action better (what the understanding consists in includes knowing the world and knowing what is desirable and their mutual inclusion).

Therefore, we delve into this understanding. Of course, ‘into’ is metaphorical for we never leave the world, and we are never completely removed from the immediate.

Worldviews

A worldview a framework for being-in-the-world and a way of relation to the world via knowledge, action, foundation—content and method or means—interaction. In this discussion of worldviews, explicit focus is on the latter.

This section considers our main common or received worldviews and their limitations.

The concept of a worldview

A paradigm for the universe, a worldview, is a patterned description that captures some truth and enables negotiation of the entire—known—real. It is the intent of common paradigms to capture the entire truth, but they may fall short with regard to both truth and entirety.

Worldviews as means

Though a worldview is a framework, which, when filled in with the system of knowledge and practices of a culture, it is a means of being in and negotiating the world—and the universe.

Kinds of worldview

We begin with worldviews ‘received’ from tradition—i.e., what is valid in the history of human culture to the present time.

The received worldviews or paradigms are secular and transsecular.

The secular is grounded in what is commonly known; it often hypothesizes that that is the world. The transsecular posits more—an ultimate, which it may hold as ultimate in terms argued as dogma, hypothesis, or reason.

In principle the secular and transsecular cover the realm of possibility.

Secular worldviews

Common received secular paradigms of the world as found in consensus experience have value and truth. Secular humanism is a life philosophy that human beings are intrinsically capable of ethics and aesthetics without traditional religion, which embraces reason, and which commonly holds to philosophical naturalism, i.e., roughly that science has revealed the essential features of the universe. However, reason itself suggests the view from science to have local truth—the big bang cosmology and so on—but that, without further consideration, we ought to be neutral to what lies beyond the big bang cosmos. Conflation of the secular with the real, though typically tacit, is widespread among secular thinkers. It will emerge that this conflation is limited and limiting in extreme. However, intuitive and tacit conflation of the limited version of secularism with the real often makes it seem as though there is nothing beyond.

A neutral interpretation of the secular paradigms is that they have truth but are not the entire truth. In this form, they are a platform for seeing what truth may lie beyond. Such neutral interpretations may be termed ‘neutral secularism’.

Further, that the secular thinker finds the common transsecular paradigms for the world and beyond to be absurd and dogmatic, tends further to shut down secular thought to seek beyond its commonly assumed limits.

Transsecular worldviews

Transsecular paradigms see the world as more than in the secular. Common religious paradigms are limited by their cosmologies and other dogmatic form. Common metaphysical paradigms based in facets of or projections on the real, are also limited with regard to necessity and completeness of their truth. While the common transsecular paradigms have truth—real or symbolic or both, they are not the truth, perfect or complete.

The transsecular paradigms suggest worlds beyond common experience. However, religious dogma tends to shut down transsecular thought that would seek beyond its limits. Common received metaphysical transsecular paradigms provide little ground to seek beyond.

The way

Though neither the full truth nor entirely true, the common paradigms have truth. The way will draw from what is true and useful in the received paradigms.

The way develops and works through a way to seek, to see, and to forge pathways to the ultimate. It is essential to critique not only common views of the world but also to question common critical paradigms regarding their possible deficits and overreach.

The ultimate worldview of the way

This section introduces the worldview of the way (demonstration is deferred to the limitless real > the fundamental principle).

The view

The view, named the ‘real metaphysics’ is grounded in received thought, experience, and reason and attempts to go beyond them via criticism of the received modes of knowledge and criticism itself. It is argued that the attempt is successful. It is endeavored to show that its elements of newness—and their characteristics are

(i) Demonstration—absolute (with alternate attitudes to truth),

(ii) Explicitly shown consistent with experience and reason from experience (demonstration shows this implicitly).

(iii) Relation to received views—coincides with their account of the real where they are valid; the region of validity is extended and in this is analogous to transitions from classical to modern science—but is unlike them in that this transition is to the ultimate.

(iv) The basis of the demonstration is the combined use of abstraction, emergence of an ultimate value, framing pragmatic knowledge to form a dual system that is imperfect according to received criteria, and emergence of an ultimate value in terms of which the dual system becomes perfect, integrated, and substance free.

(v) Depth or foundation—fully grounded (with accounting for doubt and the means of knowledge),

(vi) Breadth or scope—the universe,

(vii) What it reveals—the universe is ultimate, i.e., the realization of all possibility, and therefore that all beings realize the ultimate.

(viii) Application—the range of all endeavor.

It is shown in the limitless real that the universe is the realization of all possibility—and that this is consistent with and follows from reason and experience.

This implies that the universe has ultimate identity, that all beings realize this ultimate, and that ‘god’ and ‘Brahman’ are real—not as remote, not as in ideology, but as a process of which we are a part. It does not imply that a limited sense of the real is an illusion—rather, it is an illusion to see the limited as the precise and entire real.

The implications are fleshed out in the narrative, especially in the discussions, the limitless universe, and metaphysics through logic as a theory of the universe.

Meanings of the terms

Because the system of the way has an ultimate character, the meanings of the terms, though related to received use, must be enhanced from the received. To do so is to enhance rather than to negate the received meanings.

Understanding the way

To appreciate the way, it is essential to follow meanings as introduced. Since the meanings and paradigm are new, diligence may be needed to absorb the work.

Imperative

In the following imperative to the ultimate, the immediate and the ultimate require an emphasis on both.

The section on pathways derives an imperative from the worldview—to be on a pathway to the ultimate. The nature of the pathway is to negotiate and share—not to just to follow the word of others. The nature of the imperative is (i) not to suppress the immediate for there to be a balance of foci on the immediate and the ultimate (ii) not one of compulsion but to be on a path because the aim and the path are seen as true (iii) that it is useful as a framework for local ethics.

Narrative

The way of being

The way of being is intended as a contribution—a synthesis, a going beyond the received, to the ultimate, not as a compendium or review of the literature.

The way is intended to be part of an open narrative—evolving in form and content, and continuous with and contributing to the history of ideas, action, and exploration.

The origins of the way are in experience of the world, reading in eastern and western thought, reflection, analysis and synthesis of ideas, and experiment. External sources are identified in links in the resources section.

Experimental versions of the narrative, long and short, are at the site for the way—http://www.horizons-2000.org. The versions have incremental and step changes. Most of the material here has appeared in earlier versions.

This version

The version of the way is a brief and essential version of the way. It is not an introduction or elementary version. It is intended as a succinct, rapidly accessible resource and foundation for shared and independent development. This explains the brevity, emphasis on its truth and realization of that truth.

It is not a ‘how to’ work—the section, path, has some derived suggestions for being on a path; the resources point to some ‘how to’ works.

The version is written as if confident of its truth. There is of course doubt, which is noted below and addressed in the resources.

There will be many questions of foundation and elaboration.

A version this brief cannot address many issues that will arise. A complete version of the way will address anticipated issues.

Audience

Those who (i) accept secular truth but not the limits of its view of the world or reason (ii) accept transsecular views but wish to move beyond dogma, myth, and exclusive dependence on hypothesis for truth (iii) have moved beyond these limits and wish to share.

Ground

This division sets up foundation for the worldview.

Experience

The empirical concept

Experience is conscious awareness in all its forms. Because we do not get outside experience, even though it is not the limit of the world, experience is the place of concept and language meaning — knowledge — significant meaning in the rough sense of ‘the meaning of life’ — and of our being. Though it is not the world, it is effectively our world, and the world as we know it is a process of a wave front of experience moving outward.

Experience is relational—it relates organisms (beings) to the world. In pure experience, the relation is not immediate.

There is a common secular view of the world as one of experiential beings in a material environment. If the universe were strictly material, there could be no experience. This entails that the environment is not strictly material but, just as experiential beings do, has an ‘in itself’ or material aspect and a relational aspect which is a primitive of experience. In organisms the primitive is combined and amplified in their neural systems as organism level intelligence and organism level conscious experience. In the environment the level of conscious experience is low enough that the environment may be labeled ‘material’ and commonly treated as such.

Note that an enhanced and more inclusive conception of experience is introduced later. For convenience, a preview follows—

In an enhanced and extended sense of the concept of experience, it includes the primitive. In an interpretation equivalent to selves in an environment, the universe is a field of experiential—relational—being, in which individuals are bright, focal, intelligent centers of experience. Thus, sapient beings have an ’intrinsic’ experiential side of selfhood and an instrumental side.

The universe as a field of experiential-relational being and as an environment with individual selves and others are two equivalent and valid interpretations of the world-as-experienced; both are true; neither is truer; but for each, there is a range of contexts for which it is simpler and more natural.

Concepts

A concept is mental content, which includes perception, signs, feeling, intention, free cognitive concepts, with or without significant feeling (mental content with associated simple or compound signs are symbols). Concepts, signs, and symbols may be simple or complex, e.g., as in the use of language.

Some concepts seem pure, some seem to refer. Perhaps there is no ‘referring’—perhaps concepts (awareness) are all that there is, but there is at least ‘as if referring’. Later, we will see that the seeming awareness is not an illusion and that there is referring (there is a world). So—we will proceed naïvely and justify referring later. Since there is illusion, we will of course distinguish between real referring and illusion. As a preliminary point, there is no doubt that concepts can refer to concepts—that some concepts refer to others (this is the essence of Descartes’ cogito argument).

A referential concept is a concept that refers to the world or part of it, which include ‘things as they are’ and ‘action’ (unless said otherwise, in the rest of the text ‘concept’ shall mean ‘referential concept’).

Though there are distinctions, concepts (ideas), world and action are essentially continuous. Action is part of the world—a part that is in a direct causal relation with ideas, which could be written ideas ® action ® ideas ® action… However, the connection is more intimate in that there are loops within loops, in that ideas phase into action and in that ideation that is not purely spontaneous is action.

Meaning

Meaning is a concept and its possible referents.

Knowledge

Intention is referring that is focused or pointed at the referent (i.e., it is more than mechanical or casual reference).

Knowledge is meaning realized—i.e., concepts and their actual (and intended) referents.

Being

Existence

As preliminary let us introduce ‘existence’ which is equivalent to and helps illuminate being. Existence is not (a property or predicated) of contents of the world but of hypothetical knowledge of the contents.

Given a concept that has a hypothetical (possible) referent, the concept-referent is said to exist—has existence or is an existent—if the reference is real(ized), i.e., is actual. An object is a concept-hypothetical referent, realized or not; the object exists if the reference is realized (the object is ‘real’). A nonexistent object is one for which the concept is not realized. Under this distinction, Sherlock Holmes would be a nonexistent object, which, despite nonexistence has significance and at least as if reference. A being is real object; being is the property of beings that marks them as beings—i.e., being is existence. A putative distinction is that whereas there are nonexistent objects, beings are regarded as causal and therefore necessarily exist. However, this distinction would be based on a classical conception of ‘cause’ and that in a full conception, nonexistent objects can be causal (the apparent violation of our sense of existence and cause will be defused). Therefore, we will find that we can also talk of nonexistent beings. It is not necessary to distinguish beings from objects.

Thus, existence is cast in terms of experience. An ‘object’, i.e., a concept-hypothetical referent, exists if the concept has the referent. Since we never get outside experience, this is the nature of objects at their very core and depth. This does not mean knowledge is never faithful to the referent, but even in faithfulness, of which a potent system will emerge, concept and referent are bound together.

The next section introduces the foundational concept of being. Though it is cast as if objective, it is as bound to experience as is existence. And, similarly, knowledge of being can be faithful, and the same potent framework found for existence holds also for being.

Subsequent development will flesh out aspects of being that were found pivotal in developing the worldview of the narrative.

The concept of beings and being

A being is that which can be said to be—i.e., which exists; being is existence.

How is being foundational of understanding of the world? Traditional foundations are based in criteria (knowledge of substance, e.g., mind or matter, which are thought to be known and known to be the essence of everything; or coherence among knowledge claims). However, though criteria are appealing—even beguiling, the criteria are subject to error and incompleteness. On the other hand, being is just what is there. Trivially, there is being. What is it? There is no ‘what’ concerning that which is foundational—there cannot and ought not to be (of course, there may be ‘what’, but it would be in terms of alternative foundations). The essential issue is whether being can serve as basis for knowledge of things. We will show that it is and how it is so—which will require the introduction of further fundamental concepts that are derivative of being.

Given a referential concept, its validly known referents are beings; beinghood is not determined by special kinds, even if they have being, such as state of being, entity, process, relation, pattern, law (of nature), substance (e.g., matter, mind, or neutral), sapience, ultimate state – relation – or process, cosmos, world, the concrete, the abstract, word or kind of word, trope and so on.

Cause

The concepts of cause and effect

A cause and effect are a pair of beings, usually distinct, such that the likelihood—probability—of the effect obtaining (existing) is greater when the cause obtains than when it does not obtain.

The idea of a definite being as causing itself is—seems—trivial, but when we think of a being as a trajectory or set of trajectories in time, the cause may be the state at one time and the effect the state at another.

The capacity to participate in cause and effect has been called power, e.g., by Plato, who asserted that power is the measure of being.

Classical and material cause

If there is a traceable (‘contiguous’) link between cause and effect, the cause is classical, of which one kind is material. Not all causation is known to be material or even classical.

Necessary and possible cause

If the effect certainly obtains when the cause obtains, the cause is necessary. If the cause is not necessary, it may be because (i) there is a necessary cause, but the given cause is partial or (ii) there is no necessary cause. The terms possibility and probability are associated with causes that are not necessary.

Null and absolute cause

If there is no cause, i.e., in the case of null cause (‘void cause’) but yet an event obtains, the event is spontaneous. A null and necessary ‘cause’ is an absolute cause; while ‘an event caused by a null cause’ has a ring of the absurd, it is not logically impossible. From symmetry, if any being has absolute cause, all possible beings obtain.

Spontaneous creation

Spontaneous creation, likely as well as necessary, are logically possible.

Law

Information

Quantity of information is quantity of atomic data—either absolute or relative to posited atoms.

Pattern

A being has a pattern (‘is patterned’) if the information necessary to specify it is less than the raw information. For example, a circle in a plane highly patterned, for it may be specified by the position of its center and its radius, but the raw data is the infinity of its points.

Law

A natural law is a reading of a pattern for a being, e.g., a cosmos. The word ‘law’ will be used for the pattern.

Laws have being—i.e., laws are beings.

Constraint

Laws can be seen as—are—constraints.

Void

The concept

The void (‘nothingness’) is defined as the being that has no parts—i.e., that has no sub-beings.

The term ‘defined’ indicates that, for the void, definition does not imply existence. However—

Existence

Existence and non-existence of the void are equivalent. It is therefore valid to assert its existence (doubt, which should arise here, is entertained below).

That is—

The void is a being.

There are no laws of or in the void.

Significance

Relative to the received conception—the present conception is definite.

For the narrative—(i) As noted above, the void exists. (ii) As will emerge below, the power of the conception. Equivalently, that the union of the manifest universe and the nonmanifest (the void) has unconditional and therefore necessary existence.

Doubt

Given the power of the concept of the void, it is critical to entertain doubt regarding its existence and power. However—

Essential doubt should arise at demonstration of existence, not because the proof is ontological, but because it is not supported by further empirical content—and because to doubt, to question, is to encourage truth; note, however, that existence of the void is consistent with experience and reason).

Relation to creation of the universe

This is taken up in the section on the universe, below.

Dialetheism

A sentence that is both true and false is called a dialetheia. Dialetheism is the view that there are true dialetheia—i.e., there are true contradictions.

The principle of noncontradiction states that an assertion cannot be both true and false. For example, a black swan cannot be not black. It seems absurd that a real object can be simultaneously black and not black. The principle of noncontradiction is buttressed, perhaps conclusively, by the fact that in standard sentence logic, if any sentence is true and false, all sentences are true (and therefore also false). Thus, the principle is the orthodox position at least since Aristotle. From this perspective, dialetheism seems absurd, for if there are true contradictions, then, on standard logic, it would imply that all assertions are true.

However, we just saw that the void exists and does not. Thus, there is at least one exception to the principle of noncontradiction. That is, there is at least one nonexplosive true dialetheia. How shall we understand this case? If understood in the classical sense of ‘to exist’ as ‘being causative’, then, since the void is nothing (or nothingness), we expect to class the void as nonexistent. On the other hand, since the void is nothing, we expect it to have no constraint and therefore to be maximally causative. We can understand this as follows: the expectation of non-causation is based on our classical physical understanding, but there is no reason that that understanding should apply to nothingness which is not—does not seem to be—an empirical object.

We will see below that some dialetheia can be understood in terms of standard logic. Can this always be done? How might we do so? Let us think as follows. The laws and systems of logic seem necessary but perhaps the rendering of something fundamental for particular kinds of situations (we will return to that something a little later). That is, there is a limited universe of contexts to which the systems apply, but there is perhaps something fundamental from which, by a restriction of scope, the limited contexts arise. We can therefore understand true dialetheia by carving out a context, a context that is not standardly recognized, but real nonetheless, and see that standard logic does not apply in this context. The logic that does apply, if there is one, will not be standard. This is the source of the idea and development of paraconsistent logics. The main thing to know about these logics is that true contradictions do not lead to explosion. Above that consideration, we want to know what the ‘something fundamental’ may be. This consideration will be addressed at the end of this section.

There are other purported dialetheia, e.g., (i) nonexistent beings—i.e. being-concepts that have no referents but have meaning and significance (e.g., Sherlock Holmes), (ii) apparent dialetheia in which apparent contradiction arises from use of a sign that is associated with more than one meaning—literal or metaphorical, (iii) dialetheia that arise via abstraction, e.g., while zero and one are different and me and not me are different, with sufficient abstraction the distinction disappears and therefore on abstraction are the same object; note that we should therefore not say “zero and one are the same or are different” but, rather, “zero and one have sameness under sufficient abstraction while obviously different in their less abstract and more concrete interpretations”.

Another seeming dialetheia arises in what is known as the Thompson Lamp Paradox. Here is a modified version. Imagine a lamp capable of and in fact turned on and off with infinite rapidity (it would seem impossible under our physics, but we are here considering whether the very concept rules out possibility). James F. Thompson argued (in effect, since his situation was somewhat different) that the concept rules out possibility since the lamp would be simultaneously on and off, which would be a contradiction. However, we might argue that, given infinite rapidity of switching, ‘on-off’ is a possible state, giving a true dialetheia. But it is not really a dialetheia—on and off are classically distinct, but not necessarily distinct in Thompson’s imagined world. A better resolution might be that under time, as we conceive it, does not distinguish on from off, but, still, there is no situation which is both on and off (perhaps with time represented in surreal arithmetic). Thus, we can see how Thompson’s lamp is not a dialetheia at all.

Reconsider existence of the void. The nonexistence was on the classical notion of cause. Yet, there is no logical reason for the void to not causal (and we will find out that it is causal). Again, there is no dialetheia.

We can review other purported cases of true dialetheia and, at least of those considered above, find that they are really not dialetheia at all.

Perhaps, therefore, all apparent dialetheia can be unpacked as non-dialetheia. Perhaps there is no need for or universe of application of paraconsistent logic.

Thus, if I say “I am my limited self and the universe”, it may a true dialetheia, or an ordinary statement in a universe of noncontradiction in which I am myself in a limited context, but in a wider context of extension and duration, I will find my identity merged with a greater identity—that of the universe (whereas I am here talking of the meaning of the statement in quotes, we will later investigate the facticity of it).

However, the idea of dialetheism is interesting, and I think it we ought to remain open to the idea. Perhaps there are true dialetheia—or perhaps there are none, but limited minds may best understand some ultimately non-dialethic situations as true dialetheia .

Regardless of the outcome regarding dialetheia, its consideration leads to an interesting reflection on the concept vs realizations of logic. Let us think of logic in terms of a possibilist interpretation—that is, while we can conceive impossible situations, logic is what rules them out. Historically, the ability to conceive the impossible, was important in the development of logical laws and systems (in fact of science as well—where deductive logic arises from consideration of only necessary restrictions of the possible, but science arises from contingent restrictions). Imagining things that are and are not some particular state may be the source of the principle of noncontradiction. That most assertions seem true or false, suggests the principle of excluded middle. That if two things are identical to a third, they would seem to be identical to one another, suggests the principle of identity. The various logics can be seen as arising out of considerations of possibility. Yet we do not regard our systems as final. While the systems are the realizations, the underlying principle, the ‘something fundamental’ referred to earlier, is or at least seems to be what may be called the principle of possibility.

Universe

The concept

The universe is all being.

From the concept, the universe exists—it is a being.

Significance

The universe exists—there is one and only one universe.

Clarity relative to the received conception, especially the universe as container—definiteness, elimination of consequent confusions, e.g. (a) as noted, there is one and only one universe (b) all things that exist are in the universe, for example, if there are atoms, ideas, and words, they are in the universe.

Creation—if creation is to cause existence, the universe is not created by a manifest being—for (i) it is not created by another manifest being since there is none (ii) to be created by itself to count, would require an instance of the universe as manifest and not manifest.

Creation

In this section the term ‘logical possibility’ means ‘does not violate any law of logic’; the term is further clarified, and its meaning altered in the next division, the limitless real.

The concept of creation

For a being to create another is for the first to cause the existence or being of the second.

Self-cause and self-creation

Self-causation of manifest beings is logically possible. However, self-creation in the sense of a being effecting its creation seems is logically impossible, for the being would have to exist before its existence.

That real self-cause occurs for compound entities is obvious. That real self-cause should occur for truly atomic entities is not obvious—therefore that it is logically possible is not an assertion that is void of significance.

Note—‘effecting its own creation’ is not entirely semantically clear. Above, it is intended that it excludes spontaneous creation.

If spontaneous creation is regarded as self-creation, then, of course, self-creation is possible.

Creation of beings by the void is logically possible

If the void is regarded as contained by a being, then, too, self-creation is possible (because the meaning of ‘self’ has been extended, relative to the first meaning in the previous section).

Creation of the universe

Creation of the universe by a manifest being is impossible

Creation of the universe by the void is possible

Creation of beings other than the universe by manifest beings is possible (i.e., not ruled out by the concept of ‘a being’)

Sustenance

Creation alone does not explain the existence of the universe except just at the moment of creation. However, sustenance would explain ongoing existence, and an extended meaning of sustenance would explain creation and destruction as part of sustenance.

The sustenance of the universe is the ongoing and everywhere cause of its being. The universe cannot have another being as its sustainer. But logically, its sustainer may be itself or one of its parts—even the void.

Summary

In review of discussion from the universe to the present point—

(i) Self-cause of manifest beings is possible, but—

(ii) The particular case of self-creation of manifest beings is logically impossible, but possible for a manifest being regarded as augmented by the void.

The limitless real

This division develops the worldview of the way.

The section on possibility is a preliminary. Then, the development is in two stages:

(i) The fundamental principle of metaphysics is an abstract framework for the view—it is shown that the universe is limitless in every possible way.

(ii) Then the concept and kinds of possibility having been fleshed out, regarding limitlessness, the possibility is logical. A consequent metaphysics, description of the world, and cosmology are worked out. Consequences for and means of realization are developed. Finally, what has been developed is stated as a theory and given a foundation.

Possibility

The meaning of limitlessness lies in the concept of possibility.

A being is possible if its nature does not rule out its existence.

If the existence of a being is not ruled out by its conception alone, it is logically possible—i.e., its possibility is logical possibility.

If, over and above, logical possibility, its existence is not ruled out by its context, it has real possibility.

Logical possibility is the greatest or most permissive kind of possibility. Therefore, in the fundamental principle, stated and demonstrated in the next section, ‘possibility’ is logical possibility.

Real possibility does not exceed logical possibility. The fundamental principle of the next section implies that real and logical possibility are coextensive.

Real possibility presumes logical possibility.

Examples of real possibility are natural (e.g., physical, living, and experiential or sentient), social, universal, and practical possibility. Practical possibility is close in meaning to feasibility.

The possible and the real

For any context, the real Í the real possibility (possibilities) Í the logical possibility.

For the universe, the real º the real possibility º the logical possibility.

The limitless universe

To be limitless is to realize what is possible in the greatest sense of possibility (which is logical possibility).

The limitless is infinite, but the infinite is not limitless in the sense above.

limitlessness vs infinitude

the fundamental principle of metaphysics

If from the void, a possible being is not emergent, the fact would count as a law of the void. So—

All possible beings emerge from the void (this must be in terms of the most permissive kind of possibility).

The universe is limitless in that all possible beings are realized in it (this is the ‘fundamental principle of metaphysics’, which will be abbreviated ‘fundamental principle’ or ‘FP’).

That the universe is limitless means that all possibilities are realized. A consequence is that individuals inherit this limitlessness (for if not, the universe could not be limitless).

The meaning and consequences of the limitlessness of the universe will now be further elaborated and explored.

An effective sequence of development is (i) a preliminary discussion of possibility (ii) set up a metaphysics (‘knowledge of the real’)—the real metaphysics (iii) develop a cosmology based on the real metaphysics (iv) review the foundation of the development in terms of a reformulation of the concept of logic.

Metaphysics

What is metaphysics?

Though the received meaning of metaphysics is itself an in process philosophical issue, the definition just below is what metaphysics shall mean here. I see the essential question regarding this meaning as whether it is part and generative of true and potent understanding. It is also important that the introduced meaning should be continuous with the received, and that the extension of the meaning should include of what traditionally and rationally lies under ‘metaphysics’.

The concept

Metaphysics is true knowledge of the real.

Metaphysics may be seen as ‘theory of being’.

Possibility and actuality of metaphysics

The idea of metaphysics has been criticized as being impossible on various counts (e.g., that it goes beyond experience, that our knowledge is at best derivative of the real, that knowledge and the real are inextricably interwoven and so even the existence of an objective real is questionable).

However, we have just seen that we have some true and potent knowledge of the real.

What makes this true knowledge possible?

It is that we were looking only at aspects of the real that do not suffer distortion in their conception. To look or consider only those parts of a concept that are not distortions is to abstract. In this sense, the abstract is not remote but most real.

The idea of abstraction is elaborated in what follows and in the complete version of the way.

An abstract metaphysics

The abstract metaphysics developed so far is perfect (by its definition, anything that is to count as metaphysics must be perfect).

This metaphysics shows what will be achieved, but not the means of achievement in detail. The real metaphysics below shows the means.

Foundation—abstraction, the fundamental principle

Perfection according to received criteria

Tradition

‘tradition’ shall refer to cumulative knowledge and agency from the origin of the world to this very day).

The real metaphysics

To the abstract metaphysics, append what is valid in tradition.

It seems unlikely that tradition in all its detail and variety can be perfect in terms of traditional criteria of truth, e.g., of correspondence to objects, coherence among the elements of knowledge, or pragmatic measures in terms of successful agency (it is not implied that there is no truth or that epistemic studies of truth and knowledge are without value).

However, tradition, which includes reason and experiment, is a practical means, which may complement the abstract metaphysics in pathways to the ultimate. That tradition may be imperfect means only that realization may not be achieved at once or even in this or the next ‘few’ lives. But tradition is an instrument, and the only instrument over and above the abstract metaphysics, therefore its join to abstract metaphysics, makes for the best there is in the realization of the ultimate value. As such it is perfect. Name the join of the abstract metaphysics and tradition the real metaphysics.

In terms of the ultimate value—realization of the ultimate, the real metaphysics is perfect. We might say it is ultimate in terms of ethics; however, that would be superfluous, for the ethic emerges from the abstract metaphysics. It thus follows that—

The real metaphysics is more than an instrument—it is a true metaphysics revealing the nature of the universe as ultimate and of beings as achieving this ultimate.

The contours of the real are revealed in the immediate present; the details are of necessity never final, ever emerging, except when ultimate being is achieved. While at most pragmatically true by traditional criteria of perfection, it is perfect by emergent criteria. It is important to see that the emergent criteria allow for and even celebrate what is imperfection by traditional criteria.

New and old paradigms that emerge with the metaphysics are taken up in the world > paradigms.

That the real metaphysics has been shown shows its consistency.

However, truth of the metaphysics may and should be doubted, even though it has been proved, (i) on account of the magnitude of the conclusion and (ii) doubt will either improve understanding or discredit the metaphysics. Since the greatest possibility is logical, internal consistency is given. But does the metaphysics violate experience of the world—is it externally consistent? It does not violate experience of the world, for what we see—our science—is one possibility and other possibilities occur somewhere and when, elsewhere, in other cosmoses and beyond.

Attitude

In view of doubt and of consistency of the conclusions, alternative attitudes to the fundamental principle, its cosmology, and the real metaphysics, alternative attitudes to the principle and the real metaphysics are as (i) a consistent metaphysical hypothesis about the universe (ii) an existential principle for the most rewarding action. It ought to be recognized that the different attitudes, real, hypothetical, and existential, are not exclusive and may be seen as complementary.

The complete version of the way has an extended treatment of doubt, criticism, and imagination in arriving at truth and the nature of truth.

The world

Experience—an enhanced concept

For convenience, the next paragraph is repeated from earlier—

Interpretations

The field of being is ever in process and is the place of multiple cosmoses in transaction with the void and the phasing in and out of manifestation, with peaks in which beings merge as local ultimates.

Seeing the universe as a field of experiential-relational being affirms as manifest, the oneness of method and content.

The range of being

Identity-extension-duration

This section could be named being-space-time.

The most primitive experience is of sameness and difference. Experience is experiencing, which entails change and duration (‘time’). Identity, whether of other beings or selves, is a sense of enduring sameness through change. Incremental change in identity without duration marks and measures extension (‘space’). Because the distinction of change with and without duration is not precise, being – extension – duration constitute the world. Beings are in interaction, and the interactions are a source of change.

This paragraph is an aside. The intent is to correct a thought of Spinoza, so as to bring it into alignment with the present development. Spinoza regarded extension (‘matter – space’) and thought (‘mind – time’), as two attributes of being. We find—found—them to be necessary. Spinoza regarded God as having infinitely many attributes. Since the two attributes are ‘in itself’ and ‘relational’, a third would be ‘relation of relation’, which is relational. There may be higher order relations but there is no third or further attribute. There may be limitlessly many qualities.

Cosmology of limitless identity

The cosmology described in the worldview of the way, the cosmology of limitless of identity, follows from the fundamental principle. Let us now flesh out the implications.

The universe—

(i) Has ultimate identity,

(ii) Is in a process of phasing in and out of manifest form, which achieves peaks of limitless quality and magnitude, and

(iii) Has arrays of cosmoses and sub- and super-cosmoses, all in transaction with nothingness, i.e., the void.

As far as we seem lesser than the ultimate, the limits of our being—

(iv) Are real but not absolute,

(v) Are only apparent from an ultimate perspective (for all beings realize the ultimate in merging in its peaks),

(vi) Are no more than an apparent gulf between our world and the ultimate.

The ideas of God and Brahman are possessed of the real—

(vii) As immediate and pervasive rather than remote,

(viii) Not as static but as in process—a process of which we are part,

(ix) Are exemplified by our cosmos and its living and sentient-sapient forms rising from primeval origins.

Finally,

(x) The cosmology does not imply that a limited sense of the real is an illusion—rather, it is an illusion to see the limited as the precise and entire real.

Dimensions of being

This section develops the dimensions of being.

The dimensions can be seen as part of cosmology.

Development of the dimensions

In some attempts at fundamental accounts of the world, being is not just foundational but also itself the depth of things, especially human being. That approach, if solely employed, clouds foundations as well as understanding of depth and variety beings. In this account, being is foundational but depth, breadth, and function are aspects of being rather than being itself. Here, being is not the depth but reflects and contains it; this approach avoids the clouding. The narrative has been developing function and depth. This now continues and is complemented by breadth or variety.

The dimensions of being shall be aspects of being chosen for their efficiency in realization. The dimensions arise from givens.

The pure dimension of the world is of experiential being in form and formation. It has an experiential-intrinsic side and an instrumental-as-if-material side. The path of realization involves both. The yoga tradition addresses both sides (‘mind’ and ‘body’). But yoga cannot be static—as if an ancient tradition with insight should have necessarily had an insight that should have no transcendence. A true yoga ought to learn from tradition but also be enhanced by imagination, experience, and reason. The pure dimension is also pragmatic.

But the pragmatic side needs enhancement. Our detailed knowledge of the world is imperfect in traditional senses of ‘perfection’. However, from the real metaphysics pragmatic knowledge need not be perfect in the received senses, for that is not a block to realization of the ultimate. The pragmatic dimensions or categories of western culture may be chosen—nature and its experiential side, society with culture and technology, to which we append the universal.

From the role of the pragmatic in the real metaphysics, that these dimensions are rough and in process, is not an impediment to realization.

Nature—is physical (simple), living (complex), and experiential (‘mind’, intelligence). Nature is that which we find unchanging (of course the boundary between the changeable and the unchangeable is a function of knowledge).

Society—is the niche in the world we create for ourselves, which provides for basic and higher ‘needs’. Culture is our store of knowledge, its modes of expression, communication, and evolution. Culture is a cumulative result of intelligence, communication, and experience. The ‘dimensions’ of society include economics, politics, knowledge (discovery and transmission), and significant meaning as in art, literature, and spiritual endeavor (including religion—at least in symbolic interpretation—if not in the religions).

The universal—is the highest reach of the possible as outlined above; it is not very well recognized in the west or understood in the east (however eastern metaphysics has been suggestive for the way); its means are the real metaphysics, experiment, and reason together with the dimensions of being.

Pathways to the ultimate

It follows that the ultimate is ‘given’—that all beings realize the ultimate. However, waiting for it to happen, to focus on only the immediate and social worlds are immensely inefficient and unrewarding relative to the ultimate. It also follows that—

(i) there are efficient and intelligent pathways to the ultimate (intelligence is not just ability to function in our world but also of negotiation for and beyond the world),

(ii) if enjoyment is value (desirable), there is an imperative to be on an intelligent path (enjoyment is appreciation of pleasure and pain, and of the use of abilities in and for the world),

(iii) that there is an imperative is not to be seen as moral compulsion, but as knowledge that without being on a path, one’s life and being are incomplete even if enjoyed, and that one is not enhancing the process of the world, even though ‘they also serve who only stand and wait’ has truth,

(iv) the imperative is to an ultimate value,

(v) pleasure and pain are unavoidable, and their best address is being on a path (which is and includes therapy),

(vi) to be on a path is not just to follow but also to share, to negotiate the way, and to develop pathways,

(vii) that all possibilities are realized, does not imply they are attained in this world or our cosmos; it implies that there are limitlessly many cosmoses in transaction with the void and that while the ultimate may be realized beginning and remaining in ‘this life’, it is more likely realized beyond—in the movement of identity from cosmos to cosmos,

(viii) received ways from tradition are useful, ought to be considered for integration of their useful elements into paths, but the received, even where they aim at the ultimate and finality, are almost invariably limited and in process.

Paradigms

The real metaphysics harbors paradigms, which when developed in detail, are powerful instruments of knowledge and exploration. Development and demonstration are in the way of being; here we mention—

For ultimate being there is no possible knowledge or being that is beyond its power. For that being there is no a priori to its experience or reason. This no apriorism extends to beings that experience limits, but, in principle rather than fact; as for the real metaphysics, the framework has no a priori, but full transcendence of the a priori occurs only in realization of the ultimate.

From the fundamental principle, all possible states are realized; yet given a stage, immediately emergent states are not at all determined (there may be probabilities). The universe is therefore a creative mix of order and disorder, out of which form arises and because of which we ought not to expect realization of our notions of perfection (however, we ought to strive to a proper understanding of perfection, which may include ‘imperfection’, and its realization).

Cosmology

General cosmology

The real metaphysics enables further development of a cosmology of the limitless universe in terms of received paradigms of science and metaphysics, subject to reason, and enhanced by the fundamental principle.

To engage in this development here is not consistent with the aims of this version of the way. Cosmology—general, of form and formation, and physical—is developed in a full version of the way.

Some aspects of cosmology, which are instrumental in realization, are developed in earlier sections.

Cosmology is description and principles of description of the universe and what is in it. The cosmology of the way is in part a consequence of the fundamental principle.

However, what is needed in this version follows directly from the fundamental principle. The cosmological implications that follow begin to show the power of the principle.

Logic

This section develops logic as a theory of the universe.

Introduction

The title of the section might have been ‘Logic as the theory of the universe’, but that would be presumptive and perhaps have a degree of overreach. However, the theory is a theory and framework for the essential character, extent, duration, and variety of being in the universe.

It is important that the term theory is used in the sense of ‘a comprehensive and demonstrated view or body of knowledge’ and not in the sense of the hypothetical or ad hoc.

The received notion

Though we do not intend or hope to fully characterize received conceptions of logic, it obviously has something to do with inference and truth—e.g., (i) given some truths—actual or hypothetical, other truths may follow ‘logically’, i.e., be implied by the given, and (ii) the valid forms of inference, i.e., of truths following from truths, constitute ‘logical truth’. Concern here is with both certain and likely inference. The certain is a special case of the likely, but given the special importance of certainty, it is an important case. It is also significant in that the forms of certain inference are far more definite and well known that any forms of likely inference.

Given the real metaphysics, both certain and likely inference can be seen to fall under one rubric without confusion of the two.

Logic—an equivalent conception

With scientific theories as systems and axiomatic systems of mathematics, given a set of fundamental truths—the basic assertions of the theory or the axioms—other truths are inferred. This builds up a structure of truths that constitute the system. Thus, ‘general logic’ may also be seen as a general system. It is general in that it is a part, often tacit, of every particular theory or system. Though it is not of the received meaning, the means of establishment of the fundamental truths may also be brought under logic.

The theory

Though science and logic are seen as distinct in content and method, they are in fact, in their nature, closer than is usually seen in received thought.

To know is to perceive or conceive (or both; here ‘perception’ is bound to the percepta, and ‘conception’ is, roughly, free conception); a being that is never perceived or conceived is (effectively) nonexistent—i.e., the world is the world as known (as best possible). I.e., knowledge—percepts and concepts—are part of the world.

Note—there is a meaning of ‘concept’ as mental content, which is not emphasized in this section, and which includes all feeling, particularly perception, and free conception. With this meaning, to know is to conceive.

Where science is empirical over the relation of percepts and the world, logic is empirical over the relation of propositional concepts and the world. Science and logic are inductive (hypothetical) over patterns of the world—in science the patterns true patterns are of the world as perceived, in logic the patterns are patterns of truth among propositional concepts. Where science is an induction from concrete data, logic is induced from data among statements, both for truth to obtain. Where inference under logic is necessary, so is inference under science (as pointed out, it is inference to logic and to science that are inductive). Mathematics, an abstract science, can also be brought under this fold.

Thus, where we thought of science as a theory or collection of theories of the universe, and of logic as a collection of theories about the relation between concepts and the universe, the join of science and logic is better understood as being a theory of the universe. We could call this join either general logic or general science (of the abstract and the concrete).

An aspect of the extension is implicit—to bring the truths or facts regarding the world, not just the webbing, under logic. Whereas the logical connections are conceptual, facts are perceptual. Just as logical connections can be contingent vs necessary, so can facts.

Some facts are contingent, known from observation, experiment, and corroboration. But, except for the possibility of elementary facts, facts have a structure even though experienced as atomic, as a result of the structure of intuition (in the sense of Immanuel Kant) having conformation to the world. That is, non-elementary facts are conceptual in nature, even though experienced as elementary. The conceptual aspect occurs via formation of the conforming organism, rather than only as a process of the organism. Such facts are conceptual in a sense that is hardwired relative to the organism, though not hardwired relative to the world.

Some facts are necessary—those derived from experience, e.g., that there is being, that there is a world, which are a necessary consequence of the existence of experience; other necessary facts require not even experience, e.g., the existence of the void. Necessary facts are obviously conceptual in nature.

Thus, both facts and logic, understanding and inference, have structure—are conceptual, and both are divided into the contingent and the necessary, some being touched by both contingency and necessity.

What has been done above is (i) to reconceive logic as the glue or webbing of systems of truth (ii) extend the reconception to include mathematics and science.

From the fundamental principle and the real metaphysics, logic (science) is the theory of the universe or, equivalently, the theory of being.

Foundation of the way

A technical meaning of foundation of a system of knowledge is a set of primitive statements or belief regarded as true, which are the basis of the system. Here, foundation is a way of seeing and establishing truth.

This section is a brief address of the ‘logic behind the logic’—i.e., the foundation of the developments.

The view of the way has emerged in two stages of development, (i) the fundamental principle and (ii) the real metaphysics.

The foundation of the fundamental principle is in abstraction.

As defined and conceived earlier, to abstract is to remove from a referential concept, those elements that do not or cannot precisely represent the object (without abstraction, it may be questioned whether to have a true object is meaningful). Thus, the present sense of the abstract is what is most real—in contrast to another meaning of the abstract as what is remote or existing only in thought or in words.

There are two aspects of abstraction that are pertinent. The first is the abstraction of the concepts in the ground. Though the concepts of being and so on are not abstract, what is necessary for the fundamental principle is the abstracted concepts—e.g., even if we do not know what has being, i.e., the entire range of meaning of the phrase ‘that has being’, we do know that there is being, and then, that the universe has being, and the void, given demonstration of its existence, has being.

The second aspect of abstraction is in the elementary logic used in demonstrating the fundamental principle—the void contains no laws – it exists – if from the void a possible state or being did not emerge, it would constitute a law – therefore all possibilities are realized.

While the fundamental principle is true in a correspondence sense—from abstraction, what it specifies of the universe is precise and accurate, the real metaphysics is not true in that sense. The framework of the metaphysics, the fundamental principle, is true. However, the flesh of the metaphysics needs only to have pragmatic truth—this is because it is the best and an effective instrument in realization of the ultimate, the ultimate value that emerges from the fundamental principle. The truth of the metaphysics, as ‘truth’ emerges here, is embedded in the metaphysics itself. The fundamental principle was seen true by abstraction; what is over and above the principle in the real metaphysics needs only pragmatic truth; thus, the metaphysics is both method and content—or method and content are one, i.e., not ultimately distinguished.

Indeed, given that content is knowledge of the world, and that knowledge is in the world, content and method must be one. It is not of course that there is no distinction between method and content, but that we can, during and after analysis, look and see that they are one.

Realization

This division uses the worldview of the way toward realization of the ultimate in and from this world.

Means

General

The real metaphysics, action in itself and as experiment, and reason constitute an ideal instrument of realization. In an extended sense, action and reason are part of the metaphysics.

Special means

Dimensions of being

The dimensions were developed earlier; following is a review for realization.

The pure dimension of being is experiential being in form and formation as the world. It has experiential and instrumental (‘material’) sides.

The pragmatic dimensions are nature (physical, living, and experiential), society (with culture and technology), and the universal (ultimate realization of possibility or peak being as merging of all beings).

Tools for realization

The core instrument is being itself—that is experiential being. Experiential being is being itself and includes mind and matter as ‘experience with experience of’ and ‘the experienced’. The discipline and practice of experiential being in realization of the ultimate shall here be named Yoga, whose meaning is continuous with but must transcend the received. Approaches to being—and nature, civilization, and technology, below—are intrinsic or immersive (‘being-in-the-world’) and instrumental.

Nature is deployable as an instrument—via knowledge and technologization. Society and civilization are similarly deployable but are also vehicles (where our civilization is society and culture across time and continents, universal civilization is the same but across cosmoses in transient contact with the void—i.e., across all extension and duration.

Technology is an instrument and though the possibilities may currently seem low, they ought not to be ignored, for their potential is high; of particular interest are a range of conceivable physical, biological, and medical technologies for preserving, encoding, transforming, and transporting individuals, cultures, and civilizations

Paradigms

The dimensions were developed earlier and may be reviewed for realization.

Path

How are we to be on a path?

Path templates

Two generic and adaptable path templates, a dedication, and an affirmation are derived from the real metaphysics and the dimensions of being. For details, see the templates and the resources below.

Printable every day and universal templates are available in editable microsoft word document and pdf format.

Design of the templates

They shall be adaptable templates rather than detailed prescriptives.

They are suggestive—it is not seen as imperative that they be followed (independent path development is an encouraged option); nor is it seen that to be on an explicit path is a compulsion (‘they also serve who stand and wait’).

The templates are tailored to an emphasis on the way and its development but are adaptable to other emphases and alternate forms.

They are derived rather than merely ad hoc or merely spontaneous. Therefore, they are true and adaptable.

Their derivation shall be from what is true, which shall include the real metaphysics and the dimensions of being, and a system of human knowledge (see resources for the system).

They shall be flexible and adaptable to a range of individual and social orientations and circumstances.

They shall admit and promote import of what may be valid and useful in received ways.

They shall focus on both the immediate and the ultimate—on ground and realization. There is an everyday and a universal template.

The templates are derived from experience.

Reason and action

The real metaphysics embodies reason; review of the section, real metaphysics , reveals it as incomplete without action. It may be regarded as incorporating action.

The two sides of being, the experiential or intrinsic and the in-itself or ‘material’, are two aspects of realization. In fact, they are one, but it is important to recognize since the in-itself or material aspect has instrumental value. However, the experiential side is the place of our essential being. Therefore, an inner or experiential way, e.g., meditation, is essential in realization. The inner and the instrumental join in reason—and in the eastern tradition of ‘yoga’. But to employ the idea of yoga, we cannot regard it as final. Rather, its eastern and other manifestations are pointers to a real reason, a real yoga, a real meditation—all seen imaginatively, critically, experimentally, and in process.

Everyday template

Kinds of activity

Activities are for the way (development and execution, marked by a dagger †) and ground (unmarked)

Activities

Rise early, before the sun, dedicate to the way (detail) and its aim, affirm (detail) the universal nature of being. Morning reflection in nature. Breakfast.

Meditative-contemplative review of priorities and plans—the way, life, the day. Reflect on realization, priorities, and means; employ simple reflection, (Shamatha—calming meditation for re-orientation of purpose and energy—to experiential transformation toward oneness; Vipasana—analytical to visionary meditation—to see what is essential now and in other time frames; see the discussion of experimental meditation and yoga). †

Realization—work; care and relationships—networking; ideas and action; experimental and structured yoga-exercise-meditation-share in practice and in action; engagement in the world—languages, art, and other activities. †

Tasks—daily and long term; midday meal. Attitude—in tasks and toward others and the world—an element of realization; light; yoga in action. Merge with Realization.

Physical activity—exercise and exploration of the worlds of nature and culture for experience and inspiration.

Evening tasks, supper, preparation-dedication for the next day and future.

Evening rest, renewal, review, meditation and realization, network, and community. Sleep early. †

Activities—summary

Ground—support for development; daily living, health and meals, tasks, work, community with networking; rest, review, sleep.

The way—home and world travel and communication. Emphases—(i) reflection, study (reading), writing, sharing, and publishing (ii) yoga and meditation (iii) attention to the dimensions of being as in the universal template (iv) directed and immersive action in the world—nature and society. †

On meditation and yoga

Meditation is person (mind and body) employed reflectively on their self and the world toward ends of its intelligent choosing. In this sense, meditation, reason, and yoga are identical. Source – meditation.

Incomplete separability of body from mind is implicit, therefore meditation encompasses yoga, reason, action, and transformation.

Intelligence is frequently understood as that which enhances effective action in the world. Here action in the world is enhanced to action in and for the world.

Traditional modes of meditation (e.g., Shamatha and Vipasana) and of yoga (e.g., eightfold, which derives from Buddhism) are included.

The traditions are often treated as completed. However, they are very much in process. Therefore yoga (with meditation) is regarded as any theory—an in-process conceptual structure in interaction with an empirical base.

Dedication and affirmation

Dedication

I dedicate my life to the way of being,

To living in the immediate and the limitless ultimate as one.

For they are one, their separateness only apparent, the oneness waiting for realization.

What are the means of realization?—

To its shared discovery and realization,

Under the pure dimension of experiential being in form and formation as the world,

And the pragmatic dimensions of nature, society, and the universal.

In flow and adversity—

To shedding the bonds of limited self and culture, so that even in adversity, life approaches flow,

Practice and therapy merging in action

To realizing the ultimate in this life—this world—and beyond,

So again, to return to beginnings.

Affirmation

“That pure unlimited consciousness—transcending all principles of form… that is supreme reality. That is the ground for the establishment of all things—and that is the essence of the universe. By That the universe lives and breathes, and That alone am I. Thus, I embody and am the universe in its ordinary and most transcendent form.”— Abhinava Gupta (950 – 1016 CE, a philosopher-theologian of Kashmir)

Universal template

Pure being, everyday

Being in the world—Dimensions Pure being, yoga, meditation, ideas to action; Community, education (general, paradigm, ways of life), retreat to the real, renewal, development-reemphasis of paradigm.

Ideas—Dimensions: relation, knowing as relation to the world, reason, art; acting—effective creation of the real. Means—reason, yoga-meditation, the real metaphysics, site plan.

Essence—yoga, meditation, ideas into action. Community, education (general, paradigm, ways of life), retreat, renewal, development-reemphasis of paradigm.

Becoming

Nature

Dimension: nature as catalyst to the real. Animal being and devolution—observation, situational empathy, defocus, reason.

Essence—being in nature as source (immersion over conquest, an example is beyul of Tibetan Buddhism).

Society and culture

Dimension: society. Civilization as vehicle and path to the real. Transformation via psyche—by immersion in social groups as place of being and catalyst to the real.

Essence—immersion and travel in a range of cultures; the dimensions of society engaged in directive and immersive manner (economics, politics, ideas and culture, art, religious-spiritual sources). Immersion in and attention to the challenges and opportunities of the world.

Artifact

Dimension: artifact. Civilizing the universe (especially technology as enhancing being in the universe)—universe as peak consciousness via spread of sapient being.

Essence—technological enhancements of being (artificial being, sciences—abstract and concrete, technology of exploration and space travel).

Pure being, the universal

Being in the universe—Dimension: universal. Realizing Peak Being (Brahman) in the present. Said to be rarely achieved in ‘this life’ which is a beginning that is continued beyond death. Outcome of ‘becoming’, above. The means are in the previous dimensions, the everyday template, and open.

Essence—metaphysics into action, meaning and awareness of self – human limits – birth – and death; their real but non absolute character.

Quality of being

In all these endeavors, quality of being, which includes satisfaction with our states of being and process, is an essential focus.

Doubt, judgment, and action

The real metaphysics is consistent with experience and reason, which include science and logic. However, its proof ought to be doubted. Doubt is directly addressed in other documents in the resources.

Given its consistency and the reasonableness of its proof, two alternate attitudes to the real metaphysics are (i) as a hypothesis to found a metaphysics for the universe and (ii) as an existential principle of action.

There is value to careful philosophical analysis that is accepted by the global community of thinkers. However, must we be passive in the absence of absolute certainty? The time to act on the real metaphysics is now—it is not to be deferred to some future generation. We judge that it is now on the ground of the reasonableness of the demonstration.

Resources

introduction—about resources

Resources are important (i) for living the way—as elaboration for understanding and action (ii) for development, especially as the way is essentially eternally in process. Some general resources are—

The website for the way, http://www.horizons-2000.org/, has resources for living and developing the way. There are suggestions for immersion in the way; my sources are detailed at my influences and sources; and there is a system of knowledge based in the real metaphysics.

A more extensive and articulated system follows.

for the way

The complete version of the way is a resource for developing and living the way.

Living the way

Every day and universal paths, dedication and affirmation, yoga and meditation, source for beyul, reading.

Developing the way

A database for formal versions of the way, bare content—a secondary resource, more resources, and developing resources.

Return

‘Return’ is metaphorical, an emphasis, for we have not left the world.

While the narrative is about being in the real, this division emphasizes being in the world.

Into the world

The way in the world is living in the immediate and ultimate as one, shared discovery and realization of the real, working with the limits of self in vision – action – relationships, realizing the ultimate in this world and beyond.

Unconditional being

Or past, present, and future over extension without limit as one.

We work toward the ultimate in which being, beings, becoming, exploration, and history are transparent.