Some lessons for The Way of Being | A
Journey Anil Mitra, Copyright ©
December 24, 2019—August 14, 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. 22. 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). |