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 another 2 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 gift 3 of vision; we can see or imagine worlds beyond the immediate world.

It has been and remains a human endeavor is to search beyond the immediate and apparent—to search for ultimates.

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 superstition 4 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 separation 5.

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 experienced 6 world. It is neutral to worlds beyond the immediate. For higher aspirations, it appeals to secular ethics and aesthetics rather than to worlds beyond 7.

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 universe 8 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’ speculate 9 beyond, for this is how we transitioned from the Newtonian to the modern view of the empirical universe 10. Especially today 11 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 common 12 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.

It is consistent with science and logic for the universe to be the realization of logical possibility.

That we do not observe all possibilities does not contradict this as possible, for what we see is one possibility—and not another.

Cosmology 13 of religions 14

The fundamental limit of the religions is that or when they posit cosmologies as truth 15. The hold of the religions is multifold—promise of a higher life 16; binding a people together; and, since religious ‘truth’ is not manifest, a range of powerful psychological devices to bind minds to dogma 17. Where they adhere to dogma, religions abandon their symbolic value.

But in just non-dogmatically pointing to the reasonable possibility 18 of a world beyond the sensible world, religion could be a useful and valid complement to science 19.

In summary of this section—

In dogma, religions abandon their inherent symbolic value; and their potential truth value as a complement to science.

The dual limit 20

The dual limit, from a secular perspective, is that when the secular mind wanders beyond its secular confines, the first alternate it tends to see is the absurd mythic pictures from the religions.

From a religious perspective, the religious individual is challenged by science into focusing on the literal truth of their faith rather than its symbolic meaning.

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 search 21. However, even ultimate knowledge 22 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 essential 23.

From here…

We have seen that we 24 tend to see the world in limited 25 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 pictures 26 (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 beyond 27.

(But) within the current 28 empirical realm, we regard science as true 29. Given modern physics, what is in accord with it is physically possible and what is not is physically impossible 30. 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 realized 31 in any world. An example is a square circle. We can form the concept 32 but it is unrealizable. It is unrealizable in any possible world 33. 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. Physical 34 possibility presumes logical possibility 35.

What is the greatest possibility 36? If something 37 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 world 38. Therefore the greatest possibility is logical possibility 39.

But what is the relation between the real universe and the greatest possible universe?

Existence—its cause or reason

Why does the universe exist 40? What is the cause of or reason for its existence? Was it created?

Here, definitions of the universe and of cause are critical 41.

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 preexisting 42 entity 43 for the universe is all that there is over all duration and extension 44.

Could it be ‘self cause’? No, for what that says is the universe causes itself which says effectively nothing 45.

If the cause is not and cannot be another ‘thing’ what could it be? Perhaps it is possibility 46? But that would say nothing 47 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 certainty 48.

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 necessity 49 as cause 50 or reason for existence of the universe.

Let us consider necessity as cause (and subsequently demonstrate the truth of necessity as cause 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 principle 51—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 void 52 or non manifest state, for if it never existed in a non manifest state, it would be necessary 53.

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

Identity 54 is sense of self or be-ing.

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 there 56. However, while I agree that we may have a real 57 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 have 58.

We now turn to the attempt to do the best we can do.

Perfect knowledge

This ideal knowledge (or metaphysics 59) 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 realization 60. 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.

That is the combination of the ideal knowledge of necessity and so on revealed above and the pragmatic knowledge of tradition constitute perfect knowledge according to ultimate criteria.

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 Brahman 61; this is revealed by the ideal.

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 combined 62, 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 God 63. However, such a God is but a phase of the Vedantic notion of God.

Paths

The traditions 64 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

Bold font indicates the essential terms for the lessons.

concept	A mental content; in the context of meaning and knowledge, it is essential that a concept include a depiction of the object (for an abstract sign cannot refer to anything except by association with a non abstract depiction); it may also be associated with an abstract (linguistic) sign; the combined sign and icon (the depiction) is a symbol.
meaning	It is implicit in the essay that meaning is a concept and its possible intended referents. In linguistic meaning, a simple or compound sign is associated with or part of the concept. In the simple case an elementary sign or word is associated with a simple object. In use, however, meaning derives also from the system and context.
knowledge	A concept and its referents (or a system of concepts etc., but a system of concepts is a concept).
a being	A being is an existent—that which may be validly said to be (in some form of the verb to be).
beings	plural of being.
be-ing	emphasizes the process of ‘being’.
Being	the capitalized form Being is identical to existence; in this essay, the power of the concept of Being is implicit. Part of that power, and reasons for its use in longer essays, are (i) there is Being (and there are beings), (ii) it refers and need refer to no further ground and so eliminates the need for substance, (iii) that is, Being is given and foundational 65, and (iv) Being brings an algebraic character to metaphysics—leaving discovery and realization of Being as a project (addressed briefly in this essay and at length in the longer essays (home—http://www.horizons-2000.org/2020/ and older—http://www.horizons-2000.org/).
universe	all Being or all beings—over all duration and extension.
cause	interaction between two parts of the universe; this is the modern sense of cause which also emphasizes contiguous interaction—i.e. not between distant bodies or across discrete times. This meaning of cause is seen to be inadequate in application to the universe—it has interpretation in terms of (i) human experience 66 in the world of phenomena including effort and (ii) physical law. However it does not answer to the reason for existence. That reason, we have seen can only be modal cause and of the range 67 of modal cause it must be necessity (and unlike Spinoza we have not merely posited this—we have shown it. Only with sufficient abstraction can these two causes be indistinct.
reason	(first meaning) the why of something, particularly, the reason for the existence of the universe.
reason	(second meaning, sometimes capitalized) the best developed and developing way to accomplish something, particularly, realization of the ultimate; roughly, the Logos in the sense of Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers.
the void	the absence of Being, the ‘zero’ being but not ‘null’ being.
possibility	that which may happen according to certain criteria; thus physical, real, and logical possibility.
probability	the likelihood that something may happen; not particularly important in this development.
normativity	our attitudes are normative in that—because no individual knows the entire truth, even if there is truth—mutual common attitudes mutually influential; this is could to mean that there is no objective truth; however I do not take it that way—to me it means only that objective truth must be verified independently of the normative; and, as we see in this essay, there is such truth alongside normative truth
necessity	that which must happen; here the focus is on what is essentially logical necessity—that for which to not happen is absolutely impossible.
the actual	that which does obtain, for a part of the universe may be less than the possible for that part; the same as the possible for the entire universe.
science	pragmatics of observing and confirming facts; and explanations of the empirical.
logic	constraints on concepts for realizability, on statements—simple of compound—for truth in a possible universe.
religions	the systems of religion.
religion	(practical)—I do not give a definitions for it would be contentious and because there are numerous contentious definitions in the printed and online literature; further, I prefer an ideal definition, and to leave the empirical notion to students of cultural anthropology (ethnology).
religion	(ideal) the use of entire being in realizing all being (obviously focusing on value—ethics and aesthetics—but also realizing that value must be emergent).
paradigm	A large scale picture or view that does one or more of the following—it informs how the world and its contents are seen, it informs modes of reason—knowing and inference, and it informs modes of life
Primal	‘original’ paradigm of knowing, in which the experienced and the mythic remain fused (but the mythic is not to be understood as ‘story).
Secular	paradigm focusing on the experienced its explanations.
transsecular	paradigm focusing worlds beyond the experienced, explained in terms of mythic or dogmatic elements.
tradition	what is valid in cumulative human cultural history.
ideal knowledge	knowledge that is true by necessity or because the concept is sufficiently abstracted that detail that might be subject to error is omitted.
pragmatic knowledge	knowledge that is as if perfect for a limited empirical or for limited purposes; includes science.
fundamental principle	“The existence of the manifest universe is necessary; it is the greatest possible universe; it is the realization of logical possibility.” Also named The fundamental principle of metaphysics.
perfect metaphysics	the metaphysical system that joins the ideal—the fundamental principle and its consequences—to the pragmatic; and which is perfect according the aim of ultimate realization derived from the fundamental principle; and is the join of the ideal and the pragmatic which are each perfect but according to ideal and pragmatic criteria, respectively (as justified by the aim).

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).

Cosmology13 of religions14

Glossary

Cosmology 13 of religions 14