We are born into the world with little understanding of it. As we are educated and enculturated, our understanding may grow to match that of our culture. However, it is reasonable to think that our culture is limited, if not extremely limited. Can we move beyond culture? Of course, culture attempts to move beyond itself, so the question arises whether and to what extent we can intentionally move beyond—even to know and realize ultimates.

Origins

The origins of the way are in a search to understand and realize what is possible and good in the world. It began with received tradition, awareness and articulation of its views and limits, and then a program to go beyond it.

Received views of the world are secular and transsecular.

The boundary of the secular world is what we see, aided by instruments, science, and reflection without unwarranted extrapolation or speculation. In a secular view, what is important is found in the empirical world, particularly in the nature of humankind, empirically and introspectively. That science has validity within the empirical realm is a pillar of realism that is fundamental to the view in this work. However, secular views are frequently taken as defining the boundary of the universe. The justification of that conclusion is the often-tacit assumption that observation and the current scientific picture define the essence of the world, even beyond the empirical. That is, it assumes the essence of what it concludes (this will be called the ‘main assumption’). The inference, explicit or tacit, is manifestly circular. An objection to this assertion of circularity is that what lies outside the empirical is merely a set of small gaps in our knowledge; and the counter to this gaps argument is that what seems like a mere gap is based, again, on the main assumption. In fact, what seems to be just a gap, may be another world—or worlds without limit. It will be shown that a limitless universe beyond the empirical (observation, science, reflection) is consistent with the empirical. This of course does not prove limitlessness—proof is given later, but it does counter objections that limitlessness is absurd or inconsistent with what we know.

Further, there is a distinction between validity and realism and truth. Validity includes explanation and prediction within the empirical realm. Realism includes that the hypothetical entities of science, e.g., quantum particles and fields are real, and full truth requires that the entities be final—not refer to other entities, even more basic—and that they be universal. The method of science as we understand it, does not show the entities of science to be real or true.

The narrative will later return to these critical points at more than one place, and from variant perspectives. Thus, motivation to seek beyond the secular is well justified.

transsecular views seek to see beyond the secular—they posit another realm as in religions or derive another realm by inference from the secular, as in some studies in metaphysics. In some genres of fiction, imagination may show possibility infused with realism. Religious cosmology almost invariably contains dogma and often rejects or comes into conflict science. The metaphysical views employ rationality, which would make them true, but does not guarantee that they are fundamental or complete; further, much metaphysics is hypothetical (speculative), which renders them possibly, perhaps probably, but not necessarily true.

Noting that the boundary of the empirical world might be conceptual—not just material—is there any realistic hope that we may discover the final boundary of the world or universe and what lies within?

Though it will be detailed later, it is effective to preview what will be found and demonstrated. It will be demonstrated that (i) the universe and all its beings are limitless (ii) this limitlessness is not just spatial or temporal, but conceptual in a sense to be explained later (iii) this is not contradicted by our experience of limits, for though there are real limits, they will be found to not be absolute (iv) this finding is consistent with observation, science, and reasonable reflection (v) the universe has phases or peak or ultimate being in which all beings coalesce as one, and the peaks dissolve, are formed again with limitless variety and without end (vi) there are intelligent, effective, and enjoyable pathways in and from our world to the ultimate, and (vii) these findings can be written in terms of a perfect abstract framework joined to—filled in with—pragmatic knowledge derived in part from tradition, and that though the pragmatic is imperfect by its own criteria, since it is the best available, the join is perfect in terms of the value of ultimate realization.

The abstract framework may be called an abstract metaphysics. As a framework it is true; it is complete in the sense that the entire universe is framed, but, for limited beings, the filling in of the framework must be incomplete—which leaves the filling in and realizing of the possible as an adventure on the way to and from limitlessness. The join of the abstract and the pragmatic will be named the real metaphysics.

It should be emphasized that to focus on the ultimate is not to deemphasize our world, for (i) the ultimate and the immediate will be seen to mesh—to be interwoven, (ii) our world is a platform to the ultimate, and (iii) action in our world is action in the ultimate. Particularly, the ultimate is not remote, but will be seen to have immanence in the immediate.

How ought the narrative begin? A principle shall be that the introduction of pragmatic knowledge will be deferred until after the abstract framework is developed and shown to be perfect in terms of received criteria for the nature and validity of knowledge—a correspondence theory subject to rational-empirical criteria.

The abstract and the concrete

The work begins with the idea of abstraction. Although the abstract often suggests something remote or abstruse, here it shall be what is most concrete in the sense of being real. To abstract is to remove from a concept details, leaving only what is capable of precision in the capture of an object.

When a concept is intended to refer to something in the world, it may suffer distortion in the referring. Even the very idea of referring to or capture may be inadequate. However, ask whether there is anything at all. Obviously, there must be, for even if all appearance is illusory, there is at least illusion (“all appearance is illusory” is self-contradictory). In this case, there is an abstraction, which is (i) to talk about appearance rather than appearances, that is, to talk about appearances generally rather than particular appearances (ii) to not distinguish between appearances that do refer to something and those that do not, that is, to not distinguish the real from the illusory. The example shows how abstraction enables talk of things without error. Abstraction would be trivializing if we never returned to the definitely real or concrete. However, the concrete (pragmatic) real will later be integrated with the abstract real.

Given that concrete and detailed knowledge almost always has some imprecision, the abstract is more real, and, in the sense of precision, more concrete than concrete knowledge.

In this version of the work, the aim is to get rapidly to the core of the way and to present pathways to the ultimate. Therefore, the abstraction and precision will be implicit—in the background.

But let us taste a little more of abstraction before getting down to business. The word ‘is’ is the third person, present tense, singular form of the verb to be. Let us, however, use ‘is’ as a form of the verb to be that is neutral as neutral as possible, without losing all meaning. We typically think of physical, or concrete being as ‘located’ in space and time. However, we want to lift the restriction (i) to the concrete (without implying that the concrete is or is not definite or that there are or are not other kinds, e.g., mental, spiritual, or abstract) (ii) qualifiers such as gender, number, living vs inert (iii) to space and time, which may be approximations, and which may be incomplete as markers of situation, i.e., will think in terms of a generalized manifold of situation, which is immanent in being (iv) a particular or simple situation (e.g., earth, 40.802071N, 124.163673W, 6/14/2023 8:50:17 AM, or, e.g., an identity in logical space): a situation shall be single or multiple, discrete or continuous, connected or not connected, and combinations thereof. Then the generalized sense of ‘is’ shall refer in the neutral senses of items i, ii, and iii, and shall refer to any situation (i.e., collection of simple situations).

A being will be defined as that which is, in the above general sense of ‘is’, and being will be conceived as the property of beings as beings. Transparently, being and existence-in-its-most-abstract-sense are the same.

This conception of being, which is abstract and bare, contrasts with conceptions that emphasize richness. Does this make the present approach deficient in rich variety? It does not, for here, being is a container for richness. Thus, the present approach enables richness without sacrificing precision (later, when the concrete is introduced, ‘precision’ will be replaced by ‘perfection’ in the sense that is to emerge). Furthermore, in providing a scaffold, discovery of the variety of beings and beinghood is encouraged.

The precision of the concept of being will enable precision and definiteness of the conceptions of the universe and the void, which are trivial in form but significant in consequence. Particularly, the vagueness in common uses of matter and empirical universe, leads to unaware abortion of thought regarding the extent and nature of the real universe. Clear conception of the void will be empowering of metaphysics—and the empowerment will be ultimate in some conceptual directions.

Let us now plunge into the way of being. The development is minimal and though abstraction and richness are present, they may be presented without explicit mention. Also absent from this version is a detailed discussion and use of linguistic meaning and knowledge, which would give conceptual clarity but encumber the development with diversionary detail. Because of the problem of illusion, when one says, for example, that ‘I see the world’, one ought to say, ‘I seem to see a world’ or ‘It is as if I see a world’. The problem of illusion will be cleared up and so the narrative will not be burdened with a surfeit of uses of ‘it seems that’ or ‘as if’.

Being

A being is that which is (plural: beings); being is the property of beings as beings.

Being and existence are the same, as are beings and existents.

There is being and there are beings.

Experience

A first meaning of experience—consciousness in all its forms—is specified in terms of which we are seen to be essentially experiential beings.

experience is consciousness in all its forms (note that this deviates from some received uses of ‘experience’, and that the meaning of ‘experience’ will be broadened later).

Though there seems to be experience, could that be illusory? No, for even the illusion of experience is an experience (any illusion is experiential). From this—

There are both experience and experience of experience.

In an experience of something, the elements are experience-of – the-experience – the-experienced. That is, experience is relational—it relates concept and object or knower and known.

Even pure experience is relational—the relation is internal to the aware being, for without internality there is no form, i.e., nothing that could be capable of experience.

Concept meaning is an iconic experience, simple or compound, and its possible objects; and linguistic meaning is a sign-associated-with-an-iconic-experience and its possible objects (both sign and experience may be simple or compound); knowledge is meaning realized.

Experience is the place of language and concept meaning and knowledge, the place of the sense of significance (e.g., ‘the meaning of life’).

Experience is the place of our being.

We are experiential beings.

Beings—the universe, the void, and laws

The universe is all being (i.e., over all markers of situation such as time and space). As it was stated earlier, this definition of ‘universe’ is definite, precise, and encompassing, which eliminates common though uncommonly recognized vagueness and speculation and permits discovery, in a fundamental principle, page 11, which affirms that the universe is limitless.

The universe is a being.

The void is the being that contains no beings; i.e., the void is the absence of manifest being.

The void is a being, for its existence and nonexistence are equivalent. That is, the void exists and does not exist. This is not absurd, for while it is in the form of a contradiction, the contra-diction does not define a contrareal—as it would if a manifest being were claimed to exist and not exist.

A law of nature is a form or behavior, which is in the nature of a world or being, that it invariably has (it is not necessary that the world must have the form or behavior). Laws are immanent in the being or, if they would be of the universe, of being and, therefore from abstraction, are beings. Similarly, true limits and constraints on beings are beings.

The void has no laws, limits, or constraints (for a law, limit, or constraint is a being and the void contains no beings).

Possibility

The concept of possibility continues the setup of the framework, for possibility is conceived such that it is the outer boundary of what the universe may be.

A conceived being has conceptual possibility if there is nothing in its conception alone that rules out its existence.

That a conceived being is conceptually possible does not imply that the conception is realized; but it would be realized if the universe is the greatest possible.

Thus, conceptual possibility is the greatest possibility, that is, possibility in the sense of the greatest inclusivity rather than value (the meaning of ‘greatest possibility’ is not that of ‘best possibility’, but the greatest will and must include the best—in any valid sense of ‘best’).

Since conceptual possibility refers to no particular world, a form ruled out by conceptual impossibility would be logically impossible and therefore conceptual possibility is logical possibility (it does not follow that our logics exhaust conceptual possibility).

If, further, nothing in the nature of the universe rules out the being’s existence, it is simply possible, i.e., it will be said that it has real possibility or just possibility (worldly, physical, and sentient possibilities are examples of real possibility).

Metaphysics

On metaphysics

Here, metaphysics is knowledge of the real.

While this conception of metaphysics has difference from the common philosophical concept of metaphysics (which is somewhat indefinite and conflicted), it is beginning to be seen and will continue to be seen that under this definition (i) there is significant metaphysics in the meaning introduced here (ii) the content of metaphysics in this meaning has significant overlap with the content of metaphysics in its received conceptions (iii) the present conception will be found to rationally order and filter the received view.

It may be and is questioned whether there is knowledge of the real at all. Of course, there is, for as we have seen earlier, ‘there is no knowledge of the real at all’ is contradictory. But is there knowledge of the real (i) beyond that which is required to lift the contradiction (ii) is it of the real as an object in itself (iii) is it significant in extent?

We have already seen the answers to these questions are qualified yesses. We now proceed to lift the qualification (i) according to emergent criteria that have already been mentioned (ii) except that the extent in terms of detail is limited for beings while they are limited in form.

A fundamental principle

Every conceptually or logically possible being emerges from the void, for non-emergence of a possible being would be a law of nature of—a limit or constraint on—the void. Therefore—

The universe is limitless—the realization of the greatest or logical possibility (and so the real and the greatest possibilities are identical). The term ‘limitless’ ought not to be confused with the merely infinite because an infinity may be limited in magnitude, kind, and potential.

The assertion in italics in the paragraph just above is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics or just the fundamental principle.

Defining necessity of existence as impossibility of nonexistence, the existence of the limitless universe is necessary.

Doubt and attitudes toward doubt

The fundamental principle has been proven and is not inconsistent with experience of the world, for within that experience the world is one possibility and outside it, experience of the world has no purchase (it is important that ‘outside’ is not limited to ‘spatiotemporally outside’ and a realm that pervades the world with interaction too weak to have any noticeable effect would be effectively outside the world). Yet, from the nature of the proof and the magnitude of the conclusion, doubt ought to remain. Doubt is also healthy in balance with confidence in living in the world and under knowledge of the principle and all that follows.

Alternative attitudes to the developments are as follows.

On an existential front, the conclusions of the developments may be taken as the existential attitude that there is an imperative to pursue the ultimate, even if the outcome is not guaranteed.

On a metaphysical front, the fundamental principle of metaphysics, rather than being regarded as proven, may be taken as a realist postulate, i.e., a metaphysical postulate.

As a framework for discussion of the real—regardless of whether the metaphysics is accepted as a true, it provides a productive and consistent framework for any attempt at completeness in understanding the universe, e.g., in metaphysics and epistemology.

The abstract metaphysics

The fundamental principle entails a metaphysics, which, from its abstraction, is perfect. The perfection concerns the (i) elements, e.g., the universe and the void, which are known empirically and perfectly from their abstract conception (ii) inference, which is an elementary propositional calculus, also perfect from its application only to the elements. There is, however, a seeming exception to the perfection of the inference—the apparent contradiction that the void exists and does not exist. Though the contradiction was defused earlier by noting that this particular contra-diction does not entail a contra-real, let us expound on the matter. In standard logic, a contradiction leads to ‘explosion’, i.e., that the premise that an assertion is true and false, entails that all assertions are true (and false). There are two ways to defuse this. One is to note that all logics apply to some ‘universe’ of propositions but not necessarily to all propositions of the form appropriate to the logic; the defusion is to then exclude those contra-dictions that do not entail contra-reals from the universe of propositions (such propositions are called ‘dialetheia’, which means two-way truth). Another is to develop an alternate system of logic that reduces to the standard system for the standard universe but allows working with dialetheia without explosion. These thoughts are further developed in material the later section on resources.

The consequences that constitute the abstract metaphysics are developed in detail later.

Here, it is effective to illustrate some main consequences. They include that the universe achieves peak phases of being and has phases of dissolution, that all beings merge in the peak phases, and that there are intelligent, effective, and enjoyable pathways to peak realization. An immediate consequence is the resolution of what has been called the fundamental question of metaphysics—that of why there is existence or being at all (and a new fundamental concern is to define the variety of being, especially under the fundamental principle).

However, the abstract metaphysics does not show very well how to realize the ultimate. This lack is taken up in the real metaphysics, below.

On proof under the abstract metaphysics

Most proof based on the abstract metaphysics in this work is simple; exceptions will be noted. In later development, proofs may be difficult—an example would be to develop a system for description of the limitless, i.e., of possible worlds.

The real metaphysics

The abstract metaphysics shows and allows conception of what may and will be achieved but incompletely addresses the how of achievement.

Let Tradition refer to all our received pure as well as reasonably trusted pragmatic knowledge. Append tradition to the abstract metaphysics. The abstract shows what is possible and will be achieved, tradition will show how (the pure abstract does not yield ‘how’ but it may seem to because of intuition in the background). Though tradition is imperfect by its own criteria, e.g., correspondence or coherence notions of truth, it is in process, and the best to be had relative to the value of realization of the ultimate revealed by the abstract metaphysics. In the join, the ideal illuminates and guides the pragmatic and the pragmatic illustrates and is instrumental toward the ideal.

The combination, which is thus a dynamic join, is named the real metaphysics, or just the metaphysics.

Proof under the real metaphysics

Proof under the real metaphysics, where it has dependence on tradition, will usually depend on pragmatic descriptions and paradigms of being, taken up later.

Thus, the conclusions will be touched by likelihood rather than certainty. However, it will be a conditioned likelihood in that (i) the more likely states of being will be numerically preponderant, and our world will fall under such kinds of state with pragmatic certainty (ii) the likely states will necessarily occur somewhere and somewhen in the universe without limit to their repetition.

Let us consider the apparently improbable but not impossible case of solipsism. I may doubt that my experience is that of a world—that is, I may think that my experience is all there is. Thus the ‘world’ may be nothing but my present experience and to assert that that is the case is solipsism. That my world is such a world cannot be strictly ruled out, but may be ruled out, given reasonable conditions regarding the structure of experience. Such so-called solipsist worlds necessarily occur but, in later considering the paradigms, will be seen to be unlikely and of minimal significance. A value of seemingly absurd interpretations of the world of experience such as solipsism is not intrinsic significance so much as that to resolve the absurdity requires us to examine and, if the examination is successful as it is in the case of solipsism, improve upon reason and knowledge of the real.

Philosophy and its value

Philosophy is notoriously difficult to define satisfactorily. However, it has something to do with the real, the immediate and the ultimate, knowledge, limits of thought and action, ethics, especially their nature, and how we arrive at and justify them. All this has been a major concern in the history of knowledge. Since there is also the concern that philosophy should speak with precision, a range of subtle issues, which arise in consideration of the nature of the world and knowledge of it, has been addressed in the history of philosophy.

Sometimes the precision and subtlety, which are important, tend to dominate an overarching aim of thought and action in the realm of the ultimate. Modern academic philosophy is often rather technical and concerned with micro issues. There is a ‘turn’ in twentieth century philosophy in which the concern of philosophy with knowledge of the world is sometimes questioned—and relegated to other disciplines, especially the sciences.

I hold that philosophy ought to deliberate on what is important in life and on the nature of the world (I am not suggesting that this is a new thought today or that other foci for philosophy are unworthy or unimportant).

We therefore ought to question the value of academic philosophy—to enquire into its value. Of course, academic philosophy has value in itself to those who appreciate it, and for its technical implications. Further, I hold academic philosophy to be significant, interesting, exciting, and of intrinsic value—but my thoughts are not universal and do not establish the importance of academic philosophy for living in the world.

However, even the technical and the far side, e.g., the analysis of reason and issues such as solipsism, have significant implications for our endeavor in the world. The analysis of micro issues is useful (except, perhaps, for a tendency to analysis in isolation in which analysis of an issue depends on other incompletely resolved issues). For, once we move away from the ‘ordinary world’, our experience of it and our traditional meanings are no longer a guide to truth. The sharpening of reason from technical philosophy is one such guide (in this work the sharpening of reason is taken reflexively to a limit in some critical directions). Another guide is extraction of dimensions of being and paradigms from tradition taken up later, which is in part a philosophical endeavor.

The meaning of the metaphysics

The meaning of the metaphysics is its concept of the world and the corresponding object.

The concept is that whatever is possible obtains. That is, if it is not a logical contradiction a concept is realized. If (deductive) logic is understood as defining the structure of the possible, rather than just inference, the concept is that of logic as defining a ‘matrix’ (the term is used metaphorically), which in some cases may be extended to necessary fact, e.g., that there are being, experience, the universe, the void, and the ultimate. We can adjoin deductive logic to induction and then the concept extends to what may be called general logic, which also includes observation and science. The term argument has a use in which it refers to the deductive side of general logic but could be extended to the entirety of general logic.

Note that since knowledge is in the world, it falls under metaphysics. That is (i) even though epistemology is studied separately and is important to metaphysics (and more), it is necessarily a region within metaphysics (ii) metaphysics and philosophy are reflexive—they necessarily study themselves; that is meta-metaphysics and metaphilosophy are not distinct disciplines even though it is efficient to allocate energy to study them in themselves.

The object side of the meaning of metaphysics is the revealed structure of the universe and the world. The development now turns to this structure in a series of consequences.

The universe as a field of experiential being

Let us extend the concept of experience to the root of being (just as for the limited sense, the extended meaning of ‘experience’ also deviates from some received uses). From the abstract metaphysics, i.e., from limitlessness, the root must be capable of experience, which, of course, is the same as animal experience in kind, but primitive in quality and variety. It is allowed, of course, that magnitude of root experience be nil (zero) but not null—‘nil’ meaning no experientiality in present fact, ‘null’ meaning not of a kind that is capable of experience.

Thus, the concept of experience is extended to all being and deepened to the root of being (root experience is the same as ours in kind but is primitive in quality and variety). That is because it is required by the metaphysics that experientiality shall be universal, which requires (i) that primitive elementary experience be of the same kind as animal experience (ii) the experientiality of beings is not null but may be zero in value at times.

That beings are experiential, and that the universe is experiential is not taken to mean that they are not real or not material. Rather, they are the most real. Regarding the issue of matter, it is clear that we partake of a material nature in some casual sense, but, in this version of the way, it is not important to have a formal development of the casual meaning.

The extended concept of experience and the abstract metaphysics—limitlessness—together, imply that the universe is an experiential field and that we—humans and higher animals—are focal centers in the field. Of course, it is not implied that we are the highest of possible (and therefore actual) beings in power and richness of experiential being.

It also follows that individual consciousness is a part of the ultimate, immanent-in-the-person, which is not just a part of but immersed in the whole. There will be concern that this suggests the ultimate is imperfect. However, such imperfection would be according to unrealistic notions of the perfect. There is no reason to expect that in the ultimate, all will be bliss (for example)—realization of final and ultimate bliss is an illusion from human yearning and received worldviews, transsecular and secular. Perfection will be found, but it will be in a deeper sense of finding a good, if not best, shared weave of pleasure and pain and the other elements of experience on the way to the ultimate.

The universe is a field of experiential being.

Individuals are relatively intense, elaborate, centers of experience that are complex enough that their experiencing maps the whole—at least in framework—and can intend to and carry out actions as agents.

Peak being

What is peak being? One term for it is God—but ‘God’ has many meanings and senses. From the metaphysics, there are limitlessly many Abrahamic, Hindu, and other Gods in far and near corners of the universe (subject to straightening of the religious narratives), limitlessly many Buddhas. They are neither ultimate nor ultimately robust or significant (robustness is discussed in the section on dimensions of being). How may we visualize an ultimate and robust god? The metaphysics shows that the highest being is all being and beings, in process, on the way to, and occasionally but necessarily realizing—and dissolving from—the limitless ultimate. This requires the following concept of a peak being, which might be called ‘god’ but for misleading, dogmatic, and contradictory uses of the term.

Imagine a scene at a lake or by the bed of a broad river. The wind does not quite ruffle the water. The place is teeming with living activity—the coming and going, the competition and cooperation of creatures and species. See yourself as part of it; think of it, as neither in nor in opposition to the branching of evolutionary description, but as living form arising inevitably from primality—a phase in the process named peak being, the real ultimate or god of which we are a part and, in which, we relate as one.

We, all life and being, are part of that process. It is the one, the eternal. Our cosmological corner of the universe is still primitive, on the way to ultimate being—and already there, but beyond our situation—even in our situation if we would but see it (we can conceive it with justification—as it is being done, and sense it, and the conception and sense may reinforce one another, especially in meditation). The immediate and the ultimate are interwoven.

Does eternity of our being imply tiredness, boredom, and ennui? No—for the variety and magnitude of the peaks are without limit. It is unfortunate that here on earth, moved by and educated into a materialist secularism, comforted by material plenty, many of us live lives that, if extended eternally, would be found meaningless. We would benefit if we were to forsake our comfortable materialist secularism.

Is this perspective on peak being the only possibility? Most certainly not but (i) it is an ultimate picture (ii) it centers us in peak being and while remoteness of peaks is an occasional possibility, the remoteness is at most seeming (iii) it is a robust view.

But does not this account of peak and limitlessness contradict current physical cosmology, particularly the view of the empirical universe as originating in a singularity—or even the speculative view of the cosmos as a bubble in a multiverse? It does not, for while the current view has local truth, the empirical universe is already immersed in the ultimate.

Does the idea that we are part of peak being mean that there all pain shall be overcome? Does it mean that peak being has perfection in terms of overcoming all evil? These questions are addressed in the next section.

Consequences of the metaphysics for realizat ion

The universe has identity; it phases in and out of manifest being; the universe and its identity are limitless in extent, duration, variety, and highest or peak being (which may be a relational process); the variety and duration include cosmoses without limit to number, kind (e.g., of what may be called ‘physical law’), beginnings, and endings, all in transaction with one another (the degree of transaction will be nil at times) and with the void.

The void is tinged by apparent paradox. It exists and does not exist. It is nothing, yet the source of everything. In a timeless perspective the void is everything. The seeming stability of our world is limited in itself and in its contact with the void—minimally within our experience, but the void may effectively enhance or annihilate our cosmos at any moment or enhance it without limit. Further, every element of being inherits limitlessness from the universe and may function as does the void; and every being is all being. Why, then, have I said that the void is paradox tinged rather than essentially paradoxical? It is because the apparent paradox arises only on limited understanding—on a limited mode of expression and meaning.

All beings inherit limitlessness, for the contrary would be a limit or constraint on the universe; there are of course experienced and real limits on limited beings, which include natural as well as developmental limits, but they are not absolute, for achieving the ultimate (limitlessness) in or from this life, though rare, is absolutely possible; and, if not achieved in this life, it will be attained beyond death; which, in one way, occurs via migration of identity across, e.g., cosmoses (it is not contradictory for many limited beings to simultaneously become the ultimate, for they merge in doing so); though (contrary to conceptions in which the ultimate is essentially remote) ultimate realization is given: there are intelligent and effective pathways to the ultimate (intelligence is regarded as effective negotiation of the ultimate in and from the immediate). That ultimate realization is given may seem to imply that will be require neither effort nor perseverance nor intelligence; however, this is (probably?) not true for robust and effective realization.

How should we act in face of the possibility that one’s awareness may be (that of) an unstable, non-robust cosmos? It will be seen that this is most unlikely, but possible. Except that doubt is good and that we should develop an awareness of living and thinking on two or more levels, we should act with confidence as though the world as we know it has reality (this is not intended to deny the value of developing precision in knowledge or knowing, whether it be by empirical, rational, or other means).

enjoyment is appreciation of all aspects of experience (and the world), including perception, cognition, emotion, and pleasure and pain. If enjoyment is an essential value, it is imperative to be on an intelligent path to the ultimate.

pleasure and pain (‘suffering’) are unavoidable—the way is not and should not be seen as a guarantee of eternal bliss as a reward for prescribed behavior but, rather, there is no way out of an eternal mix of pleasure and pain and an eternal, if not uniform, path of improvement; perhaps such a guarantee could be seen as a good lie with positive consequences, but I think that the net consequence would be negative and perhaps destructive; pleasure is good, but to seek it excessively for its own sake is diversionary and while entertainment is not to be denied it is good to find entertainment in the world and the way.

Though pain is unavoidable, its best address, as far as it is possible and reasonable, is to be on a shared pathway to the ultimate, which is therapeutic in itself and with which the best instrumental therapy interacts and is integrated. The way does not offer eternal release from pain or worlds and lives without pain—it offers an effective approach to and transcendence of the issue of pain. Realization—any achievement—will weave together progress with address of pain; final release is illusory and to seek it is a block to realization (but release ought to be appreciated when it occurs). To feel at home, complete, or content, is good, but as process and ends are both good, therapy in itself and achievement ought to be balanced. True compassion is therapeutic and difficult.

The classical notions of a god that is perfect in the sense of eradicating all pain and evil are irrational. Peak being does not do things for us. We are part of peak being in process and it is our task to find a way that is maximally good and that deals with pain, pleasure, and the exercise of our abilities, as best we can.

Dimensions and paradigms of being

The dimensions and paradigms are spelled out in some detail so as to provide a framework for action in our world for our world and toward the ultimate.

Dimensions

Dimensions of being are aspects or elements of the world that are effective in describing and negotiating the world.

Dimensions are related to categories, which are elements just below being itself in their scope or generality, though not necessarily restricted to just one ‘layer’ (from Categories—Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy—“A system of categories is a complete list of highest kinds or genera”).

Pure

The world is experiential—The pure dimension of the world in process is experiential being in form and formation of worlds and beings on the way to the limitless ultimate.

Pragmatic

Since the ideal picture of realization is given, it is chosen to complement it with a system of pragmatic knowledge, as in a system of human knowledge. The chosen local and pragmatic dimensions are from a western materialist view—the natural, the social, and the universal-ultimate, which are laid out in detail in this section, and which provides a counterpoint to the pure approach from being, which may seem to be an idealism (but is not). While this may seem to promote a materialist ideology, the natural and social could be seen in terms of experience and therefore of being-as-such, and so the approach excludes neither non-western nor or non-materialist views; and the universal is already seen in terms of being-as-such.

Nonetheless metaquestions about the pragmatic dimensions—what they and their elements are and how they are arrived at—remain open.

Nature, the ground in this system, has flexible and apparently fixed aspects; sub-dimensions are (i) elementary or physical (ii) complex or living, and (iii) experiential as intrinsic ground and which pertains to both the elementary and the complex. Nature ‘gives rise’ to society and Creativity and emergence show nature as more flexible than would otherwise be thought, and which leads to a conception of the universal, which we have found limitless.

society (community to civilization) emerges from nature on the chosen pragmatic approach. Sub-dimensions are cultural, geo-political-economic-ethical (local, national, global, and universal), and transsecular, which entails, as is now known from the metaphysics, the universal-ultimate. In detail—the cultural encompasses language, custom, science, reason, metaphysics, and human knowledge and exploration, generally, as well as representation and transmission of knowledge, which includes education; social science is about structures, e.g. groups and institutions, origins, change, and dynamics of culture and society; economics is about organization and distribution of resources—means and principles; politics concerns group decision and its organization, practical and ideal, whose address is immersive and instrumental (elements of power include: individuals, wealth, economy, institutions, charisma and anti-charisma, force, e.g., military, information, e.g., media); ethics is seen as being about good ideals and ends, right actions, and virtuous behavior and thought, but, though it ought to be given weight, the significance of different ethical systems, folk and philosophical, is unclear, and, further, it is not at all clear to what extent and in what manner they universalize: ethics ought to remain experimental and reflective; law (‘justice’) is seen as the development, delivery, and application of codes of behavior. While the distinction between economics, politics, ethics, and law is recognized, in practice and in theory, they ought to be interwoven at multiple levels, local up.

Universal—real metaphysics shows the universal-ultimate realm (abbreviated, universal) of our endeavor, to be absolutely flexible in realization of the ultimate. The universal begins with understanding of limitlessness, and yogic-meditative and instrumental intention and action toward its realization. It merges with culture in art, science, philosophy, exploration, and spirituality-and-religion-in-an-ideal-sense. It is critical that these disciplines (yoga through religion) be understood not just in terms of their canon but as in process, experimental, subject to reason, informed by the metaphysics, and interactively.

Paradigms

Paradigms are general features of the world that summarize its behaviors and forms; paradigms are more general than laws and theories—for example, relativity theory falls under the paradigm of determinism, but on the position that it has indeterminism, quantum theory does not.

Pure

The essential paradigm of the pure dimension is the necessary part of general logic, i.e., the deductive logics and necessary fact, described earlier and below, and understood to be critical and imaginative.

Sciences and corrigible observation constitute the pragmatic and taken up next.

Pragmatic

From the natural sciences, certain paradigms of form and formation and paradigms of perception and thought may be derived. These include (a) incremental change and emergence via variation and selection from evolutionary biology and (b) mechanism and causation (on a determinism – indeterminism continuum) from physics. These paradigms enable understanding of formed and robust cosmoses and beings from the void which exhibit high symmetry and stability and thus effective population of the universe by robust cosmoses with beings at an elevated level of experientiality. The physics of our cosmos may be seen as residue from formation, e.g., from the void—in the selective process (or otherwise), what remains is form (manifest in deterministic mechanics of Newton and Einstein, and in the deterministic side of quantum theory) and formlessness (perhaps manifest in the possibly indeterministic side of quantum theory).

The following paradigms from the social and ethical realm are tentative. Some themes: sustainability vs growth; political-economics and ethics in wealth distribution; theoretical or conceptual ethics, morals, and their relation to choice, decisions and action, for individuals, societies, nations, the world, and the universe (and balance among the same); charisma and institution in power; political philosophy (rational ideology from the metaphysics implies experientiality generates any ‘true’ framework) vs political science (what obtains in fact); populism vs liberal democracy in stable and effective governance; law and justice as deriving from individuals, ideas, tradition and history—including that of primitive societies, numbers, force, human psychology and identification, which includes the power of normativity; power and history; secularism and transsecularism in history and ultimate being.

Paradigms arising in the universal realm include necessary design (for example, we as beings are on the way to peak capability), necessary cause—premised and spontaneous (given the real metaphysics, it is spontaneous in name but necessary in fact, given the real metaphysics) and general logic (the logic of the real metaphysics, which includes induction of systems of logic and theories of science and deduction within those systems, and necessary fact as well as pragmatic fact); this brings logic, mathematics, and science closer than might have otherwise been thought (they are found to be similar in kind but differ on degree of necessity and degree of certainty continua). Inasmuch as there is doubt about facts and theories in both logic and science (but the degree of certainty is greater for logic), the rational and the empirical are brought closer than might otherwise be thought. Given that experience is experiencing, change and its measure are necessary; further form requires extension and its measure; therefore space-time-being is paradigmatic (it does not follow that our measures of spacetime are necessary).

Consequences

The paradigm of formation by incremental variation and selection suggests that stable, near symmetric, robust cosmoses are numerically and significantly preponderant with near certainty. Bizarre cosmoses, e.g., the solipsist cosmoses do exist, and even though ‘we’ may be in one, and it may inform our existential attitudes, otherwise, it is effective to live as though our cosmos is robust. It is pragmatic to think our paradigms of the world to be real, subject, of course, to the real metaphysics which includes critical and imaginative thought.

A program of realization

The aim of being is to be in the immediate and the ultimate as one. For limited beings, this is a process. The ways are intrinsic, involving the experiential self, and instrumental, which emphasize the at least as if material side of being.

Though the worldview or metaphysics of the narrative is formally complete, realization is an implementation of the view and, therefore, if metaphysics is seen as an interaction among ideas and action, a program of realization extends the metaphysics. The elements of the program are everyday and universal programs are outlined below and detailed in an adaptable template (supplemented by meditation and yoga), which are designed to be adaptable to a range of life situations, cultures, and personal attitudes. The everyday and the ultimate are designed to mesh.

Everyday

Everyday program—everyday action is a flexible daily routine attending to development and execution of a way of realization, and physical and experiential yoga, work and relationships, and material and health needs and concerns. The template is designed to be adaptable to (1) varying time schedules and levels of detail (2) normal days at a home, work, and play vs special days, for activities such as immersion in nature, other cultures, and commitment to and reaffirmation of a worldview and approach to life and action in retreat. An example of immersion in nature is the Tibetan Buddhist practice of beyul, i.e., of immersion in remote places, to evoke the inner and outer real. A second example is immersion in culture as inspiration and sharing. Retreat is immersive as reinforcing the worldview of the way and renewal of self and commitment. Therapy shall be an integration of the way and the best current therapeutic practice. It will include meditation on compassion for self and others, particularly those who are difficult to like.

Universal-ultimate

Universal-ultimate program—begins with everyday action via the everyday program, with focus on the dimensions of being. In addition to the everyday—focus on nature is via exploration, experiential travel, and living in nature (‘the wilderness’), especially beyul; focus on the social dimension is via instrumental and immersive action in its sub-dimensions (society and community; culture, knowledge generation and transmission; global through local politics, economics, and ethics; and the transsecular); focus on the ultimate is via sharing, and instrumental and immersive action toward realization of the ultimate in and from the immediate.

Being real (authentic living)

Being real is (i) to know and be on the way to one’s purpose in living (ii) to have this in alignment with the nature of the universe or world and its process (iii) to experience and know the richness of life (iv) to have some balance between being on the way and contentment (some are lucky that purpose and contentment are in alignment, for some it takes work or is a struggle, for the unfortunate there may be neither contentment nor process) (v) that the person’s emerging preference is paramount in this choice (vi) living with tension between limit and limitlessness, but ‘the also serve who only stand and wait’ amid life, while being open to (self) enlightenment (this and other tensions imply that being real—being authentic—is not formulaic and invariably give and take between arriving and falling short; thus being real may involve but is not identical to contentment).

Development of the way

Planning is in a manual and the website for the way of being. The plan for this document is (i) to continue to edit and minimize it (ii) to expand on the dimensions and paradigms of being, page 20, together dimensions of being, experience, and the world.

Resources

This brief list of resources is a collection of (i) the inline references in the work and (ii) other supplements.

The Way of Being website

Website for the Way of Being—https://www.horizons-2000.org/ (has a vast system of material, partially organized, awaits ordering and filtering).

A longer web edition of The Way of Being—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2022/theway/little%20manual.html (has an extensive system of references to the site; has references in the site, which focus on an array of topics such as the problems of philosophy, problems of metaphysics, how to build a metaphysics, reflections on method without apriorism, abstract objects, general logic, dialetheia, challenges and opportunities of our world, vocabulary and grammar for metaphysics, philosophy of mind and consciousness with a focus on the ‘hard problem of consciousness’, and more; has detail and planning; will be updated to incorporate new material in the present edition).

A system of human knowledge—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2021/resources/system%20of%20human%20knowledge,%20reason,%20practice,%20and%20action.html (in process, derived from and informing the real metaphysics—its abstract and pragmatic sides, one basis for an encyclopedic system; note that another base is the metaphysical vocabulary in the longer web edition above).

Yoga and meditation—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2021/topic%20essays/meditation-more.html (views yoga with meditation in its eastern and western versions with their received essences and purposes as in-process and experimental and subject to evolution in terms of the real metaphysics—and, here, deployed to transformation in light of the metaphysics; not seen as distinct from other modes of thought and ways of being, western or eastern, and as integrable and integrated with rational thought and action).

Template for the program of realization—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2021/narratives/templates%20and%20dedication.pdf (to download a Microsoft docm version, replace ‘pdf’ by ‘docm’).

Beyul—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2021/old/the%20essential%20way%20of%20being.html#beyul (tradition in Tibetan Buddhism of seeking the experiential real via immersion and challenge in remote natural places).

Dimensions of being, experience, and the world—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2022/theway/canonical/dimensions%20of%20being,%20experience,%20and%20the%20world.html (the dimensions have absorbed ‘on psychology’, require improvement in presentation but are otherwise near complete, and will be absorbed toward richness of being, perhaps under the toward richness of being, perhaps under the dimensions of being).

Other sites

Categories—https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/categories/ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Epilogue

Life is reflection and action. A phase of reflection, though not of inaction, comes to fulfilment; it is now time for a phase emphasizing immersive action and commitment, though not of unreflective life. narration will continue in-the-world and its foci shall be improvement of the way via imagination and criticism. A focus will be on a neglected concern in the history of text is universal narrative—i.e., collapsing the essential history of narrative and thought so as to extract what is essential and to have balance against tendencies to infinite detail and the sheer weight of the cumulative record. death will be unremarkable in itself, but, if, at death, one is incompletely realized, it will be a gateway to the ultimate.

The following was observed earlier—

The eternity of peak and dissolution is not an eternity of repetition, for the variety and magnitude is without end. There is no end to adventure.

The way and life will be one.