Welcome    Metaphysics    Realization    Design    Resources    Anil Mitra

Metaphysics is true knowledge of the real; this is shown to be a feasible, potent, and historically significant conception of metaphysics  ¢  In the metaphysics of the way, the universe has limitless form and identity, which all beings realize via paths that begin in our world and merge in the ultimate  ¢  The metaphysics addresses our entire being—reason and emotion join as one, as guide and place of being  ¢  Transformation is in, from, and of the world—so, it is effective to supplement the metaphysics with pragmatic reason and exploration  ¢  Though limited, the pragmatic is good enough and therefore perfect for realization  ¢  Hide essay on metaphysics

Metaphysics for The Way of Being – Contents

About this edition

Notation

The metaphysics—a limitless universe

On the human endeavor

A beginning—what shall we do with our lives and our world?

The greatest thing

Beyond tradition

A strategy

We are experiential beings

Meta-experience

The world

The universe is limitless

On meaning and abstraction

Consequences for the universe and beings

Consequences regarding experience

Dimensions of being

Pathways to the ultimate

Peak being

Religion, spirituality, and philosophy

Realization

Design

Technical matters

Criticism and response

About limitlessness

About substance

About robust being and worlds

About space and time

A summation

Resources

Appendix—how to build a metaphysics

What is metaphysics?

Is metaphysics possible?

how to build a metaphysics

Is the real metaphysics historically significant?

About this edition

The contents of the site and the essay below are my original expression, which is copyrighted.

Though ideas cannot copyrighted (in the USA, where I live), the ideas here are significantly my own. Obviously, there is a foundation in the general culture and, perhaps not so obviously, my work here derives significantly from received thought (also see ‘my influences’). However, the material is not a presentation of established ideas—where it derives from them, it synthesizes and goes beyond.

There is just one print version of the material, published in 2013, named ‘Journey in Being’. The material today is significantly new. There is a myriad of web versions, each version typically changing incrementally from the previous one. However, the net change is significant. Further, the essential ideas are so inclusive that just about any topic regarding ideas, e.g., from the science, philosophy, or exploration and transformation of being, the history of thought, and more, can fall under it. Therefore, The Way of Being will remain fresh for the foreseen future.

Notation

small capitals are used to indicate important terms, usually in association with definitions.

The metaphysics—a limitless universe

On the human endeavor

Is there a human endeavor? Is it presumptive to assert that there is one, that there is only one, or that a few persons, perhaps one, can know and dictate what it is? How may these questions be addressed satisfactorily?

One approach to the questions is to rise above the particular and seek an answer in generality and abstraction—and then, of course, come back to the concrete. This approach is one that is taken in the material that follows this section. I want to emphasize that while the aim is ‘common ground’, it is in the nature of ‘the way’ (and, I think in my own nature), that the intent is neither compulsion nor belief. Rather, the developments should display their necessity, at least as I see it, and be open to readers’ judgment.

Another way to avoid presumption is to talk about an interpretation—my interpretation—of one aspect of the endeavor. I talk of the internal force that some humans have to rise above what they have been so far, to attempt to rise above what have been seen in common wisdom to be the limits of our being and our world. The suggestion is that this is a fundamental though not exclusive aspect of endeavor and that it is an essential source of meaning in the sense of significance. Again, I do not suggest that this ‘internal force’ is or should be universal. I also accept that some may have as their own attitude that ‘they also serve who only stand and wait’.

To talk reasonably of the question of limits requires that we know about ourselves and the world. Two common approaches to knowledge and its justification are the empirical and the rational.

According to empiricism, knowledge comes from sense evidence. In its strictest form knowledge comes only from the senses that pertain to the external—not internal—world and somehow, in a leap of reason, empiricism, in a hyper-strict if tacit form, demands that there is nothing beyond today’s knowledge, today’s science. There is, of course, no basis for that attitude—whatever is consistent with the empirical in terms of necessary logic, is not ruled out by the empirical. This, of course, does not imply that what is consistent with the empirical has truth. But can we have knowledge of what lies beyond the empirical at all? I will briefly address this concern, just below, and work out a detailed and affirmative answer in what follows.

If knowledge is to go beyond the empirical, it would seem to be in thought—iconic or symbolic or both. In the rational approach, reason is also a source of knowledge. Many empiricists affirm that empiricism itself does not give rise to our concepts and conceptual frameworks but that the concepts and frameworks are tinged by hypothesis. Some empiricists argue that the inner sense—awareness of our conscious and other awareness fills in what stark externalism misses. However, rationalism holds, at least, that reasoning from the empirical can and does lead to new knowledge—knowledge which is not obtained from the senses, external or internal or both. Can rationalism itself lead to knowledge? A suggestion comes from Descartes’ approach to establishing knowledge of the existence of thought (his argument was for the ‘I’, but it was essentially an argument that conscious content itself exists and that it has at least one object—itself). The suggestion is that at root, the empirical and the rational are not distinct.

(What is existence? Given a term ‘x’, we say x exists if x designates a concept that has a real and intended object.)

(Note that the argument above nulls the common criticism of Descartes’ insertion of the ‘I’ as irrelevant. However, the criticism is also in error, for the existence or nonexistence of the I must be predicated, not on our intuition of the I, but on a definition of it. For example, we could define the I as the intuition or sense of the I, or as some cluster of continued awareness in time centered on consciousnesses awareness of the consciousnesses. However, we shall not take this approach, for the I of our identity shall be established in a quite different approach.)

Some errors in the debate between empiricism and rationalism are that the two really are distinct, that rationalism is at root not empirical, and that what we think of as empirical is in fact the only empirical. In what follows, we transcend narrow conceptions of the empirical and the rational. Regarding experience, defined below, we find it trans-empirical to assert its existence, for experience is the place of evidence (and more). Regarding the universe, we assert that it is an error to think that ‘everything’ is defined by the limits of our empirical knowledge or our common kinds of such knowledge, for to think that way is to eliminate categories of being from existence without warrant. Rather, we will say that the universe is all being.

A beginning—what shall we do with our lives and our world?

In seeking, one ought to ask, ‘what is seeking’ and ‘what is it that I am seeking?’ We may come to ask—

What is the best we can do—individually and collectively?

What resources do we have? What are our limits? We have received knowledge and ways of exploration and growth and our human resources—intrinsic (reason, exploration, experiment) and instrumental (physical, technology of being and exploration).

Received knowledge has significant limits in that it conventionally stops at the empirical (‘science’) or has elements of myth in what lies beyond (‘religion’). The limit is not (just) that there is widespread empirical reductionism, but that the received commonly misconceives what the empirical and rational are—i.e., that the empirical is only what is measured or directly sensed and that the rational is somehow not empirical.

Let us free ourselves of these shackles of thought. We begin by looking carefully at our nature (as experiential beings) and then at the question of limits and its possible overcoming—which we begin by enquiring into the limits of the universe. We find that the universe and all beings are limitless. We discuss the meaning of this assertion, some objections to it, and derive consequences. An essential consequence is that we are all limitless being.

The greatest thing

When we enquire into ‘the best we can do’, we are necessarily enquiring into the meanings of ‘good’, ‘right’, and ‘best’.

We can approach the question of value by merging it with the value-neutral ‘world’ or ‘universe’ and we may then be concerned with the greatest rather than just the best.

From the metaphysics that is developed below, concern with the greatest turns out to be ontologically sound—i.e., it is in the nature of being that the question of value merges with the value neutral.

Beyond tradition

By tradition, we shall mean received and widespread views of the world. One view is that the world is the empirical world—not just the world of simple facts but of facts and their explanations, e.g., as in science. Perhaps religion arises as a reaction to science. If we ask whether science reveals all things, the rational response is that no such claim is known to be valid. Religion, then, seeks to see beyond, to respond to a need for meaning beyond that of material science, and to present a world picture into which science may or may not fit. Often, however, religion is dogma. As far as it appeals to many, even the most rational and liberal of religions, will have elements of dogma (the religion as a whole may make practical spiritual sense and have significant symbolic meaning).

Can we tread into the region beyond the empirical and yet talk reliably and without dogma? It was suggested above that rationalism and empiricism together may make this possible.

This is reflected in metaphysical systems of the past and present. The essential problem of such systems is that if reason takes reflection beyond the empirical, it will seem to be possible rather than necessary, and so its conclusions would at best be likely.

However, as suggested earlier, we will find a way to necessary reason, but it will not be beyond the empirical—rather, it will look carefully at the nature of the rational and the empirical and find them, at root, to be one. And further, it will find a way to certain (abstract but potent) facts that are necessary and concern, not just particular things, but all things.

A strategy

To aim at what may be achieved and what is worth achieving, it is useful—even imperative—to understand the world and its nature. Though action is essential, without understanding and knowledge, action is empty (and without action, understanding is incomplete).

Though the traditions of understanding may be incomplete, it is effective to begin there. One beginning is with Aristotle, who emphasized the significance of ‘being’. The meaning of ‘being’ is rooted in the verb to be, roughly to exist. It is, thus, seemingly simple. But Aristotle’s account is far from simple. The idea of being is—that which is the most fundamental or most general or real. But how can we approach the idea? Aristotle talks around being and perhaps we can do no better—perhaps, if we are to talk at all, the ‘talking around’ cannot be avoided, for if being is most fundamental, then it is not clear in what other terms it should be understood, or whether there are such terms (but often when we think there are no terms, it may be just, that we have not thought of any in our systematic and in our ad hoc reflections).

Aristotle introduces the concept of ‘substance’ and asks what the substance of things is generally, and what are the substances of particular things. To enquire of substance is to enquire of what simple thing is or may be the essence of thing. Possibilities for substance that Aristotle suggests are essence, universal, genus and subject. Clarification of these ideas is complex and, even if we find Aristotle illuminating, his line of thinking is not ended, either by him or his intellectual heirs. This is natural for how may we understand the most fundamental understanding?

Heidegger takes up the question. From reflection and philosophy, we do not know what being is, but we have at least a naïve idea. This is a beginning, but the real beginning must be a question—what is being and what is its nature? Heidegger answers that the nature of being must be that which can ask about and contemplate the nature of being. This he calls Dasein, which is the beginning of his inquiry into being, and which he continues as analysis of the human condition, which includes that we find ourselves thrown into existence, without an answer to the fundamental question of our nature but armed with some ability to investigate that question. Though history illuminates, it does not answer the question of the nature of being. Perhaps that is the best we can do.

We observe that the inquiry begins with being as simple—that which is—but analysis is complex. We (historically) are attempting to fit all that is fundamental about us and the world into the seemingly simple concept of being. Perhaps the approach to fit the complex to the simple is not optimal.

This suggests the following strategy. Let us introduce being as simple (later it will be the characteristic of that which exists, and beings will be existing things). The strategy begins without the thought that being will or will not emerge as something more. On the other hand, we do not and ought not to deny that there is something more. The strategy will be to respect the dual imperatives of simplicity (it does not imply shallowness) on the one hand and depth, subtlety, foundation, and reality on the other.

Thus, ‘being’ will be that which exists or is, in the most inclusive sense of ‘is’. And rather than to find depth in being, we employ being as framework for depth.

We begin with our nature as experiential beings. The depth analysis may be described as ‘psychology’. However, (i) that psychology would not be required to retread or be limited by the academic use of the term, (ii) it would not be only about ‘mind’ but would be about the entire understanding of what is most fundamental and essential about being in the world, and (iii) our psychology would be written after our general metaphysical understanding of the world. The section on psychology does not yet exist but is a future project.

We are experiential beings

Experience is not understood as just ‘experience of’ but as consciousness in all its forms and varieties. That we have experience is not to be proved for it names what is given. We live in experience—it is the place of our being and our sense of meaningfulness.

Experience may be analyzed in detail—sensing, perceiving, conceiving, reason, feeling, emotion, willing, reflecting… and more. It is critical, however, to emphasize that emotion and reason—intensity and form—are essentially one in being the place of being. For human being, reason without emotion is dead and emotion without reason is blind. There ought not to be a debate as to whether one is more important than the other.

Since we are of the universe, if the universe were made of fixed, non-interacting essences, it would have to have one essence which would be experience. Our cosmos does seem to be essence or substance like. But we do not know the universe to be made of essence and therefore our experiential nature only suggests that the universe is experiential—that the universe is experiential does not follow from this line of thought but, as we will see, it does follow from another line to be developed.

There is ‘experience of’ and ‘the experienced’, which are two sides of experience, which is therefore relational. Since we experience our experience, experience falls on both sides. The two sides are as if of the psyche (experience of) and as if of matter (the experienced) and therefore to say the universe is experiential is neither to deny nor affirm the reality of mind and matter.

Meta-experience

Experience is experienced. Correspondingly, the metaphysics, which is being developed, has self-reference. This suggests that it may be self-founding. Is this possible? Is it the case? Contrary to intuition, expectation, and standard conservatism in thought, it will be found to be both. This finding shall emerge in what follows.

Of course, while we experience some of our experience, we do not seem to experience all of it. We may say that experience not experienced is sub- or un-conscious, but it does not follow that subconscious experience shall remain subconscious.

Earlier, it was denied that science has necessarily revealed anything like all being or the nature of all being. This was argued from the possibility that what lies beyond experience—i.e., beyond experienced experience—may be limitless in extent, duration, and variety: it may be unlike anything experienced so far.

But if we have not experienced all our experience, it is possible that our experience extends beyond experienced experience—and beyond consensus experience. Is it possible that we have experienced ‘everything’? The suggestion seems absurd. But if it were to be true, we would have to be much greater being than we may tend to think we are. We will find this to be the case. What all that means, and how it could be true, shall emerge in what follows.

The world

In our experience, we have pictures of ‘everything’ that we label ‘the world’.

Because these pictures may contain distortion, incompleteness, and error—and are perhaps not pictures at all—we may say that they are interpretations. An interpretation (of experience) is a world picture that is consistent with experience and its content (more generally, an interpretation could be a part world picture).

We now describe some common interpretations. Conclusions regarding their ‘reality’ are (mostly) deferred to the section, consequences regarding experience.

One common picture of the world is the common secular view—the world is material, we are material beings with experience (and, by implication, there is nothing beyond our experience so far). The common secular view has difficulties explaining the fact of experience, which suggests an extended secular view in which the world is not strictly material. As noted earlier, if the world is a substance world, the substance would be elementary experience and we would conclude that experiential consciousness is real, the world is experiential but bifurcated into beings for which experientiality is zero or minimal—but null—and beings with higher consciousness—bright centers elaborate and focal consciousness. Dualism—i.e., that both matter and mind are real—is deemphasized because we later find substance to be incompletely explanatory. For the same reason we will also find monism to be incomplete.

Another view is the same as the extended secular but emphasizes the world as experiential—it is a field view, in which the universe is experiential field. This view is universe as field of experiential being.

The usual complements to secular views are the religious views. Common reason suggests that these views have symbolic value but that their cosmologies are (almost always) mythic in character. What truth they may have is addressed later.

As noted earlier, we do not know that our science is perfectly precise or complete. One approach to its completion is the religious. Another is metaphysical. There is a range of developed metaphysical systems from the world histories of philosophy. These systems typically have speculative or hypothetical content. Nonetheless, they may have elements that are useful in the build of a non-speculative metaphysics. Readers familiar with the history, will see that the present development employs such elements.

We conceive metaphysics as knowledge of the real. Given problems of knowledge, particularly that the concept of an object is not the object, it is valid and critical to ask whether metaphysics is possible. The question is addressed by constructing a metaphysical system below. Explicit consideration of the question is deferred to the later section, is metaphysics possible?

While many historical metaphysical systems do not entirely transcend speculation, the metaphysics developed here is metaphysics as just defined. It may also be seen that while the conception of metaphysics in western philosophy today is not entirely definite, the present conception lies in the tradition while also giving it definiteness, comprehensiveness, and truthfulness.

The present development is metaphysical in the above sense—i.e., knowledge of the real.

A further view is that of solipsism—the world is nothing but the ‘experience of’ of what we think to be the limited kind of being that a human is. This view is not seriously entertained as real, but, since it cannot be ruled out on logical ground, is a testing ground and spur to realism. Note that there is an extended solipsism in which the limited being is replaced by a universal or ultimate being—this extended solipsism may be seen as equivalent to the field of experience and being view.

Which, if any, of these interpretations are correct? We address this question in the later section, consequences regarding experience.

The universe is limitless

The existence and nonexistence of the void or absence of being are equivalent and so the void may be taken to exist. Since laws have being, the void is not constrained by law. Therefore, from the void, every possible being emerges—i.e., the universe realizes all possibility… is limitless.

‘The void’ is another term for nothingness.

On meaning and abstraction

Part of this discussion could be placed under technical matters. However, as the concept of meaning as understood below is critical to the metaphysics, the discussion is placed here.

Earlier, ‘meaning’ was used in the sense of ‘significance’, e.g., the ‘meaning of life’. Here it denotes concept and linguistic meaning.

It is critical to attend to concept meanings as introduced here. Thus ‘experience’ is not just ‘experience of’, but as defined above. The universe was all being, the void was the absence of being. Substance will later be conceived as ultimate essence (further clarification will be given in resource material). ‘Being’ is being used informally, but later, being will used formally as—the characteristic property of—that which is, where the verb to be, ‘is’, may have any of its possible forms, particular or inclusive, with regard the continuum (or discretum) of its occurrence (e.g., spacetime).

Being and existence are the same, but whereas the definition of being emphasized the object, the earlier definition of existence emphasized both subject and object.

What is the meaning of meaning? Here, concept meaning is a concept—a mental content—and its defined range of referents. Linguistic meaning is concept meaning in which signs, simple or complex, are associated with the concepts.

Though there may be discussion of ‘what the terms mean’, remember that though signs may have multiple common meanings, there is no compulsion to enter into that discussion, for, just as in formal systems, the stated meaning is the meaning used here. Are such meanings ‘correct’? The measure of correctness is not endless discussion, but success of the net metaphysical system. Also note that ‘use’ is not meaning as such, but rather a determiner of meaning. Further clarification of meaning will be given in the resources).

Finally, abstraction is removal from a concept of those aspects of it that render it as a distorted picture of an object or even as not being a picture at all.

Consequences for the universe and beings

Though the universe has no creator, its manifest existence is absolutely necessary—i.e., necessity without premise.

The universe has identity—a sense of sameness through change. The universe and its identity are limitless in variety of being, extension, and duration. Beyond and even within our cosmos, there are limitlessly many cosmoses with limitless range of physical law, all in communication with one another and the void (there may be temporary isolation).

All beings are limitless, for if not, it would be a limit on the universe (of course, as suggested earlier, there are limits that are real in that they may be difficult to transcend in a limited context or world). There is no contradiction here, for this achieving occurs beyond common experience, and in achieving the ultimate there is merging of beings.

Every being is equivalent to every other being. In particular, the void and the universe are equivalent. Therefore, the universe phases between void, ‘ordinary’ manifest, and ultimate states. This is a resolution of the ‘problem of something from nothing’.

Though beings may be limited in ordinary experience of the world, there are no isolated beings in the universe as a whole. The apparent finiteness of beings is a local phenomenon. All beings are eternal in that greater reality and every being is in interaction with all being.

Consequences regarding experience

Since all beings are equivalent, there are no ultimate essences or substances. There are no categorially non-experiential beings, for limitlessness implies that every being will access experientiality. That is, some beings have zero experientiality but not null experientiality. Experientiality extends to primitive being, provided it is seen as primitive experientiality rather than what we experience as our conscious being—i.e., higher consciousness. There are as if material beings or objects, and there are as if material cosmoses. Similarly, there are ‘cosmoses’ that are as if the experience of a limited being (that is, while solipsism cannot be true, there are solipsist cosmoses).

Is the universe as experiential an ultimate or limited characterization? Since experience is relation, a higher form would still be relation—i.e., relation of relation. It therefore seems that the characterization is ultimate. There may of course be—and must be—much higher forms of consciousness than ours, but it seems that there is nothing higher than conscious form. This conclusion may of course reflect a limit of merely conscious being. However, in consideration of the fact that the difference between a rock and a human being is a difference in degree rather than kind, it is unnecessary to posit higher kinds to appreciate that there may be far higher beings that the human. In fact, from limitlessness, in the previous sentence, ‘may be’ may be replaced by ‘must be’.

Granted the conclusion, the universe is a field of experiential-relational being (with conscious beings as bright experiential centers, and matter as being with minimal or zero but not null experientiality), which is equivalent to the extended secular view, as well as the extended solipsist view. Though the universe is not as in the common secular view, there are common secular cosmoses.

A parallel can be drawn between these views and geo versus heliocentrism. Geocentrism is natural to a degree while we are earthbound and focused. On the other hand, heliocentrism is natural on a larger scale. Therefore, we say heliocentrism is true. However, we could take a geocentric view, but it would be computationally quite inconvenient and unnatural intuitively and dynamically in that the center of mass of the solar system is located in the sun (named the ‘barycenter’ it is actually within about two solar radii of the sun).

The parallel is that while universe as field corresponds to heliocentrism, the extended secular view corresponds to geocentrism. Neither the field nor extended secular view is incorrect, but while the latter has local naturalness, the former is natural when considering the universe as a whole. Where do the common secular and solipsist views fit in? To see them as correct for the universe would be parallel to regarding a geocentric frame as inertial—as one for which Newton’s second law applies without correction.

Dimensions of being

From the foregoing, being is relational and it is experience that is mediates relation. This is not an idealism, for experience has low and high levels and sides that may be labeled ‘material’ and ‘mental’ (or ‘ideal’ or ‘of the psyche’).

The universe is experiential being in form and formation on the way to the ultimate. Experience, relation, form, and formation may be seen as pure dimensions of being.

A system of pragmatic dimensions can be derived either from the ideal or material view. The material view begins with nature, which is the ‘soil’ of society. In the formation of a social world, nature is seen to have plasticity. In understanding the world, we speculate on that plasticity in science and from projection of human nature—we speculate that there is a universal dimension beyond nature and society. From our metaphysics, we find the universal dimension to be real and ultimate. The ideal view may begin with elementary experience and result in the above material view via interpretations of aspects of experience.

Nature has elementary (physical), complex (living), and experiential (the root of high-level mind). Society has culture (language, knowledge and its creation-discovery, politics or group decisions, economics or discovery-creation and production and distribution of resources, and systems of significant meaning as in art, literal, and spirituality (though religion may begin as dogma and speculation it may evolve into true knowledge of the universal as in the metaphysics). The universal—is the (at least metaphorically) highest reach of the possible as outlined above; it is not very well recognized in the west or well understood in the east (however eastern metaphysics has been suggestive for the way); its means are the real metaphysics, experiment, and reason together with the dimensions of being.

Pathways to the ultimate

From limitlessness, there are and must be pathways to the ultimate. It is an ultimate in terms of both what it achieves and its value. To be on the way, therefore, is desirable—an imperative (seen as intelligent choice rather than compulsion), is not an affront to ‘the sacred’, and adds to value in our world.

How may we be on the way? The metaphysical knowledge above is ideal, perfect, and abstract (it is the abstraction that allows perfection)—though of course, not unreal. We may append to it the pragmatic knowledge of our cultures. Though limited on their own terms, they are the instruments we have on the way and are therefore perfect from the ultimate perspective. In joining the perfect and the pragmatic, the former illuminates and guides the latter, the latter illustrates and is a guide for the former. The join is therefore a metaphysic that is perfect, yet pragmatic. This metaphysics is named the ‘real metaphysics’.

(We commonly regard our systems of knowledge as imperfect and, from the various problems of knowledge, we are justified in doing so. But we should inquire into the nature of perfection. Correspondence perfection is the faithful capture or ‘representation’ of an object by a concept. In terms of this criterion, obviously much of our knowledge will be imperfect. And this is crucial, for no matter how precise science is, if it is not perfect, it cannot have captured the truth of all being and, while it can be used effectively for proximate purposes, it cannot with known reliability be used for the ultimate. But the abstract side of the real metaphysics is perfect in the above sense. And we have just seen that if we conceive knowledge as absolutely perfect if it is good enough in the endeavor of guaranteed realization of the ultimate, then the real metaphysics is perfect.

A question arises—if realization is guaranteed, is it not pointless? Even dissipative? No—for the path of realization through perhaps even limitless possibility is the true adventure.)

Pleasure, pain, and intelligence (seen as intellectual ability that effectively sees and promotes valued outcomes, for rather than just in the world), are unavoidable. If enjoyment is the appreciation of these and other elements of being and exploration, then it is the key to the way.

Pleasure, pain, intelligence (seen as for rather than just in the world), are unavoidable. If enjoyment is the appreciation of these elements of being and exploration, then it is the key to the way. The traditions of reason, science, and what is valuable in religious pathways may be imported to the universal pathway of enjoyment.

Peak being

We have seen that there is no creator of the universe and therefore no ‘God the creator’. But is there God in some sense? Since ‘God’ is weighted with an excess of ‘meaning’, let us use the term peak being instead. What might be the reality of peak being?

Let us begin with ordinary secular knowledge—i.e., knowledge based on consensus experience, knowledge that does not include religious categories such as the spiritual that lies beyond experience, and knowledge that does not include the real metaphysics. Such knowledge does include science as codification of some experience so far but not as paradigmatic knowledge of the entire universe.

That science does not tell us how the universe began or how its existence is sustained. There are speculative theories but none of them seems to be about true origins—i.e., they all posit something. The origin of life from matter is not perfectly traced but there is little doubt that it is from matter—that matter already has what it takes to ground living forms including conscious ones. That is, where we may think of matter as inert relative to consciousness and life, it is not so—any emergence is not emergence of new categories or substances, but of complexity. The basis is ‘variation and selection’ and common histories depict the evolution of life as a branching tree.

Another way of looking at the history of life is to see it as an upswelling of potential that is already present in matter—this view is consistent with the branching view – it is an alternate description, one that omits detail but does not contradict the detail or the mechanism of variation and selection. Perhaps, with this in mind if you are sitting at riverside, teeming with life, you may get a sense of life rising from the elements and that you are part of that upswell. You may get a sense that it has further potential, potential for being higher than all animal being including the intelligent kinds of animal, which include you. You may speculate that if the names ‘Peak being’ or ‘God’ are to reasonably apply to something, they may apply to the upswell of life and its greatest destiny.

The thought in the previous paragraph in isolation is of course speculative. But the thought is not in isolation

From the metaphysics, Peak Being is real. It goes beyond our common experiential categories, and it answers to the searches for spirit and the religious kinds found in speculative dogma.

What is more, the foundation from the real metaphysics is not just of life, but also of the necessity of the universe as the realization of all possibility.

We are part of the being and process of Peak Being. If ‘God’ is to have meaning, we must be part of it.

As an aside, let us ask whether ‘realization of all possibility’ implies the existence of marginal and shadowy worlds? Yes, it does. Does this, then, not make the real metaphysics unreasonable and unlikely. Not it does not, for the real metaphysics is not speculative. But this may leave one with a sense of unease regarding the shadow worlds. This sense of unease is addressed in the section about robust being and worlds.

Religion, spirituality, and philosophy

Though the truth of religion is often doubted, religion has some significance for search for the real. It reveals, at least, some conceptions of the extent of the real. It is useful, at least as a guide, in metaphysics. Therefore, we shall enquire into religion and spirituality. We shall find the discussion suggestive for philosophy and philosophy as coextensive with metaphysics as framing the search—and as framing human knowledge.

What is religion? Our received notions are clouded by general, secular, and transsecular preconceptions and investments. The preconceptions and investments are relevant but to see what religion is or may be, we ought to lift the clouding.

How may we lift the clouding? Three ways are evident—(i) to precisely see the nature of our being and the universe (ii) to precisely see the nature of what it is to enquire into the nature of some significant human activity such as religion or science (iii) to experience actual religions and to supplement this experience with studies of religion—e.g., those of western and eastern thinkers.

To see the nature of our being and the universe, we have the real metaphysics. We are and the universe is the realization of all possibility. The limits suggested by science and common experience are real but not absolute. Knowledge of our real nature begins in common experience but now far transcends it. From the real metaphysics, what may be referred to by the terms ‘spiritual’ and ‘material’ are not distinct, but rather, there is the real which includes the material, and the spiritual may refer to those aspects of the real which resonate with the idea of ‘higher being’. Consequently, any notion of religion that limits it to being about an unseen realm is enormously limited even if grounded in empirical study of the religions, which sees religion as typical involved with the supernatural.

To enquire into the nature of religion, we refer to earlier discussion of meaning and abstraction. In line with that general discussion, ‘religion’ must refer to a concept, its referents, and a search for their ideal nature, as informed by empirical studies, and in the context of the real metaphysics.

If religion is to go beyond but include science and secular philosophy, what is it? Religion would be the search for understanding and realization of all being using our entire being. That notion includes relevant aspects of the received notion and acknowledges the universe as revealed by the real metaphysics. Religion is not about the ‘supernatural’ because the real metaphysics recognizes no essential realms of the natural and the supernatural (of course the term ‘natural’ has some received secular sense). Perhaps the definition of religion above is too inclusive. Perhaps the label ‘religion’ would be misleading on account of its negative connotations and the real distortions within actual religions. We might prefer some term that suggested the ‘highest endeavor of being’.

Given these conceptions, Spirituality may be seen as search for idea of the highest endeavor and its objects.

It might be objected that value, ethics, and aesthetics have not been mentioned in connection with spirituality and religion. This is not an omission; value is implicit in the discussion, which is shown explicitly in a summation.

We add observations on philosophy here first because, like religion, it is a discipline that has come to have an extremely limited meaning relative to its potential. We shall begin to understand the term philosophy by asking a question—Is there a rational and or empirical discipline that incorporates and stands above all disciplines? Today, we might think not, but the real metaphysics shows, and ordinary reflection suggests, the connectedness of all disciplines. Further, from the real metaphysics there emerges a system of reasoning and knowing that ties all disciplines together in a comprehensive and ultimate framework. What shall we name this discipline? I shall call it philosophy, even though I know that in so doing I shall give offense to many scientists and invite criticism from philosophers.

Further, philosophy, as it now emerges, is coextensive with the real metaphysics and thus a framework for that which is—a framework for being.

Realization

Action on ideas toward manifest realization is essential to completion of the ideas.

Details begin with the realization page.

Design

Design is metacontent that is usually omitted from published documents. However, for metaphysics—especially when aimed at realization—design metacontent is essential.

Details begin with the design page.

Technical matters

Criticism and response

This section presents responses to likely common criticisms. Some objections are to the metaphysics (limitlessness) on various counts including its demonstration, to the value of following an efficient path to the ultimate, and to the universe as experiential. A final objection is that doubt is healthy—and therefore, there ought to be doubt rather than certainty. Objections are italicized.

Limitlessness is not empirical, not rational, and counter-intuitive. Response—the term ‘universe’ is (here) a name for all being, the existence of the void is argued rationally, ‘law’ is a name for patterns, from which it follows rationally, that the universe is limitless. The conclusion seems counter-intuitive, but many new paradigms seem counter-intuitive because they are counter to the intuition associated with established paradigms. The counter-intuitive aspect of limitlessness would carry weight if either experience or reason were violated. It has been shown that there is no necessary violation. However, it might seem that the paradigm of limitlessness attempts to fit ‘infinity’ into small spaces in our secular world-view. This is not the case. For example, in moving to relativity, the new view did not ‘fit in’ to the Newtonian. Rather, the Newtonian was found to approximate the new for low relative speeds and weak gravitational fields. That is, the new view encompassed the old. Similarly, the limitless universe contains our world from without and within. Our argument is not analogous to any ‘god of the gaps’ argument.

But lingering doubt remains about the fact and the demonstration of limitlessness. Response—doubt ought to remain. However, given consistency with experience and reason, two alternative attitudes to limitlessness may be adopted (i) as a physical or metaphysical postulate and (ii) as an existential principle of action.

Is not approach to the ultimate a violation of the sacred and does it not neglect our world? Response—no, for the ultimate envelopes and illuminates our world and to approach it enhances both the world and the process of the ultimate.

Experience and matter are distinct categories—the universe cannot be experiential. Response—if the universe were made up of substances, i.e., essences that do not interact, then there could be only one substance. As we have seen, experience has two sides—‘experience of’, which may be labeled ‘of mind’ and ‘the experienced’ which may be labeled ‘as if it were matter’. Experience itself joins these sides as one, experience itself, which, since it experiences and is experienced is seen as one in another way. That is a neat solution to the problem of categories and shows the emergence solution to be unnecessary (beside being contradictory in that it has one substance emerging from another). However, from limitlessness the universe cannot be a substance universe, which rules out necessity—but not possibility—of the foregoing argument. At the same time, limitlessness also founds the argument, for it shows that the non-experiential may become experiential and therefore to be non-experiential is only to have experience of value zero and not to be categorially non-experiential. Our high-level consciousness emerges in evolution, but it is the level, not consciousness itself which emerges. But it may be now questioned whether there are other kinds beyond experience. We have seen that since experience is relation, a further kind would also be relational, and therefore there may be unimagined levels of experientiality but not further kinds.

But doubt is healthy. Response—doubt is healthy. Doubt is dual to confidence. In the first place, to doubt is to improve understanding. We have even doubted necessary argument and found the response positive (the attitudes to the metaphysics, above). There is also a kind of ‘living in existential doubt’ which is a positive response to ‘mere nihilism’. Ought doubt be applied to itself—yes, but to balance rather than to remove. Forward thought and action are sometimes enhanced by putting doubt out of mind (which is not always easy)—by acting with confidence.

About limitlessness

Limitlessness means that all possibilities are realized. But what does possibility mean? If we see something, we think it possible. But what about things not seen? Possibility may be defined—given a conception of a state or being, it is possible if it can be realized. There is now a new question—What is the meaning of ‘can be’? If ‘can be’ is in terms of a world, the possibility is of that world; generalizing, real possibility is the case where the state may be realized in the universe. Examples are physical and sentient possibility. On the other hand, possibility may be ruled out by the concept itself—e.g., a square pentagon. Logical possibility is that which obtains If the possibility is not ruled out by the concept itself (the sense of logic here is that of deductive logic). Real possibility presumes logical possibility, but logical possibility does not presume real possibility. Thus, logical possibility is the most inclusive.

From the argument regarding limitlessness, the pertinent concept of possibility is the most inclusive—i.e., logical. That is—the universe is the realization of logical possibility. Our logics are restricted by our development of our modes of expression and are most likely incomplete relative to Logic itself. It is that universal logic that is the realization of the universe. It remains in discovery, and we are perhaps inadequate to the task. Yet, we have envisioned the task.

A further observation from the real metaphysics is that there is a parallel between necessary and contingent knowledge—i.e., between logic and science. It is that they are the amalgam that constitute cognitive side of the real metaphysics. The metaphysics places them on similar footing, and the join may be named Logic (capitalized), which captures both deduction and induction. But what of the comparison of the necessity of logic vs the inductive nature of science? It lies in a comparison of incommensurable categories—deduction under logic vs inference to scientific theories. However, the correct categorial comparison should be of inference to logical and to scientific theories, on the one hand; and of inference under logic and science, on the other hand. In both cases, ‘inference to’ is uncertain and incomplete, and in both cases ‘inference under’ is closer to certain and to completeness.

There is an asymmetry in the above join of logic and science. Whereas science includes both establishment of fact and reasoning to new facts, as usually understood, logic includes only reasoning or inference. But a related concept, that of argument, includes establishment of fact. It is worth noting that facts established by measurement under science are usually contingent, some facts are necessary. An example is that the one and only universe exists. The picture now has symmetry.

About substance

We have seen that our cosmos is seems substance-like. However, from limitlessness, the universe is not at all substance or substance-like unless we reconceive substance to admit every being, including the void, to be the substance of the universe.

How does consciousness arise in our cosmos? This modern philosophical question is mistaken in its presumption that consciousness arises. Rather, since the universe is essentially experiential, the question ought to be—How do the elements of consciousness coalesce in our cosmos to give beings with higher consciousness? The answer, within the cosmos, is that of evolution. Evolution does not give rise to consciousness itself; rather, it favors higher forms. This could be seen as emergence, but it would not be emergence of one kind (consciousness) from another (material substrate). Instead, it is emergence of complexity and power from simplicity. The term ‘emergence’ could be used but would be superfluous.

About robust being and worlds

How does the cosmos itself form or emerge? One answer is that from limitlessness, it is necessary. but so are solipsist cosmoses. We can use paradigms from the pragmatic side of the real metaphysics. but distinct cultures have different pragmatics. Which shall we choose? We saw that though pragmatics are imperfect by their own criteria, the real metaphysics, which is the merging of the ideal and the pragmatic is perfect by ideal criteria. We are free to use western science and philosophy and their paradigms. If we employ a paradigm of incremental variation and selection from the theory of evolution and apply it to the formation of cosmoses, we may find robust formed self-aware cosmoses such as ours (it is self-aware in that we are part of and aware of it) to dominate those cosmoses of which there is knowledge.

Thus, shorn of contradiction, all dreams and myths, including myths of the religions, are realized. There are ‘universes’ where Jesus is transforming water to wine, where the Hindu Gods live, and where one’s sleeping and waking dreams are realized. Given a strange and groundless but consistent dream fragment, there is a world that is as that dream. Such worlds and universes are most likely non-robust and minor populants of the real. however, they may be useful as symbolic and pointers to the robust.

About space and time

Let us look at a little cosmology. We have seen that every being is in interaction with every other being—being is (beings are) relational. That being is relational, may be expressed by saying that beings have situation in relation to other beings. how is situation characterized?

The most primitive experience is of sameness and difference. Experience is experiencing, which entails change, whose measure is named duration (‘time’). Identity, whether of other beings or selves, is a sense of enduring sameness through change. Incremental change in identity without duration marks and measures extension (‘space’). Because the distinction of change with and without duration is not precise, an incompletely separable being–extension–duration, i.e., spacetimebeing, constitutes the world. There is a dynamic—beings are in interaction, and the interactions are a source of change.

Is there characterization of situation beyond sameness and difference of identity? There is not, and therefore situation is characterized by spacetime. Other characteristics of beings are properties. The situational characterization of being has been labeled spacetimebeing—which may be a mix of continuum and discretum. Thus, situation is characterized by incompletely separable spacetime. Of course, we ought not to regard this situational characterization as dogma.

In the next section, we talk of being ‘beyond space and time’. What might that mean? The void has no spacetime—one meaning of ‘beyond space and time’ lies in all things as they are equivalent to the void. Another meaning is in phases of the universe which are not void, but are utter formlessness, where there is no identity.

A summation

We have seen that the real limitlessly exceeds its everyday conceptions. Thinking of the everyday, which includes science and philosophy in their conservative forms, as a space with a definite conventional boundary, we have found a portal to the unbounded and limitless domain beyond, that, for finite beings, is ever open in some directions. This is not new­­—there have been scratchings at the surface throughout history; what we have done over and above the historical is, perhaps, to reveal the opening with greater clarity and definiteness—that, because of its demonstration or proof, will not and cannot be closed, and through which we can see, have knowledge, travel, and become our true being—which will not be another place but will encompass what we already know that we are. We have also shown the character of the limitlessness beyond the portal, how to know it, and that—and how—it will be known and become.

The findings are paradoxical, at least in terms of some conventional modes of description. Let us look further at this apparently paradoxical nature.

We found that the void—nothingness—exists and does not exist; in itself, this is eminently reasonable, for unlike a manifest being, which obviously cannot be said to not exist, the void is an (or the) empty being. To say it does not exist is rather to point to its nature and is not to say that some manifest being does not exist. at the same time, the void satisfies our conception of ‘to exist’—the concept has a real and intended object.

Nonetheless, it is at least counter-intuitive on some counts to have asserted the truth of a contradiction. In standard logic, for example, a contradiction of the form, ‘a and not-a are both true’ (‘a’ denotes an assertion and ‘not-a is true’ means ‘a is false’), where a is a factual assertion, implies that all statements are true—this is called the principle of explosion. how, then, can we deal with the case that a is ‘The void exists’?

It is commonly recognized, even though the thought is often suppressed, that every logical system applies to a ‘universe of discourse’. The simplest way to understand  our ‘a and not-a’, above, is to exclude that particular a from the universe of discourse. for more sophisticated considerations, I suggest that readers do an online literature search for ‘dialetheia’ (a dialetheia is a true contradiction), dialetheism (the position that there are true contradictions), and Graham Priest (perhaps the most significant modern writer on dialetheism).

Let us further elaborate on the limitless real, not eschewing true contradictions.

We have seen that every being is equivalent to every other being; therefore, I am the universe (in some sense)—as are you. I am every other being, as are you, and I exist and do not exist, as do you.

but now we see that the dialetheia extend beyond just the void—every being exists and does not exist; and every being is ultimate being. however, there a difference. In my world, at this time, I exist. There are other worlds in which I exist—in some cases, eternally. There are yet other worlds in which I do not exist. Thus, I exist and do not exist. My nature is existence and nonexistence, but, as we just saw, the existences and nonexistences are in distinct worlds. but that is not all—there is a place inclusive of all spacetime and perhaps beyond it, ‘where’ I exist and do not exist. In the case of the void, that space is beyond as well as here-now.

That is both strange (relative to conventional realism) and not strange (according to the greater realism revealed by the historical scratchings at the real—up to these very words).

Let us not forget amid this perhaps sophistication, the very real assertion that ‘I am multitudes’ is not restricted to one historical person or traditional reality regarding the meaning of ‘multitudes’ but is for all persons as the limitless real (and this makes the sophistication not the same as mere sophistry).

There are local ethical consequences of which perhaps the main one is that ‘I should do the right thing for others because I am those others’, which, though self-ish is good when understood in terms of the greater meaning of ‘self’. Note, however, that when details are worked out, we will not necessarily find justification of traditional ethics—rather we will be forging a way toward universalizing ethics which may perhaps be a framework for local ethics. This is just as we found a universal meaning for logic. In fact, the universal ethics will be part of the universal logic. Aesthetics and value in general would fit in the same framework.

—

Postscript on proving the principle of explosion—this simple proof is simple is given for the interest of non-technical readers. Consider an assertion a, for which both a and not a are true. Further, consider an arbitrary assertion B. from the truth of a, at least one of a and B is true. however, since a is false, the truth of ‘at least one of a and B is true’ requires B to be true, even though it was arbitrarily chosen.

Resources

This 2022 version of the site is in process—resources are currently in resources, especially in resources > metaphysics.

for the present, readers may also follow the older links—2021 site, development, and reading.

Appendix—how to build a metaphysics

What is metaphysics?

Earlier we defined metaphysics as knowledge of the real.

Is metaphysics possible?

We deferred explicit consideration of the possibility of metaphysics.

We found metaphysics possible by constructing a metaphysics.

We first constructed an abstract system, building from the abstract concepts of being, beings, the universe, the void, and an abstract of elementary logic. This gave us the conclusion that the universe is the realization of all possibility. It is important that here ‘abstract’ does not mean ‘removed from the real’. Rather, we saw that the pertinent concepts are most real via abstraction—i.e., via removing detail from the concepts and leaving only those elements capable of perfect precision—e.g., the universe as all being.

This led to an ideal value in terms of which the imprecision of pragmatic ideas, though imperfect in terms of traditional criteria, resulted in a system that is perfect in terms of the ideal value.

That is—the real metaphysics is perfect as a mix of a framework that is perfect as representation and a pragmatic instrument for achievement of the ideal.

how to build a metaphysics

The following are elements of the build toward the real metaphysics—

Is the real metaphysics historically significant?

We shall address the issue as two questions and answers.

Is the real metaphysics a metaphysics? It satisfies the present conception as ‘true knowledge of the real’. The abstract side is perfect and a framework for the entire real. On the other hand, the pragmatic side is imperfect by received criteria and incomplete. however, it was shown the pragmatic side is perfect by ideal criteria and that it must remain incomplete as long as we are limited beings. Further, the nature of being and substance are clarified—the ideal meaning of being should be that of a framing concept and though there are locally pragmatic substances, there is no universal substance except in that every being is both its own substance and universal substance.

Is the real metaphysics historically significant? Yes, for, in addition to revealing an ideal conception of metaphysics, it addresses what are thought to be the essential problems of general metaphysics. Thus, for example, Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) lists the following as problems of metaphysics (i) the older or classical problems—being as such, first causes, unchanging things; categories of being and universals; substance (ii) the new (modern) metaphysics—modality, space and time, persistence and constitution; causation, determinism, and freedom; the mental and the physical.

All of these problems are touched by the metaphysics and fall under it and given some degree of resolution. Many may be regarded as having a resolution. as examples (i) being may be seen as its own first cause and substance (ii) sameness, difference, situation, space, time, and cause may be taken as categories as may experiential being and possibility and necessity (iii) ‘mental’ and the ‘physical’ are categories of relational experience. We will elaborate on the problems and resolutions in future versions of the metaphysics.

Return to the welcome page | top