The way of being

Contents

Into the way

The world

A way of being

The aim of the way of being is shared discovery and realization of the ultimate in and from the immediate.

Material that is essential to living the way is bordered.

small capitals mark definitions and important terms.

Into the way

This introductory section, ‘into the way’, has a narrative plan, a précis of the way of being, and a short account of its origins.

Narrative plan

The main sections are the world, a way of being, and a brief section, return, which constitute the essence of the way—i.e., its conceptual base and the essentials of realization.

The subsequent sections, beginning with resources, are supplements to aid with understanding, reading, and developing the way.

Précis of the way

Some individuals are content with living in and for the immediate; some seek the ultimate; many have an interest that lies in some region of the continuum from immediate to ultimate.

The way of being is shared discovery (the world) and realization (a way of being) of the ultimate in and from immediate worlds.

What can we know of the ultimate? Our worldviews tend to be empirical and limiting or to make dogmatic claims about the ultimate. Yet, there is a sense of absurdity over the apparent limits of birth and death—how is it that we should have come into being at all, have a sense of destiny, yet be destined to nonexistence? On the other hand, there is a sense of absurdity to claims of transcending such limits. One tendency is to suppress this paradox of absurdity, another is to attempt to defuse and go beyond it.

What is the ultimate truth of received worldviews? It appears that some but not all extrapolation beyond their region of local validity—literal and symbolic—is possible. That is, with some reflection, we can see that the best we know from the views themselves is that they have a limited region of truth. Further, it is consistent with reason and experience that what is outside that region is limitless.

What, if anything, can we know about the far regions of the universe—the possible regions beyond the empirical? Many thinkers deny the possibility of knowledge of the ultimate; some even deny that we ought to name it. Yet, we will find significant knowledge of the ultimate and its nature. Particularly, the universe conceived as all being is limitless—that it is the realization of the greatest possibility, which has significant implications for human being. The approach to developing the view of limitlessness and its implications begins below with seeing (i) that there is information in what we perceive and know, but which we tend to overlook (ii) that a framework of this information is knowledge that can be and is precise and ultimate.

We will find that (i) all beings achieve the ultimate via immersion and pathways (ii) while we are limited, our knowledge is only a framework and achievement is a process—realization is a journey of endless variety and adventure.

Origins

The origin of the way of being is in individual and historical endeavors to see the truth of and go beyond received worldviews and ways of being.

The means

Given that what we think of as knowledge may be mistaken, there may be doubt about all knowledge.

What doubt can we eliminate? A place to start is to see that ‘all may be doubted’ is self-contradictory, for if all is illusion, then there is at least illusion and if is not true that not all is illusion then there is more than just illusion—i.e., there is something (or some things). The means of this knowledge is abstraction, which is to remove elements of knowledge that could be distorted or mistaken—in this case, the distinction between illusion and non-illusion (note—Descartes is one source of this line of thought).

Let us formalize this approach. A (referential) concept is a possible ‘picture’ of the world or something in it. Concepts have objects, which may be (i) empty (ii) real (iii) fictional or as-if real. If the object is real, it is said to be a being or to have being. But how do we know that concepts do in fact depict beings? The situation is worse than that concepts may err in depiction. The idea of a concept as depiction is itself a depiction, so the very base of concept as depiction may be in error. The answer lies in abstraction, for with sufficient abstraction (i) concepts may validly and precisely depict, which (ii) includes the depiction picture itself.

There is more. Some concepts are perceptual in nature. We sense a world (which is either the world of illusion, a world of reality, or mixed). But there is a world. With this approach, we (will) precisely know some beings. Other concepts are compound concepts. They include elementary inference. If the facts of the elementary inferences are given, there are situations in which, by abstraction, the inference itself is given. These two considerations give us full confidence in the abstract developments that follow.

What is it that connects concepts to their object-beings (when they are so connected)? It is that we are able to conceive of more than just contents of the external world: we are able to conceive concepts themselves—not just the concept of the concept, but also of specific concepts. Our minds are sufficiently sophisticated that they also depict the operations of mind and its relation to the world and in that depiction the connection of concept to object-being is also depicted (which is not only a conscious operation but also tacit and built in).

But we also live in a concrete world. What shall we do about that? A satisfactory answer is given at the end of the next main section.

The world

A being is that which exists; being is existence.

The universe is all being; the universe is a being.

The void is the absence of being; since its existence and nonexistence are equivalent, the void may be validly said to exist; the void is a being; the void has no sub-beings.

A hypothetical being may exist or not; it may fail to exist because its definition (the hypothesis) is incoherent or, if they hypothesis is coherent, the nature of the universe may disallow it.

Coherence is the minimal requirement for being. Therefore, the greatest possibility is coherence of the concepts (hypotheses); real objects are innately coherent; therefore, real possibility does not exceed coherent possibility (physical law for our cosmos is an example of real possibility).

A natural law is a pattern within the universe; laws are beings; there are no laws in the void.

The void is equivalent to the greatest possibility, for the contrary would be a law in the void (there is a shorter demonstration from the emptiness of nonexistence, but since the void and the universe are central to development, they are invoked in the proof).

Thus, the universe is the realization of the greatest possibility; from the abstraction of the concepts, this results in an ideal system as follows.

The universe has identity; the universe and its identity have limitless variety, extension, and duration; there are cosmoses without end in extension, duration, and nesting; they endlessly phase in and out of the void state; they realize peak states of being without limit of any kind (it is understood that logic cannot be violated); and though there may be temporary near isolation of a being, including cosmoses, there is no ultimate isolation.

The universe is without beginning, end, or boundary in extension and duration—it has no temporal origin or cause. However, it may be regarded as having a ground in the void—but equally in every being. That it must have manifestation is equivalent to the cause of its entire being—i.e., manifestation, sustenance, non-manifestation, and repetition… and not just beginnings—in necessity. Since the universe as greatest possibility has been derived, this necessity is bare—not dressed in hypothesis or fact.

All beings realize peak being; in doing so they merge as one. There are intelligent and effective pathways to the ultimate. Pain and other impediments are unavoidable, but there are enjoyable pathways to the ultimate that best address the problem of pain. Peaking and dissolution are an endless recurrent process, of which the variety is without limit, of which we are a part. That is, if god is to have meaning, its best meaning, perhaps, is that of a process of which we are a part.

Every individual is original, so, while cultural pathways are a ground and an instrument, they are insufficient. There will always be impediments; the way is to give attention to both overcoming and realizing.

Experience is conscious awareness in all its forms; all significance is seen in experience; we are essentially experiential beings, for without experiencing, we are effectively dead; the very root of being must be experiential in some primitive form (derivation omitted); the universe is a field of experiential being.

We are already part of and connected to peak being via immersion of our experiential nature in the universe as field of being. We will realize peak-being in this life or beyond (and have realized it ‘before’). Though realization in this life may seem remote, that it will occur—that it does occur—is given. Means of realization are given in a way of being.

Though it is normal to experience oneself as an individual, one is simultaneously embedded in the universe as field of experience via their personal experience. At birth one comes from and at death one returns to the field. It is this that gives meaning to multiple manifestations of individuals as a single coherent being.

From universe as field of experience, it does not follow that the universe is or is not of mind or of matter, for experience has aspects that are—at least as if—of mind (the experience) and matter (the experienced). As we are experiential beings, the instrument of discovery and realization is experience—experiential being—with its as if mind and matter aspects.

This instrument may be named, ‘the practice’ (perhaps there is a pan-cultural term already available or waiting to be coined), understood as derived from its traditions but itself part of ongoing discovery and realization. In this ultimate sense, the practice is and encompasses the best available cultural traditions (integration of the ideal and the cultural as a real unity is omitted), e.g., an integration of western and eastern elements, particularly their philosophies, science, technology, religions (understood symbolically and critically), and more, which (the practice) is understood to always be at a beginning and in process.

Is not the ideal system made imperfect by the introduction of traditions that contain both truth and error? Yes, if we conceive perfection of knowledge as perfect correspondence to the real. However, the ideal system guarantees ultimate realization; it is understood that we are yet limited beings and therefore we have no immediate instrument better than what is good in tradition; therefore, in terms of the ideal of ultimate realization, the composite metaphysics—knowledge of the real—constituted of the ideal and tradition is a real metaphysics which is perfect relative to the ideal.

A way of being

Here are some elements of a way of being—of a pathway (for detail, see ‘templates’ in the resources; for the range of activities, ‘activities for realization’ in the resources). The daily, the intermediate, and the open range activities overlap.

Focus is on experiential being.

A daily routine includes—

(i) ground (basic needs, employment, relationships, health, routine of activities, planning, meals, adequate sleep)

(ii) foundation (shared discovery and realization, publication) and (iii) realization (physical training of the body and exercise, training of mind—meditation—toward the immediate and the ultimate as one).

What is an effective attitude toward impediment (and pain)? In individual and shared discovery and realization it is for those who have choice and ability to attend to therapeutic and functional address, for themselves and others, of—

(i) of impediments with aware waiting for resolution and insight (when efficient or necessary) and moving forward;

(ii) attention will also be given to daily sustenance of attitude and forward motion, and

(iii) periodic renewal, for which resolutions include practice and retreat, respectively.

open place and time, individual, group, and social activities are

(i) of this world (knowledge and education, politics and economics, art, symbolic religion, which may be approached instrumentally and immersively via practice, e.g., traditional yoga), and

(ii) regarding the ultimate (metaphysics and science for navigation of identities of persons as many and one, and for material navigation of this cosmos and beyond, from void to peak, to dissolution); the ultimate may be sought directly in experience, e.g., in meditative being, immersion in the world—which is experiential connection to the universe as field of experience, and instrumentally, via technological transformation and exploration of the universe of cosmoses and more.

Although some risk is effective, unnecessary, clearly absurd risk should be avoided. Reasonable activities toward realization will have some at least apparent connection between our present state and some ‘higher’ state. Attending to immediate concerns is not only important in itself, but also a part of realization. Attending to the ultimate has two values (i) it lends meaning and quality to the immediate for individuals and social action (ii) it furthers progress toward realization in this life and beyond.

Attending to the immediate and the ultimate can be seen as a problem in resource allocation. Even though likelihood of realization in this life may be small, there is value to devoting energy to it in terms of the values mentioned just above.

Return

Stepping into the way of being to return to the world and its use in living is not a two-step process; it is cyclic and more, with learning and positive change at each cycle.

We now know that all beings merge in realizing peak being; that the beginning of realization is in this world; that even if the ultimate is realized in this world, it is realized endlessly over eternity; and that this knowledge gives significance and meaning to being without recourse to existential reflection on the world alone (which may, however, enhance meaning).

Given this knowledge, we know that even in difficulty and doubt, understanding and aiming at the ultimate are at least being on the path to the ultimate.

Looking at the universe with our eyes and minds is on the way to the ultimate.

Supplement and guide

Contents

The supplement and guide

Resources

The later references to ‘resources’ are to this section. For the print edition, the resources can be accessed by typing the following to the address bar at the top of an internet browser—horizons-2000.org/2023/supporting/resources for short version.html.

The way of being site—https://www.horizons-2000.org.

Metaphysics—extended version of this document (and search the site).

Implication for knowledge—system of knowledge.

A manual—the extended version, and the ‘little manual’.

Activities for realization—dimensions of being.

The practice—received ways of being.

Templates—templates and dedication.pdf (html, docm).

About contradiction—dialetheism.

For my sources in eastern and western thought, see my influences and the bibliographies. A moderately well reader will recognize such sources; I should add that there is newness to (i) the elements or terms of the system (ii) system and its ultimates (iii) demonstration (iv) insight into the real (iv) doubt and its address.

Guide

The guide anticipates and addresses general problems in understanding the way of being. It addresses all interested readers.

Contents of the guide

The way and its relation to received worldviews

This essay

Understanding the way

The way and its relation to received worldviews

The way was introduced earlier as “shared discovery and realization of the ultimate in and from immediate worlds”.

The question immediately arises—Is not our modern world culture the best we have regarding discovery and realization of the ultimate? My search was characterized by (i) in the beginning, doubt about our ability to know the ultimate truth of our paradigms and our ability to go beyond (ii) later, with an understanding of the metaphysics of the way, that even as limited beings we have a framework of knowledge of and being in the ultimate, which defines the boundary of the ultimate at least implicitly (for we almost certainly are incomplete in our modes of expression), but within which there is eternal process and adventure, as long as we remain limited beings. Given a spectrum of doubt, I have moved from general doubt to a mix of (a) relative certainty regarding the framework, (b) a pragmatic attitude toward our traditions of knowing and being, and (c) openness and existential uncertainty regarding the process and peaks of being.

We often imbue our cultural traditions with certainty and completeness even though, when questioned, we would admit that there is no demonstration of completeness of even our scientific and analytic knowledge. Critically, a scientific theory is a hypothetical system over the domain of observation. That theories are coherent and that they have predictive ability may give us a sense of certainty and completeness. Yet, we have no certain knowledge of what lies beyond the domains of observation. It is this that negates any claim of completeness, and which shows that the universe as the realization of the greatest possibility is consistent with science. In the modern world, religion and metaphysics may be seen as an attempt to fill our domain of ignorance with knowledge. But most religions are dogmatic in their worldview and most metaphysics not demonstrably complete (even if rational and empirical).

Though our traditions do not inform us on the magnitude and kind of what lies beyond, the possibility is that that region is without limit.

The way of being sees scientific-empirical views of the world as true but incomplete, sees most religious and many metaphysical attempts at completion as inadequate, and seeks beyond the world as known so far.

It finds the universe to be limitless.

This essay

The document is intended to capture the conceptual and practical essence—the implications for our world and lives—of the metaphysics of the way of being (see the resources for metaphysics).

Regarding concepts, this work covers the bare essentials; it omits sophistication, explanation, and elaboration. For example, while modern metaphysicians make distinctions between concrete and abstract objects and between objects and beings, such distinctions are not essential, which is shown in an extended version of the document (resources: extended version).

Regarding practice and practicality, the document is not a manual or a template for realization (a manual or template might inhibit initiative and devolve into dogma), it is an essence, a framework upon which to build. There is a place for a manual and a template (resources: a manual, templates).

Understanding the way

This work is close to the briefest possible of its subject. Its content will be new and unfamiliar to many readers. These considerations, the magnitude and definiteness of its conclusions, and other factors may be impediments to understanding. This section lists impediments—the several ways in which the content may be unfamiliar—and their address.

First. Ideas and action are interwoven—the way of being is not just a view of the universe with implications for our lives; rather, the two sides, discovery or knowledge and action toward realization are inextricably interwoven. The two main parts of the work are (i) a description of the world (in the world) (ii) realization (in , a way of being), or ideas and action, respectively. Ideas and action are often thought of as rather distinct (even though thinking is a kind of action) and thinking so is often adequate. However, in any ultimate picture, they are and must be interwoven. But even the ‘weave’ analogy is insufficient, for there is an original unity, which bifurcates but never separates (at a fundamental level). This way of thinking, separation and unity of thought and action, is an attitude to be absorbed by readers.

Second. On the ultimate nature of the work—the view of the universe in the way, is ultimate in two ways (i) it is the realization of the greatest possibility (ii) the framework of the picture of the ultimate is perfect in capture of the real, which includes that it is perfect in its depth or foundation. It is greater in its range, variety, and content, than in all any view that sees the universe as less than limitless; this includes almost all received views, and, for most persons, will require effort of imagination to appreciate it. In this document, the details of the view are minimal (see the resources for documents with greater detail).

Third. On the depth of the work—the document necessarily addresses some of the deepest problems of thought about our being—but address is significantly implicit rather than explicit. This makes for easier reading but leaves open much room for doubt and a feeling of incompleteness. Some problems whose address is at most minimal are (i) whether and to what extent perfect knowledge is possible and may be achieved (ii) how the framework is perfect (iii) while the framework is perfect, the details are imperfect on received criteria for true knowledge—the problem here is how the perfect and the imperfect mesh to form a system and how and in what sense in what sense the system is perfect (iv) the nature, support, and fate of the being of the universe and its beings, and what aims and actions are therefore desirable. In the minimalism of the document, the address is not explicit; rather, it is implicit in the selection, meanings, and system of its concepts. Though the framework is minimal, it is rich, especially in use of the term ‘coherence’—for while coherence may be minimal in what it requires, it is most rich in what it allows.

Fourth. On the difficulty of the idea of the ultimate. Many people will object to knowledge of the ultimate. Objections will come from many directions. Some religious persons will see it as sacrilege. Many empiricists will simply say, ‘impossible’. Those of a rationalist bent might say—too remote in the universe, too difficult in terms of ideas. How can we overcome this obstacle? First see that the entire metaphysical development is grounded in the empirical—i.e., the existence of the universe; the rational—the void exists and does not, which is so elementary, that it is also empirical; and thus, the system of thought developed is not a system of the remote. Further, consider being as we defined it. Existence here is the same as existence anywhere—ultimacy is already implicit in our concept of being. The development brought out this immediate implicit presence of the ultimate and showed it explicitly. I suggest that humans living in closer contact with nature than in ‘civilization’ have more awareness of the ultimate because it has not been educated out of them by our instrumental science and dogmatic religions.

Fifth. On meanings of the terms. In familiar situations, the meanings of words may be more or less definite. Beyond the familiar, new terms may be needed, old meanings may need revision. Therefore, it is essential to follow meanings as given here (definitions are marked by small capitals). Two issues arise, (i) the present meanings arose incrementally and required revision of my intuition—consequently, I expect that it may take more than one reading for readers to absorb the new meanings (ii) the terms are elements of a system that has meaning over and above those of the individual terms—and it will require time and reflection to absorb the meaning of the system. In absorbing the system, readers are likely to find conflict with our received ways of thinking. However, there is no conflict with what is true in the received ways—the conflict is likely to be with general paradigms inferred from but not implied by the truth. Interactive stages in the growth of understanding are (i) seeing the absence of conflict between the way and the received (ii) absorbing the main content of the way (iii) integrating the new with the received (iv) living the way.

The next section on the concepts for the way of being (a) elaborates on the meaning of the terms and the system (b) introduces some important terms not explicitly used in this version of the way.

Sixth. On perfect knowledge of the metaphysical framework. Definiteness and perfect knowledge of the objects as defined through the universe is a field of experiential being, above, follow from their abstraction, which is to remove from a concept all detail except that which corresponds precisely to the object.

Seventh. Doubting the work. In this brief work, doubt has not been addressed. Yet, there is and ought to be doubt. Doubt should arise at demonstration of the existence of the void—“ since its existence and nonexistence are equivalent, the void may be validly said to exist;” which, since it is its crux, is the essential doubt of the development. How is this doubt to be addressed?

It is addressed in two ways in the ‘little manual’ (resources: little manual). The first is to provide alternative, more robust proofs. Here is one. The universe with the void is eternal and therefore its existence is necessary in itself—i.e., the necessity is not derived from some assumed fact. However, from symmetry, no particular and limited state can be necessarily eternal. Therefore, the eternal universe is limitless.

However, doubt is found to remain—i.e., doubt should remain. The second approach to addressing doubt, therefore, begins with allowing—sustaining—doubt while seeing that even if proof is doubted, existence of the void is consistent (empirically and rationally). Alternate attitudes to the (new) emergent picture of reality are then, (i) as a postulate regarding the real and its ultimate character (ii) consequently as an axiom for development of a ‘real metaphysics’ (iii) as an existential principle of action.

Eighth. On incompleteness in the way of being. The reflection on doubt reminds me that the positive knowledge claims made in the work might suggest that there is nothing really left to do. That is untrue. Even if we accept the positive as proven, what has been shown is a framework and some fill in that is ultimate in ‘depth’ or foundation. However, for limited beings it is ever open in breadth or variety of being. Though we will arrive at the ultimate, the way is ever uncertain, the final goal never ultimately secure. The adventure is not one in which sophisticated language can convince us that a feeling of final and eternal perfection will be arrived at—and especially not by formula. The possibility of pain is never eliminated. Limitless adventure remains.

Ninth. On transformation and resource allocation. Further detail on a cosmology of the experiential field of the universe is given in resources: the little manual. There is much room for development of this cosmology.

The system of ideas

Introduction

This section first lists the important concepts of the way, including some that are implicit. It is a supplement aimed at readers with a conceptual interest. It elaborates on the use of the terms, gives reasons for the selection and use, and gives reasons for deviations from received use (over and above the lack of definiteness of received use).

The then, in the system, it explains how the terms constitute a system—a system that is already implicit in the main development. Finally, we say a few words on the essence and significance of metaphysics.

The concepts are mostly listed in order of appearance. Keep in mind that while the present meanings are related to the received, there is no intent to define or capture the received; rather the aim is to describe a system of meaning for the ultimate metaphysics of the narrative. This may supplement received meaning where it is incomplete or indefinite and correct it where it is in error.

Experience

Experience—a pedagogic development or one beginning from immediate ground might begin with experience. In its first meaning (an enhanced meaning is introduced later), experience is consciousness in all its forms. I prefer the term ‘experience’ as it is more inclusive and as it avoids the idea of consciousness as immaterial. Generally, (an) experience is seen as ‘experience of’ (an as if mental side or referential concept—just concept in the following), ‘the experience’ (relationship), and ‘the experienced’ (an as if material side or object); notice that the experience itself straddles both sides in its conception and in that there is experience of experience thus making it also an object.

Meaning

Meaning was not defined for while it is important to full understanding, its introduction would be an impediment to a first understanding of essentials.

A meaning is—will be conceived of as—a concept and its possible objects (perhaps none); in linguistic meaning a sign, elementary, e.g., a word or complex, e.g., a sentence or more, is associated with the concept-object; . This concept of meaning is critical to understanding the idea of meaning—(i) most meaning is stable only in a context but here we are concerned with unlimited context, which is acknowledged by this concept of meaning and allows it to have in-process stability until any final state of meaning may be arrived at (ii) it is necessary for even where meaning is stabilized by use, without the concept or icon there can be no object (iii) it is in process sufficient (iv) it is ultimately sufficient as far the meanings are employed in an ultimate system, e.g., the system of the way. It immediately resolves the problem of negative existentials—i.e., one for which there is no real object.

We tend to think of meaning as fixed. History shows otherwise. However, it could be argued that while words change, intrinsic meanings are fixed. But that is not the case (i) as far as understanding of our contexts is incomplete (ii) in that the contexts are not the universe.

This concept of meaning allows meaning to partake of both definiteness and indefiniteness; which reflects the transitory nature of our understanding of our contexts and the contexts themselves.

Further, this concept of meaning allows an immediate conception of knowledge as meaning realized. Let us argue that this concept of knowledge is not destabilized by imprecision. We first address the very concept of knowledge. This concept has its origin in the idea that in knowing, a concept relates iconically to an object. But that, too, is an icon. Therefore, both the known and knowledge are subject to errors in iconic knowledge. However, the entire development of the way cuts through this objection in first setting up a precise scheme from abstraction, filling it out with pragmatic knowledge, and then seeing the abstract system as perfect in a correspondence sense and the composite ideal-pragmatic real metaphysics as perfect in terms of the ideal of realization.

Being and existence

Being was defined as existence. Issues (i) what is existence and why was it not defined (ii) why this meaning? Let us first give ‘existence’ a meaning. Clearly there ‘is something’ for otherwise there would not even be an illusion of something. So—whatever there is (in an inclusive use of ‘is’), is said to exist. How can this formulation of the concept of existence be rendered functional? Suppose I claim that there is a cork in a drawer. The sign is ‘cork in the drawer’, the concept is the mental image of the cork in the drawer, and the object is (possible) cork in the drawer. We may shorten that usage and use the object to refer to the sign-concept-possible object. Then, the object is said to exist (functionally) if the object is real. Now let us address our choice of the meaning for ‘being’. The concept is often regarded as ineffable and the reason for the ineffability is that the idea is intended to capture the true nature of things, which is problematic in that there may not be such a nature and we may have difficulty in knowing any true nature. The reason we avoid that meaning is that we prefer to not define or plumb depth at the beginning. Rather, we begin with a concept that is definable, simple, and foundational—even to the point of triviality; we then enter into discovery; and having discovered the real metaphysics, we find it to be a way to depth and non-triviality. The process is not closed—as limited beings, our future and past are eternal process.

The universe

The universe is all being. In the beginning, I conceived of the universe vaguely, as is typical of empirical thought in the present era. However, when I developed the real metaphysics, I saw that our material empirical cosmos which we often call ‘the universe’ is far from being the entire universe in terms of any of extension, duration, numbers of cosmoses, and kinds of being. I then realized that the universe is far more than we normally think it and that there is no need to distinguish concrete and abstract objects, for given that all possibility is realized the abstract must be realized in the one universe and therefore that the distinction between abstract and concrete is relative to our perceiving-conceiving system. Conceived as all being, this notion of the universe lends completeness and compactness to the development. In this conception, the universe is what some philosophers call ‘everything’. Note that while ‘being’ is generally and rightly not regarded as ‘a being’, with sufficient abstraction, being is a being.

The void

As the absence of being (some thinkers call it ‘nothing’ or ‘nothingness’), it is hard to impossible to picture the void, for in order to picture it one has to not picture. But there is an abstract approach. We make a definition; show existence; fit the definition into a system; we build an intuition around the abstract system—we give it flesh. Let us reflect on some problems that arise in thinking of the void. In continuing to reflect on doubt, ask, “Is not existence and nonexistence of the void a contradiction?” One response is as follows. For most objects, to exist and not exist is contradictory. However, for the void, the meaning of ‘to exist’ is altered (‘enlarged’), since, intuitively, if the void is removed from the void, the void remains (but for manifest objects, to remove the object does not leave the object; rather, it leaves the void). What is being said here is that whereas in general, contradictory referential concepts have no object, some do, and an example is ‘the void exists and does not exist’. That is, ‘the void exists and does not exist’ is a ‘true contradiction’. Unless the reader is familiar with and accepts it, they will find the idea of a true contradiction absurd. However, the foregoing argument has removed the absurdity in one particular case. In admitting the void on par with manifest objects, we introduce an algebraic element to metaphysics.

Dialetheism

Let us consider contradiction in general.

The idea of a true contradiction or ‘dialetheia’ is a contested issue in current philosophy and is elaborated upon in dialetheism (resources: about contradiction). Is the notion of dialetheia more than an issue of formal logic? Systems of dialethic logic may indeed be formal. The value of a formal system here is not that it is original capture of reality, for reality is captured by intuition, reason, and formal thought in interaction. A major standalone value of formal thought regarding the real, first as a test for consistency and, second, as lending or confirming consistency.

However, consider that while the void is ‘nothing’ it is generative of ‘everything’; it is ‘nothing’, but it also prevents nothing; and in that way the void and everything (the universe) are analogous to the quantum vacuum and quantum fields (this is of course would be a minor application; and, further, it is important to see that the theory of being and the world of this document goes far beyond our cosmos and its physics and that where the vacuum is relatively deep, the void is ultimately deep; what is more, from the real metaphysics, every being may be seen as ground for all being). It is argued in dialetheism, that dialetheia are artifacts of descriptions that suppress—and perhaps distort—certain important distinctions. Still, the formal logics of dialetheia may capture aspects of (quantum) reality.

Coherence and logic

Let us now clarify coherence and related concepts. The idea of coherence is the same as that of logic—the word logic is not used in the main development because it might mislead readers. A concept is illogical if it could not be realized regardless of the nature of the real. With this, the following paragraph in the main development—

“Coherence is the minimal requirement for being. Therefore, the greatest possibility is coherence of the concepts (hypotheses); real objects are innately coherent; therefore, real possibility does not exceed coherent possibility.”

Can be rendered—

“Logic is the minimal requirement for being. Therefore, the greatest possibility is logical; real objects are innately logical; therefore, real possibility does not exceed logical possibility.”

As noted earlier in connection with coherence, logic is sterile in what it requires but ultimately rich in what it allows.

Note that while logic is usually seen as a system of deduction, it may also been seen as the necessary property of descriptions of structures such that they could obtain in a possible reality (given the universe as the greatest possibility, the recent phrase ‘in a possible’ may be replaced by ‘somewhere in’). To this we may append, as in science, facts that could be considered logical rather than just empirical, e.g., there is a universe (either manifest or not), which is necessarily true. Also note that the common distinction between logic and science—necessary deduction vs likely inference is not appropriate, for in both cases arriving at a system of logic or science is hypothetical while in both cases deduction under the system is necessary. Further, as we have just seen, both cases incorporate fact. Thus, logic and science (and mathematics) can be seen as lying under one umbrella, which we may call reason.

The entire knowledge of the universe derived here, including knowledge of knowledge and therefore also of reason, is an extended fact.

Possibility

A naïve conception of possibility is—A hypothetical being is possible if it is not ruled out by the structure of its conception or hypothetical structure. The possibility is logical if it is not ruled out by the conception alone; if, further, if the nature of the universe does not disallow its existence, the possibility is real. Possibility raises some puzzles. Its everyday use pertains to a context. An experiment done in a laboratory may possibly be repeated in another laboratory. But what is real possibility for the universe of all being? If the concept has an object in the universe, it is possible; if not it is not possible—for the universe, the possible and the actual are the same (and, as we have seen, they are both the logically possible).

Another puzzle—why do we not see all possibilities? Because our cosmos is but one possibility. There are limitlessly more cosmoses and taken altogether, they realize all possibilities. Does that mean that a version of a religious text is realized (if cleaned of logical errors)? Yes, but it is argued in the documents in the resources that such cosmoses are not of great significance. Then—how are all possibilities to be understood by us? If we imagine a being knowing our cosmos, then increasingly to the ‘end’ of the universe, they will finally see all things, which were once only known as possible, now become the one universe of all possibility which is all reality.

Abstraction

Abstraction is removal from a concept, those elements whose possible distorting influence is not known to be eliminable. As all being, the universe is abstract; the full universe is the abstract universe filled with detail. Abstraction is one way to abstract objects, which shows that the distinction between the abstract and the concrete is not of kind. Abstract objects are not non-causal or non-spatiotemporal; rather degrees of causation and spatiotemporality are removed in the abstraction. Abstract objects are concrete and concrete objects have abstraction.

Identity

The term ‘identity’ has a number of uses, one is roughly ‘same as’ and another is ‘what it is’. Here, it is the latter. What makes a thing a thing? This is a large topic in philosophy we discuss only briefly here (there is more in dialetheism). Perhaps the most primitive and abstracted experience is that of ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’. Identity of self or other is an enduring sense of sameness (it is argued in dialetheism that nothing more is necessary to the concept). But we can elaborate. The experience of change which can be measured as duration is fundamental. Without it there is no experience or experiencing. Duration or time is a measure of change without change in identity; extension or space is change with change in identity; as far as identity is indefinite, the distinction between duration and extension may be seen differently by different observers.

Experience (continued)

If our cosmos is strictly material, i.e., if it is entirely material (or physical) and matter contains no element of mind, and if matter is a strict substance, i.e., one that can transform to other forms of matter but not to another kind such as mind, then our consciousness would be impossible. On the other hand, if experience or experientiality is a strict substance, we have seen that a universe of as if matter, relationship, and as if mind is entirely possible, and neatly describes our cosmos. But from universe as greatest possibility, experientiality must reach down to the root of being, but only in primitive form. The elements might be in fact non-experiential but not in nature (rather as two objects that are infinitely distant have zero gravitational interaction but have positive interaction when brought closer). The experientiality of higher beings is built up or constituted of the interactive, layered, and focused interactivity of complex structured processes. The universe is thus a field of experience. It is quite unnecessary to think of experience as a substance at all, especially as the concept of substance is laden with connotation.

The practice

In an earlier version of the document, I had used the word ‘yoga’ instead of ‘the practice’. The idea was that that yoga would be more than the yoga of Indian and western traditions but would (i) retain the original meaning of uniting beings with being (ii) incorporate elements from tradition and all cultures as relevant (iii) would be synthesized and critiqued in terms of the real metaphysics. I decided to drop the term yoga as it might be seen as limiting in eastern cultures and distorting in the west. I may return to its use later.

The system

Anything that cannot affect experience at all is effectively non-existent. Though this puts an epistemic edge on metaphysics, via experience, the epistemic is already contained in metaphysics. At a fundamental level, the assertion that ‘anything that cannot affect experience at all is effectively non-existent’ says that being is relational. It is in experience that we are and know the real.

Being is both what is and the object of experience. It is the object of the system.

The universe and the void are important objects that permit development of the metaphysics—they constitute a boundary to the largest possible object of study: they are ‘everything’ and ‘nothing’. Note that the universe and everything are often thought of as distinct—everything is truly everything, but the universe is limited, e.g., to the physical or the empirical. However, the limit to the physical is not well defined and the limit to the empirical is unnecessary, for we can, if we wish, talk of the ‘empirical universe’.

Having specified the object and the boundary of the system, how do we study it—i.e., what is the reasoning and how do we fill the boundary with detail?

The logic employed is elementary and at root joined to the empirical (this is elaborated in resources: the little manual, which derives elementary logic from considerations grounded in elementary experience, and dialetheism).

Thus, the logic is not external to or imposed; it is part of the system. But how do we know the logic applies?

Abstraction is the first key to the truth metaphysics and the logic.

The abstract and ideal metaphysics generates an ethic—the primacy of realization of the ultimate in the immediate and beyond—which reveals the real metaphysics as perfect. That is, the abstract is filled with the pragmatic metaphysics (the joining of the abstract and the pragmatic is the real), which is imperfect on received value and epistemic systems, is perfect on the generated ethic.

Metaphysics

Metaphysics was introduced as ‘knowledge of the real’. Questions that arise are (i) is this possible (ii) is it significant (iii) does this capture the history of meanings of the term ‘metaphysics’ (iv) is, or can it be the meaning of ‘metaphysics’?

There is a use of the term metaphysics outside philosophy to mean ‘study or knowledge of the occult’. We are not concerned with that meaning here. Our concern here is with metaphysics as a major branch of philosophy.

Let us address the questions raised above.

Is knowledge of the real possible? Of course, this depends on what we mean by knowledge. We have seen, above, a system in which both metaphysics and knowledge are conceived (i) which is an ultimate system of understanding and (ii) in which both metaphysics and knowledge are well defined. Thus, metaphysics as knowledge of the real is not only possible but, further, we have developed just such a system. We have shown that the system is ultimate—in a sense already given, which is not imposed but flows from the system itself. It has also been shown that the system is not subject to limitation on account of self-reference.

In this conception, is metaphysics significant? The significance is manifest and manifestly ultimate.

Does metaphysics as knowledge of the real capture the historical meanings of ‘metaphysics’? How shall we answer this question? Two approaches are (i) to compare the present conception with historical descriptions (e.g., the study of first causes) (ii) to see whether topics that have fallen and fall under metaphysics are addressable and addressed by a study under the present definition. The answer to both questions is ‘yes’ and this is shown in the little manual (resources: the little manual) and secondary documents referenced in the little manual.

Can the present meaning of ‘metaphysics’ be the meaning? Good reasons that it can have been given. However, (i) usage may deviate from any definition (ii) there is doubt about ultimacy of the present system. Yet, allowing for doubt, perhaps any rational meaning will fall under the present meaning.

Let us finally reflect on the possibility of axiomatic metaphysics. An axiomatic system as we presently understand the term, has undefined terms, axioms, postulates, and methods of proof. Typically, axioms may be understood as general truths and principles of reason, while postulates refer to a particular subject matter. For metaphysics as we understand it here, there is overlap or even identity of axiom and postulate. Further, methods of proof may also be part of the axioms. Thus, an axiomatic system for the metaphysics would have terms and axioms. The essential problem of an axiomatic system is that it is a formal system which has no explicit built in connection with the real either through the undefined terms or the axioms, which are therefore ‘assumptions’. Here, however, the metaphysics begins with the real and the axioms are built into the elementary structure of experience. An axiomatic metaphysics is implicit in the development.

The writer

Return to the top