A metaphysics and vocabulary for the way of being
Anil Mitra, Copyright © February 10, 2024 – October 21, 2024

Home

Contents

Introduction and overview

The metaphysics

Human nature

Philosophy

Meaning

Epistemology

Metaphysics

Doubt

Possibility and logic

Real metaphysics

Religion

Ethics

Experience

Cosmology

Holism

The vocabulary or lexicon

Introduction and overview

Human nature

Philosophy

Meaning

Epistemology

Metaphysics

Doubt

Possibility and logic

Real metaphysics

Religion

Ethics

Experience

Cosmology

Holism

Introduction and overview

There is an extensive system of concepts in the document language for metaphysics. The present document provides a newer system, with essential concepts. It is presented as a vocabulary for and within a metaphysics—the ‘real metaphysics’ of the way of being.

Characteristics of the real metaphysics are as follows—

Its origins are in two questions (i) “What are the purpose or purposes that drive human beings?” (ii) a question I came to ask myself “What is the best I can do in my life?", or “What is the best we can do?”. We might ask “What is our highest purpose?”

The answer to the first question is not single-valued. There is a range of (a) degree of purpose, from near nil to clear headed and consistent purpose, to obsession, and to confusion (b) kind of purpose, e.g., to be useful in the walks of life society presents which include things like career – love – and family, enjoyment and overcoming pain, and seeking the best and greatest.

In asking “What is the best I can do?”, I explored the human traditions of exploration of the world, their bases in knowledge, and the main systems of knowledge. Knowledge begins in everyday experience and is extended in science and religion. The attitudes from science and religion correspond to worldviews that may be labeled secular and transsecular, respectively.

Most of our theories of science are based on hypotheses, from which we make predictions, and when a prediction is confirmed, it increases our confidence in the hypothetical theory. When the confirmation is over all the known relevant phenomena and there are no disconfirmations, and when the theory is internally consistent, we become confident in it, and, if it is the latest theory, we often regard it as proven truth. However, by the very nature of hypothesis and deduction, we cannot know that a theory is ultimate with regard to precision and completeness. As an example, the big bang or cosmological singularity theory is interpreted by many scientists as essentially the theory of the universe. They argue that, from the foundation of the theory in relativity, there can be no time before the big bang. However, that is a mistake on two accounts (i) relativity is not final (ii) the mathematical singularity is not necessarily a physical singularity but may be a very dense state that is a portal to a time before.

Our science and experience are not known to be complete. They may be incomplete in two ways (a) the extent and age of the real universe (both of which may be without limit) (b) the kinds of things in the universe. It is therefore a valid enterprise to explore what may lie beyond. How can we do this?

We can use our imagination. However, our imagination may lead us erroneously. Therefore, we ought to criticize what we have imagined. How? First, any system we imagine must be coherent (e.g., logically consistent). Second, it ought to be derived from known truths. Third, it must agree with what we know empirically, i.e., it may not contradict experience or science.

The belief systems of religion can be seen as a response to the question, “What lies beyond ordinary experience?” However, most of our religions contain inconsistent, unproven, and non-empirical elements. Even the more consistent religions, e.g., Buddhism, contain elements of dogma. However, even where inconsistent and unproven religions may be useful (i) for their symbolic meaning (ii) for their moral and practical systems.

How may we proceed from here? Regarding truth, science is pragmatic, religion is symbolic. Can we do better? If we regard metaphysics as knowledge of the real, then it would be better if it were possible. Is it? We find the answer to be yes—in one very significant way but not in all ways. Specifically, we find metaphysical truth with regard to depth of foundation but only pragmatic truth with regard to breadth or detailed knowledge.

The metaphysical system of ‘the way of being’ begins in the empirical, particularly, (i) some things exist (we call them beings) (ii) the universe (all things) exist (iii) laws of nature exist and are (therefore) also beings.

Now introduce an idea that may seem non-empirical. It is the ‘void’ which is defined as nothingness. Is the void empirical? Obviously, we do not experience the void. Well, if we count not experiencing as a case of experience with value then we might say we have experience the void. But while that is a very interesting argument, it is not convincing. On the other hand, we might argue rationally, that the existence and nonexistence of the void are equivalent, and therefore we are correct in taking it to exist (you would be right in having doubts here; I will address the issue of doubt below).

This is the starting point for the real metaphysics. There is much more to it, but we leave this to the developments that follow.

Some conclusions about and from the metaphysics are as follows. The universe is limitless in the sense that everything that is logically possible is realized. This is proven and is consistent with science and experience. The universe has peaks and absences of existence. All beings merge in the peaks. There are effective and active approaches to such realization. The traditional approaches are neither final nor complete but may be suggestive and inspirational. It is not imperative that all human beings undertake active and intentional realization, but the undertaking does have ultimate value. Again, there is much more which is left to the developments.

The peaking and dissolving of the universe have inspiration from the Advaita Vedanta system of East Indian thought.

The developments also address the issue of doubt, but it will be useful to address it briefly here. Reasons for doubt are (i) existence of the void is pivotal but the proof of it was, though logical, at least unusual and outside the methods of science (ii) given the immensity of the conclusions and their unfamiliar character (especially to people not familiar with Advaita Vedanta) doubt is natural and important (iii) doubting what we think true is important to authenticity (provided not compulsive).

How may doubt be addressed?

First, recall that at least the form of the proof was logical.

Second, it is first important to repeat that our conclusions are not in violation of science or reason. We may not see the limitlessness of the universe, but our experience is limited. Limitlessness does not violate our science, because science says nothing of the universe that may lie beyond its empirical boundary.

Third, living with doubt is existentially healthy.

Fourth, given the value of an ultimate realization, we maximize the expected outcome of our being when we devote some energy to realization.

Finally, to look to realization is not to devalue the immediate world. As we will see realization begins in and enhances our world.

The metaphysics

Human nature

In this preliminary section, we are interested in a simple representation of elements of human motivation on an acceptance-seeking continuum. For dimensions and complexity of (human) experience, see the a world of experience, below.

Acceptance vs seeking continuum; stages of growth.

Kant’s three questions, modified—“What can, and do I know?” “What are the limits of my being?” and “What ought I do?”.

(The original questions are—“What can I know?” “What must I do?” and “What may I hope?”).

Philosophy

What philosophy and its branches ‘really’ are is complex and may be approached from many perspectives, e.g., historically, conceptually, and by reading and ‘doing’ philosophy.

Here, the emphasis is western philosophy. Some of the reasoned views developed owe inspiration to eastern philosophy.

For this document, we observe that philosophy arises, not instantaneously, but as an historical process, as we emerge from magic dominating thought and behavior to a more rational approach. Why does philosophy arise at all? The following is explanatory but hypothetical with regard to truth and completeness (the hypothetical aspect does not compromise the subsequent materials). As larger societies emerge, oral tradition and magic require balance—a written historical tradition and the organization of thought via self-criticism, which is the beginning of rationality or reason. As far as reason is incomplete, we cannot claim to be beyond magic; and as long as our connection with the real is mediated by more than symbolic expression, the magic of connection via intuition, i.e., via our immersion in the real, remains essential.

In the west, there is a tradition of philosophy beginning with Classical Philosophy of Greece, through Scholasticism, the ‘age of reason’ in Europe, to modern and recent philosophy, the latter being significantly academic. The tradition represents many points of view, concerns, schools, ‘isms’, and problems that are seemingly specialist and not of general concern. “Is philosophy relevant today”, is often asked. Here are two ways in which—in my view—philosophy is relevant. First, when all the special problems are charted and brought into a coherence a significant and powerful picture of the world emerges—a picture that goes beyond the scientific and the piecewise rational. The real metaphysics of this piece is such a view. Second, ‘philosophy of life’ remains relevant for those who question the view of the overculture that implicitly permeates and limits our perspectives by the implication that it and it alone can and more or less has revealed all that is real.

The three questions are addressed in the main branches of philosophy—metaphysics or knowledge of the world; epistemology or the study of knowledge – what it is, how it is acquired, and how and to what extent it is justified; the theory of value, particularly ethics and aesthetics; and logic as the general theory of reason.

Meaning

Here, ‘meaning’ refers to concept and linguistic meaning.

A linguistic meaning is an associated sign and icon and its intended objects (which may or may not exist). Both sign and icon may be complex. The sign may be absent, but there must always be an icon (which may go unnoticed when meaning is shared or habitual). A concept meaning is a linguistic meaning without the sign.

It is important for knowledge that there be a system of meaning comprised of a vocabulary, a grammar, and a means of justification. Why is there a system? Given that the world is a system, its capture requires a system. The vocabulary corresponds to ‘elements’, the grammar to how they combine to depict the real (which ought to include both local, particular, concrete, and general, inclusive, abstract aspects). The means of justification is part of epistemology.

It is critical that the meanings of terms chosen should be tailored to the purpose of having a metaphysics. We can hardly avoid using terms of common use in philosophy, but we ought not to project received meaning on the terms. To understand the metaphysics we develop, we must follow meanings as defined. Received meaning may of course lend richness to the developed metaphysics.

Epistemology

While metaphysics is important, for it to be reliably useful we must fall back on the reliability of its claims. Further, as knowledge is part of the world, its study (knowledge of knowledge) falls under metaphysics. Metaphysics and epistemology are essentially a unity with two branches.

A naïve account of knowledge is that it is depiction of the world. Knowledge is realized meaning. Its importance lies in the fact that it is both functional and appreciative.

Two problems that arise at once are (i) as depiction, how do we know that we have gotten it right (ii) the same applies to the naïve account itself.

Everyday experience yields knowledge. We know it is not perfect, but it is pragmatic in being dependable. Science is an extension of everyday experience. It is fundamentally hypothetical in positing elements of the world and so, despite good precision, accuracy, and utility, we cannot claim it to be complete or perfect knowledge of things. Is there any complete and perfect system of knowledge—is such a thing possible?

Perfection is possible via abstraction, which is filtering out—excluding—from a concept, the parts of it whose ‘distortion’ cannot be rectified.

This abstract is not abstract in the sense of abstruse or remote but is in fact most concrete; and what we usually call concrete has much abstraction built in, which is an abstraction that is pragmatically rather than ideally correct.

What is found in the way of being is that via abstraction (a) we do have some perfect and ultimate knowledge (its ultimacy is in capturing the universe as a whole) (b) this knowledge forms a framework for pragmatic knowledge and (c) the join of the perfect and the pragmatic are the best for realization of the ultimate and in that sense it (the join) is perfect.

Metaphysics

A perfect system of metaphysics is arrived at as in the discussion of epistemology, above.

What are the elements of such a system to be? To begin, they must be perfect. For perfection, we choose the idea of ‘being’. A being is something that exists, i.e., something that is a valid object of the verb to be in the most inclusive sense. Being is the property of beings as beings.

How do we know that there are beings and that there is being? The very fact that we have ideas shows that there is a world of being and beings, even if our ideas are illusory.

Why this notion of being rather than something rich and deep as in Heidegger’s thought? First, its simplicity allows perfection. Second, though trivial it harbors both richness and depth—and this is a source of power because the idea of being is not weighed down with excess meaning (which may be incorrigible). Third, it is part of an emergent system that was found by trial and error to be perfect and complete.

The main concepts in the system are being, universe (all being), the void (the being that contains no parts), possibility, logic, and law (of nature).

We have seen that there is being, it is clear that there is one and only one universe. What of the void? Its existence and nonexistence are equivalent, and it may be therefore taken to exist.

A pattern obtains in the universe or a part of it (e.g., a cosmos) if the data to specify the state of the part is less than the raw data. As immanent in the universe, patterns have being—i.e., are beings. A law of nature or of the world is our reading of a pattern, but we may conflate the law with the patterns. Laws have being.

Since laws have being, there are no laws in the void.

Though the number of terms is not many, and the terms may seem simple, the system was arrived at by an arduous process of trial and error. The difficulty lay in (i) emergent definition of the individual terms (ii) emergent system. Note, for example, that whereas ‘time’ is usually implied in using the verb to be, we have not mentioned it. It is to be an emergent concept. Note, also, that from universe to void is a range from nothing to something to everything. This is the sense in which the emergent metaphysics is complete; it is not complete with regard to detail and cannot be as long as we are limited beings. However, what is interesting and perhaps surprising is that such a capture of the real is possible.

Doubt

The ‘proof’ of existence of the void above ought to be doubted for (i) the seeming non-empirical character of the proof (ii) that the conclusion (later) turns out to be momentous.

However, the conclusion is consistent with reason and experience and from the fact that the conclusion is momentous, and the proof, following the conclusion is maximizing expected outcome and existentially positive.

The idea of optimizing outcome via balance between (i) value of outcome and (ii) certainty of demonstration is a question of optimizing expectation, which requires (a) a model, not just of the world, but a model—a metamodel—of world and knowledge-action (the latter being a model of the world).

Possibility and logic

Given a concept x, we say x is possible if existing objects are not ruled out. The possibility is logical if objects are not ruled out by the structure of the concept itself. If the concept is logical and objects are not ruled out be the form of the universe, we say the possibility is real (physical possibility is a case of real possibility).

Logical possibility is the greatest possibility (our systems of logic are most likely a small part of logic, which may not only have further discrete systems beyond ours but may also be a continuum). Real possibility cannot exceed logical possibility.

What is the relation between logic as conceived above and traditional deductive logic? They are the same; and the system of logic depends on the linguistic forms admitted—e.g., the proposition, the propositions of certain forms and so on.

Can this logic be extended to science? Yes, in two steps. But as preliminary note that the usual analogy that derivation of scientific theories is inductive whereas logic is deductive, is an improper analogy. The correct analogy is that (a) the derivation of scientific and logical theories is inductive and (b) derivations under science and logic are both deductive. The first step is that under this analogy a generalized logic bifurcates as deduction and induction. The second step is to note that there are necessary facts (e.g., the fact of being, universe, and the void) and this makes logic more than a system of deduction but also a system of knowledge of the world.

What is the relation between science and metaphysics? Let us first look at their history. As we have seen, the part of philosophy that is concerned with the real is metaphysics. The metaphysics of Thales of Metaphysics, c. 600 BCE, is recognized as the first historical metaphysics (the name, ‘metaphysics’, was to come later, with the naming of certain of Aristotle’s works as metaphysics and it is remarkable that even though we might think of metaphysics as meta-physics, according to the received account, the name was given because the works on ‘metaphysics’ came after the works on ‘physics’ in a catalog of all Aristotle’s works). Thales hypothesized that water is the substance (that which generates everything) of the world, which is naïve (i) in assuming substance (ii) hypothesizing water as the substance. On the other hand, there was a qualitative reasonableness to thinking that water, being so sustaining and so present, was substance. Now, our sciences and notions of science emerge, over history, from this beginning. But the hypothetical element remains and therefore while science has pragmatic truth, we ought not to claim perfect truth until such is demonstrated. What then of metaphysics as perfect truth? Many modern scientists scoff at such an idea and many modern metaphysicians reject its possibility but what we are seeing here is that metaphysics as knowledge of the real is possible.

As a general theory of (i) arriving at truth (ii) the form of the world, logic, and epistemology overlap.

Real metaphysics

Since there are no laws of the void, all possible being emerges from it. That is, the universe is the realization of the greatest possibility (this is the fundamental principle of metaphysics). The greatest possibility, logical possibility, and real possibility are identical. This is of course true for the universe but not explicitly for a part as long as the part remains a part.

It follows that the universe has identity; that the universe and its identity are limitless in variety, peaks of limitless magnitude and variety, which are followed by dissolution; that there are limitlessly many cosmoses; that individual beings merge in the peaks; that the realization of peaks may occur in ‘this life’ or beyond, in travel of identity from cosmos to cosmos; that we appear to be at a low rung in the process—one that is just capable of seeing this truth but not one in which the ultimate is realized (yet). It also follows that there are intelligent (there is intelligence in the world and intelligence for the world), enjoyable paths to the ultimate; that pain is unavoidable and that an effective address to the issue of pain is to be on a pathway into which healing is integrated. Paths may be prescribed, but even where well formulated, are aids; shared negotiation is essential to being real in realization and effective transformation.

The void may be seen as the ground of being. Every being may be seen as the ground of all being. Equivalently, being may be seen as neither having nor needing further ground.

The metaphysics so far is abstract. When joined to pragmatic knowledge, it is our best in process knowledge toward realization and is perfect in that sense even though imperfect on received criteria. The abstract guides and illuminates the pragmatic, and the pragmatic is instrumental toward the ideal in the abstract. As this notion of perfection derives from value, value theory (ethics and aesthetics) and epistemology overlap. This join is named the real metaphysics.

In this system, the abstract objects and the concrete objects are of one kind—they are both real.

Religion

The origin of world religions (and earlier ‘belief systems’) is in the pre-rational and magic. In itself, this does not make the religions either arational or irrational. For, the meaning of a system of belief is not merely literal but also existential and symbolic.

Yet, the religions are significantly marked by dogma and suppression of reason. Additionally, the institutions of religion have often been dominant political systems, which we think of as extra-religious.

However, examples do not define a concept. Therefore, we ask “What is religion?”

Let us begin with the observation that ordinary experiential knowledge and science are incomplete. This is expected from the empirical nature of such knowledge and demonstrated in arriving at the real metaphysics. It is therefore valid to speculate what lies beyond, provided degree of certainty and completeness is evaluated and dogma is avoided.

In fact, the real metaphysics, while not religion, can be an envelope for emergent religion. Here, there is a role for existential, symbolic, and imaginative exploration of the universe of being. We may think of religion as use of our entire being in understanding and becoming all being (which the real metaphysics implies does and will indeed happen). Because of the sometimes-pejorative connotations of the term ‘religion’, alternative terms may be appropriate.

If ultimate realization does and will happen, why ought we to do anything about it? First, intelligent sharing of pathways makes the process in this world, society – individuals – environment, and beyond ‘better’—i.e., more effective, more enjoyable, and with an answer to the problem of pain. Second, the real metaphysics shows (i) the universe not to be merely deterministic and mechanistic, but also capable of agency and quality of being (ii) we are among the bearers and instruments of that agency.

Ethics

It is clearly a fundamental value that we should be engaged in pathways. The pathways begin in and value the immediate and join it to the ultimate.

Experience

The first concept of experience and its aspects

We first use the word experience for awareness in all its forms, especially what we call consciousness.

If our cosmos were strictly material (i.e., all matter which is non-mental as the substance of the cosmos) there would be no consciousness. What we would call matter (if the cosmos were strictly material), therefore, must have two sides—the experience of something and the experienced which join in the experience. If our cosmos were a substance cosmos the substance would be experience with its two sides—the experience of or mind-like and the experienced which is matter like. Experience straddles the divide as it is experienced (this is one showing of the inadequacy of mind and matter as kinds)—i.e., experience is ‘reflexive’. We would then (on assumption of a substance cosmos) be experiential beings—bright centers of experience with intention in a world that is also experiential but not at the level of our consciousness. Experientiality would be the core and essence of our being. The cosmos would be a field of experiential being.

The second concept of experience and its aspects

The cosmos is not known to be experiential in a substance sense. However, the universe is limitless and therefore must be experiential down to the root in the sense that even the root may be capable of experience (sometimes with the value zero but still experiential in kind). We are experiential beings in an experiential universe.

In realization, beings are part of an experiential world with pure and pragmatic dimensions on the way to the ultimate. The two sides of experience are the intrinsic (experience itself undergoing transformation) and instrumental (material).

The nature of experience

This abstracts from the detailed account in the little manual (particularly the section, a language for metaphysics) and a summary in the document, an abbreviated language for metaphysics.

Givenness of experience—abstraction, reflexivity (particularly experience of experience).

Relation—experience is relation.

Significance—experience as the place of—the real, meaning of life, meaning of meaning, identity.

Meaning—i.e., concept and linguistic meaning—concept (sign-icon), relationship, object.

Knowledge—propositional vs nonpropositional, pragmatic vs ultimate.

A world of experience

World as experienced—as if; secular, transsecular; limits

Dimensions of experience

Continues the previous section with some details. This is a more detailed section, less important to the way, but of importance to general metaphysics and science.

Dimensions of experience are fundamental parameters that may be used to specify the variety of experience including relation and process.

Ideal dimensions

Universe as field of experiential being—as experience is relation, there is nothing beyond the as-if mind and as-if matter aspects of being; rather there are hierarchies of experiential being, which may be arranged according to the as if material, as if mental, and other aspects.

Change and place—experience is experiencing; thus, change is given. Difference is of two kinds—difference of object or self, and difference of property, which on conventional thought, is an aspect of an object but not itself an object (from the real metaphysics, properties can be seen as objects, as can anything that partakes of reality or as if reality). Identity is sense of sameness of self or object through the difference of change. Duration (‘time’) is a measure or marker of change. Difference in location (space) is marked by difference without (sameness of) identity. Regarding difference of object or self (identity), duration and location exhaust the possibilities; thus, there is no further dimension beyond space and time; however, space and time may be of multiple dimensions, as well as a mix of discrete and continuous. As far as the kinds of difference of object do not bifurcate into sameness vs difference of object, space and time may be dependent on frame of reference or perception. As far as the presence of objects influences the measures, objects (matter), space, and time interact. A better way of talking of this as interaction is to say that duration-location is immanent in the world.

Elements—from the real metaphysics, there are no true elements—the void or any being, or fragment may function as an element (a fragment is a being). On a field view, unit experiences and their compounds may serve as pragmatic elements for the dimensions of experience; historical examples are Leibnizian monads and Whitehead’s actual occasions

Pragmatic dimensions or axes

Attitude – pure experience – action—one-dimension, pure experience itself, with three directionalities—active and passive—world to being or attitude, null or pure experience, and being to world or action (note being includes self); this is contra some accounts that see the axes as independent; here, attitude and action are essentially experiential.

Inner – outer axis—‘self with body’ – ‘world’; though there is a distinction, it is relative, and the demarcation is blurred.

Bound – free continuum—a continuum for which the two poles are (a) experience bound to the object (world or body) as in perception, autonomous motor control, and much emotion (b) relatively free from objects as in much thought (conception), conscious motor control, some free feeling and emotion.

Function and dysfunction—the examples above are normally functional. But deviations from norm are not dysfunctional in essence; rather, the deviations may be hyperfunctional, neutral, or dysfunctional depending on situation and degree of deviation. Examples of hyperfunction higher conceptual ability, greater imagination, greater athletic and artistic motor control. Examples of neutral deviation from norm—occasional hallucinations, dreams. Examples of dysfunction—intrusive hallucinations and delusions (depending on context and other abilities), ‘frozen thought and emotion’.

Intensity continuum—it is functional for some experience to be intense in the sense of imperative to action (of which non-action is a case) or the intensity of perception which is typically more intense than imagination (in waking states), and for other experience to be of low intensity; for this is the root of reflection and foresight. Neither reflective freedom (of thought) nor imperative to perception and action (fear, pain, intense pleasure) are absolute and they interact.

Function and dysfunction—are relative, except at extremes. Examples of hyperfunction—degrees of greater and lesser reflective intensity, relative to norm, e.g., higher if imperative conceptual ability and greater imagination, powerful and waking dreams; hyperfunction merges with dysfunction at extreme degrees. Note the overlap with function and dysfunction for the bound-free continuum, which occurs because bound-free is partly the result of intensity.

Interaction of the continua—(i) conceptual, in which the concepts overlap, e.g., the reflective and the free (ii) real, in which the aspects of experience interact or are not as distinct as may be experienced, e.g., thought and emotion.

Form and formation—in classical thought, forms stood above things, regardless of whether they were thought real (Plato) or devices of classification (Aristotle). However, on the real metaphysics, when objects, e.g., worlds, emerge from the void (itself or associated with a being), those with symmetry of form have a survival greater than transience, which is an explanation of the preponderance of form, and which also shows that forms are immanent in things (are themselves a kind of thing or being, not beings in another world or devices of classification). Eternal forms—are abstractions, have being, but require no dynamics; their approximations have formation, decay, and dynamics. Pragmatic forms—are associated with formation and dynamics, in which space and time (spacetime) are immanent.

Everyday psychology—it is functional and adaptive that we should have some freedom of thought in terms of form and aesthetic feeling, but significant binding in observation and basic feeling (body). This is a source for the common aspects of psychology (individually and in their interactive integration)—perception, thought (higher cognition), emotion, and strong or imperative feeling.

Personality—a person’s dominant patterns of behavior, cognition, emotion, self-conception, and interpersonal interaction; that personality is more than just recognized personality and types; their integration, emergence, stabilization over time, function and dysfunction, and numerous ways and reasons for change and breakdown. Patterns tend to be stable, but change occurs (i) incrementally and gradually, and (ii) suddenly and more vs less dramatically (especially due to disease or injury). A theory of personality would examine factors of personality, how they come together, how they stabilize, and how they affect function and choice. Kinds of structure and dynamics include psychoanalytic, factor, and typology. Range of personality is interesting and marked by the concept of range, range in terms of the elements, kinds of personality (current theories are rough and tend to emphasize behavior), kinds of exceptional personality. Formation may be studied under biological, environmental, and self-influence.

Anxiety

We include anxiety as an important term (i) as its address is an important aspect of the address of pain (ii) to illustrate the incomplete separability of ‘mind and body’.

Treatment of anxiety is both mental and physical—(a) mental: understanding the sources of anxiety, seeing them, defusing them; avoiding triggers (b) physical: sleep, diet, exercise, avoiding alcohol etc.

It is significant that anxiety resides in the body. One may locate its place, which varies among individuals, and specifically relax that place while allowing flow of the feeling rather than resisting it.

Cosmology

Outline of cosmology and its divisions

Cosmology is the study of the variety of being; it is an extension of the real metaphysics; it goes beyond modern physical cosmology.

General cosmology has two parts—it is the study of variety under logic and then, particularly of experiential variety.

Cosmology of form and formation—is the use of paradigms from our sciences joined to the real metaphysics to study (i) how cosmos like entities form (ii) what their variety is. From biology there is the paradigm of variation and selection, which is essential if there is to be newness in the world. From physics there is mechanism, determinist as well as probabilistic. From logic there is a study of variety as well as of absolute indeterminism (what occurs in a situation is not given) and absolute determinism (‘everything’ occurs).

Physical cosmology—modern cosmology enhanced by the foregoing; addressing, as far as possible, what came before the big-bang, how it occurred, how the cosmos as general relativistic and quantum field theoretic emerged (e.g., quantum indeterminism as residual indeterminism).

Dimensions of being

The first two dimensions are those of nature and society.

In our cosmos we are first natural beings, which has matter and mindlike sides.

We become socialized. In doing so our knowledge rests on culture, often the ‘over-culture’, which, though it presents itself as authority, is usually at best relative.

The next dimension is that of the individual., the individual system of thought (‘mind’, which is part of nature), understanding that all culture, especially the overculture, has limits and critiquing the culture and moving beyond the limits. The person becomes independent of culture, critical of it, and creative toward it, and to realization. The final dimension is that of the individual merged with the universal.

These dimensions are also our stages of growth.

Hierarchy of being

Being may be ‘hierarchized’ in a number of ways (see the little manual for greater detail)

Mereology—all, part, empty being.

Reality status—nonbeing, fictional beings, possible beings, actual beings, contingent beings, necessary being(s)—conditionally necessary as in kinds of metaphysical necessity, and absolutely or logically necessary.

Hierarchy of abstraction—fully concrete to fully abstract.

Hierarchy of form—from elementary beings (particles or fields as far as real) to elementary living beings through animals and human beings, to higher beings (higher than we see on Earth), to local ‘gods’, and on to peak being (the hierarchy of form and of experience overlap.

Experiential hierarchy—sentience through agency—feeling, sensation, inner (proprioception), outer (perception), recall, conception (‘higher’), emotion (pleasure, pain, suffering, enjoyment of experience, identity—self and shared, foresight, value, imperative, will, agency), gods, and limitless or peak being (Brahman).

Holism

We have seen that meanings of terms have a degree of interdependence, and that this arises, at least in part, from the interaction of the parts of the universe. Being, experience, beings, universe, law, and void are related. Path, intelligence, effectiveness, pain, anxiety, and shared negotiation are related. The concrete and the abstract objects are a unity. Dimensions of being and hierarchy of being are related. The real metaphysics is a unity of the abstract and the concrete (where the sense of ‘abstract’ is not identical to its sense in ‘abstract object’). Thus, a degree of meaning holism is emergent.

There is another kind of holism, metaphysical holism, which is that the form of the universe is more than just its (represented) elements. This is metaphysical holism, which has two aspects (i) functional holism—the behavior of the whole is more than just the individual behaviors—which is clearly rather obvious and related to meaning holism and (ii) ontological holism—that the (metaphysical) whole is more than the sum of its parts, which is not as apparent, in part because the selection of ‘parts’ is somewhat arbitrary. None the less, (a) a significant degree of functional holism is apparent, and (b) there is some degree of ontological holism, which is relative to mode of representation.

The vocabulary or lexicon

The lexicon is be derived from the system of important terms marked in bold font.

Introduction and overview

purpose, highest purpose, worldview, secularism, transsecularism, truth, metaphysics, depth, foundation, pragmatic truth, breadth, doubt

Human nature

motivation, acceptance, seeking

Philosophy

philosophy, historical tradition, magic, intuition, philosophy of life, overculture, metaphysics, epistemology, value, logic

Meaning

meaning, linguistic meaning, concept meaning, system of meaning

Epistemology

knowledge, abstraction

Metaphysics

a being, being, universe, void, possibility, logic, law, pattern, law

Doubt

doubt

optimal expectation

metamodel

Possibility and logic

possibility, necessity, logic, real, science, contingent fact, necessary fact, substance

Real metaphysics

fundamental principle of metaphysics, identity, peaks, intelligent, enjoyable, paths, pain, negotiation, ground, real metaphysics, abstract object, concrete object

Religion

religion

Ethics

value

Experience

experience, cosmos, consciousness, reflexivity

experiential being, intrinsic, instrumental

givenness, relation, significance, meaning, knowledge

world

dimensions of experience

change, difference, property, identity, duration, location

form, common psychology, perception, thought, emotion, feeling, personality

anxiety

Cosmology

cosmology, general cosmology, cosmology of form and formation, physical cosmology

natural, social, individual, universal, stages of growth

Holism

meaning holism, metaphysical holism, functional holism, ontological holism