The first two sections after this outline, living in the world and into the way of being, provide context, overview, and motivation – not part of the main development.

The main development begins with basic concepts and definitions. The definitions may also occur later in the narrative (i) to improve readability (ii) when terms are ‘overloaded’, i.e., have multiple meanings. The multiple meanings are not arbitrary or imposed. Rather, the development forces or makes natural the emergence of meaning that is deeper and more inclusive. Thus, the reference of the earlier meaning of a term is included in the reference of a subsequent meaning of the term.

The basic concepts are followed by an introduction of principles of argument, which evolve with the narrative in a manner similar to that described above for the concepts. In many axiomatic systems, principles of argument are presumed. Here, however, what is studied is the universe which is conceived as all being. Therefore, knowledge and its development are part of what is studied; the narrative is part of its object. Consequently, the principles (are and) must be part of the narrative.

Since concepts and principles of argument emerge (evolve) with the narrative, the system is currently (referred to as) axiomatic-like.

However, there is an axiomatic core marked by primary definitions and results, which is a framework for the system.

The initial principles of argument are followed by the argument itself, which is the development of an understanding and knowledge of the universe (all that has being, beings) and consequences, which include partly in the order in which they occur—

(i) description of the universe and its nature (in a system of metaphysics),

(ii) related developments regarding argument (e.g., a study of possibility),

(iii) value and knowledge (especially as they pertain to the aims of the narrative),

(iv) the nature of experience (awareness, consciousness and so on); note that as it is used here, experience has more than its usual meanings, and is one of the terms whose meaning is deepened in the development,

(v) further studies of knowledge – its nature, contents, and justification (the studies selected for their intrinsic significance, as applications of the metaphysics of the narrative, to show the broad and deep applicability of the metaphysics, and for interest to readers interested in the conceptual developments of the narrative),

(vi) pathways to the ultimate, a guide for readers interested in realization of the potential of being.

Living in the world

The phenomenal world is not (known to be) the world; living (in the phenomenal world) is a mix of acceptance and seeking beyond.

In an acceptance – seeking continuum, many live in a middle range; some live at extremes.

Significance (roughly in the sense of the meaning of life) is (found) in being itself, in the universe; and if there is an ultimate, it is in the universe, not beyond it (for if the universe is all being, there is no beyond).

There is significance to be-ing (living), to accepting and seeking.

Knowledge, value, art, intention, will, and action are key in this endeavor.

Into the way of being

The way of being begins with a simple, open-ended question “what shall we do?” Here ‘do’ is generic and includes see, feel, think, relate, will, and act.

About worldviews

A worldview is a picture, explicit or intuitive, in images and words, of what the world or universe is like. What we think is possible, at what we aim, and what we do as individuals and societies is significantly conditioned by our views of the world.

Most people have at least a tacit view of what the world is like and so it is worthwhile examining actual and potential worldviews. While such views are often speculative and dogmatic, our aim is at a view that is grounded in perception and reason.

Common worldviews

One common view is that the world is as revealed in ordinary experience, perhaps enhanced by reason, and science; many people, including scientists and philosophers, have the at least tacit view that that is all there is.

However, it is consistent with reason and experience that the universe is the realization of possibility, e.g., that there is being beyond our being, that there are worlds beyond our world, and that our being is, at least diffusely, part of that larger universe. A second view, one that recognizes some unobserved possibilities as real, is seen in some philosophical systems; such views are generally speculative but not inherently invalid.

Reason implies that the common view from experience, the first view above, ought to be silent on the existence or nonexistence of the possible beyond our world. Thus, while such worlds may lack empirical basis, to hypothesize them is neither inconsistent with experience nor absurd.

A third kind of view comes from world religions and myths; these views are varied in kind and while they provide meaning, they are speculative and often dogmatic. It is often thought that religion – religious views – are a source of ignorance, hardship, conflict, and cruelty. However, we may question whether it is religion or human nature which is responsibility for the negative that is sometimes associated with religion. Even where the literal interpretation of these views is speculative and dogmatic they have symbolic meaning and may be suggestive of what may lie beyond our world. Note that the purpose of these comments is neither to condemn nor justify religion but to present religions as a class of worldviews.

The way of being

The way of being has sources in world thought; it attempts to synthesize and go beyond them; its aim is ultimate (though not to devalue the immediate); it achieves some success in this endeavor.

The worldview

The narrative:

1. Demonstrates that the universe is the realization of greatest kind of possibility (the kind will be established later), which is at the core of a rational view, a ‘real metaphysics’ or ‘the metaphysics’, which shows that the common views, except where patently irrational, are not so much wrong as limited,

2. Shows the immediate world and the worlds beyond to be essentially interwoven and so it is neither practical to focus only on this world nor merely idealistic to act in our world in light of what lies beyond (all the worlds, this one, beyond, the void, and their collection are one world),

3. Is not dogmatic—it expresses and addresses doubt; it encourages reason with doubt,

4. Develops consequences for human knowledge and the nature of our being – finite and limited or limitless,

5. Develops paths to realization of our true nature – the true nature of (our) being – in our world and beyond.

Is this worldview new?

The idea that all possible worlds exist is not held widely, but is not new (Possible Worlds – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

However, the proof, the form of the view, its interpretation, and consequences are significantly new (some consequences are anticipated in the Vedanta Schools of Indian Philosophy).

Is the worldview significant?

The view

1. Agrees with science in its domain of validity. However, it goes far beyond science in extension, duration, and variety of being. It underlies science—it gives an explanation of the origin of the world as we know it from the void.

2. Shows being to be ultimate. It shows that all beings participate in that ultimate character.

3. Has significant consequences for our world and knowledge.

4. Is developed to reveal efficient paths to the ultimate. These paths begin in and serve our world.

Why being?

The common views typically posit fundamental entities or kinds, e.g., matter (science), idea or process or relationship (philosophy), word and God (theology and religion).

To posit is to speculate. For example, if matter is taken as fundamental, the questions of what it, why it is, and whether it is fundamental remain open (we may ask whether the fundamental entities of science are truly fundamental).

On the other hand, in its meaning as developed in the narrative, being is not a kind or entity (or process, relationship, spirit, ‘the one’, and so on). It is the property of what is in the universe just by being in the universe. But is it not a posit or assumption to say that things have this property? No, for it is a vacuous property (we shall see that it is almost vacuous, which, however, does not negate the conceptual value of being). It – being – is a shorthand way to talk of things without saying what they are (rather like the ‘x’ in algebra). But is being therefore empty, impotent? No, for (i) we find that in combination with other non-posits it has an ultimate potency (ii) it avoids premature and prejudicial introduction of the kinds and fundamental entities but (iii) allows later introduction of practical kinds as approximations (with justification).

How does it work?

Details and reasons must be left to the development but an important aspect of an approach from being is it is more than a speculative beginning from our immersion in the detail and sometimes seeming chaos of the world. Instead, it joins to that kind of beginning, an approach from the highest kind, i.e., being, a non-kind. That is, the approach is neither top-down nor bottom-up, but a synthesis of the two.

And now

Before beginning the way of being, basic concepts are listed. and present principles of argument

Definitions

Comment 1. Alt = summary

Though not necessary, definitions are repeated in the text.

Caution

As the aim is description of the real, definition does not imply existence. Where there is doubt, existence should be established.

Definitions

Natural language is ordinary language.

Knowledge of interest here is fact (simple, compound, theories).

A fact is a true assertion.

Argument is establishment of fact (simple or compound, which includes theories).

An axiomatic system for the world establishes basic facts whose truth is certain, employs necessary or deductive inference to establish further facts (significant or main facts may be named; such a fact may be called a result or theorem).

The development to follow is an axiomatic-like system in that (i) ‘gap’ in sound argument (defined later) are filled with significant and relatively certain fact and ampliative inference – a term defined below (typically to near or pragmatic certainty) (ii) it is emergent in that meanings of terms are broadened or deepened or both with the with the development

Being is the property of that which is (in the most inclusive senses of ‘that which’ and ‘is’), i.e., which exists. A being (plural: beings) is an existent.

The universe is all being—i.e., all that there is.

A cosmos is a limited region that is effectively (i.e., as observed by its inhabitants) and (as will be seen, temporarily) isolated from the rest of the universe.

A pattern obtains for a region of the universe if the information required to specify its state is less than the raw information.

A law is (an observation-based reading of) such a pattern (the term law is generally reserved for significant patterns that are explanatory or predictive or both) for a cosmos.

The void is a being that has no beings except itself as parts (it is an ‘empty’, ‘zero’, or ‘nil’ – but not null – being).

To be a conceptual or logical possibility, the conception must be consistent (not violate logic, e.g., not be self-contradictory).

A universal possibility or real possibility is one that is consistent with the nature of the universe; a relatively real possibility is one that is consistent with the nature – the laws – of a part of the universe (typically a cosmos).

A metaphysical possibility is one that satisfies certain generic features of reality for purposes of ‘metaphysical argument’ (e.g., embodiment is necessary for there to be a mind, is a candidate for a metaphysical possibility).

A physical possibility is one that is consistent with the laws of our cosmos.

A limitless being is one that has potential that is or will be realized as the greatest possibility, i.e., all logical possibility (the state or collection of states, where ‘state’ is not limited to or in spacetime, whose conception does not entail a violation of logic).

Metaphysics is knowledge of the real (world).

That the universe is the realization of logical possibility defines an ideal metaphysics.

Pragmatic knowledge for a culture of beings is what is at least pragmatically valid in their ongoing and cumulative knowledge.

The real metaphysis, or just ‘real metaphysics’ or the metaphysics, is a joint system of the ideal metaphysics and pragmatic knowledge which is valid by joint criteria of faithfulness (to the object for the ideal metaphysics and faithful aspects of the at least pragmatically valid) and value criteria for the joint system.

Experience is awareness in all kinds and levels.

To engage in true yoga is to see one’s identity with the universe and to be (on a path to) that identity.

An original meaning of yoga is ‘yoking to being or universe’; its sides are meditative and physical; its aim is to be on a path to integration – mind-body and beings-being

Meditation in action (yoga) is an approach to leveraging mind, body, community, knowledge – both received and ongoing (real metaphysics), and practical knowledge of the world (spelled out in discussion of dimensions of being, later), toward being in a process of transformation to the ultimate.

value is (a source of informed) judgment in absence of complete knowledge and an incompletely determined future.

Dimensions of being are similar to categories (high level genera). Ways in which dimensions are distinct from categories are summarized (i) the intent of dimensions is conceptual and pragmatic (ii) dimensions occur at all levels of being from the elementary to being itself. Details, not noted in the summary—

A paradigm is an established way of understanding and predicting behavior and a means is a way of negotiating ways through the world (on the way to the ultimate).

Argument

Natural language is ordinary language.

Natural language used carefully is presumed; simple concepts and rules of establishment of fact may be argued, which will later be justified, the grounds of which also emerge.

Argument – what and why

Knowledge of interest here is fact (simple, compound, theories).

With knowledge as fact (simple facts, theories) the following distinctions are common regarding knowledge acquisition (i) direct establishment of fact vs inference (ii) certain vs less than certain establishment of fact (direct or inferential). The aim of this section is to clarify these distinctions, to bring them under a unified umbrella, and to show that the distinctions are not as stark as commonly thought. This aim will be partially achieved in this chapter and completed later with development of the real metaphysics.

A fact is a true assertion.

Argument is establishment of fact (simple or compound, which includes theories).

There are two aspects to argument – discovery (observation, imagination, creation, hypothesis, concept formation) and justification (corroboration, testing, inference, which must be good in some sense that is not limited to certainty).

There are received ways of discovery, but they are informal and not codified. Justification is formal, codified, which, again, must be good in some sense that is not limited to certainty.

The term ‘argument’ is typically reserved for the formal, codified, aspect that is at least good (the term ‘good’ is defined below).

How may it begin?

Let us begin with an initial account of principles of reason.

Introduction

The focus is axiomatic and axiomatic-like systems for (part of) the world (primary concern is with the universe), i.e., the real; focus is secondarily on syntactically postulated axiomatic systems.

Here, the aim of the developed axiomatic and axiomatic-like system for the world is to set out a conceptual image of the world that is adequately precise and certain for purposes of understanding and negotiating the world.

Specification of a system for the world requires the existence of objects corresponding to the concepts and, in that way, is more demanding than it is to specify a syntactically postulated system.

Certainty and precision are often desirable but not always possible. Certainty is often not possible for systems for the world, but is it possible at all for such systems? We will find certainty for an ultimate – not just non-trivial – system but the development will not end at there, for the certain will be an abstract and universe-encompassing framework, which will be filled in with pragmatic (good but not certain) knowledge and justified in joint knowledge (epistemic) and value (ethical) terms.

Degrees of certainty should be noted, and different degrees should not be conflated, especially the certain and the less than certain should not be conflated; and they should not be mixed without justification.

For syntactically postulated systems, certainty is possible, but its meaning is different from what it is for systems for the world. It is possible for systems which are effectively open to direct examination. Which systems are thus open depends on the capacity of the examiner, which is usually taken to be a being that can examine no more than systems that are discretely specified.

The system of this narrative begins with certain and precise terms; it derives a picture of the universe; it then proceeds to incorporate less than certain pragmatic knowledge and to justify the incorporation.

Since justification emerges with the system, principles of justification are emergent (to a degree).

As noted earlier, we begin with ordinary language, experience, and reason, employed with imagination, care, and self-criticism.

Discovery

Imagination is essential in providing material for justification; its main ‘method’ is informal—to let the imagination roam, often generated by the creative impulse, and to allow time for connections and iterations to gel (incubation, at least subconsciously in part; change of scene, walking away from the desk, spending (extended) time in nature, reading systematically and randomly; allowing ideas to interact across and within all levels; and there are theoretical and emerging computational ways to generate material for justification—one theoretical approach is the use of possible worlds theories – see possible worlds (stanford encyclopedia of philosophy); much of the philosophical literature is imaginative; see, for example, Shankara (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy); literary work such as that of Borges may be useful.

Net structure of argument

Concept specification or definition via discovery (syntactic axiomatics: definitions); definition does not imply existence (syntactic axiomatics: definition does not imply existence of a model).

Argument or establishment of fact (syntactic axiomatics: inference). Fact (includes existence of objects) (syntactic axiomatics: theorem).

Argument

Comment 2. There is an in some ways more complete account in argument. Make sure that the considerations of synthesis of value, knowledge (certain to less than certain), and action are included in argument.

Ways to establish facts

Direct

(i) Direct establishment of fact by

Experiment and observation—often but not necessarily imprecise or uncertain, corroboration, i.e., repeated or other experiment, checking for consistency with other facts, or, for syntactic axiomatics, by checking against other theorems or models)

Necessity—e.g., inference from a certain fact or without (need for) base in fact – from an ‘empty fact’, which is found possible and important examples given; (syntactic axiomatics: ‘facts’, i.e., axioms or ‘zero order theorems’, are postulated).

Inference from other facts

(ii) By inference from other facts

necessary or deductive logics in which conclusions necessarily follow from premises, i.e. because the premises are at least implicit in the premises, especially given standard logics; if indicated variant logics may be taken up with justification. In syntactic axiomatics, inference is usually deductive.

ampliative—in which the conclusions do not necessarily follow from premises, i.e., amplify upon the premises, but are ‘reasonable’, e.g., via induction, abduction, analogy, and ordinary reason with justification). If appropriate background conditions are (regarded as) given, ampliative inference may be (regarded as) certain.

Kinds of argument and degree of certainty

(i) A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow from the premise; a valid argument is sound, if the premise is true; it is necessary if the premise is necessary, e.g., a true zero order theorem (such theorems will be shown to exist) or a necessary ontological fact; an ampliative argument is good if the conclusion follows from the premise with reasonable likelihood and a good argument is strong, if the premise is reasonably likely and precise. In summary the degrees of strength of an argument are good, sound, and necessary.

(ii) In comparing science (in which inference to theories is ampliative) to deduction, a comparison between inference to a scientific theory and deduction under a logic is often made. The comparison ought to be between (a) inference to a scientific theory and arriving at a logic (both can be ampliative) and (b) inference under a scientific theory and inference under a logic (both can be deductive). Thus, the distinction between ampliative and deductive is not as stark as often thought. Rather, the comparison is not as important as often thought. Instead, the essence of it all (i.e., of argument) is establishment of fact and what we have found is that there is a continuum from near certain (based on near certain fact and deductive inference) and not so certain (under reasonably established fact and inference under scientific theory). The continuum does not seem to include absolute certainty. However, we will establish that there are significant facts whose certainty is absolute and thus the continuum does include absolute certainty.

Certainty and its value

(iii) As we have been concerned with certainty, we ought to question its value. Degree of certainty and certainty itself are generally thought of and seem to have value. What is the value of certainty? The worldview of the narrative will enable a valuation of certainty. It will emerge that knowledge in all degrees of good enough certainty, value, and action are interwoven and that both certain and less than certain knowledge are fundamental in being – and becoming – in the universe.

Argument: summary

Facts (simple, compound, theories) are established directly (by experiment, corroboration, checking for consistency with other facts) or by inference (certain, e.g., deductive and ampliative or good but less than certain. Some facts may be established as necessary, without assumption, i.e., from ‘empty fact’ (examples will be given).

Acceptable facts are (i) certain or (ii) less than certain but good. Generally, certain facts are abstract, their objects not directly localized, may be ultimate frameworks for the concrete (the real metaphysics, below, is the prime example). The framework may be filled with concrete and immediate facts of pragmatic reliability, which locates objects, is instrumental in negotiation of the immediate and the ultimate and shows our world to be robust (with near certainty).

Notes on argument

Certain and reasonable conclusions are not to be conflated; and they are not to be mixed without justification.

‘Ordinary reason with justification’ means just what it says; the purpose of its inclusion is that it is not necessarily true that all principles of argument are known.

Argument (method) and content are one, i.e., they constitute a system, for knowledge, value, and art are in the world, and, in review of ‘fundamentals’, they emerge together (but the emergence of method may seem remote).

Being, beings

Being

Being is the property of that which is (in the most inclusive senses of ‘that which’ and ‘is’), i.e., which exists. A being (plural: beings) is an existent.

This definition of being would be without meaning in that reference to a being is empty without specification of the being; however, in use, it is presumed that there is implicit specification. An improved definition should make specification explicit and such a definition follows—a being is a referential concept (iconic, or iconic-and-linguistic) and its object (and being is the property of beings as beings). This definition neatly resolves the problem of negative existentials (see Nonexistent Objects (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) for a nonexistent being may now be defined as a referential concept with an empty or nil object. A further merit to this definition is that while the definition above is formally vacuous (everything has being) this one is not (not everything has being).

The most inclusive sense of ‘is’ allows multiple regions in spacetime including all spacetime and a level of description that is above or does not include spacetime (it might begin with (sense of) sameness and difference.

The most inclusive sense of ‘that which’ is not limited to entities; it allows processes, e.g., running as an object of reference, and Harry’s running as well (the latter stands even if an objection to universals like ‘running’ is admitted); the sense of ‘that which’ also allows universals such as redness, tropes such as the redness of the apple, the color red as an existent as a property, further descriptors such the ‘very-ness’ in a very red thing. It allows variables such as things, happenings, causes, interactions, persons, material and mental things (so far as real), and properties. If the subject-predicate form is regarded as the general proposition, then the most inclusive sense of ‘that which’ is the subject, the predicate, and the subject-predicate.

There is being.

There are beings.

A being is either all being or a part of all being (the universe). A part is either all being or a proper part (not the entire universe). Consider ‘the being that has no parts’; if it exists it is a (proper) part, which may be called an empty part or null part.

Universe

The universe is all being—i.e., all that there is.

The universe is a being.

There is exactly one universe; all being is (all beings are) in the universe.

Cosmos, law

A cosmos is a limited region that is effectively (i.e., as observed by its inhabitants) and (as will be seen, temporarily) isolated from the rest of the universe.

Cosmoses are not (observationally known to their inhabitants to be) the universe.

A pattern obtains for a region of the universe if the information required to specify its state is less than the raw information.

A law is (an observation-based reading of) such a pattern (the term law is generally reserved for significant patterns that are explanatory or predictive or both) for a cosmos.

In the knowledge of its beings, the laws of a cosmos do not project beyond it.

The void

The void is a being that has no beings except itself as parts (it is an ‘empty’, ‘zero’, or ‘nil’ – but not null – being).

It will be seen that there is effectively exactly one void and so the term ‘the void’ will be used rather than ‘a void’.

For the void, existence and nonexistence are identical.

The void is a being.

The void and a being are just the being.

Effectively, there is one and only one void.

The void has no laws.

Possibility

A tentative possibility is a conceived state or being.

To be a conceptual or logical possibility, the conception must be consistent (not violate logic, e.g., not be self-contradictory).

To be real, a possibility must also be logical—universal possibility does not exceed logical possibility.

A physical possibility is one that is consistent with the laws of our cosmos.

Impossibility

A conceived state or being that does not satisfy the conditions for a kind of possibility under consideration is impossible in the sense of that kind.

Necessity

A conceived state or being is necessary if it is impossible for it to not obtain (exist).

Some conclusions about possibility

The actual for a region or universe is a (real) possibility for the region or universe.

For the universe, the real possible and the actual are the same; all possibilities (e.g., states and worlds) are in the universe.

Logical possibility is the greatest in the sense of being the most inclusive, it includes real and metaphysical possibilities, and real possibility includes physical possibility.

All beings are limitless (we know this, even when we do not perceive it).

A limitless being has infinities without limit (subject to logic), but having an infinity does not entail being limitless—it entails being limitless only in some ways (thus while infinite cardinals are numbers, limitlessness is not essentially numerical).

Limitlessness of the universe

Statement and proof

The universe is the realization of the greatest, i.e., logical possibility, i.e., the universe is limitless in that if a concept does not entail a violation of logic, it is realized.

Proof—if from the void a logical possibility did not manifest, that would constitute a law of the void (and all beings have this power of the void).

Some consequences

The universe is the possible universe, which follows from limitlessness, which follows in turn, from the conceptions of the universe and the void and the demonstrated existence and lawlessness of the void.

Effectively, there is one and only one void.

There are no universal laws (unless logic – logics – are considered to be laws).

The universe has identity; the universe and its identity are limitless in extension, duration, and variety of being and peaks of being (e.g., ‘gods’); the universe phases endlessly between void, manifest, and peak states of endless variety; there is a limitless variety of cosmoses and each variety is repeated without limit; thus the universe is ultimate and contains ultimates but the nature of the ultimate is incompletely known to limited beings; every being realizes the ultimate and this is not a contradiction for, first, beings merge as they become ultimate and, second, while (some) beings are limited in form and knowledge on limited perspectives (e.g., on limited scales of time), their limitlessness may occur at levels of description that transcend description in terms of time; this entails that in birth living and aware beings emerge from diffusion in the background (‘potential’) to which at death they return; and discounting those who claim knowledge of other ‘lives’, while aware beings may not perceive their own ultimacy in a given life, they may conceive it (as we are doing here) and, further, there aware beings that are marked by their place in a hierarchy of being – a range of powers of awareness and realization – from minimal to peak, and limited beings do perceive their ultimacy as they ascend hierarchies of being; while realization of the ultimate is given, there are healthy, enlightened, and intelligent ways or paths to the ultimate, which ought to be eternally sought while beings find themselves limited; as enjoyment (somewhat the opposite of pain) is a (measure of) value, there is an imperative to be on such paths (see value).

The universe, the void, and all beings are equivalent (given enough time or at levels of description beyond time).

At our level we may say: (at some level) every being is reflected in all beings.

Consistency and connection with experience

The conclusion of limitlessness and its consequences is not a contradiction of experience, common sense, or science, for the possibilities we do not see occur beyond the threshold of experience, e.g., in being weakly causal, in being remote in location in our or other cosmoses, or in being remote in time.

However, it would seem that what lies beyond experience is not connected to us (our experience). That conclusion can be corrected as follows: it does not connect to immediate experience, yet it does (will) connect to our experience in our greater realizations.

An ideal metaphysics

Metaphysics is knowledge of the real (world).

(Some) metaphysical truth has been demonstrated.

That the universe is the realization of logical possibility defines an ideal metaphysics.

In the ideal metaphysics the universe and its beings are ultimate in the sense stated above.

From abstraction, the ideal metaphysics is perfect knowledge in that it is faithful to its object, the real – and all the real (but, in this narrative, a greater part of all the real has not yet been located in experience).

Logic – its systems – are the instrument of exploration (development) of the ideal metaphysics.

This ideal metaphysics shows the universe and its beings to be ultimate and while it is full in principle, for finite beings it is not full in fact – rather it is a framework for (knowledge of) the universe.

The ideal metaphysics is an (important) example of metaphysics.

The immediate and the ultimate

Beings inhabit – live in – the immediate and the ultimate

Significance lies – must lie – in the immediate and the ultimate

Significance of the immediate is in itself, as portal to the ultimate, in reflecting the ultimate

Remoteness of the ultimate is only in (some) perception; the fact of the ultimate (and concern with it) promotes the immediate and its significance (and concern with it)

Doubt

Doubt about the developments so far is natural and is encouraged (i) as a principle of truth (ii) for those who do not reject the metaphysics, doubt may strengthen their involvement with it.

Sources of doubt

Before continuing, let us address two kinds of doubt that occur.

1. Doubt about the fact and demonstration of limitlessness – i.e., doubt about the metaphysics. This raises questions about the nature of the proof (i.e., that it is ontological in nature – i.e., not empirical and that, like Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God, it is mere sophistry) and the magnitude of the consequences. The proof and consistency of the conclusion supports the conclusions but may not remove all doubt.

2. Even if the fact of limitlessness is given, there is doubt about whether and how to act on it.

Addressing doubt – response to doubt

1. That it is ontological does not imply that it is not empirical, for the base fact is that there is being, which is empirical; doubt may remain about existence of the void; however, it is to be emphasized that there is a proof and it is buttressed by the foregoing considerations and that the result is not inconsistent with experience or reason. That it is mere sophistry is addressed by the previous points. The magnitude of the conclusions – even any seeming absurdity – are not disproof but emphasize doubt. That the magnitude of the conclusions is immense remains; however, the claim of absurdity is removed in observing, not only consistency, but that to claim that the universe ends with experience so far is based in experience is both incorrect and absurd.

2. Doubts about whether and how to act on limitlessness – the real metaphysics – are addressed in what follows, especially in the sections real metaphysics, knowledge, and pathways.

3. Therefore, what remains is the question of the fact (not consistency) of existence of the void and the magnitude of the conclusions.

Addressing doubt – accepting doubt

Given consistency of the metaphysics and some confidence in the proof doubt about the metaphysics and acting on it may be addressed by accepting doubt and (i) by treating limitlessness—the realization of logical possibility—as a postulate to develop a system of thought (so far and in what follows (b) treating limitlessness as existential principle of action (with attention to both this world and the beyond) (iii) though the magnitude of the conclusions may give us doubt they also provide an imperative to act on them toward realizing the ultimate (to say that this should be in balance with attention to the immediate is entailed, for the ultimate and the immediate are interwoven).

Two levels of knowledge

Apparent contradictions

§ The void exists and does not exist.

§ Every being is and is not all being.

§ There are and are no beginnings and ends to beings and the universe.

§ Birth and death are and are not real.

§ The world is and is not the realization of logic.

Though these assertions have meaning and are not mere contradictions (they refer to levels of description, corresponding to levels of being), contradiction is problematic; resolution would be good.

Two levels of knowledge (metaphysics)

The apparent contradictions are resolved by recognizing two levels of knowledge—abstract-high and pragmatic-world.

It is pragmatic that we are born and die; but at a level of description above the time scale of somewhere between human life and the life of a cosmos and certainly at a level of description above all time, we are eternal.

Dialetheia

Still, a somewhat more formal resolution would be useful; we shall do this in terms of what are called ‘dialetheia’ – see dialetheism (stanford encyclopedia of philosophy).

A dialetheia is defined as a sentence or proposition A, such that both A and its negation, ~A, are true; that is, a dialetheia is a ‘true contradiction’.

On the surface of it, this may seem absurd, for in standard propositional logic, a dialetheia implies that all propositions are true (and false), which is called ‘explosion’.

Definition does not imply existence; dialetheism is the view or claim that there are dialetheias.

Given the seeming impossibility of contradiction, how does this make sense? Given explosion, how is this not absurd? Consider “It is raining, and it is not raining,” where ‘it is raining’ stands for ‘it is raining in Beijing’ and ‘it is not raining’ is ‘it is not raining in Kolkata’.

In this case, the resolution is that though a in a and ~a has the same form, its references are different, and they are therefore not the same proposition; and, further, dialetheia have and require accommodation by non-standard logic in which explosion does not occur and, e.g., there are more than two truth values, e.g., true, false, and both (t, f, and b).

One application of dialetheia in the article linked above is to the liar paradox ‘I am lying’ (true if false and false if true). Here, it is argued that a resolution denies that dialetheia have application for saying ‘I am lying’ and even meaning it does not imply that it has a truth value.

In the literature on dialetheia it is suggested that even if reality is not contradictory itself, our descriptions of it must be. An alternative suggestion is that all seeming dialetheia have resolution to an underlying non-dialetheia.

This does not imply that dialetheism is not true; it may have application where information is incomplete (and has application in computer science); but it would imply that there dialetheia do not involve essential contradiction.

It also implies (suggests) that reality is not contradictory even though it can seem contradictory as in every being is itself and all being where ‘itself’ is true on limited times and ‘all being’ on longer times and above temporality.

For further detail, see dialetheia on this site.

Non-specificity

For limited being, knowledge of the high-level lacks and must lack specificity; projections of both science and religion (discounting dogma), are not so much wrong but incomplete and reification of symbolic truth.

Though imagination, reason, and action open avenues to the ultimate, we normally lack the capacity to fully comprehend it; while we are limited, the ultimate is under discovery.

One truth

Truth is one; it is in our limitation that we see and inhabit more than one level.

Real metaphysics

The metaphysics

Comment 3. Should the following be demoted to non-primary definitions?

Pragmatic knowledge for a culture of beings is what is at least pragmatically valid in their ongoing and cumulative knowledge.

Consider the joint system; in negotiating the world, the ideal illuminates and guides the pragmatic and the pragmatic illustrates the ideal and is a guide toward the ultimate; the join is not perfectly faithful, but as the best and obviously the only system of knowledge (since it is all the valid knowledge of beings in possession of it), it is perfect relative to joint faithfulness (epistemic) – value criteria (this perfection does not eliminate the significance of the received endeavor and knowledge criteria, epistemic-and-value based, but gives them context).

For limited beings, systems of metaphysics remain in an iterative process of action and learning; metaphysics (knowledge) and action constitute a system.

This system is emergent rather than imposed and is thus not necessarily subject to standard negative valuations of ‘systematic metaphysics’.

Generating possibilities

Comment 4. This is currently an open topic; see argument > discovery.

Cosmology

Development is deferred to consequences for knowledge > cosmology.

Experience

Comment 5. Should the following be demoted to non-primary definitions?

Experience is awareness in all kinds and levels.

There are experience (illusion is experiential) and experience of experience; experience is the essence of (our) being for all significance registers in it.

There is a world, even if it is only the system of experience (as the world).

Experience is essential to our being

All significance registers in experience; without it we are as if nonexistent; we are experiential beings.

The form of experience

The form of experience as we experience it is experience of (subjective, as-if mind) – experience (being – as justified below, relation) – object (as-if material). In ‘pure experience’, the object is null (but there is a potential object).

An adapted and mobile being can be argued from principle to have – elementary sentience at the root of the varieties of sentience, a degree of binding to self and world (perception and basic feeling), a degree of autonomy (conception and thought, intention and will to action, motor control, memory, a degree of emotional control), moment to moment integration of experientiality in process and memory, long-term integration and growth in personality.

A real world

Comment 6. The summary version is from the essential outline.

Summary version

Conditions of realism including formation of cosmoses suggest that the experience of experience is the form of experience.

The world is the object of experience and includes experience.

If the universe were a cosmos with a single kind of element, experience would be a suitable candidate. However, from the metaphysics, the universe has no ultimate kind. Yet, experientiality in primitive form, can and will occupy the lowest levels. This is neutral on the reality of matter, but affirms that there is as-if matter whose interactions are primitively experiential, which sometimes manifest as causal.

The universe (being) is experiential (this and the earlier statement about the world are consistent).

To engage in true yoga is to see one’s identity with the universe and to be (on a path to) that identity.

Though yoga has an historical origin in thought and practice in India as well as modern manifestations, true yoga incorporates the real metaphysics, the truth that we are experiential beings with matter- and mind-like sides, and that we are destined to merge as peak being. Further, yoga seeks effective paths to the ultimate.

The as-if material and the mindlike sides of being are significant to ways of realization of the ultimate. Thus, yoga as binding of beings to being has two ‘sides’—physical and meditative. As we are experiential beings, the meditative might seem supreme, but since the sides not distinct, the physical is as essential (it being thought that experiential being must have a body).

Detail

Beyond experience of experience, the existence of an external world has pragmatic-metaphysical justification, e.g., from its apparent structure (Kant’s argument was that the structure of perception is external to the individual and must also be the similar to structure of the world), but not logical justification; however, from limitlessness there are beings in worlds and therefore external worlds and, later, it is seen that we are almost certainly living in that kind of world.

But the external world is not ‘outside’ experience, for it also includes experience of experience.

If the universe were constituted (‘made’) ‘strictly of a pure kind’ or what is called ‘substance’ in philosophy, e.g., mind or matter, the kind would be experience, for it is necessary in the universe and sufficient to kinds (as experience is relation there is no kind beyond it but, of course, there are higher varieties of experience without limit); as the universe is equivalent to the void, it cannot be made of kinds, but primitive experientiality can and does reach to the root and experience is subject – relation – object; therefore the universe may be taken to be experiential in fact and essence. That it is always found to be experiential, at least in part, is because significance and experience of things never registers outside experience.

From some experience and some science, our cosmos seems to be of a pure kind but as it is ultimately in contact with the entire universe it cannot be. Yet, the cosmos is approximated by substance for some purposes. That substance may be experiential and if physics provides substance, then the elementary objects of physics must have primitive experientiality.

Real metaphysics, an in-principle full account of being, is an in-principle full account of experiential being.

Meaning, use, and knowledge

A concept is iconic ‘experience of’, from memory, which enables recognition of an object; without the icon, icon-free words cannot be a base of recognition, but words and other linguistic structures can be such basis by association with iconic concepts—these are linguistic concepts.

Concept meaning is an iconic concept and its possible objects; in action, it is the concept and intended objects; linguistic meaning is the same as concept meaning with ‘iconic concept’ replaced by ‘linguistic concept’.

Derivation of meaning of compound structures from elements is only partially rule-like, for much is spontaneous and much is colloquial; the present meaning of meaning is not in opposition to the origin and stabilization of meaning in human behavior and interaction (use), the two are complementary.

Knowledge is meaning-realized, i.e., propositional knowledge, whether in language or in the mind of the knower; here we are not so concerned with knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge of how to (do things).

Meditation in action

Comment 7. I continue to look for good words and improved concepts for meditation in action.

That we are experiential beings in an experiential universe suggests that a key to intelligent transformation toward the ultimate is via leveraging being as-if mind-body or mind-matter.

We introduce meditation in action via yoga.

Introduction

Though yoga is associated with India, especially ancient India, there are and have been similar and re-imagined practices around the world. The term will be used in a meaning informed by all practices.

In its Indian systems, as in the real metaphysics applied to the phenomenon of experience, mind and matter are labels that refer to aspects of a being.

An original meaning of yoga is ‘yoking to being or universe’; its sides are meditative and physical; its aim is to be on a path to integration – mind-body and beings-being

For beings in limited form, yoga is informed by received understanding and practice (east and west) but is always in process.

Mind and matter

The ideas of as-if mind and as-if matter do not negate the everyday or pragmatic reality of mind and matter (body).

At a level above the pragmatic, the world is being (what it is) and mind and matter are two sides of a relation that is symmetric at that level even though there is asymmetry at the pragmatic level.

Meditation-in-action

Value

value is (a source of informed) judgment in absence of complete knowledge and an incompletely determined future.

The universe is not mechanistic; limited beings have limited knowledge and foresight; therefore, value as a guide to choice and action.

If anything is of value, every act is touched with value, but, from non-mechanism, positive value is directed and under discovery.

There is value to ultimate or peak realization; the immediate is not negated for it reflects and on the way to the ultimate.

Ethics

Deciding what to do in an actual situation can be messy. There are facts – which are varied in kind and situation; there are economics, institutions, and people; there are values – and concerns about values – perhaps they are distinct from facts, perhaps not and perhaps they are imperative vs suggestive and guiding, or somewhere in these ranges; and they occur in a world which may be seen as a collection of distinct and varied situations or perhaps tied together as a bundle.

The following addresses these joint considerations in the language of modern ethics.

The concept of ethics and its kinds

Morals specify right and wrong, ethics is reflection and judgment on morals, which may include moral specification or normative ethics.

Modern western strains or kinds of normative ethics are deontology (right action, e.g., rules and duties) consequentialism (the good, determined by consequences of actions), and virtue ethics (emphasizing virtue, moral character). These kinds need not be exclusive; rather, they are about what is emphasized.

Two other studies (branches) within modern western ethics are metaethics (the nature of ethics – meanings of moral and ethical terms, nature of moral judgments, and how moral judgements may be supported) and applied ethics (how moral behavior may be justified actual situations, simple or complex). Applied ethics is of course informed by normative ethics and metaethics, but also feeds back to them, for choices in actual situations bring out and illustrate how they may apply and interact.

Ethics in action

How we determine what is moral is complex. Focusing on general issues and situations may lack realism, which may be balanced by applied ethics and applied ethical studies. It may also be incomplete with regard to meaning, which may be balanced by metaethics. And the morals of a given situation may be muddy, which is balanced by metaethics and normative ethics and, in the end, judgment and allocation of resources (given that we are usually confronted by an array of ethical situations and decisions).

Sources of ethics

Disposition

Individuals have moral dispositions (likely) informed by personal makeup (empathy, reflection) and culture.

Culture

General

Cultures have normative systems that are sustained by interactive judgment and action, and tradition (e.g., oral, religious and academic).

Small societies

In small societies, interaction is central and tradition is predominantly oral.

Larger societies

Religious morals are an answer to a need for common morals in larger societies; academic traditions (i) support religion in attempts at justification (ii) break from religion in finding it inadequately or wrongly founded and seeking morals in reflective and, more recently, empirical study.

Religion

Is the morality in religion relevant? Yes (i) in that its influence is widespread (ii) as a source of moral value (to be regarded critically) (iii) as a source regarding the nature and foundation of morals (e.g., God as source and foundation; also to be regarded critically).

Western ethics is historically informed by the Abrahamic religions. More recently, it has been also informed by eastern religions.

Academic ethics, philosophy

The academic traditions are sources of ethics as described above, especially in the concept of ethics and its kinds.

The value of academic study includes study of ethics (i) in itself which elucidates its nature and complexity (ii) in relation to other academic considerations.

Item #ii is more than informative. For, as the world is one thing (and many), so is knowledge (which is part of the world).

Thus, while metaphysics informs ethics, it does more—for ethics is part of the world, and ethical considerations are also metaphysical (ontological).

Morals and metaphysics are not altogether separate (and, from earlier considerations of this narrative, they also intersect logic understood in a general sense and epistemology).

The aesthetic

The aesthetic is ‘what is beautiful’ in a sense of beauty that includes what is tasteful or appealing.

In discussing ethics, ‘what is functional’ is in the background.

What is beautiful is neither identical to nor altogether distinct from ‘what is ethical’ and ‘what is functional’.

The aesthetic is a source of what is ethical (i) as its cultivation has goodness (ii) as the aesthetic intersects what is functional.

The place of ethical value

What is the role of the real metaphysics in ethical considerations?

Experience has been recognized as the place of all significance in this sense—it is where significance is registered; it is not saying that the world as the (as-if) material world lacks significance.

Similarly, and in a similar sense, experience is the place of ethical value.

As carrier of experience, individuals and their experience, are the place of ethical value. The following reflections arise—

1. Limited beings (e.g., human) are individuals toward the center of a range that extends from elementary to ultimate and peak being. That range includes all experiential animals.

2. ‘The ultimate is the aim’ would balance searching with ethical (good) living in the world (i) as the world is part of the ultimate (ii) as the world is on the way to the ultimate. To achieve balance is a concern.

3. That an individual is the place of value does not imply that the following do not have value; rather, their value is derivative or supportive: the (as-if) material world, the environment, animals (even if they were not experiential), society, culture, institutions, and peoples. What is implied is that the value.

4. Some consequences for ethical action—beyond the generalities presented so far—are developed in what follows, especially pathways.

Aesthetics

Comment 8. At present, the place of aesthetics in the way of being is not developed beyond comments above in ‘the aesthetic’.

Aesthetics is the study of beauty and its nature—in the world and in human activity, worldly, artistic, intellectual, and what is labeled spiritual. As beauty is significant in art, aesthetics is often regarded as including the study of art.

Dimensions, paradigms, and means of being and realization

Introduction

(i) Emphasize understanding and negotiating the world (include knowing, predicting).

(ii) Occur from the level of being itself as experiential being, at a level of general form and formation, and at the level of our world—i.e., at pure and pragmatic levels corresponding to the two levels of knowledge (the levels are not distinct, it is our knowledge of them that is distinguished in terms of degrees of abstraction – and precision – at which they are known).

(iii) It is convenient though inessential to distinguish two sub-levels of pragmatic knowledge.

A paradigm is an established way of understanding and predicting behavior and a means is a way of negotiating ways through the world (on the way to the ultimate).

Levels

Two levels are recognized – pure and pragmatic (see The Theory of Two Truths in India – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

The dimensions, paradigms, and means

Here is a system of dimensions, paradigms, and means, reasoned from the real metaphysics and considerations of experience.

Pure – experiential being as such

The pure—

Dimension – experiential being.

Paradigm – argument (specifically – what is allowed by – necessary fact and necessary – deductive – logic).

Means – emptiness – every being effortlessly is and reflects all being(s); yoga, perfected; directed adaptation with evolution; synthesis with artificial being.

Form and formation

Form and formation are intermediate between pure and pragmatic in being universe wide but not universal in that saltation also occurs.

Dimension – form and formation.

Paradigm – symmetry (stability) and increment through stable states.

The ideal metaphysics requires worlds that are transient, that are puffs of thought or being, but the paradigms show robust worlds such as the normal interpretation of ours to be more probable and vastly more probable to enter into high level awareness.

Pragmatic – our world

Subject

Pragmatic, subject—

Dimensions – experiential functions of mind and their integration, particularly cognitive, feeling, action oriented, and willing (see experience).

Paradigms – abstract sciences (especially metaphysics, argument, and mathematics), art.

Means – yoga (physical, meditation), received ways (as inspiration, source of symbols).

Object

Pragmatic, object—

Dimensions – nature, mind-as-object, society, and their (concrete) sciences and histories.

Means – instrumental (based on experience of the world and the sciences) and immersive (yoga in action).

Means – technology for synthesis of artificial and natural being, technology for exploration.

Robust worlds

Real metaphysics affirms a limitless variety of worlds, some strange, some ‘mere puffs of existence’, and some robust or, as we think our world to be, having a degree of robustness and reality.

Given non-robust realizations such as world-as-simulation, world-as-only-content-of-my-experience, world-as-created-a-moment-ago-complete-with-memories, can we know our world as we experience it to be real, and if so, how can we know it?

Two caveats (i) the reality of our world as we know it is understood to be rough, for we may be ignorant of fundamental levels (e.g., given that quantum fields do not explain their own origin, there must be levels below that of the fields) (ii) while the true nature of the world, if there is one, must be vital in some ways, it remains important to not ignore the best everyday interpretation that we have.

One approach is via metaphysical possibility, e.g., (i) if the information content of my experience is limited, the world cannot be solipsist (ii) if community is required for stability of meaning, again, the world cannot be solipsist (iii) if the world of form requires a means of formation, probability suggests that formation would be via incremental variation and selection (rather than saltation) (iv) if we are talking about experienced worlds, we are likely talking about worlds whose form is structured enough to allow perception and intelligence.

In summary—

Incremental, realism, i.e., formation, perceivability, and perception (the latter two points in the details) suggest that it is most likely that our world, as it is, is real (to within pragmatic truth of our interpretation of the nature of the world). Note that this does not imply that the world is not embedded in a much larger and different reality.

Consequences for knowledge

Implications of the developments, especially real metaphysics, include the following topics.

Knowledge itself

This section is of the intersection of general considerations and real metaphysics.

What knowledge is

Knowledge

Given a territory, a mental image of it enables travel and access to resources. A description in words or a map would serve the same function.

The concept of knowledge arises in that there are objects and images of objects; the images and the objects are distinct but if the images are faithful (enough) (i) they may be useful in dealing with the objects (ii) we may think we have captured some essence of the object.

The images, iconic, verbal, or textual, are a first concept of what knowledge is. Some distinctions are made in kinds of knowledge, below, but this is a first notion of what knowledge is.

We may think we know what knowledge is. But considering the complexity of our place in the world and that in conceiving ‘knowledge’, it is reasonable to assert that when we talk of knowledge, our talk, no matter how sophisticated, captures only an approximation to a nebulous thing for which we search.

However, it is also reasonable to think that the notion of knowledge above is on the right track. Thinking, then, that we are on the right track, there are two problems with our conception (i) that our images may be incomplete and less than faithful (ii) what we have is an image of knowledge, which itself might be incomplete and less than faithful.

Is there a way out of this seeming impasse?

1. Tradition. We do the best we can in conceiving, acquiring, and justifying knowledge while recognizing that experience shows us that knowledge functions as a good enough if imperfect guide.

2. The metaphysics. It shows us that there is ideal – perfect – and ultimate knowledge by abstraction and reason. Though this is a framework and though large parts of it do not connect with experience so far, our cumulative knowledge fleshes out the framework and gives (will give) us connection. While the framework is perfectly faithful, the fleshed out system, the real metaphysics, is not. On the other hand, it is both aesthetically satisfying and pragmatically useful, and as the best that limited beings have, and as an instrument of realization, it is perfect relative to ultimate realization. This does not invalidate the traditions of epistemology; however it moors them.

Kinds of knowledge

Some kinds are presented for the sake of completeness. The treatment of knowledge in this narrative is found above in argument and other sections.

Knowledge by acquaintance

Knowledge by acquaintance is the knowledge content of direct awareness. It was analyzed, though not by name, in argument and is, arguably, one aspect of a foundation of knowledge.

Propositional or descriptive factual knowledge

This is the focus here; the other kinds may be argued to subsume under it, which is justified for purposes of realization under the real metaphysics.

Knowledge of the world is (i.e., propositional knowledge or ‘knowledge that’), naïvely, a picture—naïve because pictures (concepts) can be conceptually and factually in error, and because knowledge as picture is also a picture.

But from abstraction, the ideal metaphysics is free from distortion; and it is an ultimate framework; further, the real metaphysics (ideal, filled in with pragmatic knowledge) is perfect relative to realization toward the ultimate; and therefore, the question of what knowledge is in the mind of the knower (which is what finally counts), is of less ultimate importance than it is in secular or religious views of the world (what knowledge is, of course, is still of human and instrumental interest, both instrumental and theoretical).

Know how

Know how knowledge is possessed when one knows how to do something, e.g., walk, or play the piano.

Art

Since formal knowledge is expressed in discrete language that cannot capture the entire universe as continuum (which, from the metaphysics, must be one of its modes of being), art and intuition may take us beyond such formal knowledge even if not all the way to the ultimate.

Criteria

Epistemic and valuational

Criteria are addressed above and may be repeated.

1. The ideal metaphysics is perfect as correspondence.

2. Real metaphysics is perfect in a value sense, relative to realization, which is of ultimate importance.

3. Received epistemological criteria are significant in pragmatic matters in the worlds we inhabit as limited beings but are placed in context (our limited being and world) and do not have the universal significance that is sometimes attached to them.

The issue of certainty

Comment 9. See certainty and its value, which may be incorporated here.

Incompleteness

We have seen that for limited beings (we are limited relative to the local level of knowledge and the real), knowledge of the ultimate must be incomplete, and therefore, claims of finality regarding all things, whether in science or religion, must be in error.

For limited beings, realization of the ultimate is not action or transformation toward a known goal—we must discover, transform, and create as we go – whether, atypically, here and now or, typically, by repeated return to and emergence from the diffuse background (but also note that in diffuse being, an eternity may be as-if an instant).

The value of knowledge

In addition to the values of knowledge in a secular world, it is now seen as one guide to action toward realization – transformation toward – the ultimate.

Acquisition of knowledge

A primary question (perhaps not always acknowledged) is what acquisition of knowledge is. If it is ‘where information enters the person’, then it would seem that knowledge is acquired by the senses, for there are the senses that receive information from or of external objects and senses that receive information of mind itself (its contents and its processes including sensing itself).

On the other hand, do we wish to consider information that enters mind to be knowledge – at all, part of knowledge, or all of it?

Surely, we would go with part but not all knowledge. If so, from where does the rest of knowledge ‘come’? From perception (translation of senses into objects) and conception (and reflection, if conception is to mean concept formation without attachment to objects). That is, beyond sensation, knowledge acquisition is a matter of sub-conscious processing (Kant’s intuition) and imaginative – rational processing.

In summary, the case has been made for knowledge acquisition to be empirical-intuitive-and-rational, all of which are necessary, and, in combination, perhaps sufficient.

Seamlessness

It is valid to recognize divisions within (propositional) knowledge (e.g., academic divisions as an approximation).

On the other hand, (the) real metaphysics, acquisition of knowledge (above), and analysis of knowledge (next), show knowledge to be seamless. Seamlessness suggests that we reject efforts to pigeonhole the traditional divisions, as in the twentieth century critiques of philosophy as not about the world. Rather, as it is discussed below, philosophy retains the aspect of being about the world, but it is more, which includes metaphilosophical and metametaphysical activity. And despite the historical emergence of science from roots that include philosophy, the sciences—and the analysis of science, i.e., philosophy of science—also remain under the umbrella of philosophy.

The world is not just the world as object but is the world as object-and-knowledge-of-the-world, which is one thing – seamless – while it is many things.

Implications for traditional divisions of knowledge

Philosophy

We prefer to specify philosophy by how it begins—philosophy beings when we question and seek to go beyond received ways of knowing and living—

§ This naturally involves reflexive questioning, particularly looking at philosophy itself.

§ It restores ‘philosophy of living’ as equal in status to the traditional academic divisions of philosophy.

The way of being, particularly the real metaphysics, (i) frames and shows philosophy to be seamless in itself and relation to other academic disciplines (ii) emphasizes philosophy as about the world but does not deny the twentieth century concern of philosophy to look at itself as something other or more than just than knowledge of the world.

Metaphysics

Metaphysics as knowledge of the real is clearly possible; it is not necessary for all metaphysics to be of the real; as knowledge, value, and argument are in the world, epistemology, axiology, and philosophical logic (broader than deductive and mathematical logic), are, rationally, part of metaphysics, as are science and philosophy, too, as far as it is about the world; further, the developments show the range of application of these disciplines to be greater than thought in standard secular and religious views.

Ontology and metaphysics

The distinction is somewhat arbitrary, but ontology emphasizes (study of) being itself (existence), its nature and categories, while metaphysics also includes a range of traditional and modern issues, special metaphysics (speculative regarding, e.g., entities posited in the religions – soul, spirit, gods…), and may include cosmology (real and speculative).

Note – mention of speculative objects here is not a subscription to their existence.

The abstract and the concrete

We may think of a concrete object as one that can be perceived (sensed) and conceived and an abstract object as one that is conceived but not sensed. If we do that the distinction between the two kinds has basis in our physiology.

However, from the real metaphysics, there is no ontological distinction between abstract and concrete objects; the distinction is relative to our instruments of knowledge – two sides of concepts, tied to objects (perception) and freedom from with ability to capture objects (higher conception).

Abstract sciences

Metaphysics itself, mathematics, fall under the umbrella of the real metaphysics; thus while mathematics evolved from an empirical discipline in the ancient world to an abstract – axiomatically formulated – discipline today, the real metaphysics shows that the abstract discipline of mathematics may still be seen as concrete in being an abstraction from the universe (if the universe is the realization of the logically possible, while some mathematics has application in our world, all mathematics is realized in the universe (it does not follow that all mathematics in this sense is discoverable).

Concrete sciences

There are worlds beyond ours, whose sciences are quite different from ours (and perhaps there are other sciences) – and that ‘beyond’ is not just in spacetime but also in being too weakly causal, e.g., they are blowing through us now; the known borders of our cosmos are not the borders of the real (even though our scientific models may suggest those borders to be real).

Cosmology

Cosmology is the study of the variety of being and principles of that study; because of its importance, it is considered in a separate section, below.

Cosmology

General cosmology

Theory

Computational general cosmology

A theory of form and cause

Cosmology of form and formation

Cosmology of experiential being

General cosmology as experiential cosmology

Hierarchy of experiential being

Physical cosmology

Essential physical theory

Standard cosmology and alternatives

Alternative physical cosmologies

Also see generating possibilities of being for the universe, just below.

Topics in cosmology

As developed in complete versions.

Include the following.

Generating possibilities of being for the universe

To be developed.

Abstract and concrete objects

As a topic, abstract and concrete objects fall under metaphysics and, specifically, ontology.

They may also

Hierarchy of being

In a hierarchy of being, there is nothing beyond experiential (aware, conscious) being, but there is a hierarchy of being in terms of degrees of experientiality and power of being (transformation); this has been observed earlier.

The universe and being as experiential

Identity, spacetime-being, and property

Starting with the primitive experience of sameness and difference, the concept and nature of identity, spacetimebeing, and property may be derived; and that there is no kind of extension beyond spacetime.

A system of knowledge

It emerges (has emerged) that the range of (human) knowledge is a seamless system; metaphysics is at the core of it; and the traditional academic divisions, while they reflect real and useful distinctions, are also artificial in their distinction; said another way, there is unity and distinction.

A system which synthesizes and extends human knowledge, with basis in the real metaphysics, is in a system of knowledge.

Miscellaneous items

Unity and distinction in the universe (and knowledge), which implicit and somewhat explicit above.

Dialetheia, as considered above.

Argument, implications for method, method and content as one (though not without distinction), as implied above, and summarized and further justified here.

Pathways

Introduction

The idea of being on a path

Being on a path to the ultimate is not a rejection of the world. It is integral with and built upon (i) the transactions of give and take that sustain individuals and society (ii) the view from real metaphysics It involves thought and action directed toward the ultimate, does not reject but critically selects elements of received views, secular and transsecular, where realistic and where inspirational.

The section on pathways has been most difficult to write

‘Pathways’ has been most difficult to write as it talks to people with a wide range of attitudes; therefore, the narrative aim here is to be minimal, usable, and revisable.

How to write on pathways

Define and arrange elements using sources to develop menus and programs.

Aim

Aim of the way

The aim of the way of being is shared discovery and realization of the ultimate in, for, and from this world.

A personal aim—to share the way of being.

Pathway implementation

Implementing pathways begins with healthy individual, communal, and global life in the world, in light of and toward the ultimate.

There is an optimal range of attention to the immediate vs beyond.

Elements

The aim

Above.

Enlightened, intelligent, and healthy living

Enlightened, intelligent, and healthy living Integrates elements of being and experience (especially mind-body), addresses dual issues of (i) path directed action integral with (ii) pleasure, pain, and suffering pain. It emphasizes everyday life and hierarchy of ‘needs’; immersive and instrumental action; inspiration – nature and culture, journey (travel), retreat and renewal.

Paths

There are effective, enjoyable paths to the ultimate, which invoke all capacities of beings, object-like (of the object, but not ‘objective’) and subject-like (of the subject or experience but not ‘subjective’); they are shared (the more capable assist the less capable); they are negotiated (realization is discovery – or rediscovery – in which received paths may inspire but are not final); healthy living (physical, mental, communal, and spiritual) and enlightenment attend to quality of all life in this world (and a hierarchy of ‘needs’), on the way to the ultimate; pleasure and pain (and doubt) are inevitable; an effective path emphasizes pleasure in the path; pain is addressed by therapy, by the fortunate joining with the less fortunate, where indicated by engaging with forces of destruction, but not by an attempt to eliminate all pain; rather, there is an optimum of the address of pain and being on a path, in which residual pain is given meaning by being on an aware path of realization.

Attitude

Attitude on the path is shared endeavor and positivity to all being. An approach to sustaining a positive attitude is the sequence – recognize, acknowledge, defuse, affirm, return.

Programs

Those who would be on a path may develop and share path programs which address the needs of paths (described above), will continue learning and revising paths and programs, and, where needed, return to the beginning of the way, which includes abandonment of what has gone so far as a source of freshness and inspiration

Design for the programs has (i) a menu of activities from personal and local to social and universal (ii) a daily program or routine with home and journey options and a long-term program of foundation and realization. The design for the menu and the programs is based on the real metaphysics—the ideal and ultimate framework, filled in with cumulative pragmatic knowledge, which includes argument as an approach to generation and justification.

The menu is based on dimensions of being from elementary to high levels, as developed in a long version of this work. In shorter accounts (i) that development may be omitted (ii) the menu and programs are merged.

Dimensions of experiential being

Pure and pragmatic dimensions (and paradigms and means) of experiential being (being itself is a dimension).

This world and the ultimate – as distinct and as integrated.

Emphases—local, every day, person – world, global, universal, long-term.

Non-specificity

Though we know something of the ultimate and paths, they have non-specificity and so paths and knowledge must remain under discovery (emergent, empirical, rational, and active).

Received ways

Some elements are incorporated into real metaphysics.

Openness to knowledge and inspiration for (i) for incorporation here (ii) individual practice.

Secular

Human knowledge and action (link below).

Transsecular

Received ways of realization (a distillation of world traditions, link below).

Examples—Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism (yoga).

Sources

Comment 10. Design and planning (html), essence of the way - micro (html), received ways of realization way (html) (yoga etc), human knowledge and action (html), maybe little manual (html).

Menu foci

Comment 11. May combine menus and programs efficiently, collapse programs (especially universal) to eliminate repetition—i.e., the distinctions mind/body will not appear at the universal level; flesh out programs and planning, enter to essence of the way - micro (html).

The distinction between the foci below is one of emphasis; it is not of scope such as locality in spacetime or conventional vs ultimate (levels of) truth.

Individual and community

Attitude – dedication, affirmation, healthy living (above).

Foundation – developing and understanding real metaphysics, sharing (speech, writing, publishing).

Realization—

§ Yoga (physical – aerobic, flexibility, power; and meditative – analytic, calming, review of progress, integration of cognition, emotion, intention, and action).

§ Relationships – personal and community, economic transactions including work, education.

§ Immersion and renewal – nature and culture, journey (travel), retreat.

Routine – planning, wake-sleep, meals, time for attitude-foundation-realization, entertainment.

Society, world, and beyond

Institutionalization of the way of being, its reasons, and cautions.

Economic and political action, community through global; challenges and opportunities.

Beings undertaking and designing for self-evolution; exploration of mind and space; synthesis of natural and artificial being.

Program emphases

Being – the world and beyond

Design

Develop a long-term program for the following in sequence and parallel, in terms of months – years – phases of life and history. Consider institutionalization of the way of being – reasons and cautions.

Ideas and foundation

Experiencing the world, reading, reflection, synthesis, writing, publishing.

Practice and retreat

Travel and journey for immersion in nature and culture; retreat for renewal of awareness, self, and attitude.

Nature as inspiration

As path to real self and being.

Society

Economic and political action, local through global community – challenges and opportunities.

Artifact

Beings undertaking and designing for self-evolution; exploration of mind and space; synthesis of natural and artificial being.

Universal

Yoga (practice and synthesis of be-ing and becoming; living at two levels, pure and pragmatic; synthesis over spacetime and above spacetime.

Search for gateways to the ultimate in and from the immediate.

Study Topic1. Gateways.

Experiential beings and community

Design

The routine is a menu of (i) planning and activities from which to select (ii) flexible times and durations. The emphasis in the previous section is universal; here it is individual through community.

Morning

Affirmation, dedication, review attitude set and reset.

Review day through life plans.

First things – medications, breakfast, home – open files, set alarms, away – chart the day.

The way

Foundation

Developing the way of being, sharing, and publishing.

Realization

Living the way, yoga (physical, meditative), sustaining path through doubt, pain.

Nature as inspiration

Society and sharing – local to global; politics and economics; relationships, work, school; sports.

Technology for exploration of space, and experiential being – AI as agent and complement.

Ground

Safety, security.

Afternoon

Tasks, lunch.

Exercise, excursion, photo essays.

Evening

Review planning, shower, fluids, dinner.

Share, network.

Entertainment – home or evening out.

Sleep early.

Resources

Daily routine – home (pdf, word docm), away (pdf, docm).

The way of being – a program (pdf, docm).

The way of being – affirmation with dedication and attitude setting and resetting.

The way of being – site, in-process long version of this work.

Return

Focus – ‘conversation’ among living in the immediate, community, and the way of being.

The way of being – continued development and realization.

Retreat and renewal – every six months to year.

Perception – seeing things as they are in balance with the lens of concepts.

Synthesis – the history of ideas and endeavor rewritten as a single and evolving text (and oral and ideational tradition).