|
The Way of being – Master edition Current editions: master (working) Anil Mitra, copyright © first
edition – 2002 Contents The words ‘sound’ or ‘strong’ associated with a title or text marks it as certain or likely inference, respectively, as defined in the text. Absence of such marking does not imply absence of certainty or likelihood. Import sources from other documents Some sections and topics needing special attention Reviewing this and making the outline document Eliminating redundancy and excess detail Making the documents for publication Traditions of understanding and living On the choice of ‘being’ and related concepts Preview—a picture of the universe Preliminary: limits of thought and reality Some consequences for knowledge and understanding Understanding The Way of Being Some issues and responses in detail The categories as the culmination of the metaphysics On foundational systems for metaphysics Axiomatic systems for metaphysics Notation for the axiomatic system Experience, existence, and being Language, concept meaning, and knowledge A view of the role of knowledge in the world Topics in metaphysics and philosophy Experience as universal and in detail The concept of experience extended to all being The fundamental nature of experience and reasons for its deferred treatment How shall we extend the concept of experience? Meaning and justification of the extension There is experience; and it is known by there being experience of experience We are On consciousness and consciousness studies The detailed structure of experience The
universe is Identity, extension, and duration Introduction – categories in philosophy and in this work The categories and dynamics according to their levels and paradigms More on paradigms and dynamics Topics in philosophy and metaphysics The fundamental problem(s) of metaphysics Metaphilosophy and metametaphysics Cosmology of form and formation Cosmology of experiential being The aim of the way, elaborated Pathways “to the ultimate in, for, and from the immediate” Intelligent address of pleasure, pain, and emotion Universal elements of programs Overview of a program of realization Implementation of the categories Planning and timelines for The Way of Being Daily and long term priorities and planning Daily schedule for routine days, especially at home and work Daily scheduling for variant days, especially away from home and in travel A joint template – daily, life, and beyond An institute for The Way of Being Emphasis and projects – realization and action Writing and updating universal narrative The Way of being Part 1. Planning†This documentThe documentThis and its outline are master to The Way of Being (TW) publication editions—short, long, and informal. NotationDone for now. Done forever. The main styles1. For the short edition—Main-mini (Ctrl + 9), Main-mini-list (Alt + Ctrl +;), MiniOnly (Ctrl + 7), MiniOnly-List (Ctrl +;), Central, and Main (Alt + Z). 2. For the long edition—Long (Alt + L), Long-list (Alt + Ctrl + L), and LongOnly, a character style (Alt + Ctrl + Shift + L). 3. For the informal edition—styles to be determined if there is an informal edition. 4. For this document—Master (Alt + Ctrl + Shift + M) and the character style, MasterOnly (Ctrl + M). The document template, journey in being.dotm, has a complete list of styles. Writing this documentThe definitionsMinimize. What else to incorporate—Truth vs Assertion vs Fact… Import sources from other documentsThe main documents are Numbered stylesImprove ordering The metaphysicsFrame—abstract (precise), general (inclusive), neutral (no slant or ideology) – powerful, reveals ideal value, yet only a universal frame and so reveals real possibilities but not how to achieve them Pragmatic fill in—shows the how, and even if rough and in error, is the best we have and is more efficient than ‘random’ process Some sections and topics needing special attentionthe way of being - brief essence.docm for pathways, add Buddha and where to place Buddha / religion reserve notes.docm—why being, on ‘god’ and religion, on meditation in action, on dual doubt, on politics and economics for the way of being, derivation of logical calculi from fundamentals (also see other notes in the secondary resources folder) questions and answers.docm—is the way of being religion / a religion, the range of possibility under the real metaphysics, what are the significant possibilities, Remarks about ‘strong’ and ‘sound’ not just under the main title. Reviewing this and making the outline documentLine by lineLine by line long vs short, in parallel with outline: 1. * an incomplete div (sub divs may inherit) or paragraph. 2. ** a div that appears only in the long version 3. † for temporary sections (subs may inherit). 4. Min def, axioms, truths, etc, stabilize styles 5. Introduce ‘Auxiliary Elements’ to Definitions, consequences and so on. 6. Center out. a. The universe and its identity are limitless b. Consequences c. Pathways EditingRefine, add commentary. ‘the way’ vs ‘I’, ‘we’, ‘it’ Mark sound, strong, and mere likelihood. Some detailsOrdinary language > precision
> The void-universe relation as a candidate for one of the roots of quantum indeterminism and quantum action at a distance In the chapter on metaphysics, take up ‘the range of possibility’ (and refer details to the supplement) ‘Minding’, ‘to mind’, ‘yoga’ (see reserve notes for ‘unition’ etc.) Eliminating redundancy and excess detailSpecifically, contract and introduce coherence to experience (¿ethics?), ethics, categories, cosmology, pathways and their design. WaysAdd truths PathwaysReview and improve pathways.
Make the template there inclusive and make DesignThis document may absorb Alt words and phrasesThe Way The Way of Being Pathways Yoga Making the documents for publication1. Long—eliminate Master, MasterOnly, and MiniOnly; then format All Caps in the table of contents definitions and paragraph indents. 2. Short—eliminate Master, MasterOnly, Long-list, and LongOnly, and possibly Right; then format All Caps in the table of contents definitions and paragraph indents. a. In making the formal editions, attend to starred and daggered content and make sure to eliminate all long elements from the short edition. 3. Informal—see the existing informal version / use the short version.. WebsiteMinimize, layout for impact, realign to 2026, email, picture and picture size, httpd.conf, .htaccess. ZeroZero and in-the-world Part 2. NotationGeneral notationComment 1. To be implemented— The main divisions are ‘parts’ and ‘chapters’; ‘division’ and ‘section’ are generic for part, chapter, or subdivision. A star against a heading marks an incomplete part that is in-process or planned. Important conclusions will be marked as sound or strong. While the terms are defined later, it is enough here to say that soundness indicates certainty and that strength indicates likelihood that ranges from low to high probability to certainty, depending on perspective. Right aligned paragraphs are for (i) part of text to be spoken (ii) details. Hell Small capitals indicate defined terms or abbreviations. Comment 2. To be implemented— TWB or TW – The Way of Being or The Way (if not capitalized, the terms will be within single quotes). IM – The ideal metaphysics, i.e., the abstracted, perfect, and ultimate frame for the real metaphysics, which is derived from being, its properties, and related concepts. fp – The fundamental principle of metaphysics, i.e., the demonstrated assertion that the universe is the realization of the greatest or, equivalently that the universe realizes all logical possibility. TM – The real metaphysics or the metaphysics is the name of the metaphysics of ‘the way’. In what way is the metaphysics ‘real metaphysics’? It indicates (i) that metaphysics as conceived here is study of what reality is and of what is real and (ii) that ‘the real metaphysics’ is (asserted to be) indeed and successfully such a study. New wordsThis section is not a vocabulary—its purpose is to present some neologisms, i.e., rather new terms and unusual uses of terms. Be-ing – In TW, ‘being’ is abstract in the sense that after abstraction, what remains is precise. This makes the present concept of being trivial and shallow. This is a strength, for it is in its triviality that it is capable of precision and in its triviality that it is found to have an ultimate power. This is unlike ‘being’ as it is used in much of philosophy where it refers to the depth of things, which, while it makes ‘being’ a deep concept, also makes it difficult and possessed of ineffability. Here, what is deep is within ‘being’ but not essentially of it and this allows both depth and power. Therefore, a term that refers to the depth of things is needed. ‘Be-ing’ shall be that term. Unition – a term for (i) the insight that individual and universal identity are locally distinct but ultimately the same (the insight is shown to hold) (ii) knowledge pertaining to the insight and ways of realizing ultimate identity for and beginning in our world. The ultimate identity is a state of being but is also experienced as an endless process of peaking and dissolution. ‘Unition’ is a neologism whose meaning is closely related to the meaning of ‘yoga’ as it originated in what is now called South Asia, inclusive of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. What unition and yoga are will be defined and it is this to which ‘unition (yoga)’ refers. This edition**Material that is specific to the long edition is in light brown font. The axiomatic systemIntroductionIt is effective to develop the notation together with some discussion axiomatic systems in general and specifically for the metaphysics of the work. The discussion is placed later in on foundational systems for metaphysics and the notion is in notation for the axiomatic system. For convenience the notation is also presented here. Comment 3. The notation is to be linked as a copy of the version in ‘into’. The notationDefinition 1. The numbered list style for formal definitions. Defined terms are in small capitals. (Material in brackets or {bracketed indented items just below the definition} and other style elements below is informal elaboration or commentary. There is a difference between the present semantic system and syntactic axiomatic systems—here the definitions indicate existing objects and where this is not transparent, it is demonstrated). Definition. This unnumbered style is for informal, preliminary, alternative, and earlier versions of definitions, or definitions repeated for convenience. A similar style may be used for other significant elements of the development. Truth 1. Numbered style for especially important truths (e.g., conceptually pivotal, existential), foundational (axiom, postulate) or derived. Axiom 1. Numbered style for axioms. {Auxiliary element, which supplements definitions and other elements.} Assertion 1. Numbered style for axioms. Thesis 1. Numbered style for fundamental theses. Postulate 1. Numbered style for postulates. Identical to but now preferred over the Thesis style. Consequence 1. Numbered style for derived results (truths) of some significance. Derived truths of lesser importance are stated without numbering. Premise 1. A premise or system of premises is the basis of a special consequence or system of consequences. Condition(s). A condition is a premise for a very specific consequence or system of consequences. Preferred notationThe preferred styles are definition, informal definition, and truth. The preferred styles are definition, informal definition, axiom, postulate, truth, consequence, and premise. Part 3. Into the way of beingComment 4. The old version of ‘into’ is in the backup in ..\2024-a\resources\. This division is an informal introduction to The Way of Being (hereafter: TW). What is The Way of Being?If not universal, it is common to think that what is meaningful in a human life lies within the typical 73 years from birth to death. Some humans achieve satisfaction, some live brief painful lives. There is ongoing research into increasing quality and longevity of our lives. Though we are not close to it, some researchers think we may achieve biological immortality. But even if that were achieved and ignoring its problematic issues, the cosmos itself seems finite. What are our true limits? The ultimate limit must have to do with ‘possibility’ in some sense. One way to think of TW is that it is an exploration of thought and action in a tension between limits and limitlessness. What is the tension? We seem limited but if we are limited, perhaps our view of our limits is limited. The language and thought that we would develop to see us as dually limited and beyond limits – at least some limits – might require us to (i) hold a paradoxical view of ourselves as limited and limitless (ii) resolve the paradox without defusing the dual view. Wide angle viewThe way and its aimDefinition 1. The Aim of The Way of Being (hereafter: TW) is shared discovery and realization of the ultimate in, for, and from our world. The Way of Being itself is (TW) is (i) an attitude that sees our present place in the world and cultural traditions as transitional (ii) a system of knowledge that is ultimate in its precise capture of a framework revealing the universe to be limitless and our participation in that limitlessness and (iii) a way – pathways – to the ultimate that begins in our world and emphasizes the world, the ultimate, and the process (iv) the framework is augmented by fill-in with pragmatic knowledge such that the joint system, though not perfect as faithful knowledge, is perfect in that it is the best we have in terms of participation in the limitlessness. Comment 5. The following is a rewrite of my version by a Microsoft AI agent. Readers may expect to find: 1. Metaphysics and the immediate: A metaphysics in which the ultimate is without limit, yet meshes with—and deepens—the immediate (our world). 2. Relation to science and received knowledge: A development that engages standard scientific pictures while arguing—by reason rather than dogma—that the universe goes limitlessly beyond them. 3. What may change for the reader: You may need to revise and extend inherited views—(i) individual concepts and their system, and (ii) the range of what those concepts (with reason) can reveal. 4. Doubt, and how it is addressed: Although the development proceeds from experience and reason, doubt is likely. The essential doubt is not whether the ultimate is conceivable, but whether it obtains. The work addresses this (i) rationally, through alternative demonstrations; (ii) metaphysically, through postulation; and (iii) existentially, through the claim that living in light of the metaphysics can enhance our being in the universe and guide life in the world. 5. What is—and is not—promised: Living under these ideas does not eliminate pain or suffering, and any promise to do so is false. What is offered is (i) ways of negotiating pain and pleasure, (ii) living in truth, and (iii) a conception of ultimates as process—peak, dissolution, and repetition—so that there is no final nirvana or heaven, but rather continuing opportunity. This opportunity is not given as a formula; it is approached through paths to be negotiated intelligently. The basisTW is naturally based in interacting knowledge and action. It sometimes seems that the knowledge of our civilization comes close to defining the universe and its nature. However, that knowledge is limited in two ways (i) imprecision (despite the great precision in some areas) (ii) incompleteness—it is consistent with experience and reason that the universe is the realization of the greatest possibility and that our world is small or even infinitesimal in relation to the universe. Yet, Developing the wayThis section outlines the development of TW without proof or elaborate explanation (provided in the main body of the work). From ordinary knowledge, language, and reason, TW is developed as follows. 1. Precision of reference and inference begins by abstraction—i.e., removing ineliminable distortion from concepts, 2. Completeness is introduced via neutrality of the main concepts, especially that of ‘being’, which is both trivial and powerful (contradiction is avoided by the abstraction), 3. This leads via the concept of the void to an abstract framework im (the ideal metaphysics), which is precise in its capture of the real, and shows (i) the universe to be the greatest possibility (this is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics, abbreviated fp), cycling through ultimates of peak being and dissolutions (ii) for being that is apparently without awareness or agency there are (apparently) blind ways to awareness and agency (e.g., life on earth) and (iii) for beings with agency there are paths to merging with / as the ultimate (if there were no such paths, it would imply that the universe does not realize the greatest possibility). 4. im is joined to our pragmatic, imprecise, and incomplete knowledge to form a system, tm (the real metaphysics), which is perfect relative to the value of realization because error and failure are the normal way to the ultimate. 5. In our limited (‘ordinary’) form we are not aware of shared awareness of all being—given the (seemingly) discrete, specific, and singular nature of our being, it is hard to imagine such sharing or peaking. However, (i) from fp, the sharing / peaking must obtain (ii) for which one mechanism is collapse of spacetime (which follows from realization of the greatest possibility but is beyond the domain of though – perhaps – at the root modern physical theory). 6. As conceived above, tm is the basis of development of a system of knowledge and realization, culminating in the pathways (and return from ‘high ideas’ to enlightened ordinariness). 7. Since TM is immanent in ordinary knowledge, it can hardly be said to have been ‘discovered’ but is nonetheless ultimate. As it occurs to a human being it must be limited unless we break out of our as-if limited form even though it touches the ultimate. However, for ultimate being this knowledge is ultimate, and that includes our being should / when we achieve the ultimate, About precision of reference and inferencePrecision of reference is obtained via abstraction. Once there is precision of reference, standard logic (laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle; and standard propositional and predicate calculi), follow when there is stable identity and definiteness of reference (for example ‘it is raining’ is indefinite because a location is not specified but it becomes definite when either a location is implicit or specified, e.g., ‘it is raining in my garden’). It is important to note that we will encounter significant exceptions to the law of non-contradiction that center around the concept of the void as the absence of being, for which existence and nonexistence are the same. SummaryThe development may be summarized in the sequence (i) ordinary knowledge (ii) abstraction (iii) precision (as faithfulness to the real) (iv) neutral concepts and completeness but, for limited being, only at a high level of abstraction (v) abstract framework, i.e., an ideal metaphysics, which shows that all beings realize the ultimate (vi) a join of the ideal framework and ordinary or pragmatic knowledge, results in a real metaphysics, which is perfect relative to the ideal value of ultimate realization (vii) pathways to the ultimate in, for, and from the immediate (viii) return. What The Way of Being Is1. A way and system of understanding and knowledge critically developed, showing the universe to be the realization of all possibility, with peaks and dissolutions, with all beings merging in the peak states at which the identity of all being is manifest. 2. A way of realization of the ultimate beginning in, for, and from our world. That is, the neither the ultimate nor the immediate is sacrificed for the other. 3. Based in individual and general experience, reading, imaginative and critical reflection, action, and learning. Though it does reflect personal experience, it is written for general reading as an account of the world and a way of life within and beyond it. What The Way of Being Is Not1. A concrete or abstract science but straddles the abstract and the concrete and is based in experience and our being in the world as elaborated in the work. 2. A simple panacea pain and evil, or a simple recipe for realization of the ultimate. Its way of realization has suggested prescriptions but is fundamentally a way that must be worked out in shared endeavor, and recognizes that we work with both pleasure and pain—accepting pain within reason rather than hesitation due to imperfection—and that TW begins and is for the world. 3. A religion in the sense of a system of belief or dogma and is not developed into an institutional system. However, it has a way of being in the universe, which attends to all dimensions of being—physical, emotional, and cognitive. A guiding principleA guiding idea. As authority is relative—we seek to forge a shared way as a source of pleasure, not in avoidance of pain (except for healthy therapy), beginning in and for the immediate world, and seeking understanding and realization of the ultimate. This editionThis is a brief axiomatic version of The Way of Being. For elaboration, explanation, historical context, and special topics, see the long edition. This is a long edition of The Way of Being. It has elaboration, explanation, historical context, and special topics. There is also a shorter version that omits the elaborations. AudiencesThe general appeal should be to readers to whom the following vision appeals and have a desire and willingness to put in effort to work toward it. TW is a way and vision that has an ultimate framework joined to a detailed system such that (i) the framework is perfectly faithful to the real and is not limited by the standard views of world cultures but does not reject what has validity in them (ii) the join has pragmatic perfection relative to ultimate knowledge and realization. TW is specifically intended for the following. 1. Readers with a general interest in what the universe is truly like, unfettered by their unnecessary but often unrecognized limitations. 2. Readers who would grow beyond their culture and human status, which means that they would enter into an evolution of being. 3. Readers with a conceptual orientation, including academic readers, who would see that standard views of the limits of our knowledge and being are severely limited and would grow to conceptual systems beyond the standard to, as far as we can, ultimate views. Origins and sourcesTW is an outcome of my life, experience, reading in world literature, and thought. A searchFrom an early interest in understanding, I searched through ideas, experience, reading in world literature, via reflection, action, learning, and synthesis. A brief historyI traversed through 1. Ideas – from ‘isms’ and ‘kinds’ (e.g., mind, matter, process) “things are what they are” rather than as slanted in an ism or reduced to kinds. That is, the outcome may be called a ‘non-ism’. This idea and its significance is further elaborated in on the choice of ‘being’ and related concepts. 2. “Things are what they are” is of course trivial. However, triviality is not insignificance and I found the powerful system described below of which a main element is that the universe is ultimate and that beings participate in that ultimacy. What is more the trivial base is powerful precisely because it is trivial and therefore transparent. This system is developed in the definitions through categories and cosmology and is applied to understanding in knowledge and the world. 3. From ideas to ideas and action. The ideas added to an impetus to realization, and from the desire to live usefully, there came a development of pathways to the ultimate in, for, and from our world (with sources in world ideas and practices). Traditions of understanding and livingThe interest is in understanding – knowledge, reason and inference, values and their interaction with ways of living. Experience is where understanding begins. One aim of this work is to find and push toward final boundaries of experience. SecularismInformal definition. Secularism is a family of traditions that is (i) built from ordinary experience subject to criticism (ii) naturalistic in that its conceptual constructs are close to experience, e.g., as in science, but not as in speculative myth or religion. This tradition or family of traditions builds from ordinary or common experience subject to criticism. Where it is imaginative, as in science, it requires contact with ordinary experience. In that ordinary experience does not define its boundaries, there is a motive to seek beyond it, but a region beyond experience and science is often denied in secular thought, sometimes tacitly and sometimes forcefully and explicitly as in logical positivism, which flourished in the early twentieth century. A key to valid thought a region beyond experience and today’s science is that it is consistent that there is more than just common experience. What we will find is that while some transsecular thought may be at best useful fiction, it can have foundation in experience. We elaborate on this below in observing that the concepts of ‘being’, ‘universe’, and more have basis in experience. This leads to transsecularism. TranssecularismInformal definition. Transsecularism is an approach to understanding and living that emphasizes (i) recognition of arbitrary limits in common views of ‘ordinary experience’ (ii) is neutral with respect to the limit imposed by naturalism (the term ‘transsecular’ is neutral in that encompasses approaches from experience and reason as well as from dogma and myth; thus transsecularism, as understood here, is not distinct from secularism but includes it). Religion as transsecularA second class of traditions may be labeled ‘transsecular’ or metaphysics as study of the real and conceived broadly. In this sense, understanding goes beyond ordinary experience. The religions of the world are metaphysical in this sense; though they provide meaning and culture, their speculation almost always includes arbitrary dogma. This failure of religions as a faithful account of the real is not a failure of the idea of religion itself. However, the term ‘religion’ has acquired prejudicial meaning and thus its use to describe the real would be conflicted. Constructive metaphysicsThere is another kind of metaphysics, exemplified by Alfred North Whitehead’s Process and Reality, which hypothesizes fundamental elements of the real and builds a system on that base. Such metaphysics is like the sciences in that it has hypothetical elements and that if conclusions contradict experience, there is doubt about the hypotheses and search for revision. In that there is postulation (hypotheses), both the sciences and metaphysics of this kind of metaphysics are hypothetical or speculative. They are also rational in that when consequences do not agree with experience, new or modified hypothesis must be found and thus their theories are always open to revision (unless shown final). A distinction is that in science postulates have consequences that are measurable by material instruments (including the senses), but the postulates of metaphysics seek what may be regarded as real. Real metaphysicsThere is still another approach to metaphysics, which is named ‘the real metaphysics’ in which the only appeal is to experience, acknowledging that it may be only seeming. That is, such metaphysics—content and method—shall flow of necessity from the data of experience (even though part of it may be seeming). An initial phase of real metaphysics is to select what experience is a true datum and reasons for that selection. On the choice of ‘being’ and related conceptsWhen I identify my experience with the world, I may be in error. One approach to metaphysics has been to postulate fundamental kinds or forms, called substances, which has been productive, but is also subject to error, for to appeal to substance is to say that a thing belongs to a hypothetical class such as matter, mind, process, energy, or word-as-object. And if that class is good for some purposes, i.e., ‘approximate’, it may be altogether useless as a fundamental class. So how shall we select a fundamental class or classes? We do not need to. In fact, at the beginning we ought not for (i) we do not know whether there are such classes (ii) even if there are, to choose an unanalyzed class, is not just to invite error, but may be entirely mistaken. On the other hand, perhaps there are adequate classes or kinds. To begin, therefore, we ought to be neutral to class. The idea of being as used here starts with the idea that ‘things are what they are’ – roughly, being is ‘that which is’ or, better, ‘the quality of that which is’. To say something has being is to say no more than ‘it is’. That is, to begin with being is to be neutral to class and kind. But there are problems (i) when we have an appearance how and when can we know that there is an object (ii) is not ‘it is what it is’ trivial? The responses to the problems are as follows. In outline those appearances are real, which are abstracted from their details, so that distortion is eliminated. That this can and is developed powerfully and richly is detailed below. The system requires other concepts, which flow from being—beings (being is their essential quality), the universe (all being or beings), the void (the absence of being), meaning (linguistic as well as the ‘meaning of life’), and even logic. How does the idea of being give power to the other concepts? Let us use the universe as an example. A common definition is ‘the universe is all space and time and its contents such as matter, motion, and energy; another is ‘the universe is all the facts’. The first t is problematic in that it presumes space, time, matter, energy as real and as exhaustive. But being as ‘the quality of that which is’ allows what is real, e.g., space, time, the rest, and more to emerge if they are real and also to emerge as as-if approximations if useful but not strictly found real. The second omits reason. Of course, this could all be trivial but we will find it to be ultimately powerful in capturing the real and its extent. The move from substance metaphysics to being is analogous to the move from simple arithmetic to algebra—in the move from known to unknown quantities. In not saying what things are in advance of analysis, being allows us to deal with the initially unknown character of things (and thinghood). Further, we will find fact and reason to be one. A potential problem with the present conception of being is that it does not speak of the depth, ineffability, and mystery of being, that is found attractive in some of the metaphysical literature (e.g., in the writing of Heidegger). Here, the present conception is especially powerful for (i) in not defining the depth and so on into being, we avoid the contamination of vagueness and imprecision but (ii) we allow the depth and so on to emerge from metaphysical analysis—from a metaphysical algebra. That is, in pushing the move from substance to being, beyond a move from postulated to unknown depth, we move to the trivial. We move to that trivial which is transparent, significant, and a container for the depth and the profound. Preview—a picture of the universeThe preview is stated without demonstration, which is given in the body of the essay. Preliminary: limits of thought and realityA beginning: standard vs mythic viewsAn instructive place to begin is with the big bang view of our cosmos from observation and modern relativity and quantum theory, without commitment to its truth. It is thought to be the best current view, even though there are unanswered questions and we tend to think we do not know what lies beyond the boundary of observation (e.g., remoteness in time, space, and interactivity with our world). Because mythic pictures have been promoted as dogma, many people refuse to contemplate what lies beyond. Beyond the beginning: logicBut we can ask a preliminary question—what is the limit of what lies beyond, a limit beyond which even rank speculation cannot hold? If A is a sufficiently specific assertion (regarding the intending and intended reference), then it cannot be true that both A and its negation, ~A, are true. That assertions cannot be both true and false is called ‘the law of non-contradiction’ (lnc)and is a law of logic. Later, we will encounter other elements of logic. Such laws are widely but not universally accepted. Regardless, though, we can begin to think of logic as defining what can and cannot be, just from the structure of a description and not from what the description is intended to depict. We can then conclude that logic defines the boundary of all valid descriptions, scientific or other. What we will find is that the real boundary of the universe is – specified in – logic. This will require us to tighten the meaning of ‘logic’—does logic define the limit of possibility or vice-versa or both. In particular, (i) if logic defines the greatest possibility then (ii) while lnc obtains for sufficiently specific assertions, it need not for others. For example, (a) “it is raining and it is not raining” can be true if it is meant as “it is raining in New York and it is not raining in London” and (b) “internally consistent dreams are real and not real” can obtain if ‘real’ and ‘not real’ refer to different worlds. These examples are trivial, but there are non-trivial examples, of which one that we will encounter is “the void, i.e., nothingness exists and does not exist”. And there are other ways in which standard logics need to be tightened so as to be exception proof. Thus while logic is universal, the logics have contexts. This begins the discussion of logic and the real, which is continued in the essay. The picture and its truthThe universe is the realization of the greatest possibility – it is far greater than in received secular or transsecular pictures. This is shown to be true and consistent with what is valid in experience and knowledge. Doubt is expected, acknowledged, and addressed. This picture will be developed into the real metaphysics mentioned earlier. On the meaning of the pictureHow do the real metaphysics and the standard pictures mesh? Does the real metaphysics imply falsity of the standard picture? The falsity of the standard picture is not implied. Rather, the real metaphysics implies that the standard picture obtains, at least as an approximation, for a limited domain of the universe, e.g., for our cosmos. The mesh may be described as follows— 1. Our cosmos and similar cosmoses (e.g., as described in ‘multiverse theory’) are structured and limited in variety. 2. They are embedded in the larger universe that is limitless in size, duration, and variety. The large universe is not essentially structured but contains structures, which form, typically by emergence in which structure has stability and therefore has a ‘life’ beyond mere transience (but occasionally arises in a small number of steps or saltations). 3. The embedding is not just that of structured cosmoses as a bubble in a sea of transience. Rather the universe and the void are equivalent and in communication, which may occur at a level of interaction below the main interactions of a cosmos. 4. Therefore the paradigms of form and process for a cosmos are not adequate to describe the universe but may, however, be suitable for some forms and processes, especially for those that have significance for experiential and intelligent forms. Rather, the paradigms, as will be seen are (i) those of pure logic, necessary fact, and of experiential being projected so far as necessary to the universe (ii) a range of sub-paradigms derived from our experience that are applicable in our world and may be projected beyond the world but not to the entire universe. 5. While we may seem insignificant and isolated from the rest of our cosmos due to seemingly vast reaches of space and time, we are in part of universal peak being, for which in communication via the void, eternities and limitless extension are instants and points. Further, our individual beings are limited extensions of the limitless peaks, of which we may be unaware due to our limitations but, on account of limitlessness of the universe, of which we can become aware, perhaps by reflection and meditation, and realize in communicating via and merging in the peaks. 6. The meaning of our being includes that all that happens is necessary, which is not contrary to there being action, intentional action, and (sometimes), positive outcomes. It is not contrary to realization of peaks in saltations or via pathways. Pain, too, is given, and meaning is not to be obtained by its avoidance, but (i) seeing it in balance with positive achievement and living (ii) acknowledgment, living through, and using pain as a catalyst (c) appropriate therapy (d) the strong and the fortunate helping the others (e) shared realization. Imagine an infant that is born malformed, in pain, who lives only for a few moments. Imagine a life of constant and unbearable pain. What is their meaning? Their meaning for us, and the meaning of our own pain, lies in the fact that universal process has imperfection, but that even in imperfection, which is a necessary part of process, what it achieves is far greater than what is thought to be achieved by the perfect Gods of some religious views. 7. That is, while the standard picture and the real metaphysics may seem distinct, they represent two levels of description of the one universe. Becoming familiar with the real metaphysics does not involve rejection of the standard but requires practice at meshing the two levels. Some consequences for destinyThe universe has identity; the universe and its identity are limitless; they cycle eternally through limitless peaks and dissolutions; all beings merge in the peaks; understanding this requires us to think beyond our limits in space, time, birth, and death; we are eternal and though there is repetition, the ‘spaces’ between recurrence are limitless; there are effective paths in, for, and from our world to the peaks. To follow a path is not to abandon our world or other beings, for effective paths—are shared and address issues of our world, especially the meaning and quality of life, a better world and society, culture, value, politics, economics, technology and more. These consequences are elaborated in throughout the work, especially in metaphysics, pathways, and return. Some consequences for knowledge and understandingThe universe as limitless is basis of an understanding that— 1. Provides meaning and understanding of life and the world, where our standard or received pictures are inconclusive, 2. Is developed into a coherent and well-founded view of the universe and knowledge a whole that is (a) closed regarding foundation and depth but (b) eternally open in variety and peaking (c) occasion for adventure while we are limited beings, which, given peaking and dissolution, is without end, and 3. Provides a pathway to resolution of fundamental issues in knowledge, e.g., in philosophy and its branches, and in logic, mathematics, science, the sciences, and technology. The resolution of issues is not uniform across the fields of knowledge. It is greater when the disciplines incline toward the abstract and the inclusive. The real metaphysics of the work is a join of (i) an abstract framework that is perfect in the correspondence between the forms of the conceptual system and its object, the abstracted universe and (ii) pragmatic knowledge such that (iii) the combined system does not have the perfection of the abstract framework but is perfect relative to the value of realization of the ultimate. Consequences are elaborated throughout the work, especially in metaphysics and knowledge and the world. SummationTW presents a picture of the world and a way of life that goes limitlessly and significantly beyond standard received pictures – to the ultimate – with respect to content and (in some ways) validity as well as method. The picture is metaphysical in the sense of metaphysics as knowledge of the real. It is not intended as religion in the traditional sense of required belief, yet, as noted, it offers a way of knowledge and a way of life in this world and what lies or may lie beyond. Understanding The Way of BeingThe essential concernThe picture presented in of TW is contrary to most tacit and explicit modern and traditional world views. This raises concerns of (i) the meaning of the picture of TW, i.e., what it is really saying in terms of significances and consequences and (ii) its truth. The meaning of the pictureThe following is a brief overview of the meaning of the picture, which was detailed above in preview—a picture of the universe. In our day to day experience as well as in secular and transsecular thought, we are limited beings. Yet TW finds us to be unlimited. How is this possible? And how can we be both limited and unlimited. Two responses to this issue are (i) familiarity with the development in the essay will help with the critical, imaginative, and intuitive sides of understanding (ii) seeing that we are limited on ordinary scales of being (e.g., time, space, and degree of interaction) we are unlimited on multiple scales, from the infinitesimal to the limitless. The truth of the pictureAcceptance of the truth is enhanced in seeing that the picture (i) is consistent with ordinary experience and scientific pictures (ii) is demonstrated (iii) gives symbolic truth to the meaning of mythic and religious pictures while it shows new ways to assess their truth in the entire universe in and beyond our cosmos. I acknowledge that this will not remove all doubt, for I still have doubt despite decades of familiarity with TW. Responses to doubt include (i) alternate attitudes to truth—seeing TW as a postulated system whose truth shall or shall not emerge or seeing it as basis of an existential and moral attitude toward living (ii) to resolve to live in the shadow of doubt. Some issues and responses in detailIssue—TW makes large and counter-intuitive claims relative to the nature of the universe and our being, which raises doubt makes understanding difficult. Response—the claims are demonstrated and shown consistent with experience and all valid understanding. This begins to address doubt. The issue of intuition and understanding is addressed below. Issue—the claims and positions are contra to our modern cognitive relativism, i.e., a prevailing view we might not know being as such and therefore we ought to be focused on our conceptual understanding and language rather than on what is real. Response—so far as claims are objective, they are argued; the very notion of the ‘real’ is founded; our limits as limited beings (at present) are acknowledged – in fact seen as essential to our being; where doubt may remain, it concerns power of proof rather than consistency. Thus, the view presented is not fundamentally absurd despite doubt and therefore alternate attitudes to certainty of the views are argued. Issue—the system is counterintuitive and developing a Gestalt difficult. Response—intuition is addressed in the following issues; a Gestalt may be developed by familiarization. Issue—the meanings of the terms is often vague. Response—the vagueness is the result of the indefinite structure of modern thought; here the terms are given precise meaning. Readers are advised to follow definitions. Issue—the modern vagueness of meaning results from indefinites of the world as we know it. Response—the terms constitute a system, which as a complete metaphysics, justifies the individual terms. Furthermore, this is done in terms of a concept of meaning that is justified as part of the system. Issue—a complete metaphysics of everything would seem impossible; it would require complete knowledge, not only of things, but also of knowledge itself – and of knowers. Response—by completeness we do not mean knowledge of every ‘element’ of being. Rather, we mean a system that begins as abstract over things and kinds, from which flows an understanding that is precise over broad categories of relevance, and includes, in principle, all possible categories. Issue—true difficulties of the system. An example—most of us seem to experience ourselves as separate, limited in ability, bounded in time by birth and death. Yet the real metaphysics sees us as transcending these boundaries and limits. How is that possible and even if it is accepted, how does it mesh with the ordinary experience of limitedness? Then, if we accept the fact of transcendence is it something automatic, i.e., to wait for, or something in which to engage. Response—I continue to face this difficulty. However, I have come to partial resolution over time, of which a part is familiarization. Further resolution is in (i) critique of received views and noting that if limitlessness seems absurd, so does limitedness (ii) noting that limitedness is not empirical but a projection of everyday experience and science beyond their realms of validity (ii) to holding both ordinary and extraordinary views in mind, while realizing that in eternity, i.e., in limitless time, and in limitless space, there are connections that may be without occurrence in limitedness. Finally, as shown via the metaphysics, the ordinary and the extraordinary are two levels of thought that we can have about the world. In fact, we can imagine hierarchies of being, with many levels. However, given that there is one reality, the levels, if seen correctly, would be one. The sequence of developmentOverviewThe arc of TW begins in the immediate – here and now – with our experience but immediately shows that the immediate and ultimate are already merged. Beginning with a preliminary conception of experience, some main points of the development are the emergence of concepts and meanings of—(i) the real, in terms of being and beings (ii) elements of reason, i.e., direct and indirect establishment of fact (see the following paragraph) (iii) a ‘real metaphysics’ as a proven and ultimate picture of the universe with consequences for knowledge and ways of being in the immediate on the way to the ultimate (iv) an extended conception of experience (v) development of ethics and ‘the meaning of life’) (v) categories of understanding as summary descriptions of aspects of being that leverage comprehension and prediction (vi) application to knowledge and pathways to the ultimate. What are direct and indirect establishment of fact? Direct establishment is establishment without reference to other facts. Indirect establishment is with reference to other facts, of which a standard way is inference (but the role of intuition will also be considered and not just as a source of hypotheses). Both direct and indirect establishment of fact may be (i) necessary or certain (or both) or (ii) contingent or incompletely certain or both. DefinitionsAs the work is presented in an axiomatic framework, it begins with a collection of definitions. As the work is about the world, unlike system of signs, as in some treatments of mathematics and logic, the definitions have content. At the same time, there is an abstract framework, which is not a mere system of signs, because the abstraction has removed details subject to distortion, leaving the abstract but descriptive framework. The framework is fleshed out in the work and while the ‘rich’ material is epistemically imperfect, (i) the system is perfect in a value sense to be explained (ii) the abstract framework remains epistemically perfect in a correspondence sense. The beginning in experienceIt is essential in talking of things, that there is a triad of language structure (e.g., words and sentences), iconic concepts (that permit recognition of the things), and the objects or things themselves. Linguistic meaning requires this triad. Without the iconic concept that is formed in the experience of things, talk is empty. Experience is also fundamental to meaning in its important sense as it is used in ‘the meaning of life’. Metaphysics does not transcend experience or go beyond it. Generally, the form of perception and conception, is interwoven with experience. At a high enough level of abstraction, objects are still objects of experience but their form is independent of experience. Thus, it may seem that metaphysics goes beyond experience at these levels of abstraction. The beginning in experience permits and encourages discussion of existence, being, meaning in its two senses as used in this work, and ethics and democracy. Knowledge and argumentIt also permits and encourages treatment of knowledge and argument, which are important to the development of the work. It is convenient to place this material in a division of its own. The metaphysical developmentThe foundation thus far enables further development of the concept of being (as well as treatment of beings, especially the universe and the void), a metaphysical core (in a division named ‘metaphysics’), experience (in greater depth and breadth than its first treatment), and the categories (developing the metaphysics into an articulated understanding of our world and the universe). Thus the concepts and their articulation emerges with the work, of which the main concepts are being, experience, and the forms of being. The categories as the culmination of the metaphysicsThe categories are a culmination of the metaphysics, intended to apply to the real, such that essential structure is distinguished from and entails other derived structures. Examples are (i) that while the power and richness of experience is different at different levels on a ‘hierarchy’ of being, there are no kinds beyond experiential kinds (ii) that space and time are not fundamental to the real but emerge as structures in a world where experience is able to recognize differences in persisting identities vs differences between different identities. All metaphysics is an expression of experience. However, as it has been seen, there is a level of abstraction at which forms are independent of the objects being experienced. This is the highest or most inclusive level. At lower levels, while experience and forms are interwoven, a value (e.g., ethical) argument finds such interwovenness to not be an impediment to some important uses of the metaphysics, e.g., as in realization. Therefore the categories are developed after an integrated development of experience, meaning, and value, especially ethics. ApplicationsThe ‘applications’ are extensions of the development to knowledge and pathways of realization. ReturnThis division is primarily a prospective—i.e., having developed a view of the world and our way in it, it looks to a return to emphasis on being-and-becoming-in-the-world-and-universe. On foundational systems for metaphysicsWhat is presumedInformal specification. The ground of The Way of Being – especially its metaphysics – (the place from where they begin), is ordinary language and experience. Though TW begins there, it does not presume it or stop or end there, for it will critically refine it, from which flow precise language, concepts, and reason that result in ‘the real metaphysics’ which is adequate to the ultimate and immediate purposes of TW. TW develops a precise system which is then fleshed out from pragmatic knowledge from our cultures and experience. The joint system, the real metaphysics, is shown perfect relative to derived ultimate values. The perfection is and must be in-process for limited beings such as we are. On axiomatic systemsAbstract axiomatic systems are useful for (i) precision and study of abstract structures (ii) potential to capture a real structure with some precision. Euclid’s Elements, generally recognized as the earliest extant and fully developed system, there are definitions, postulates (basic facts of geometry), common notions (of reason), and theorems. Once regarded as about our space, we now recognize Euclid’s work as abstract and as one geometry among others, which are one set of axiomatics among unlimited axiomatic possibilities. In modern systems, there are primitive terms, well-formed formulas, axioms (formally unfounded foundational formulas), and rules of inference and definition, and theorems. An axiom may be regarded as a theorem derived in zero steps via the rule: If A, then A. A system is consistent if there is no theorem that asserts A such that ‘not A’ is also a theorem. Axiomatic systems for metaphysicsIn western philosophy, there is a history of abstract axiomatic systems for metaphysics. However, we regard metaphysics as about the world and seek a system which is directly about the world. Given the issues of whether thought can be about the world and of error, it is necessary to question the possibility of an axiomatic but real metaphysics. The approach is to set up a precise framework via ‘abstraction’, which is to remove from a concept details that may result in distortion. Two paradigms of abstraction are Descartes’ Cogito argument and Aristotle’s study of being, both rendered precise. The result is a powerful framework that is ultimate in precision and in showing that the universe is the realization of all possibility in its most inclusive sense. The framework is filled in with pragmatic knowledge which give it richness. The joint system is of course not precise as representation of the real. However, the framework itself shows ultimate values in terms of which the system is perfect in process. Notation for the axiomatic system to be developed is in definitions > notation for the axiomatic system. Part 4. The Way of BeingDefinitionsComment 1.Change to definitions and main consequences? Review and minimize. Notation for the axiomatic systemPreliminaryTruths are of two kinds—basic atomic-like truths or facts and basic relationships among such truths or principles of inference, which are often seen as different. However, since the metaphysics flows from what is given and is of all being, these two kinds of truth are not fundamentally different. Furthermore, since, in the metaphysics, definitions are specifications of the real, truths may be specified explicitly or implicitly via the definitions. Such truths may be further specified in sub-definitions or as axioms or postulates. Whereas modern abstract inferential systems typically distinguish principles of inference and fundamentals for a given system, in the metaphysics, all such kinds fall under a single umbrella and the distinction between axioms and postulates is for convention. We follow Euclid in specifying axioms (rules of inference) and postulates (fundamental theses). In the present work, a system is presented in axiomatic form. Because it is intended to be ‘real’, it is not enough for the system to be syntactic. Definition alone does not imply existence. Therefore, where existence is not transparent it must and will be demonstrated. There is an issue of certain truth and certain inference vs likely truth and likely inference (where likely may range from weak to strong). This is addressed later. As the metaphysics is open, the following system of assertions is designed to be most likely more than will be needed. The notationDefinition 1. The numbered list style for formal definitions. Defined terms are in small capitals. (Material in brackets or {bracketed indented items just below the definition} and other style elements below is informal elaboration or commentary. There is a difference between the present semantic system and syntactic axiomatic systems—here the definitions indicate existing objects and where this is not transparent, it is demonstrated). Definition. This unnumbered style is for informal, preliminary, alternative, and earlier versions of definitions, or definitions repeated for convenience. A similar style may be used for other significant elements of the development. Truth 1. Numbered style for especially important truths (e.g., conceptually pivotal, existential), foundational (axiom, postulate) or derived. Axiom 1. Numbered style for axioms. {Auxiliary element, which supplements definitions and other elements.} Assertion 1. Numbered style for axioms. Thesis 1. Numbered style for fundamental theses. Postulate 1. Numbered style for postulates. Identical to but now preferred over the Thesis style. Consequence 1. Numbered style for derived results (truths) of some significance. Derived truths of lesser importance are stated without numbering. Premise 1. A premise or system of premises is the basis of a special consequence or system of consequences. Condition(s). A condition is a premise for a very specific consequence or system of consequences. Preferred notationThe preferred styles are definition, informal definition, and truth. The preferred styles are definition, informal definition, axiom, postulate, truth, consequence, and premise. The definitionsThe definitions are in the main development. For convenience, they are collected together here. Comment 2. Enhance the following to include Assertion, Auxiliary element, Axiom, Postulate, and Truth? And more? Definition 4. Choice is selection of thought or action from among real options. Definition 45....................................... A being that is not the void is manifest. Definition 46..................... Metaphysics is knowledge and study of the real. Definition 54................................... A being that is not possible is impossible. Definition 55. A being whose nonbeing (nonexistence) is impossible is necessary. Definition 56........................... A fundamental cause is itself without cause. Truth 10. The rational foundation of the being of and cause of the universe is necessity. Truth 19. The cause of the manifest universe is necessity (sound). Truth 26. We are experiential beings. Truth 28. The world is an object of experience and includes experience. Ethics is right choice in light of what is good; in simple terms, metaethics is the study of ethics.
BeingComment 3. This chapter incorporates the two older chapters—Being and experience’ and ‘Knowledge and argument’. The aims of this chapter include provision of ideas that are significant in themselves, foundation for the later metaphysics, and direct grounding in experience. Of these, some, especially the concept of experience, are in preliminary form that will subsequently further deepened and have their range of reference broadened. Since experience and knowing are crucial to the ‘being of being’, the chapter could be named Being and Experience or Being and Knowing. Experience, existence, and beingThe conceptsDefinition 2. When an appearance that seems to be of something, is indeed of the intended thing, e.g., is known to be neither fictional nor merely illusory, it is real (here, in ‘something’, ‘thing’ is entirely general and not restricted to entity, process, relation, property or other such kinds); otherwise, it is as-if (or as-if real, i.e., of unknown status, or at least partial illusion or fiction). This defines the real for the purpose of this work, in a preliminary manner. 4. But does it truly capture the real? If we wish to say something non-circular we ought not to think of it (the real) either as something objective ‘out there’ or in terms of something else. But it may then be asked “is this not arbitrary”. No, for (i) it is aligned with the account of meaning presented and argued later (ii) though the individual meanings in a system may be suggested by and compared against extant meanings, the ultimate test is of the validity of the system as a whole and the functioning of the individual meanings within the system. 5. It is preliminary in that (i) ‘appearance’ will be broadened shortly to ‘concept’ (ii) the real notion of ‘thing’ will be formalized as the concept-object (iii) under that notion the void, i.e., nothingness, will also be found to be a thing. Comment 4. The following is to be a listed consequence. Note that while we have begun with the idea of experience as our experience, the concept of experience will later be extended to all being, even primitive and elemental being (this overloading of the term is not essentially problematic). Definition 4. Choice is selection of thought or action from among real options. Comment 5. The following is to be a listed consequence. Definition 5. The idea of an object is that it may be either real (e.g., the table in my living room) or as-if real (e.g., fictional as in Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, 221B Baker Street, London; Sherlock Holmes is an object in that, although ‘he’ is not real, we can talk of ‘him’ as if he were real, and he may seem real in our imagination; note that while there is a ‘mental object’, that object is the concept, and it is not the as-if object). Thus, all real objects are objects but not all objects are real. Definition 6. The structure of an experience is concept – relation – object, or, in detail, (i) a concept, an experience as-if of (this as-if is there only because the object that follows may be as-if: that there is an experience is given) (ii) its intentional relation, the experiential relation, to (iii) an object or as-if experienced (the problem of ‘as-if’, i.e., of appearance vs reality is noted; however, it is effective to allow its address to emerge with the development). A referential concept is a concept that has an intended object. In pure experience an object is absent because it is unintended, potential, or otherwise not attached to or detached from the experience—pure experience is entirely conceptual. Definition 7. A definition is a conceptual specification (note that when the terms ‘is’ and ‘are’ are used in defining concepts, they may be but are not necessary temporal or concerning a particular place). As it is the aim here to describe the real, it is not be enough to present an abstract axiomatic system. As defined, definition does not imply existence. Therefore, where it is not transparent, existence must and will be established. Comment 6. Add to the list of beings in the next definition. Where there is an apparent being, but there may be distortion, is there a real being? If precision is demanded, we do not know that there is a real being, but, except when there is total error, such as in a hallucination, we may say that there is a real being for pragmatic purposes. We can and will do better than that vial the introduction of value in significant meaning and value and significantly better, later, when the real metaphysics reveals an ultimate value. Definition 9. Perfect faithfulness of knowledge is perfect depiction as congruence of the forms of concept and (real) object so that truth and certainty have meaning and can be asserted (thus defined, perfect faithfulness is significant to the development of the metaphysics of TW; and one source of perfect faithfulness is abstraction and important examples are given beginning with experience above and continuing with ‘being’ and related concepts below). Definition 10. An existent is the real object of a referential concept; the plural of ‘an existent’ is existents. Existence is the property of existents as existents. Definition 11. A being is the real object of a referential concept; the plural of ‘a being’ is beings. Being is the property of being as beings (while ‘being’ and ‘beings’ are conceptually distinct and being is not a being, with sufficient abstraction, the distinction vanishes). A reason objects are sometimes introduced as different from beings is that we are then able to talk about possible objects, necessary objects, and nonexistent objects. However, we have just seen is that being and object-hood are essentially are identical, and therefore we do not really need the concept of an object. Thus, we can consistently talk about possible beings, necessary, beings, and nonexistent beings (or objects or existents). Definition 12. If the object is a being, it is said, as already noted, to exist; otherwise it is said to not exist, i.e., to be nonexistent (and thus the conception of an object as concept-object, trivially resolves the problem of nonexistent objects or beings and provides one conception of nonbeing). That is, a being is that which is, in the most inclusive but real senses of ‘that’ and ‘is’ (on this account). Thus (in the present system) existence and being are identical (in intension and extension). However, the class of objects is broader, since it also includes fictitious referents of concepts. Thus, as used here, existence, being, and real objecthood, are identical. This avoids (i) association of being with ineffability and depth and thus (ii) introduction of ineffability at the foundation of the developments. Why, then, should we use the term ‘being’ at all? We do so (i) to remind ourselves of depths that we may wish to associate with or find within being and the connotations of the term ‘being’ (ii) to place this work in the metaphysical tradition. Definition 13. When we want to refer to the depth of being or of a being, e.g., that of our being relative to our intellect, we will use the hyphenated forms be-ing and a be-ing (plural be-ings). A result of the conflation of existence and being is that the present use of ‘being’ is shallow and trivial. Two criticisms arise: shallowness may imply (i) triviality, emptiness, and conceptual impotence (ii) loss of the profound sense of depth, ineffability, and even mystery that has been associated with being. Let us first address the problem of triviality. It has two virtues. First, that in being trivial, it does not introduce the problematicity associated with depth and ineffability and it empowers the depth and power that emerges later in this work. Thus triviality is a feature (i) in empowering transparency (ii) in empowering depth and power. Triviality is not insignificance. Additionally, the present use of ‘being’ avoids (i) a persistent feeling that one has not quite captured the ‘true and full sense of being’ (ii) the paradox of ineffability (the property that something cannot be validly thought of or spoken of, which has been claimed to be paradoxical for in calling being ineffable we are saying something valid about it). Regarding the criticism of the loss of depth, there is in fact no real loss for depth will be found to be within being rather than of being as such. It is true that while we are limited, we do not capture the full depth of being. However, this is found to be an essential characteristic of beings under becoming – a feature, not a problem. That is, we are in process in the range of a hierarchy of beings on a scale from primitive to ultimate. Regarding ineffability, there was no true paradox, for we ought to say that “being has some ineffability for us” rather than “being is altogether or absolutely ineffable for us”, which, while we are in a process of becoming that has some directedness, ought to be the case (there is a similar resolution of generic paradoxes of absolutes, e.g., that ‘there are no absolutes’ is an absolute). That is, not only is being not absolutely ineffable, it is in the process of becoming effable. It is worth noting that there are similar resolutions for many paradoxes of absolutes. Definition 14. Society is a group of beings with institutions that promote their identity and well-being. Culture (in the words of EB Tylor) is “that complex whole which includes knowledge (including development, dissemination, and education), belief, art, morals, law, custom, institutions (government, economic, technological, military, and political), and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (additions and changes to Tylor’s definition have been italicized). Source or study topic 1.Well-Being (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). On the concept-object conception of beingThough it is redundant to say so, the being exists when the reference is not null (empty); otherwise, the being is (may be called) nonexistent (which includes fictional reference). Given this conception of being, argument is immanent in being. That it ‘normalizes’ the idea of a nonexistent being, is one reason that the ‘improved’ definition is indeed improved. But, though it is not as obvious, it is also improved in the case of existent beings. For, without the concept, no being is identified. Particularly, a name alone identifies nothing (for philosophers, the idea of a ‘rigid designator’ involves a fallacy—one that could be named ‘the fallacy of the nonexistent subject’; to put it in other words – no concept, no designation). An aside—‘object’ has two philosophical senses. Here, it is the same as ‘a being’. Another use, not used here, is when the object is ‘as-if’, e.g., a fiction which may be spoken of as though it is a being. Consider an ordinary ‘thing’, e.g., a football. We might say that the-football-as-a-football does not exist before it is made. However, it does exist in the sense above, without further qualification. That is, it exists and does not exist. This leads to a distinction—global existence (the definition above) vs local existence which entails only existence at some places and times but nonexistence at others. These considerations result potentially in a can of paradoxical worms, which shall not be opened here—but see Dialetheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Dialetheia (this site), and a long version of this work. Though knowledge of being as such is synthetic (concept-object and not merely in the concept or analytic), it is perfect and true via the abstraction in the concepts of being and beings. Significant meaning and valueComment 7. Give reasons for this and the next excursion – it is too good to pass up. ‘Meaning’ has two senses in this work, (i) the sense in this section as in family of meanings suggested by the terms ‘the meaning of life’, ‘significance’ or ‘importance’ (ii) concept and linguistic meaning, to be introduced in a later section. Where it may be unclear or where emphasis is appropriate, the intended sense will be indicated by the terms ‘significant meaning’, ‘concept meaning’, and ‘linguistic meaning’. Definition 15. We are accidental in that our immediate sense of why we have be-ing and what that be-ing is or may be is opaque to us (to what extent the opaqueness is absolute has emergence in the development). Definition 16. Significant meaning and value are is whatever give be-ings the sense that they are more than mere accidents (though it is not emphasized, negative meaning would be what gives the sense of being less than a mere accident); it lies in the quality and form of their experience. Significant meaning may lie in may be in accepting accidentality, or, in seeing that beings may be in a process toward whatever is ultimate. Of course, the sense of meaning requires that whatever it is felt to be ought to have truth. While a feeling of accidentality is at least initially genuine, our ultimate nature shall also be revealed. Comment 8. The following is to be a listed consequence. Experience is the place, though not the sole source, of significant meaning and of our being. We are experiential beings. The being that does not register at least indirectly in some experience is effectively nonexistent (it is later seen that the word ‘effectively’ may be dropped; that the universe is experiential, where it is not necessary to use the term ‘effectively experiential’; and that such predication does not entail absence of material or mental qualities, real or as-if). Definition 17. The sense of beauty or the beautiful is a joint emotive-cognitive sense of what gives beings pleasure to perceive or contemplate, with an emphasis on durability or permanence in time (and across ‘subjects’) of that sense. Objects and beings that are a source of the sense of beauty are beautiful. Definition 18. The Intrinsic good or primary good is that which improves significant meaning of experiential (human) beings (particularly their well-being and community, safety, and security, their projects, the life well-lived and what it is to live well, the sense of the beautiful, what it is to live well, and culture as a way of expression). Right choice and action are those which promote intrinsic goodness. Definition 19. Secondary goodness (is not experientially intrinsic but) promotes intrinsic goodness; the secondary good includes culture as a system of institutions and social arrangements (society itself, economic and political arrangements, and technology). Definition 20. To be ethical is to choose thought and action that promotes what is good (here, there is no rejection of systematic ethics, but the personal is emphasized in interaction with the systematic and the large scale). Ethics is study, systematic and other, of what thought and action are ethical (ethics is not primarily about the abstract good or right). Metaethics is about the nature of ethics and ethical judgement (but as topic in itself is not particularly important in this work). (While ethics is often studied for its normative side “what we should do and so on”, and the associated discipline is named ‘normative ethics’, analysis of the meaning of ‘ethics’, we will find that normative and metaethics are bound as one – two sides of the coin). Applied ethics is about what is ethical in concrete situations and institutions (it is currently, in 2026, a broad subject and some examples are taken up in this work; also note that applied ethics gives ethics flesh and ethics gives applied ethics structure, so while their independent study is important, so is their joint and perhaps dialectic analysis). Definition 21. Government is group decision making and its institutions for decision and implementation. A foundation government in a fundamental value of experiential being in small and large scale choice may be called democracy, especially liberal democracy (as explained, just below), which is democracy with (institutional) protection for all beings and groups as far as not dedicated to destructive ends. A concern regarding the promotion of experiential beings is the balance between self- and group- interest. Where, in the movement of society, do we move – and want to move – toward? The problem arises in all societies, but it is a special concern in democracy. Knowledge and valueComment 9. See the section on demands and values in Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and modify the discussion accordingly. Knowledge (with sophistication and precision) and value—as things in themselves—are not without intrinsic merit. However, in considering knowing, valuing, and becoming in interaction, there may be a tradeoff. The tradeoff is explored in what follows, beginning in the next chapter. A (‘high’) level of being and becoming is found at which knowing and value are interwoven, and at which imprecision is not imperfection. Where concepts are abstracted to perfection, there is no need for a tradeoff between knowledge and value. Otherwise, tradeoff may be necessary. Another way to look at the situation is to observe that knowledge and value are intertwined in their very conception. KnowledgeComment 10. Improve argument (and update its discussion in a system of knowledge). Source or study topic 2.Language. Discrete and linear versus continuum, multidimensional, and intuitive, roughly in the sense of Immanuel Kant. Are discreet language and logic epiphenomenal to being? Representational versus evocative. Source or study topic 3.Argument, logic, sets, and mathematics. At least through predicate calculi. Other logics and dialetheia. ZFC and alternatives. Syntax and semantics. Source or study topic 4.Non-deductive methods in mathematics (where is linear thought and logic as justification headed)—Non-Deductive Methods in Mathematics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Source or study topic 5.Argument | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This chapter considers some aspects of knowledge, its validity, and acquisition for the purpose of TW. It is a continuation of the previous chapter and could be part of it but, on account of its detail, is a separate chapter. The kind of knowledge considered here is ‘knowledge that’, e.g., something is true, and the sense is that of correspondence. Other topics – kinds of knowledge, criteria for validity, measures of significance, how knowledge is acquired – are taken up in a supplementary chapter, knowledge and the world. This chapter is primarily about method. Subsequent chapters are content (the system of TW). But the two are not distinct, for (i) knowledge is in the world and (ii) method and content emerge together (iii) method is an aspect of knowledge. Just as we use the neutral term ‘being’ to refer to what is real, we will also be neutral to the concept and nature of knowledge, and the nature of those concepts will emerge with the development. Language, concept meaning, and knowledgeComment 11. Was ‘Concepts, reference, language, and knowledge’ and could be ‘Linguistic meaning and knowledge’. Comment 12. About grammar. Chess and scrabble have rules which are absolute (in some sense). However, even if ‘life’ or ‘the world’ has rules that specify it, we do not know them completely. If grammar and semantics (formalized or not) – so far as they are attempts to capture those rules – must be incomplete and imprecise. Therefore we ought not to think that the following are the essential or only objects of study (a) natural language and its ‘rules’ or (b) formalizations thereof. Of course, in response one might ask, “But then what are the objects of study? Are there any other?” And a reply is “Of course there are. For one, there are the processes of language – its origins, evolution, and its study (and the study of all those); and for another the relations of those studies to the world. Definition 22. There is a range of sophistication (self-reflection, criticism, and creativity) in the use of language and experience. Ordinary experience, ordinary language, ordinary reason, and ordinary knowledge, though not unsophisticated, lie in a region on a spectrum toward the everyday, and away from institutional, specialist, academic and standards setting uses. Ordinary language (and experience) is a ground for discovery, expression, and justification of knowledge as beginning framework for the formal development (which, though it begins with the ordinary, it does not presume it—the ordinary is improved upon in the formal development via precision of meaning of terms and reason via relations among terms). Definition 23. (The following repeats some material from the earlier definition on the structure of experience.) A concept is a mental content. A referential concept is a concept in referential form, i.e., a concept that is intended to refer to an object, real or fictitious. The association of a sign (elementary or compound, where the structure of a compound sign may reflect the structure of the object) with a concept constitutes a linguistic concept. The meaning, conceptual or linguistic, of a referential concept is the concept and its possible references (objects) in use (this constitutes a three part meaning of meaning as sign – concept – object). Knowledge is meaning realized. Comment 13. Review the bracket formatting in styles; decide whether to keep the format below. {This three part meaning of meaning, as in The Meaning of Meaning, by C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards, is crucial as follows. There is a sense of its sufficiency and necessity, brought out below, and while nowhere near exhausts the literature on concept and linguistic meaning, it is justified for the purposes of the real metaphysics. It reminds us that bare signs can have no meaning, e.g., bare words or names and that some concept, perhaps not always explicit, is essential. The absence of recognition of the meaninglessness of signs in many discussions of the meanings of terms leads to unnecessary and resolvable confusion (leaving true issues open to investigation). This confusion occurs when we wonder what ‘something’ is but we do not know what it is that we are looking for. On the other hand, we should see that in such cases of confusion, what are indeed looking for lies in a dual space of concepts and objects (terminology due to the late economist H.A. Simon). It neatly resolves the problem of negative existentials. That problem is that to say something does not exist is already talking about the thing and apparently presuming existence. The resolution is that to say something X (sign – concept – possible object) does not exist is to say that there is no object; and on the other hand to say that exists is to say that there is the intended object.} It has been remarked that language made precise via abstraction may yield (i) perfect depiction (this is in-process, as is the issue of what constitutes perfection, more generally, as is the issue of the use of imperfect depiction) (ii) perfect reason (deduction) as relations among linguistic elements (with address of the sense of ‘perfection’ and less than perfect reason as well). Source or study topic 6.The following may be pertinent for this and subsequent discussions of language: Philosophy of linguistics (Philosophy of Linguistics – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Linguistics (Linguistics - Wikipedia), Philosophy of language (Philosophy of language - Wikipedia). The knowledge of interest at this point in the development is whatever may be regarded as fact (defined below). Though there is a traditional distinction among fact (knowledge-that), knowledge-of (acquaintance), and know-how (as in ‘I know how to walk’, the distinction has been questioned. Such kinds may be understood – though not encompassed – by knowledge-that and this is sufficient for the present purpose. The actual nature of knowledge as it ‘resides’ in the knowledge-holder and other issues pertaining to knowledge are discussed later in the chapter, consequences of the metaphysics. This unsophisticated conception of knowledge is sufficient for developing the metaphysics of TW as the metaphysics is an abstract and perfect framework with pragmatic fill-in; details of this explanation will emerge. Sophistication and its significance is taken up in consequences of the metaphysics, after the main development. In what follows most concepts are referential and unless otherwise stated ‘concept’ shall mean ‘referential concept’. The following definitions will be useful later. Definition 24. The intension of a concept specifies the nature of the term, e.g., in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions (specifying the intension does not imply that the concept has objects). The extension or range of a concept specifies to what real objects the concept refers. Source or study topic 7.Language - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language). Theories of Meaning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/). The concept of knowledge above is depiction or correspondence. The concept is problematic for it is itself specified depictively and, further, so far as knowledge is depictive, precision is not guaranteed. However, the work will further develop a concept of knowledge that is a mosaic and that will be perfect relative to concepts and criteria that will emerge naturally. Though the structure of language, particularly of grammar, has depiction of the real as one of its functions, we shall not be explicitly concerned with grammar, except in the long version of TW. Definition 25. A fact is a true assertion (knowledge is factual; it concerns the way the world is – the way things are, where ‘is’ and ‘are’ may be but are not necessarily temporal). Facts are simple (e.g., atomic facts if there are any), compound, and complex (as in theories). Definition 26. Knowledge or belief are true and certain when it is indubitable that their content corresponds to the fact(s) to which they are intended to refer (notes—some accounts of knowledge do not require absolute certainty; while certainty is desirable in some endeavors, it may not be the case that it is always desirable, e.g., to base action on it; though correspondence is not the only ‘theory’ of truth, it is, as will be seen, adequate to the needs of Th Way of Being; finally, a more comprehensive account of knowledge, one that takes into account the developments for TW, is presented in a supplement, knowledge and the world). DiscoveryDefinition 27. Discovery is a creative phase of knowledge acquisition (though significant to TW, it is not the focus of this discussion of knowledge and argument, which is amplified later; however, it crucial to ultimate—human—endeavor and knowledge, for it is unlikely that all is known regarding knowledge acquisition and negotiation of the world; thus, we cannot afford to rely only on established or certified means of argument and ought to be open to ‘what works’ and to discovery, not just of ‘things’ but also of means or method). In worthwhile knowledge endeavors, one need is for tentative theories and ascertain significant factual data. This stage is ‘discovery’ and is interactive with the establishment phase of knowledge. As an example, the system of TW was arrived at over many iterations. Here, we focus on establishment of theories and data (justification). Establishment of tentative knowledge as knowledge requires selection, which is the subject of argument. ArgumentComment 14. Laws of logic to go here (propositional, non-contradiction, etc.)—unless they are already somewhere else in this document. Definition 28. An argument is establishment of fact (to argue is to establish a fact; here we consider only argument in itself rather than kinds of argument specific to restricted fields of inquiry; note that this definition is related but not identical to common conceptions of ‘argument’). Comment 15. Argument = establishment of fact + formal inference + semantics? {The elements of argument are direct establishment of fact and indirect establishment, or inference of a fact (conclusion) from an established fact (premise). An argument is certain when it establishes that the conclusion is certain and likely when it is thought to be likely according an accepted kind of inference and degree of likelihood.} Direct argumentCertain or preciseCertainty is possible via relaxation of precision and by abstraction. Some facts are intrinsic in that their truth is necessary (e.g., that there is experience or, equivalently, that experience has being; further examples will be given). Likely or nearly preciseDirect establishment is likely when doubt is low or accuracy is high. Precision may be confirmed by corroboration or theoretical agreement with other facts. Indirect argument or direct argument and inferenceDefinition 30. Inference is valid conclusion of entities in fact form and called conclusions from other such entities called premises, such that if the premises have truth (facticity), then so do the conclusions. Definition 31. In indirect argument, conclusions are established in two stages (i) direct establishment of premises (ii) inference from premises to conclusions (which gives strength to the claim of truth for the conclusions, as elaborated below). Certain inferenceDefinition 32. In certain inference, if the premises, P, are true, the conclusions, C, are certainly true (abbreviated: if P, then C, or P ® C). {Sources of certainty are (i) precise reasoning, which is obtained as below in deduction and intrinsic inference (ii) that in such reasoning (though there may be exceptions), the conclusions contain only information that was at least implicitly present in the premises (they may seem to say more because the chain of connection is not transparent to beings with limited intellect – but would of course be transparent to a limitless being.)} Deduction{When the information in the conclusion is already at least implicit in the premise, the inference is called nonampliative, which is formally defined below.} Intrinsic inferenceDefinition 34. In intrinsic inference, the conclusion is established without recourse to premises (this is related and, at least in some cases, maybe identical to intrinsic fact; though intrinsic inference may seem absurd or counter-foundational, there are examples, e.g., that there is experience and a later one will be the equivalence of existence and nonexistence for nothingness which will also be called ‘the void’). The Way of BeingThe certain inferences in this work include the intrinsic and the deductive. Likely inferenceDefinition 35. In likely inference (or reasonable inference), if the premises are true, or likely to be true, the conclusions are also likely to be true (examples of sources of sub-certainty include, first, that the conclusions are ampliative – also defined below – i.e., contain information not present in the premises, or that the reasoning is ‘rough’ in some sense). Certain inference is not ampliative, but may be effectively so when the conclusions are not intrinsically obvious or not obvious inferences from the premises. Induction, abduction, and analogyDefinition 36. In induction, some observations of instances and regularities, are generalized or lead to general principles. Abduction is argument to the best explanation (and is significant in science). In inference by analogy, if two systems are similar in some ways, similarity in some other ways is concluded. (That these are recognized modes of likely inference does not eliminate the possibility that intuited and received results could be likely). Such inference is typically more than a process from premise to conclusion but is seen as strengthened with buttressing information or inference and repeated confirmation. Further, the above modes (induction etc) may be used together and may be incomplete as modes of likely inference. Manifest patterns may perhaps be thought of as intrinsic and likely inference. The Way of BeingThe likely inferences in what follows are abductive and analogical. Transitivity of inferenceProof is often in more than one step and of the following form: given A ® B and B ® C, then A ® C. This is transitivity of inference, which guarantees the validity of ‘long’ proofs in deductive logic. However, transitivity of inference, even if it has meaning, may not obtain in likely inference. Thus deduction is fundamentally different from likely inference, not just in kind, but also in reliability. On some special cases considered aboveDirect establishment of fact is a special case of argument (in which inference has zero steps). In intrinsic inference, there is inference from an empty premise (no facts presumed) to a (non-empty) conclusion. Is such an argument possible? An important example will be given: existence of the void will be shown to be certain and necessary. These special cases exhibit arguments where the difference between observation and inference is minimized. Argumentative strengthBoth direct and inference indirect establishment can be certain; and both can be less than certain but good in terms of appropriate criteria or in restricted settings. The certain caseDefinition 37. An argument is valid if the conclusion certainly follows from the premise (a standard approach is step-by-step, via rules of deduction). A valid argument is sound if the premise is true (significant sound arguments are identified, sometimes with just the word ‘sound’). A necessary argument is a certain inference from the empty fact (an important example will be given). The less than certain caseDefinition 38. In the less than certain case, the argument is good if the conclusion likely follows (e.g., with pragmatic certainty) from the premise. A good argument is strong if the argument and premise are likely enough that the conclusion is likely (significant and strong arguments are identified as strong; in absence of such an identifier, the argument is regarded as at least reasonable). Ampliative vs nonampliative argumentDefinition 39. An argument is nonampliative if the conclusions are explicitly or tacitly (e.g., via relations between meanings) already present in the premises (thus deductive inference in mathematics results in theorems that are already at least implicit in the axioms and postulates). In ampliative argument, the conclusions contain essentially new factual material, i.e., material that is not tacit in the premises. {The standard reason for (i) the certainty of deduction is that it is nonampliative (for an omniscient being, deduction would not be necessary for the chain of inference would be transparent to it) (ii) the noncertainty of likely inference is that it is ampliative (of course, the omniscient being would see all patterns and the limits of the regions in which they obtain).} What argument doesArgument synthesizes (i) knowledge (fact) and its establishment (‘method’), (ii) the sciences – abstract (logic, mathematics) and concrete – regarding content and method, and (iii) as will be established later, knowledge, inspiration, and value. Though there is difference, argument (‘method’) and content (fact) are not distinct for (i) discovery and knowledge are part of the world (ii) argument is part of the structure of being (see discussion of being, just below). Language and logicNomenclatureIn formal logic and mathematics, ‘logic’ refers to certain inference. In philosophy, its reference is broader and includes ‘likely inference’. Here, unless otherwise stated, ‘logic’ will refer to certain inference, whose standard modern (western) paradigm is deduction. Laws of logicComment 16. Ponens and tollens. Some fundamental laws of logic are1. The law of identity—each thing is identical to itself, expressed A º A, or that a proposition implies itself. The law has exceptions if A is insufficiently well defined. 2. The law of noncontradiction, encountered earlier, that a proposition cannot be both true and false. As seen earlier, for the law to hold, the proposition must be sufficiently specific. 3. The law of the excluded middle—every proposition is true or false, i.e., there is no third option. Without sufficient discrimination, it is possible for propositions to have some third, e.g., intermediate, truth value or no truth value at all. These ‘laws of logic’ are fundamental to standard logical systems but do not obtain in some nonstandard but useful systems; an example is a system of nonstandard logic for contexts in which some propositions are both true and false (e.g., systems in which such propositions are both, a third truth value ‘b’, and thus, in the system, neither ‘t’ nor ‘f’ (true or false). It is clear that for these ‘laws’, often thought absolute, especially in the past, to obtain, the language being used must be sufficiently precise and if that precision obtains, the laws are trivially true. Standard logicsComment 17. The discussions of logic should be collected together in two main places—a preliminary and a full treatment, with the other discussions being mainly reference to the two main discussions. What we call standard logics here are those for which the fundamental laws obtain, especially the propositional and first order predicate calculi (the syllogisms fall here too). In the propositional calculus, there are propositions or statements, which are one of t or f. There are truth functions. An example is negation. If A is a proposition, its negation, written, ~A, –A (preferred for compound statements), not A, or Ā (preferred). The negation of a statement is false if the statement is true and true if the statement is false. A second truth function is conjunction—if A and B are propositions, AÚB is the proposition ‘A and B’, such that it is true if and only if A and B are true. A third truth function, alternation, AÙB, ‘A or B’ such that it is true if and only if at least one of A and B are true (note this is the ‘logical or’, which is different from ‘or’ as it is usually used in English in which one and only one of the propositions true). These functions are called truth functions because their truth value by and only by the truth values of their components (there is just one component for negation and two for each of conjunction and alternation). The propositional calculus, concerns compound truth functions of propositions. It turns out that all truth functions can be expressed in terms of negation and conjunction or, alternative, in terms of negation and alternation (it further turns out that a single elementary truth function, e.g., the ‘Sheffer stoke’ is sufficient). The essential question here is the requirements on language for the machinery of the propositional calculus to hold. It is first, that we are not concerned with non-logical ‘variables’, such as in mathematics. Second, we are concerned with propositions and their combinations but not in the inner structure of a system of non-compound propositions. Third, the propositions must be either true or false, but not both. Finally, there must be some non-compound propositions. It is a project to clarify and make precise the content of this section and to also consider predicate calculi. ScienceEarly modern thought, typified by Francis Bacon’s ‘Baconian Method’, sought a method of induction that would be as certain as deduction. However, as long as there are unknown patterns in the universe, scientific theories are either strictly local or not known to be universal. Science could be absolute 4. If we had the intellect and capacity to know all things (which might involve having to deal with infinite regress). However, in a universe in which there are unknowns relative to the cognition of limited beings, regardless of whether the universe is limited or finite, not all things are known or knowable. 5. If as in the ideal metaphysics developed later, science were developed as an abstract framework (which suppresses the unknown or, equivalently, focuses on a finite representation via abstraction). A view of the role of knowledge in the worldOne view is that knowledge that (i) we possess knowledge and (ii) it is useful and used toward ends—ends that may be seen as positive, neutral, or negative in terms of value. This view sees knowledge as instrumental (though not necessarily only instrumental). Another view of knowledge is not as a discrete kind of ‘thing’. Rather, it sees the world as a interactive system in which, somehow (e.g. instrumentally or through mutual evolution), the parts of the world bear the marks of other parts which influences mutual process. One of those bearers of the marks of the world is labeled ‘knowledge’. This is an organic and immersive view. BeingsSource or study topic 8.Being—shallow and trivial, yet deep and ineffable. Source or study topic 9.Mereology—What is a whole—are there objective wholes– or is wholeness a matter of object, perception, and of function? Mereology, atomism, and coded wholes. The void or null part the issue of possible contradiction. Source or study topic 10.Existence—https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/. Comment 18. The issue of non-deductive proof where deduction is standard. Being and beingsThe concept of being, its significance, and its subtlety (or otherwise) has been introduced earlier, in the section on being. The concept of ‘a being’ and its plural ‘beings’ was also introduced, which is now taken up in greater detail. Source or study topic 11. Mereology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/). The beings considered here are those used to develop the abstract framework of the real metaphysics developed later. Other beings, especially experiential, peak, and other cosmological beings are taken up later. The universe and its contentsDefinition 40. The universe is all being (meaning all beings as a being; used in this bare sense, the term is ‘universe’; later when it is shown that the universe is limitless, has identity, and confers this power on all beings, ‘Universe’ will be used to refer to “the universe and all beings and their collective identity”). The definition of the universe without reference to kind (e.g., mind, matter) or space and time is critical, for this is essential to its undistorted conception, particularly avoiding the distortions and reductions of kinds, while permitting their emergence as it may arise, whether real or as-if. There is exactly one universe; all (real) beings and (real) kinds are parts of it (sound, from the definition of ‘universe’). What we sometimes call ‘our universe’ or ‘other universes’ is an inappropriate use of the word ‘universe’; instead we shall use the term ‘cosmos’ (below). Examples of kinds are mind, matter, spirit, process, relation, concept, word, trope; of those, whether the kinds that are objective in nature exist is (left) open (such kinds include mind, process, and matter). A proper part of the universe is a being that is not the universe itself; the universe may be considered to be a part of itself but not a proper part (but the distinction between part and proper part is not significant in this development). The universe has parts, which include itself (not regarded as a proper part), other real beings (proper parts), and, if it exists, the empty or ‘null’ part or void (should it exist, it will be a proper part). CosmosesDefinition 41. A cosmos is a causal domain in whose interactions with the rest of universe over the times of concern, are below the threshold of observation including measurement. Our cosmos exists (it is a being). If they exist, other cosmoses are beings (it will be seen that there are limitlessly many cosmoses of limitless variety). LawsDefinition 42. A pattern obtains for a being if the information to specify it is less than the raw information. Definition 43. A law for a being is (our reading of) a pattern (usually of a degree of general applicability and for one or more cosmoses, typically abstract in nature). Laws are beings (sound). The void and its existenceDefinition 44. The void is the being that contains no beings (if it exists, it is an empty being and it contains no laws). That we talk of ‘the void’ rather than ‘a void’ is justified later. For the beings introduced so far, existence was implied in their definition, and it was not necessary to explicitly establish existence. This is not the case for the void. Existence and nonexistence of the void are equivalent (this is not a contradiction, for the meaning of ‘existence’ is different for the void than it is for other beings). This is a central truth of the development (sound—except for doubt). Doubt of this equivalence is natural, even imperative, and taken up in doubt and certainty. The void exists (it is a being; sound if existence of the void is sound). There are no laws of the void (sound, from definitions). Definition 45. A being that is not the void is manifest. An apparent paradoxThe equivalence of its existence and nonexistence is saying that the void exists and does not exist. Is this not paradoxical? The apparent paradox that existence and nonexistence of the void are equivalent—that the void exists and does not exist—may be defused by observing that the meaning of existence for the void should be different than it is for manifest or non-void beings. What is the source of the apparent paradox? It is that for a being ‘x’, to talk of x without a concept of x has meaning. This thought is an immense source of informal confusion and of paradox. There is a confusion regarding questions such as ‘what is metaphysics’ where we expect both history and reason to define what it is. In fact, in the general literature, such confusions may be difficult to avoid. However, in a particular system or work, one ought to define terms, of course to attempt to have the definition be inclusive, but to go with reason—for it is the system that counts more than its ‘atomic’ constituents. Generally to think there is meaning without a concept is to depend on convention, which is almost guaranteed to lack full consistency. There are paradoxes arising from thinking that there is meaning without a concept. One is the paradox of empty reference in which such reference can have any property whatsoever—and thus be, for example, both black and not black, or even color and no color. A second is the paradox of negative existentials – the paradox that to talk of something that does not exist one must assume that it exists (otherwise talk of nonexistence is empty). But, here, existence means that there is a real object that is identified by the concept and nonexistence means that there is no such object. A famous case of this paradox arises in Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God where Anselm argues that ‘a God that is both real and in the mind must be greater than a God that is just in the mind’. The error is that ‘God in the mind’ is not God at all but a concept of God and to join ‘in the mind’ and ‘in the real’ is to make a category error—the error of equating a concept and an object. Just as such confusions and apparent paradoxes are defused via the concept-object concept of meaning, so is the apparent paradox of the existence and nonexistence of the void. Here, we shall here say no more except that simultaneous existence and nonexistence of the void suggests that it grounds the vacuum of quantum field theory. This is further brought out in a long version of this work and below in metaphysics > limitlessness and what follows that chapter. MetaphysicsComment 19. Include limitlessness? Possibility? Everything—i.e., metaphysics began at the beginning, with knowledge and argument? Even the preliminary discussion of meaning raised metaphysical questions. While ‘meta’ often signifies transcendence or self-referentiality, in its origin the term ‘metaphysics’ did not and is not used to signify a relation to physics. However, we will see that some metaphysical study does transcend the sciences. Definition 46. Metaphysics is knowledge and study of the real. Though this definition is explicitly close to that of ontology as the study of being, given the real metaphysics developed below, its applications and the range of what is considered to be metaphysics are implicit in it. Clearly some metaphysical knowledge with a criteria of precise correspondence has been established. The issue of whether this can be extended and according to what criteria is addressed below in the development through the real metaphysics. Source or study topic 12.Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/). The study of metaphysics has already begun with being. Indeed, metaphysical questions and informal discussion have been present from the beginning of the text. In this chapter, we derive the metaphysics of TW, give it explicit formulation, and begin to derive consequences. The possibility of metaphysics has been called into question over the history of thought, but we have just seen the emergence of metaphysical content, beginning with being. The content so far is perfectly faithful – ideal – by abstraction (a sound conclusion). PossibilitySource or study topic 13.Possible worlds and beings—The location of possible worlds. Issue of paradox. Conceptual generation of possible worlds. Metaphysical possibility and necessity. Source or study topic 14.Possible worlds and objects—Possible Worlds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Possible Objects (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The concept of possibilityDefinition 47. Given a concept of a being (entity, event, …), it is possible if nothing rules out its realization (existence). The concept may rule out realization (existence) if (i) the concept is inherently unrealizable (e.g., it is self-contradictory) or (ii) the nature of the universe (or locale of the intended object) rules it out. For the possible to occur cannot be contradictory. However, a description that is intended to be of the possible may be contradictory. For example, let us assume that ‘I am finite’. But if possibility is realized, then it is true that I am limitless. Is there a contradiction? Not if the ‘I’ in the finite case refers to ‘my present form’ while the latter ‘I’ refers to my participation in universal being. That is, the apparent contradiction in ‘I am finite’ and ‘I am limitless’ is not a true contradiction. Conceptual or logical possibilityDefinition 48. If a concept cannot be realized because of its form alone, e.g., an object that is both black and not black, it is impossible in the sense of conceptual impossibility (or logical impossibility). Definition 49. A being whose existence is not ruled out by the concept alone defines conceptual possibility (‘c-possibility) or logical possibility (‘L-possibility), sometimes called subjective possibility (because it is thinkable without contradiction). It is inherent in logical possibility that there is no inconsistency with either experience or within the concept (the seeming contradiction that “it seems logically possible for this world to be other than what it is”, is addressed below). Though ‘consistency’ and ‘no inconsistency’ are different for some uses of ‘possibility’, for logical possibility, they are identical. Definition 50. A maximally expressive language is one that would be capable of describing all logical possibility (note that this does not imply that such a language exists, even if language in discrete signs is enhanced to include the perceivable state of the communicator). If (the concept of) a being is not L-possible, it is not possible (at all). Definition 51. Logical possibility is the boundary of the greatest possibility in the sense that, presuming logic(s) for a maximally expressive language, the being has realized logical possibility has realized all that can be realized. Formal or symbolic language is limited relative to language in use. In use, the symbols are bound to a world of intuition (in the sense of Kant) and therefore language in use, i.e., communication is not (necessarily) just the discrete set of symbols—the symbols communicate part of the being which may be a continuum and are heard because the receiver’s being is similar to that of the communicator. Thus, while (human) natural language is not maximally expressive, formal languages are likely less so. On this account, while limited, beings are incapable of expressing all possibility. Is this an ultimate limitation on human being? Even though our worldly knowledge is not perfect in ordinary senses of perfection, in the real metaphysics, we find a sense in which it is not an ultimate limit. But it is important to see that, while the symbolic has great power (with which we are naturally impressed and perhaps over-impressed) as (i) it is transparent and (ii) can denote but perhaps not entirely represent infinities – continuum and higher, such power is (as seen, e.g., in the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem regarding first order logic) indeterminate. Further symbolic thought is not entirely rooting in being and most likely incomplete. The future movement of our region of being must lie in symbolic and extra-symbolic thought and their join. It is likely that this join should incorporate machine thinking and robots (machine being). If empirical knowledge is what is given by the senses and rational knowledge is what is given by reason, then a claim that the greatest possibility is realized is consistent with the empirical, the rational, and their combination (this is of course not a proof that the greatest possibility is realized). Infinities are not inherently limitless; the limitless is not inherently infinite, but it has or contains (all) infinities. Real possibilityDefinition 53. I If a logically possible being (one whose conception is logically possible) cannot be realized in a world because its form is incompatible with the form of that world, it is impossible in a world, w; if it can be realized there it has possibility in that world, or w-possibility; if that world is the universe, the possibility is u-possibility, i.e., just possibility (other terms for ‘just possibility’ are real possibility, global possibility, ontological possibility; other terms for w-possibility, where ‘w’ is not the universe, are local possibility or relatively real possibility, of which an example is physical possibility—possibility in terms of known physical laws, which may be imperfect; note that these meanings are not universal). L-possibility is a prerequisite for real possibility; real possibility presumes logical possibility. ‘Metaphysical possibility’ is a term whose use in the literature is not well-defined; therefore it will be discussed later in the chapter on metaphysics. Comment 20. Is it helpful to have the definition above. Impossibility and necessityDefinition 54. A being that is not possible is impossible. Definition 55. A being whose nonbeing (nonexistence) is impossible is necessary. Cause and the cause of the universeCausation has many senses, even if we restrict it to the main modern use of (Aristotle’s ‘efficient cause’)—e.g., cause as based in origin (necessary, possible, probable, and random) or cause as reason for being (existence), again (necessary, etc.) Definition 56. A fundamental cause is itself without cause. A being cannot be the fundamental cause of the universe for that would require the being to be without cause or infinite regress. Therefore, the only cause can be modal. However, since possibility is unsatisfactory, the only satisfactory cause of the universe would be necessity—which will be demonstrated to be the case. However, if such a cause is causation over time, it would seem to be contradicted that there is no necessity to a chain of events (generally) and therefore the fundamental cause of interest is cause of the universe over all time and space as a whole (or more generally over all coordinates of difference; which may be called the scotus universe, after the conception of Duns Scotus). We now see that the cause of the Scotus Universe can only be necessity and the fundamental principle confirms that this can indeed be seen to be the cause of the (Scotus) universe. The range of possibilityThe discussion of possibility above is the concept of possibility; we are also interested in the range or extension of possibility. It is convenient to take this up later, in the significant universe, after establishing that the universe is limitless in the sense of limitlessness that emerges below. LimitlessnessThe limitlessness of being and the universeComment 21. Add discussion on ‘God’ from, reserve notes.docm and other documents, e.g., the little manual.html (../2022/theway/little%20manual.html) and combine it with the discussion of peaking and God in robust worlds. Since there has been no assumption in making this conclusion, absolute necessity is the cause of the universe (sound, given existence of the void). This resolves (what Heidegger called) the fundamental problem of metaphysics, i.e., why there is being at all, i.e., why there is something rather than nothing. The limitlessness of all beings also follows from the identity of a being with the being-and-the-void (the implied identity of all beings is an apparent contradiction, which is resolved in that it holds on sufficiently large time scales or, alternatively, at a level of description above time). This is not a contradiction, for, as will be seen, individuals (i) transcend birth and death (ii) merge in realizing the greatest possibility (a sound conclusion). Greatest does not mean ‘best’ but it includes the best. It does not mean absence of pain or a promise of eternal heaven or nirvana but it does mean that there will be peaks of being as well as destruction. It does not mean that better and best are given but it does mean that realization must be ‘worked’ for. It does not mean that every limited region will realize ultimates within its boundaries but it does mean that it will realize ultimates in transcending those boundaries, which is best achieved by beings working intelligently working toward the ultimate with integrity and care. Alternative demonstrations of limitlessnessReaders are likely to doubt the demonstration of limitlessness above. To improve understanding and strengthen confidence, we provide alternative demonstrations (doubt is further addressed, in doubt and certainty). 1. Either the universe enters a void state or it does not. If it does not, it is eternal, and in eternity, given that at least one possibility occurs (our world), by symmetry, all possibilities occur (but in this case, the universe does enter the void state, which is contradictory, and so rules out not entering the void state, which is true but not instrumental in this demonstration). If it does enter the void state, the void exists, and the earlier demonstration of limitlessness goes through. Note that in terms of many extant concepts of existence, the void does not exist. But here, again, we find that the void exists. However, if we give weight to the extant concepts, then there is an apparent contradiction, noted earlier, that the void exists and does not. What is the resolution of this apparent contradiction. One resolution in the philosophical literature is that there are true contradictions (called dialetheia). However, I have argued, in dialetheia, that many, if not all, such seeming dialetheia are defused by introducing specificity of meaning. A trivial case is “it is raining and is not raining” which is resolved if the first ‘is’ refers to one place and the ‘is not’ to another. The present situation is more subtle. The standard meaning of ‘existence’ must be broadened from its reference to manifest being to include nonmanifest being, which is necessitated by the demonstrated potency of the void (note, by the way, that under standard causal paradigms, potential is a ‘thing’, but this is and need not be the case for the potential of the void). Note that this broadening of the concept of existence is already implicit in the earlier definition of a being as the real reference of a referential concept. 2. The universe and the void are eternal. In eternity, the above symmetry argument goes through. Necessity is the ‘cause’ of the universe. The foundation of the being of or ultimate of the universe in another being is unsatisfactory as it requires that being to be without cause or there to be infinite regress. Further, a contingent cause, whatever it may be, cannot be a satisfactory foundation. The above demonstrations provide a resolution to the issue of the ultimate cause of the universe. Truth 10. The rational foundation of the being of and cause of the universe is necessity. Some significant consequencesComment 22. Following is one core of a ‘center-out’ approach to presentation. All beingsAnd every cosmos is as-if an atom in another and every cosmos contains as-if atoms that are cosmoses. The realization of peaks by all beings is not a contradiction, for they merge as one in the peaks. And while particular manifestations may be limited, limitlessness, which is potential in the background, is realized in the ‘sum’ of the manifestations. Does emergence as peak require an eternity? Perhaps, but even if so, in the diffuse state between death and birth, whether of a person, a world, or a cosmos, eternity is as-if an instant (and the life of a cosmos is an instant in eternity). We might speculate that despite pleasure, pain, and striving, all forms of life that we know, including ourselves, have both significance and triviality relative to the peaks. One visualization of our cosmos is as ‘immense beyond comprehension’ and therefore of the universe as ‘incomprehensible incomprehensibility. However, given the limitlessness of periods of potential existence, that visualization is but one perspective. The relatedness, oneness, and all is here and now, of the universe and its beings resides in – is potentiated by – the limitlessness of the void. On perfection, pleasure, and painTruth 18. In most received senses of ‘perfection’ there is no final perfection. Pain, doubt, and pleasure are inevitable. Effective attitudes toward perfection, pleasure, pain, and doubt, are in sharing, mutual support, and pleasure in being on a path of realization, addressed further in pathways. The universeTruth 19. The cause of the manifest universe is necessity (sound). What is the edge of the known universe? It has an edge in duration and extension. There is another edge which has to do with strength of interaction, which is everywhere. The voidKnowledgeWe begin and will continue to see, especially later in consequences of the metaphysics that the limit of knowledge and of the universe are identical, i.e., that of logical possibility. This constitutes a framework for ultimate knowledge, which is ultimate in depth but ever open for breadth or variety (as long as the knowers are limited beings; sound). Living in two worldsComment 23. Placement? The two worldsThus, we live in two worlds in the following sense. We live in the world of ‘ordinary’ experience (the big bang). But we also live in a larger world—the universe—which is real, which we do not necessarily see, but which we can know by rational thought. Living in two worlds as oneA part of the difficulty of this view is the contrast between the two views. One may overcome this difficulty by (i) accepting the difficulty (ii) living with it (iii) becoming accustomed to it (iv) to the point where the two views merge and we no longer habitually resort to one or the other (v) living in light of the immediate and the ultimate as one as a guide to life in this world and life beyond death, birth, and finitude. An ideal metaphysicsDefinition 57. Limitlessness defines a perfect and ideal metaphysics (the perfection is in the sense of perfect faithfulness of the metaphysics as concept to the universe as object, which follows from fp, is illustrated above, and whose developed into full-fledged account of being, the universe, its beings, and their changes, in what follows). In greater detail, from the perfection in the abstraction in the concept of being, there is a perfect and ideal metaphysics, a framework, summarized – the universe is the realization of the greatest possibility, which gives us an ultimate value, realization of the greatest possibility. Real metaphysicsDefinition 58. When the ideal metaphysics is adjoined to at least pragmatically valid knowledge, what results is named the real metaphysics (TM)or just the metaphysics. Truth 21. Though TM is not perfectly faithful in entirety, the framework remains faithful. Further, it is the best that limited (human) beings have, and as a practical instrument toward ultimate knowledge and realization, it is perfect relative to the value of realization. TM is a dynamic unity, for the ideal side illuminates and guides the pragmatic while the pragmatic illustrates and is an instrument for the ideal. That is, the criterion for TM is dual—epistemic perfection and valuational (ethical and aesthetic). Alternatively, we may see metaphysics, epistemology, and value theory as an integral whole. TM implies existence of all possibility and possible worlds which may have temporary but not permanent isolation. Are all possible worlds of the same significance? This is taken up in the sections on metaphysical possibility through the significant universe. Metaphysical possibilityDefinition 59. By metaphysical possibility, we understand (i) ‘what may occur under a system of metaphysics’ or (ii) what may occur under conditions of realism, e.g., whether an unembodied mind is possible. If one accepts (say) physics as determining what is real, then the systems of metaphysical possibility #i and physical possibility are the same. Under TM the metaphysics, metaphysical possibility, logical possibility, and (metaphysical) reality are the same. The interest in metaphysical possibility #ii is that it distinguishes reasonable from the most inclusive possibility. In this work the topic has been explored, imaginatively and with input from world literature. Systematic development of reasonable possibility is an ongoing project. Robust worldsDefinition 60. A robust world or cosmos is one that is significant because it has an adequate combination of endurance in time, beings capable of cognitive experience, and causal ability to register in experience. By contrast, a bizarre world, is transient, does not register significantly in the experience of experiential beings. And a bizarre explanation is a non-standard ‘explanation’ of the existence of a robust world that seems to rob it of significance, e.g., that our world came into existence a moment ago complete with apparent history and memories. Via inclusion of pragmatic knowledge, the real metaphysics incorporates all valid (human) knowledge. This inclusion suggests that while many possible worlds are transitory and do not register strongly in experience, our world—the world of common experience—is likely robust (but not eternal) in endurance. While robust worlds may be statistically infrequent, they are the most commonly experienced (a strong conclusion). Though we may not peak in this cosmos, it is certain that, in diffusion, we are part of peak process (also strong). Though imperfection in cognition suggests the impossibility of perfect metaphysics or pragmatic metaphysics of the ultimate, both have been demonstrated. In the robustness of our world we are part of peak process – on the way to peaking – for a robust concept of ‘god’ is a process and peaking that is the world or worlds and is neither alien in kind nor remote in extension and duration, i.e., space and time (a strong conclusion). The significant universe*The range of possibilityIntroductionHere we are interested in the range or extension of possibility (in contrast to the intension or concept of possibility), i.e., the range of what things are possible. If we are interested in what may occur in the universe, the range of possibility is of interest. We have found that the universe is limitless in the sense that the greatest possibility is realized—that is, the range of possibility is what is realized. That is, the range of possibility specifies the universe. What is the range of possibility in its greatest senseIt is what is allowed by logic. The reference below has three approaches to specifying the range that do not meet the full range. Source or study topic 15.Possible Worlds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). A full approach would require a ‘full logic’, which may be specified intensionally as (after study of limitlessness below) ‘in principle specification of what exists’. An extensional specification is beyond the scope of limited beings. We may say (after study of limitlessness) that logic (argument) and theory of being are one. It seems reasonable to assert that the greatest or logically possible cannot be specified constructively by limited beings. The approach adopted in what follows emphasizes what is qualitative. GenerationSignificant worlds are most often generated by ‘standard mechanisms’ described later, in development of the categories and cosmology. The significant universeThe significant universe is robust and experienced by sufficiently capable beings, such that it has significance to them. This would eliminate ‘bizarre’ worlds and bizarre explanations of our world, e.g., it came Doubt and certaintyOn certaintyIt was observed in discussing argument, that certainty is not always possible; and we have seen that it is not always desirable (and this is amplified below). Doubt and its useDefinition 62. To doubt is to question what is accepted as or potentially true including reasons for the acceptance. Doubt is a prerequiste to degree of certainty (whether absolute or not), and to seeing whether there are absolute foundations for knowledge and ground for being (this would be idle, were it not for the fact that we have developed such foundation and are in the process of developing ground). General doubtUnquestioning certainty of any degree is a recipe for ignorance and error. Therefore, doubt is an essential phase of knowledge acquisition. Further, action under doubt is often an efficient existential stance. The Way of Being: doubtDoubt in TWB arises (i) in the arguments, e.g., the existence and properties of the void (ii) the magnitude of the conclusions and imperative to question them (iii) and, as seen shortly, for the power of entertaining doubt relative to knowledge as hypothesis and existential stance. The Way of Being: response to doubtThe following, which are not fully exclusive, are effective options— 1. As a preliminary, to note that in the development of TWB, it was doubt about the canons of human knowledge—method and content—that led to the emergence of, first, IM, and then TM, and their ongoing refinement. 2. Given internal and empirical consistency of fp, to regard it as a hypothesis about the real (world)—and, so, for metaphysics. 3. To, therefore, consistently see fp as an ‘existential hypothesis’ as guide to and framework for living. 4. Therefore, to employ fp as a guide to (pathways to) realization (of the ultimate in, for, and from the world). 5. To acknowledge that doubt and certainty are not exclusive. 6. To see fp and TWB as ground for being as just noted and further developed in pathways. 7. To reject fp and be on one’s way in the world. Topics in metaphysics and philosophyThis material is placed in knowledge / world. Experience as universal and in detailIn this division, we extend the earlier conception (definition) of experience to all being, explain what the extension means, show of the extension, and describe the form of experience. Then, experience is shown to be fundamental to (i) our being, (ii) (as-if) mind, matter, space, time, property, and, cause (iii) realization. The concept of experience extended to all beingThe fundamental nature of experience and reasons for its deferred treatmentThe concept of experience is implicitly present in talking of being even if experience is not explicitly mentioned. Thus, to say “Being is the property of that which is”, ‘that which is’ has not even meaning unless it is the sign for a concept which occurs in experience. If explicit treatment with extension came before metaphysics, it would have to be reworked. How shall we extend the concept of experience?The plan for the extension is as follows. The definition is not proof. We shall demonstrate extension of the concept of experience, explain its meaning, and relate it to consciousness – the phenomenon and its phenomenality – as understood in the philosophical literature (better: see consciousness-as-we-have-it as a region within experience-extended). Let us now execute this plan. Meaning and justification of the extensionIn strict materialism (everything is matter and mind – consciousness, awareness – are excluded from the domain of matter), there can be no ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’ (which discloses that the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ is really an ‘impossible problem’). The only resolution must involve seeing that strict materialism, while it could obtain in an inert cosmos, cannot obtain in our cosmos and that experience is an essential part of the world. Now, we have seen that the contour form of experience is experience-of – experiential-relation – the-experienced. And that can be written subject (mind-like) – relation – object (matter-like). In other words a possible description of the real as disclosed is that of an experiential field within which there is mind – relation – matter (all terms in a limited sense). Therefore, by TM, it is a true (though not exclusively true) description of the universe. That is— Within that field mind and matter are neither denied nor asserted but there are domains in which there are as-if mind and as-if matter in (experiential) relation, which is an as-if material-causal relation. There is experience; and it is known by there being experience of experienceWithout experience of experience, there could be no real talk of it. In terms to be introduced below, while experience is the mark of a subject, it also presents as object. We are
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PRIORITY | Date(s) – default = daily |
MENU OF ACTIVITIES and details |
TIMES, SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
FIRST THINGS and ALL DAY |
||
|
Set attitude | All day |
See / correct for negative messaging, attitude – via yoga… |
|
|
First things |
Affirm, dedicate / review: day / life priorities // rise, coffee, breakfast / set activity times / mail / open computer files |
|
|
|
|
|
|
REALIZATION – The Way of Being (F = foundation, T = transformation, becoming, SS = society and sharing) |
||
|
Write, edit site, publish |
|
|
|
T – general |
Yoga sustaining the way through doubt, living the way, tech-real exploration: mind / body / space |
|
|
T – nature | 3x/yr, 4 wk+ |
Travel – immersion in nature as contact with the real and as inspiration. |
|
|
T, SS – general |
At home and work—local to global politics, economics; relationships; work and school |
|
|
T, SS – immerse | 3x/yr, 4 wk+ |
Travel – exploring different cultures for their ways – knowledge and practice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE DAY |
||
|
Tasks, lunch | Daily + 1 d/wk for main tasks + schedule major tasks |
Tasks—cleaning, self-care, bills and taxes, mail, shopping, cooking, lunch |
|
|
Ground—safety, security, community |
Finance, place (mind, nature, society, universal inspiration), health and diet, discipline – routine, arrange / minimize home, property, documents |
|
|
Yoga and related practice |
Yoga, action, exercise, exploration – 2 hours+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EVENING and SLEEP |
||
|
Review, tasks |
Plan next day, be disciplined, shower, supper |
|
|
Networking and sharing |
Contacts electronic / physical—develop, maintain |
|
|
Activities |
Entertainment, home or evening out /reflection on the pathway (the way of being) / both |
|
|
Meditation, sleep |
What has been accomplished, what is needed. Calming before sleep or if waking during the night – combined with yoga postures and stretching |
|
Comment 19. To be overhauled.
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.
For a system of (human) knowledge based in the real metaphysics, see a system of knowledge.
For social action, see challenges and opportunities.
For sources, see (my) reading, my influences, and main influences.
Source or study topic 1.Francis Bacon (“Salomon's House”) (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
The purpose and foci may be—
It would be effective to have an institute with members with knowledge of a range of the different aspects of The Way of Being. They would interact in such a way that it would promote (i) the way as a whole (ii) individual disciplines. There would be support, e.g., for funds, administration, and publication. There may be a physical building or, alternatively, networked interaction.
Thus far, the idea of an institute has not gotten beyond a conceptual stage. However, planning shall be part of the example that follows.
Subject expertise, support (e.g., web design), action, power of sharing and teaming.
The theoretical background and consequences.
Select disciplines that contribute to The Way of Being.
The realm and range of the possible.
Ways of realization—traditional, new, and synthesis. Immersion in The Way of Being.
World problems and opportunities (see the resources).
Ethics and meaning.
Publications—examples:
1. A manual of health.
Above.
To be undertaken as part of immersion in being and the world after completing the essential and informal versions of The Way of Being.
Review of concept (the section on ‘An institution’).
Search further external sources.
Review and planning of the elements of design.
Central location and building vs distributed and virtual.
Funding—preliminary and beyond.
Needs—establishment (information, production).
Needs—human research and leadership, other administrative, support.
Having reflected on our place and trajectory in the universe, while acting out and upon these reflections, we return to focus on action and transformation, emphasizing the immediate, the ultimate, and their mesh. Return is a complement to Part 1. Into the way of being. Here, there is an emphasis on a place of quiet, contemplation, and reflection on what is essential. However, it is not a final place. Rather, it is part of a cyclic process, and from ‘return’, we may begin again from the beginning or at any point in the cycle of our individual and social life. ‘Return’ is also looking inward, so as to more effectively act in the world.
Having reflected on our place and trajectory in the universe, we return to focus on action and transformation, emphasizing the immediate, the ultimate, and their mesh.
The return is a complement to Part 1. Into the way of being—the difference is one of emphasis… ‘into’ emphasized ideas, here we emphasize action and looking outward, beyond our temporal being.
We are the ultimate even – especially – when we do not see it. Our work, if we choose it, is to see and realize the ultimate in sharing, while attending to immediate ground, informed by our new understanding.
Focus – interaction and conversation among living in the immediate, community, and realization under The Way of Being. A time of living in the present, for the present as (if it is) ultimate. The foci include foundation (ideas, writing, publishing) and becoming (realization; attention to the categories of nature, society, psyche, and the universal; unition (yoga); sharing).
Action – the categories, with emphasis on immersion.
Publishing – see universal narrative, below.
Perception – seeing the world as it is, in balance with the lens of concepts.
Retreat and renewal – for sustenance of attitude and immersion in a path to the ultimate—as the occasion arises and annual or biannual.
Places – home; extended nature and culture travel for immersion, renewal, and ad hoc and other inspiration in the moment
Synthesis – It is of value to have a synthesis of the history of thought. In doing so individuals have been important, especially because some thinkers are occasions for fundamental advance. However, it is also useful to focus on ideas.
The status of the literature of ideas – Today we refer back to thinkers about 2500 years ago, that is, to the earliest written words in philosophy. What if, instead, there were 10,000, 100,000, or 1 million years of written history? In formulating philosophical thought, would it be required to refer to all important thinkers of the last million years? If philosophical thought continues for another, say, 10,000 years would not referring back, become an impediment to new thought?
What is required – Some of the seminal thinkers of the future will be summarizers and synthesizers. They will capture the essences of thousands of years of philosophy. This will make for productive new, thinking. This will, of course, not prevent any thinker from referring to the detailed record (and perhaps some kind of systematic databases will be available to help minimize the labor of back referral).
Writing and updating the narrative shall be an ongoing and shared project.
1. Sharing is an intrinsic (community) value in being and becoming; sharing will address the problems of limited time and expertise of a single writer.
2. The problem of coherence and inspiration will be addressed by a team under inspired leadership.
3. For The Way of Being – continued development, publication, advertising, sharing, and realization.
Synthesis – the history of ideas and endeavor rewritten, perhaps once a generation or at cultural paradigm shifts, as a single and evolving text (and oral and ideational tradition). The synthesis will be concept rather than person centered.