2. Is the logic of the Theory of being based in the void valid? (I shall call this logic / Theory ‘the Theory.’) The logic has been demonstrated to be valid. Regarding the demonstration, I have various doubts. These include the validity of the definitions (in the evolution of axiomatic systems, it may be seen that the structure of such systems, including the basic objects, the definitions, the postulates / axioms are not as arbitrary as is often thought to be the case) that I use, classical problems of logic regarding words (quantifiers) such as ‘everything,’ traditional problems regarding the concept of ‘being,’ the idea that logic is deduction or argument from premises to conclusions and the fact that here there appear to be conclusions but no premise, and, finally, the apparent contradiction with science and common sense. The apparent contradiction may continue to lurk in semi-consciousness and this is why I chose to first discuss this apparent contradiction with science (and common sense)

As noted above, there is no contradiction with science. What are thought to be necessities of science and common sense are regularities of experience, sometimes encapsulated in theories and laws, but are not necessities of being. I have introduced the concept of the ‘normal’ to conceptualize the distinction. This (our) cosmological system is a normal system: it is ‘normal’ within our experience. The evolution of the cosmological system and of life are normal but not necessary mechanisms. Note that ‘normal’ includes the idea of probability but is not limited to it. Just as probability estimates may be conditional on our knowledge so is the normal. As science and other disciplines expand, what was thought to be impossible or improbable may become normal or probable

Most of the other doubts are treated in the essays and in some cases they are resolved by pointing to confusions in traditional thought and by simultaneously introducing clarification which is often made possible by eliminating the burden of obligation to invariably think in established terms and by thinking in terms of the relations among concepts instead of thinking of concepts in relative isolation which tends to reduce to intelligent and stylized sophistication

However, it is interesting to here address the problem that there are conclusions but no premises (a happier problem than the one of having premises but no conclusions.) The resolution is simple: there are premises but they are so common as to be almost transparent. The primary premise is that there is being; which point could be debated if the reader were to insist upon debate but the debate itself would provide a counter-example to any claim that there is not being; it would then be possible to take the debate into the realm of sophistication with a question as to the meaning of being but this is immediately countered: ‘being’ is sufficiently basic that its meaning is not given by analysis but by recognition: ‘being,’ for the present and preliminary purpose, is my name for our presence in the universe (it is not necessary to repeat here the extensive analysis of being of the essays. There are valid considerations of sophistication that arise in relation to analytic concerns with ‘being’ and ‘existing’ and these have been treated and reduced in the essays where I have attempted to go beyond mere analysis and address the real character of being)

Secondary premises arise as follows. Consideration of being, universe, void and logic (logos,) the tetrad of basic concepts of the Theory of Being as I have developed it, leads to general and powerful conclusions but does not provide grounds for discrimination and detail, e.g., was there a rising from the dead about 2000 years ago on this earth, in Israel, or was there not. The Theory of Being does not discriminate even though common sense, science and faith each has something to say on the issue. Combined with the secondary premise of common sense, the Theory of Being shows the possibility but improbability of the event. Perhaps I should say the probability of the improbability; this leaves room for ignorance and absence of unnecessary arrogance. Thus, the Theory is, apparently, unkind to faith but not completely unkind for many who are faithful continue on in faith even though they may harbor in the shade of their consciousness thoughts of the improbability and the possible impossibility of their views. The Theory eliminates the need to contemplate the impossibility of such views except when a violation of logic is entailed. The Theory even makes rational the occasional non-literal interpretations (this does not necessarily provide solace to the faithful or discomfort to the rational minded) such as: the rising from the dead points to our ignorance of the nature of death and ultimate reality. However, the Theory goes beyond that and asserts not only ignorance (of detail) but the actuality of ‘identity beyond death’ and the infinite variety of the real

Further secondary premises are found in the academic disciplines, the disciplines of the mystic and the shaman, and common experience which together with the Theory provide mutual illumination and enhancement. Far from being vague claims, these theses are developed in detail in the documents of the http://www.horizons-2000.org site… continue