Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
JOURNEY IN BEING
MOTTO: DISCOVERY AND EXPERIENCE OF LIMITLESS BEING
CONTENTS
WRITING 14
Goals and means 14
Narrative goals 14
Means 14
Goals of this outline 14
Immediate 15
Write outline 15
Lexicon 15
Decisions 15
Decide web format 15
Long term—parallel to action 16
1
OUTLINE 16
Preface 16
Functions 16
Prerequisite to the narrative 17
On simplicity 18
In explanation 18
In this work 19
Overview 25
The narrative center 25
Significance of the metaphysics 26
Process of discovery 26
A journey in being 26
The role of being 28
The pictures of nature 28
Significance 28
Three narrative foci 30
First focus—destiny and civilization 30
Second focus—a new universal metaphysics 30
2
Third focus—journey of realization 31
Approach 31
The main divisions 32
Preface 32
Introduction 32
Prologue 32
Foundation 32
Metaphysics 32
Journey 33
The way ahead 33
Notes from the edge 33
Epilogue 33
Lexicon, sources and index 33
Reading the narrative 33
Meanings of the terms 34
The nature of the foundation 35
Introduction 35
Origin and significance 35
3
Inspiration 36
Outline 36
Prologue 36
Significance of a worldview or cosmology 36
The standard cosmologies and their limits 37
Two kinds of world view 37
Secular views 37
Trans-secular views 38
Limits of the standard modern views 39
Bridging the divide; going beyond 40
Metaphysics as bridge; and as going beyond 41
Criticisms of metaphysics so far and their refutation 42
Metaphysics and experience 43
Metaphysics of the late twentieth and the twenty first centuries 43
Metaphysics and system 43
The metaphysics of this narrative; its nature, dimensions, and significance 44
Possibility and givenness of metaphysics 47
4
Foundation 48
Being 49
Definition and fact of being 49
The concept of metaphysics 49
Pure and applied metaphysics 49
Being and the verb to be 49
Existence 50
Power of the idea of being 50
Preliminary 50
Identifying the source of power: neutrality and therefore inclusivity 50
Leveraging the neutrality 51
Power of the idea of being—some details 51
Possibility. Actual, possible, and impossible being 52
Anticipation of the outcome regarding possibility 54
Preliminary on space and time 55
On other analyses of Being 56
Comments on substance 57
Experiential being 58
5
Experience 60
Definition and existence of experience 61
Objections 62
Another meaning of ‘experience’ 64
The nature of experience 64
The real world 65
The real world—Wittgenstein’s arguments 65
On doubt 66
Depth of the concept of experience is far from plumbed so far 67
On clarification of experience 68
Experience on its own terms 68
Being and experience 69
First comments on mind 71
Meaning and language 73
Sense and reference 73
Concept and object 74
Meaning, signs, language, and grammar 74
Foundation of meaning 75
6
Metaphysics 76
Universe 77
Laws 78
The Void 78
The Universal Metaphysics 79
The metaphysics in terms of limitlessness 79
Meaning of limitlessness 79
Doubt 82
Significance and validity 82
Significance 82
Validity 82
Meaning of the metaphysics 83
Realism and Logic 83
On proof and interpretation 84
Knowledge and freedom 84
Objects 85
Knowledge 85
Method 86
7
On rationality 86
Science and the sciences 88
Logic 88
Objects 88
Epistemology 88
Metaphysics 88
Pure and practical knowledge 88
Science 89
Faith 89
Individual and identity 89
Identity 89
Individual 89
God 89
Cosmology 92
General cosmology 93
Extensive and intensive variables 93
Pre-extensive realm of absent to limited identity 93
Identity and variable 93
8
Extensive and intensive variables 93
Intensive variables and quality 93
Extensive variables 93
Being, space, and time 93
Descriptive cosmology 94
Physical cosmology 94
Life 94
Mind 95
Creation 95
Realism extended 95
Mathematics 95
A Perfect, Unique, and Ultimate Metaphysics 95
Metaphysics and action 95
Critical evaluation 95
Journey 96
Nature of the journey 96
Engagement 96
Civilization and realization 96
9
A way of realization 96
World 97
The essence of being in the world 98
Some practical dimensions 98
Challenges and opportunities 98
Politics and economics 98
Ultimate 98
Transience and arrival 99
The way ahead 99
Function 99
Wide-angle view 99
Way of life 99
Sustaining 99
Planning 100
Transformation 100
Sustaining 100
Time frame—ongoing 100
Daily Practice 100
10
Sustaining activities 101
Planning 102
Time frame—immediate and ongoing 102
Design, planning, and review 102
Principles 102
Overview of plans 103
Ideas 103
Time frame—parallel to and after transformation 104
The metaphysics, its foundation and development 104
Science and symbolic systems 104
Knowledge database: principles and development 105
Foundations of physical cosmology 105
Foundations of ethics and value 105
Individual and identity 105
Time frame—2014… 106
Ideas—ways of transformation 106
General aspects 106
Ways and catalysts 106
11
Elements of the ways 106
Sustaining 107
Synthesis 107
Examples for study and experiment 107
Ideas—catalysts of transformation 108
Types of altered and enhanced state 109
Enhancing and Inducing Factors 109
Goals 109
Experiments 110
Preliminary 110
Nature 110
Culture and civilization 110
Risk 110
Civilization 110
Time frame—2014… 111
Ideas—world studies 111
Ideas—civilization and realization 111
Disciplines 111
Approach 112
12
This world 112
Civilization of the universe 112
Artifact 112
Time frame—2014… 112
Ideas—symbolic and experimental being in realization 112
General considerations 113
Adjunct to civilizing the universe 113
After achievements in transformation 113
Notes from the edge 114
Time frame—transformation 114
Function 114
Versions 114
Epilogue 114
Prospect 115
The author 115
Invitation 115
Lexicon, sources and index 115
Words 115
13
Sources 117
Index 117
WRITING
GOALS AND MEANS
Narrative goals
Communicate the journey—fact and way of limitlessness for the limited.
Write for power—to influence an audience ranging over the narrative’s
conceptual, practical, and destiny orientations. I.e. to be effective and motive the
core should be discursive and feeling.
Means
The main divisions
Arrangement of the divisions in chapters, sections, sub-sections and content in
essentials, exposition, and explanations.
Goals of this outline
Refine. Telescopic design. Appropriate axiomatic treatment.
14
Minimize. Work with this document toward brevity central statements.
January 18, 2014: use story.html; may eliminate toward brevity.
IMMEDIATE
Write outline
Focus on essence, significance, and validity including simplified epistemology
Consider reading comprehension use.
Lexicon
Work on lexicon.
Decisions
Pictures—comments at specific pictures on connection with specific inspiration
Tables of contents—one or more. If more then multiple according to emphasis
andor level of detail.
Covers—appeal, inform, and sell—review this, other texts: academic and general
Preliminary pages—careful design for appearance and content. Review this,
other texts: academic and general
15
Decide web format
TOC’S—inner-outer; conceptual-practical-human (being-civilization-destiny-
realization); essential-explanation-exposition; for sequential and ‘random’ access
to the content window
Content files—a sequence of files according to the TOC categories and placed in
a secondary folder
LONG TERM—PARALLEL TO ACTION
Find and work with an editor / or co-writer.
Keep notes. Setup a Weblog that can be maintained from anywhere.
OUTLINE
PREFACE
Because I intend to write a book, I use ‘book’ to refer to the web and print
versions.
Functions
The preface is not an introduction. An introduction is placed in the main text.
The functions of this preface and their motives are as follows.
16
While Journey in Being draws on many sources across the world, its intent is
discovery and realization of the place of being in the universe. It contains much
that is new, especially a core demonstrated worldview. The newness will be
conceptual and intuitive. Breadth of content is necessarily great and includes
conceptual, practical, and human interest.
Consequently it will be useful to tell the reader what the narrative is about, to
anticipate difficulties peculiar to the subject of the narrative, and to make
suggestions on how to read it. These are the functions of this preface.
I will begin the process of information by stating that the scope of the narrative is
not limited to exposition. It hopes to encourage action but there is no formula ‘if
you follow certain steps there is a guaranteed and great outcome’; that is not the
way of action in the world. The reader is shown a way but the way is that of
forging rather than following.
Prerequisite to the narrative
The ideas are developed starting from ordinary language. All precise
developments—science, philosophy, and other—must begin that way. ‘Ordinary
language’ as used here, however, is not a minimal vocabulary and grammar. Our
languages are always changing as a result of creativity and in response to
changing circumstances and contexts. This is part of ordinary language. In a
sense, therefore, the technical disciplines do not get out of the realm of the
ordinary. But in using the phrase ‘ordinary’ I emphasize what is non-technical.
17
There is, therefore, no special technical prerequisite. However maturity and
openness will be helpful to understanding.
On simplicity
In explanation
It is sometimes said that if you understand something you can explain it simply.
That, I believe, is a half truth. It is a given that good explanation depends on
clarity, organization, attention to what is fundamental, appropriate detail, and
illustration. Understanding is necessary for this but not sufficient.
Certainly, if you understand your subject well enough you can explain the ideas
at a level appropriate to a range of audiences. In doing so you should convey the
power of your subject.
However we have not yet conveyed the meaning of ‘simple’. Regarding
simplicity, some comments are appropriate. First, understanding is not passive
and whatever the level it will require some effort from the listener. Conveying
the power may require a re-education of intuition; this is one place that may
require effort from the listener; here, an effort required from the speaker is to
anticipate the problem of intuition and to effectively direct and assist the
listener’s efforts. This shows that there is a difference between understanding and
conveying; between original work and teaching. Often, the best teachers are not
the best original workers: because original work requires a set of attitudes and
talents that are not identical to those required for teaching, and then because in
18
not having exceptional talent for original work the teacher may be in a better
position to empathize with the student. Second, and related to the first, ‘simple’
and ‘easy’ are not the same. And, third, conveying power is not sufficient to
conferring the power of the subject. The latter may require real work and even
talent from the listener.
There is a way to work around the problems the student faces in learning a new
subject, especially one that involves both conceptual and technical difficulty.
This way is reflected in education where the same subject may be presented at a
number of levels. In this way the student’s intuition and technical ability may
develop in interaction.
In this work
Here, the approach to metaphysics from the concept of being is essentially
simple. It is most certainly and obviously simpler than the idealist approach. It is
not so clear that it is simpler than an approach from materialism, for is not matter
ultimately simple and is not the notion of being shrouded in mystery? This two
part question requires a two-part answer. Matter seems but is not ultimately
simple because it requires clarification of the nature of matter which, though it
may appear so, is not simple. It appears simple because I may have the thought
that matter is what I feel and touch—matter is most immediate. However, though
we can specify the nature of matter roughly, its fundamental nature has not yet
been given any final form: perhaps our most accurate description of matter comes
from physics but physics is neither complete nor perfectly precise. Perhaps
19
physics over and above experience is not necessary—perhaps our immediate
experience and careful reflection is the key to the nature of matter but perhaps
not. In not insisting on specific ‘kinds’ right in the beginning, we allow
clarifications of these issues to emerge rather than be artificially forced.
Thus the use of the term matter as a practical term for many day to day concerns
is pragmatic. However, the use of the same term as a description of what is
ultimately real is a metaphor. And if matter is metaphorical then idealism with its
positing of another world is further removed from what we know to be real than
is matter—idealism is a metaphor built upon a metaphor.
Now consider the mystery regarding being. Certainly many discussions of being
seem to contain mystery. If I use ‘being’ to refer to the essential thing of the
universe or the essence of a person then there are two immediate difficulties—
they are the meaning and content of essence. If I articulate in some depth what I
think a person is I still face two concerns—whether my articulation is an
adequate description (content) and whether—even if it is an adequate description
—it does in fact describes the essence, the very being, of the person (meaning).
In this narrative I will give a simple definition of being and ask the reader to
consider all else that has been written on being to not belong explicitly to my
definition. If the reader then asks what things have being on my meaning of the
term my response is that this requires careful reflection and analysis which is one
of the tasks of this book. I am not going to say that all else that has been written
is irrelevant to my definition but, instead, I do say that the relevance of other uses
of the term being is an open issue—one that I do not need to specify up front, one
20
that is open to discovery. However, even though the other uses may contribute to
the richness of the present development they are not necessary to it. Thus it is not
essential to the present work to consider alternative uses of ‘being’. Therefore, it
is not my primary intent to see what may be learned from other work—my
approach to other meanings of being will be casual. That said, I should add that
my reading on metaphysics and being has been broad and it is only after reading
and analysis that I can say with some confidence that it need not be my primary
and immediate systematic intent to see what further consequences other writing
on being may have for this work.
The definition that I shall give will be simple and will point simply, clearly, and
precisely to empirical content. Though simple, grasping the significance of my
definition may not be easy precisely because it will be neutral to our common
materialist and idealist and other modes of thinking. It may seem as though there
is nothing in my concept of being gives us an intuitive handle on it. But this is
good because it is this very neutrality that will emerge as a source of power and
as a place from which both valid conceptual and instrumental understanding and
valid intuition may flow.
Consequently the development will be quite ‘literal’. It will not depend on the
metaphors of idealism or materialism. This will appear to rob our development of
the apparent profundity and nobility that may attend substance—e.g., mind and
matter—treatments. Certainly the profundity of the substance approaches is not
merely apparent for it is precisely the in use of inadequate substance metaphors
that profundity is required to fashion those metaphors—or any local metaphor or
21
narrative—as instruments of understanding. However, in thus not requiring
profundity the present approach will undercut the need for the limited approaches
from substance—e.g. from mind or matter or process or local narrative and so on.
From the simple idea of being as conceived here it will be possible to develop an
ultimate metaphysics directly and without sophistication. This metaphysics will
reveal the universe as limitlessly greater in extent, duration, and variety than as
revealed in traditional, experiential, and scientific cosmologies. This will be
occasion for further simplicity of treatment. On account of the immensity of the
universe and the variety of being, our traditional and scientific accounts of
cosmology and psychology will be revealed as immensely limited. Thus the core
of the narrative will not depend or need to depend on those accounts. This will
make the core development especially simple.
A possible difficulty now arises. If the metaphysics of the narrative goes far
beyond our valued scientific cosmologies is there any contradiction between the
metaphysics and what is valid in science (and logic). If the metaphysics is truly
empirical with regard to both fact and reason, the answer should be that there
could be no contradiction. However, the treatment goes beyond this principle and
shows explicitly that there is no contradiction. In so doing the treatment finds a
simplifying unification of metaphysics, science, and logic which has been
glimpsed in the very recent and remote past in various ways but which
unification has not in the past taken the final step of seeing and demonstrating the
unification and its revelation of limitlessness of the universe.
22
However, the sciences (and tradition) will be far from discounted or seen as
useless. Of course they are practical instruments. However, they will be much
more. The limitlessness revealed by the metaphysics shows that the individual is
a journey in realization of the ultimate; and the metaphysics is capable of making
general suggestions of how to approach this realization. But, for effectiveness,
the generalities require to be complemented by specifics. Our disciplines
(sciences and other endeavors) are one source of the specifics that are a start on
the incremental and experimental process of realization.
This might suggest to the reader that nothing has been accomplished by the
metaphysics. However, to think that is to overlook the immense conceptual
advance of the metaphysics. But perhaps, the reader may think, there is no
instrumental or practical advance. That however is not true for not only has the
absolute and relative immensity of the universe been established in the
metaphysics but the metaphysics also shows the general principles of knowing
and negotiating that immense range of being.
Further, while many of these developments will be conceptually trivial, the new
metaphysics, being as it is a merging of basic empirical, logical, and scientific
truth into what may be now called logical realism, is occasion for vast expansion
of this realism via means that carry no promise of ease or even simplicity. But
neither is there a promise of difficulty or complexity. When the details become to
difficult to negotiate we have always available the use of all practical instruments
as experiments to be conducted as increments on the way to limitlessness. And it
may (or may not) emerge that along the way the faculties of the being that we
23
become will find simple what we now find difficult. Here we may wonder how a
human being with his or her human identity will or may merge with such a
higher being. The response is that the metaphysics guarantees merging of all
cosmologies and identities (this will be established later but for now it is
appropriate to note that while it may be difficult to understand how this happens
it is not difficult to understand that it may happen).
Still, the core metaphysics does not require the details of the disciplines. Beyond
the essential core, an outline of cosmology and person may be developed from
the metaphysics and main disciplinary concepts while retaining precision. This
development is what may be called pure metaphysics.
Core epistemology, too, will be simple. This is first because the precision of the
core metaphysics is given (in demonstration). And it obtains, secondly, because
we have no need for precision of fact or epistemology regarding the sciences and
other disciplines. Of course where precision is impossible there can be no need
for it and then we should even rejoice in the existential aspect of this imprecision.
However, even if the disciplines were locally precise that would make our
incremental search no more than a little more effective. While this vitiates the
essential importance that modernity has attached to epistemology it does not at al
eliminate the significance of epistemology as a practical instrument.
This does not bar detailed developments that may be subject to the imprecision of
the disciplines. Such developments may be useful enhancements to both
metaphysics and the disciplines but they will not initially constitute the core of
the narrative. This development, along with its epistemology outlined above, may
24
be called applied metaphysics. Later, if and when these developments are refined
to the level of metaphysics, they may then be brought—by this or another author
—into the metaphysical fold.
Overview
The narrative center
At the center of the narrative is a demonstrated discovery, the fundamental
principle of metaphysics, that the universe is the realization of all possibility that
enables a powerful and ultimate worldview or metaphysics. The meaning of the
principle includes that there is no limit to what is realized or, in conceptual terms,
subject to realism all ideas are realized. Particularly, individual identity is
ultimately universal identity. What is ‘realism’? In the sense used here it is that
the only ideas that are not realized are those that are impossible to realize—i.e.,
perhaps roughly, ideas that are factually and / or mutually inconsistent (this
consistency criterion is not a limit). This is the world view that is greatest in the
sense that all possibly real world views are contained in it. It is crucial that is
demonstrated—given proof, its meaning given precise form (in this sense
meaning will be precise when the principle is given a formulation that enables its
use as an instrument to develop its consequences and, at least in principle,
understand the ranges of consequences; the formulation may be called the
explicit meaning and the consequences the implicit meaning), and apparent
violations of experience, science, reason are resolved. The resolution is a start to
development of a mutually empowering integration and—sometimes—
25
reconceptualization of metaphysics, experience, science, logic and other
disciplines and human endeavors. and beginning with this resolution an
integration of experience, science, logic with the new metaphysics
Significance of the metaphysics
The significance of the discovery includes provision of a new vision of the
universe as ultimate power and realization—via a demonstrates system of
immense power and manifold consequence.
Process of discovery
The process of discovery included guesses at conceptual systems and subsequent
criticism: external by comparison with the reality and internal—e.g., coherence
and consistency. As long as our knowledge is incomplete this must be the way
for it is in the nature of essentially new knowledge that we cannot know it to be
developed ‘algorithmically’. Although there are differences among logic,
mathematics, science, and metaphysics they do and must have the process just
mentioned in common. Hypothesis and test—in some form—will remain the way
until there is no essentially new knowledge to be had. You may object, for
example, by saying that logic is not empirical. True, it is not empirical in the way
science is but it cannot be for while science refers to the world, logic concerns
the of concepts (declarative sentences) that refer to the world.
26
A journey in being
The particular path to the fundamental principle traversed many hypothesized
systems. I began with the standard systems—materialism, evolutionism as an
organizing principle for the world and knowledge of it, idealism, and others. I
discarded all these but learned much in the process. Particularly, I learned that of
course naïve materialism and idealism are different but that if we follow realism
and push each ‘ism’ to its limit then the only difference between the isms is that
they constitute alternate labelings. I experienced this process as a journey and
began to think of it as such. My life too was a journey—my path led through
many endeavors. The ‘principle’ was the same—that of seeking some fit of my
life to the world. Two threads interwove the path—ideas and travel and hiking in
nature; and nature was place and model for inspiration for the ideas.
A journey in being—my experience of discovery and its development over years,
in the worlds of culture and nature, suggested the idea of a journey. My first
experience of the discovery of the fundamental principle was that of entering
breathtaking panorama of the universe—a universe of being and knowing. The
fundamental principle stated above implies that individual and civilization realize
the ultimate in a journey without limit to variety, peak and dissolution of
realization, extent, or duration.
The idea of a journey is one of travel among nature and cultures. So it is with this
journey: ideas and ground—culture and nature—are among its essential
elements.
27
The force of the ideas suggested revelation more than discovery or creation but
the ideas themselves show that the emergence of reason and means of realization
is eternally experiential and experimental—that is there is no ultimate a priori.
While being has been pivotal its explicit meaning will continue to emerge with
reflection and experience.
The role of being
The concept of ‘being’ has been critical to the fundamental principle and related
discovery; and I expect it to remain pivotal to discovery and realization. Its
significance its neutrality—to be explained later—but it is insufficient to merely
mention this point: it is essential to deploy it. The present deployment of being
has, I think, gone beyond that of others but I anticipate that there is much more
that can be done.
The pictures of nature
The pictures—in the narrative show places where I have had great and perhaps
even critical inspiration for these developments.
Note—the concept of meaning is now discussed in Meaning and language.
Significance
The following outlines some achievements—what is new—and implications for
ideas and destiny.
28
Conceptual—FP, forms: esp. limitlessness and Realism; metaphysics;
consequences—all disciplines and endeavors; mechanics-method for knowledge
and realization: container, increment, and interaction; engagement enhances
enjoyment and effectiveness.
The ideas of the narrative are grounded in the history of human thought. Being is
significant in the thought from Plato to Heidegger. The relation of metaphysics
and logic is a theme in thought—recently, for example, in the thought of
Wittgenstein. The idea of individual as universe occurs in the Upanishads of
ancient India. However, relative to the present developments these occurrences
are fragmentary. It is critical that while there have been intuitions of the
fundamental principle, the proof here is its first proof—and this suggests,
integrates, and gives power to the system of ideas. Thus ‘being’ is potent in the
ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and Heidegger but they cannot realize its full power
because they have no proof of that power. Similarly, Wittgenstein equates logic
and metaphysics but does not raise metaphysics to the height of logical
permissiveness (it is critical that we here recognize that logic is maximal in what
it allows because it is minimal in what it requires). Finally, the Upanishads
glimpse the identity, some of its immensity, and some approaches to realization
but they do not know anything near the scope of these things as seen here.
Individual, civilization and destiny—realization of ultimate is given; individual
engagement fosters civilization, civilization nurtures the individual; Civilization
is the matrix of civilizations across the universe. Civilization engulfs the universe
as an individual. The ultimate is an Individual in which individuals participate:
29
endless variety, freshness, summits without limit to elevation, dissolutions:
recurrences are of limited and unlimited duration (in a limitless universe, infinity
is actual and not just potential or idealizations or limits of the finite). Uncertainty
and doubt are existentially essential as in all significant endeavor. Engagement is
openness to opportunity-challenge-non avoidance of pain (pain, suffering not
sought but not eliminated—rather to be dealt with effectively, given meaning).
Action based in the metaphysics is container for all aspiration without distinction
(realization, being-in-the-world, knowledge, art, religion…)
Three narrative foci
The narrative is organized around three foci (1) motivation and grounding:
destiny (2) knowledge or metaphysics and method (3) action and realization:
journey. Some details follow
First focus—destiny and civilization
1. Destiny as we understand it—meaning, extension, cultivation: disciplines,
institutions, integration with this world.
This requires an adequate picture of the universe and our place in it: a
worldview or cosmology. As background I will outline and assess our
standard or inherited worldviews (1) Secular and (2) Trans-secular.
30
Second focus—a new universal metaphysics
2. A new universal metaphysics: FP—being is limitless, expression as Realism.
Issues: origins and proof of FP; doubt, consistency, strength of proof, faith,
existential significance, knowledge-action principle… Development.
Implications for ideas and being, disciplines and endeavors (details:
Significance, above…)
Significance for destiny. Destiny for finite forms as a journey without ends or
borders or limit to variety and freshness of being and experience.
Third focus—journey of realization
3. Journey of realization: description—endless variety, extension, freshness,
recurrences of limited and limitless duration; significance (freshness, pain
and suffering, engagement…); means-vehicles-places-modes-disciplines and
mechanics—essentially experimental within which intrinsic-instrumental
sciences play—catalysis or catharsis of being and psyche, buildup as in
healing and reason; permanence vs. transience: permanence is realized in and
via transience…
Approach
Arrangement of the main divisions is designed as natural for development of the
foci and main ideas.
So as to facilitate understanding, the parts are written as essentials, exposition,
and explanations.
31
To further facilitate understanding of the significance of the metaphysics, some
topics are developed as far as possible naïvely—i.e., without benefit of the
metaphysics (in some cases development is incomplete in other cases alternative
outcomes may be given). It would be possible to develop all topics naïvely but it
is more efficient to do this for key select topics and develop others in a single
place after the metaphysics. Topics may include metaphysics itself, space-time-
being, and mind.
The main divisions
Preface
What the narrative is about—a short account.
Introduction
Introduction to the narrative and its main ideas.
Prologue
A prologue provides context in civilization.
Foundation
The foundation introduces pivotal ideas of being, experience, and meaning. It
founds development in showing a basic sense of being in which knowledge of
being is perfect; it introduces experience the theater of being; and meaning is
32
crucial to analysis of the world. The development of being and aspects of
experience in foundation is metaphysics-as-perfect-knowledge as far as it goes.
Metaphysics
The division Metaphysics continues this development with proof of the
fundamental principle. It is shown that the principle is consistent with science
and reason. The arguments for the principle are strong but it is attended by that
minimal doubt which attends all significant endeavors. If we regard the principle
as basis for a program of discovery and realization then doubt is removed. Doubt
is pertinent to illusions of absolute knowledge of the world. Metaphysics
develops and applies the system of ideas.
Journey
The final division is Journey. This defines and illuminates the journey, shows its
essential goals and ways.
The way ahead
Specific plans
Notes from the edge
Dispatches and essays. May later integrate.
Epilogue
Prospect, author, invitation
33
Lexicon, sources and index
Reading the narrative
Reading, comprehension, and use will be facilitated by the arrangement of the
main divisions and the divisions described above.
The following features will further enhance understanding.
Meanings of the terms
Meanings are carefully specified and the net meaning of the system is brought
into relief.
It is crucial that to understanding that (1) while the main concept-words have
many common technical and everyday uses, their meanings here are carefully
selected and specified (2) the system of concepts is selected-evolved to have net
meaning greater than the ‘sum’ of individual meanings. This ‘sum’, as explained
earlier, is an ‘ultimate’ metaphysics that goes beyond our common modern
intuition of the world. Understanding will require familiarization with and
immersion in the system rather technical facility alone.
Awareness of these points shows the need for explicit and intuitive absorption
and why this may need patience, reflection, and re-reading. The arrangement into
essentials, explanations, and exposition will facilitate absorption of the system of
ideas to intuition.
34
The following may be omitted if I eliminate capitalization—e.g., by coining terms
and or uses. In either case, point to the definitions section.
Capitalization—some words will be capitalized to denote the meaning in the
text; non-capitalized versions may also be assigned meanings (common uses may
be useful here). I will avoid the possible confusion that may result from the
convention in English that sentences begin with a capital.
The nature of the foundation
Modern readers—i.e., post-classical mathematics and logic—may balk at axioms
equated to truth. One classical notion of an axiom or postulate was that of
something so obvious as to require no proof. Then discovery of alternate
axiomatic formulations of geometry showed that a given geometry may or may
not pertain to actual space. Thus the truth of axiomatic systems became regarded
as relative—to be given in terms of another system or a set of symbolic models.
Truth became relative. So I give an example of the absolute truths of this
narrative—something exists. This may be challenged on the ground that all
experience may be illusory; but if that is true then there is the world of illusion; if
not true then there is experience—some ‘pure’ and some seeming to pertain to
objects; of the latter some is illusory and some not which has a real object ‘the
world’. This demonstration may be seen as naïve—the reader may enquire of the
foundation of the notions of existence, experience, real world… These concerns
are addressed in the narrative.
35
INTRODUCTION
May eliminate some material (primarily) from the preface and the prologue and
place its essence here. May leave minimal comment at the original location
Origin and significance
Journey in Being—origin, and nature of journey. Significance of Being as
container for ideas and realization. Through experience, exposure, reflection I
arrived at a universal metaphysics and implications for destiny—for a journey in
being.
Inspiration
Comment on the following at first picture; add comments to specific places of
inspiration
Inspiration—nature and culture have been inspiration. We tend to emphasize
cultural inspiration for ideas. However, I’ve found crucial inspiration from and in
nature.
Outline
Outline follows the narrative foci above—(1) ground, worldviews (2)
metaphysics, development (3) journey, realization
36
PROLOGUE
Significance of a worldview or cosmology
Discussion will be brief.
The standard cosmologies and their limits
Two kinds of world view
The modern standard and inherited worldviews are (1) Secular which emphasize
science and common experience (reduction to materialism obtains only in some
‘positivist’ versions) (2) Trans-secular, e.g., myth and religion.
Secular views
Secular cosmologies are rooted in common experience, especially science. A
typical cosmology is the inflationary model with fixed light speed and so limit to
known size and age; less restricted models—e.g., bubble universes—are still
materialist and obey similar physical laws. Only some positivisms reduce all
understanding to matter, so even materialist secularism may allow considerable
freedom of being and experience.
Secularism is widely accepted. What is its validity? Theories of science can be
seen as valid for limited domains and precision or as universal projection. It is a
common default to see science as essentially complete. But this is circular—the
result of vision that sees in terms of scientific cosmology; it tacitly assumes its
conclusion. So, on its own ground, secularism is incomplete.
37
How incomplete? Knowledge of the universe is expressed in concepts that fit
facts. The only
necessary
requirements on
concepts, therefore,
are agreement with
one another and with
fact—i.e., logical
and scientific. The
realm of fact has
large and small scale boundaries; these may be continuous, e.g. for a 2-d universe
that is locally spherical there may be a pinched off portion; there are also
discontinuous boundaries—e.g., a ghost cosmos not currently interacting with
ours. If our concepts are logical and locally factual, they have no conflict with
experience or reason. That is, experience and reason—science and logic—allow
that the secular worldview may be massively incomplete. This incompleteness
allows a metaphysics whose only conceptual limits are agreement with science
and logic in their valid domains.
Later fact and concept—science and logic—will be unified under a single notion
named Realism or Logic. The universe will be shown in the sense stated above
and we will consequently establish new conceptions in which the Real is the
object of Logic. This is the greatest possible metaphysics: the most liberal yet
realistic—the greatest freedom consistent with non-reductionist secularism.
38
A
P
A cosmos that is locally spherical within precision of measurement at A. The pinched off portion P may be
infinite.
Later, we find that in this greatest universe, discovery must be ever open to a
limited form. This will imply that Logic has no a priori—that it is an outcome of
process, a reflection of the one universe, that it is ever in a process of
experimental discovery.
Trans-secular views
The religious and mythic cosmologies are best understood (a) as pointing beyond
experience—as standing against the tyranny of common experience (b) as semi-
literal or metaphorical rather than strictly empirical descriptions (c) in terms of
psychological, social, and moral implications. As metaphysics they are deficient
in ultimate character and or proof.
The Upanishads give a partial intimation of the ultimate formulation but no
proof. In absence of proof full formulation, meaning, and reliable cosmology and
use are impossible.
Limits of the standard modern views
The standard modern secular cosmology comes from science; there are secular
alternatives in ‘traditional’ metaphysics and while these have some utility they
are too removed material experience (empiric) to provide a ground in the real.
The current scientific cosmology, the big-bang cosmology, is a view of our
cosmos beginning in an intensely hot and dense state that formed elementary
particles and higher structures as it expanded-cooled. There are variants such as
bubble universe theory which are too far removed from material empiric to be
39
regarded as definitive. Now, regarding the big-bang and variants the question
occurs: is that all there is? There is a ‘positivism’ that answers yes. However,
passing acquaintance with the history of science suggests that this positivism is
likely wrong. Against this some argue that modern science has made inroads to
almost every niche of nature; but this assumes of course that what we know
defines ‘almost every niche’. Modern science shows us something about our
cosmos but it allows very much more—e.g., cosmoses and laws without end
against a vast eternal formless background populated by degrees of form. The
trans-secular cosmologies in their best form stand against positivism but not
science itself.
Bridging the divide; going beyond
Although we have separated the secular and the trans-secular, this separation is
significantly a product of modern ways of seeing, Particularly, it is secularism in
its positivist form that insists that religion should be marked of into a special
region labeled ‘trans-secular’ and so lacking validity or, at least, suspect.
However, while particular religious cosmologies deserve to be so marked off, we
have seen that secularism is unable to assert that there is nothing beyond its
borders with regard to both content and method. And it is secularism in its
political form that insists that the two worlds should be separate. There were and
are good reasons for this separation. However, the reasons are not absolute. And
it is possible to integrate the secular and the trans-secular without introducing
religions into the secular realm including politics.
40
That our empirical-conceptual science so far allows much more does not imply
that there is more. However, if we close ourselves down to the possibility then it
will be difficult to see the greater truth of this narrative when it is put before us.
Without this openness we might simply refute this greater truth as an absurd
violation; or we might accept it with a shrug ‘science is open but not so much for
it has already revealed almost all of what there is’.
There is a clear possibility of bridging the secular and the trans-secular—from
the denial of positivist science and dogmatic religion they are not necessarily
distinct—and of going beyond.
Metaphysics as bridge; and as going beyond
The metaphysical but not specifically religious cosmologies have a long history
that terminated in the grand idealist systems of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. With few exceptions, that kind of cosmology has fallen into disfavor.
Metaphysics has been revived but only by reinterpreting it as, e.g., the science of
abstract objects—by contrast to physics as the science of concrete objects. The
reasons for failure can be classed broadly (1) the metaphysical systems were
speculative, i.e. even if derived from experience, not based in experience and (2)
ideologies, e.g. Marxism, based in systems such as the idealism of Hegel, are
regarded as failed (these are, briefly, the analytic and ‘continental’ criticisms; in
putting them together they are strengthened and it is the fortified criticism that is
addressed here). However, that a train of systems are not based in experience or
that they are failed, does not mean no system can be based in experience or that
41
all such systems must fail. The generalization is rather like what it intends to
criticize. If we regard the old style of metaphysics as knowledge of the world as
it is the essential criticism is that knowledge is distinct from the known and
therefore cannot be accepted as such until adequate reasons for acceptance are
given.
There is a possibility that metaphysics may be the bridge and the route to
whatever beyond there may be. We will find that this going beyond is vast in its
reality, that metaphysics shall begin the going beyond and map its dimensions
but that completion of the process must be in action.
Criticisms of metaphysics so far and their refutation
Let us draw out and analyze this criticism. On a concept-object (‘re-
presentation’) model all knowledge is projection. So, faithfulness has meaning
only to the extent that we can show or get outside projection—e.g., (a) show
faithfulness to be given or (b) use criteria alternate to faithfulness (use the term
‘representation’?), e.g. adaptation which neither needs nor implies clear meaning
or realization of faithfulness. Since there is some error relative to faithfulness,
there cannot be metaphysical knowledge of all things. But we do not need such
knowledge even though it is often a tacit requirement. Here, we will show perfect
faithfulness for a set of ‘objects’ that will, perhaps surprisingly, turn out to be
ultimately broad and powerful. There will be a price—application will need
interpretation and squaring with experience and science. There will also be
rewards—the resulting metaphysics will ultimate as described above; it will be
42
container and boundary for all science and experience; and it will show a
meaning of identity in which all beings are identical to the universe. There is an
apparent contradiction of limits seen in science and common experience; this
contradiction has already been resolved above but it does need to and will be
shown how to mesh science and experience with metaphysics.
Metaphysics and experience
All metaphysics must be found—as in seek and find—in experience (comment
on pertinent uses of experience; remark—‘experience’ will be clarified)
Even if we do not see how, we must admit that this possibility exists. The
possibility is realized in this narrative.
Metaphysics of the late twentieth and the twenty first centuries
There are two dominant strains of modern metaphysics. ‘Continental
metaphysics’, insofar as there is such, is of the type seen in existentialism and
phenomenology. Analytic metaphysics concerns such ideas as metaphysics of
experience and metaphysics as study of abstract objects. These studies are not
metaphysics as knowledge of the world. They eschew that possibility.
There is no objection here to what has recently been studied as metaphysics
(there may be doubt as to its significance). However, as we have seen, that they
reject the possibility of metaphysics as study of the world, there is no principle to
such rejection (but the significance of such metaphysics may be questioned and
this questioning deserves a response).
43
Metaphysics and system
There are strong strains of thought in modern philosophy—European and
analytic—that system is to be eschewed. What is the source of this rejection of
system? Perhaps the motive comes from the imposition of system in prior
metaphysics—especially the ‘grand’ systems of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries.
In this narrative system will emerge; it will not be enforced. Thus, whatever
system there is emerged, it was neither anticipated nor enforced. It arises out of
experience and its ‘logic’.
The metaphysics of this narrative; its nature, dimensions, and significance
It seems important that metaphysics should be precise knowledge. Why? If
metaphysics is to illuminate all human activity, if it is to contain and bound all
science, if it is to show us our eternal destiny—then we cannot ask less.
In fact however, it may be that to ask that is to ask too much. The issue deserves
analysis rather than a dogmatic response. For perhaps there is no precise
knowledge. Our proximate knowledge—everyday, science, and even logic—do
not have perfect precision but, yet, we are happy with them—they are among our
best instruments.
If that were the end of the matter then a natural question is ‘Why metaphysics?’
Here are two reasons for metaphysics and both have to do with going beyond
science (a) beyond the borders of empirical science (b) beyond the precision of
44
science. Therefore, if (b) did not obtain, (a) would still be a reason to have
interest in metaphysics.
One reason to want perfect precision is that we can rely on such knowledge for
purposes of destiny and measuring other imprecise knowledge.
What we find here is this:
1. There is a realm of precise metaphysics that goes beyond the borders of
science—the only limits on being / universe are those of realism (roughly,
fact and logic); so the universe has no limit of any kind; it has identity in
acute peak, diffuse and absent phases without limit to elevation and variety;
individuals participate in and realize the universe and its identity as part of an
endless, ever fresh journey. This metaphysics is so simple that it is seen to be
self-evident: the metaphysics and its method are part and parcel of the
approach. However, though simple, the metaphysics gives us deep and broad
knowledge. However it does not give us empirical detail.
2. For the latter we turn to imprecise science. The metaphysics reveals that
there is no limit to the breadth of science—e.g. there are cosmoses and
physical laws without limit. It also suggests that we cannot have perfect
precision here for the each cosmos is only on the way to the ultimate. And
for the same reason we do not need perfect precision. The metaphysics shows
that we do not need perfect precision here—the hypothetical method is
adequate.
45
3. Thus, in exploration of the universal cosmology of cosmoses and identity, the
perfect metaphysics acts as container and goal for the imperfect. The
imperfect takes us so far and then it is time to take up another aspect of
tentative being and imprecise knowledge. We continue, this way—the way of
being, until limits are shed and the perfect ultimate is realized.
Because the universe is limitless, realization for limited form is always in
process. The metaphysics—including practical knowledge—while complete
in certain ways (principle) and directions (depth) is ever open in variety
which is where the essential journey lies and therefore completed only in
action (for limited form).
The politics (decision and action) and economics (resource development,
allocation, use) may be informed by ideas but require action—participation
and immersion for ‘completion’.
4. Then there is dissolution and the process begins again. But the metaphysics
shows that variety is limitless so experience is ever fresh—even of the peaks
of being.
5. The perfect metaphysics with its perfect method is and acts as container and
goal for imperfect science with its imperfect method. Together, these
constitute an ‘over’ method.
6. Nonetheless, we have not shown that ‘imperfect science’ is never perfect. All
that we have indicated is that (a) we cannot expect universal perfection and
(b) that the ‘over’ method does not guarantee perfection. But there may be
46
particular cases (and measures) of perfection. Here are two classes of
perfection.
We will find particular examples of precise knowledge that is a result of the
metaphysics but that also requires input from specific science / experience.
Examples include knowledge of the nature of space and time; of mind and
matter; of objects and their division into the concrete and the abstract—
which includes a range of kinds that include universals, and what we often
think of abstraction by symbolic representation, and of ideals such as codes
and morals and other values; of the contours of realization of the ultimate and
approach to it.
What is imperfect from a limited perspective, when it fits instrumentally into
a higher scheme of perfection, can be seen from that higher point of view as
perfect.
7. We have been talking as though metaphysics and science (and logic) are
distinct. They are not. The metaphysics is, at least, boundary for logic and
science. But it is more. It is ideal knowledge whose only limit is imagination
(of the imagining entity) that requires logic and science for local empirical
realization. Since the metaphysics shows that being in which we participate
arrives a the ultimate, it follows that there is an ultimate realization where
metaphysics, logic, and science meet. Then there is dissolution...
47
Possibility and givenness of metaphysics
It will be useful to discuss the possibility and givenness of metaphysics in a
separate summary section.
Let us define metaphysics as knowledge of the world as it is. The point to be
made, then, is not that metaphysical knowledge of every detail of the world is
possible for human being (the crucial characteristic of human being is its limited
form; later, after, development of the universal metaphysics we will contemplate
and decide upon the possibility and facts of complete knowledge had by ‘ultimate
being’). It is rather, that some metaphysical knowledge is possible. This has
already been demonstrate by example, i.e. not just in principle. What is
surprising, interesting, and empowering is that, as already noted, a metaphysics
of immense power will be developed from apparently trivial beginnings
We have dismantled the standard arguments against metaphysics. We have
shown that there is a simple sense in which metaphysics is possible and given.
And we will later develop the powerful universal metaphysics. We will find that
there is a significant portion of it that is beyond all doubt (not by denying doubt
but by raising all possible doubt and refuting it). We will find, however, that
there is associated with the powerful developments that there powerful argument
but a degree of doubt that attends (almost) all significant endeavor. We attempt to
minimize this doubt but do not succeed in removing it entirely. That this gives us
something to anticipate, that it provides a challenge and not a guarantee is validly
viewed as ‘good’ for a guarantee might encourage us to stand down and retreat
into inaction. Thus there is an ‘existential’ component to the program of journey
48
in being. The fundamental principle of metaphysics may be regarded as an
(existential) action and knowledge principle.
FOUNDATION
Check—this is foundational but not complete foundation for there is more in the
division on Metaphysics
Being
Definition and fact of being
Being is that which is.
There is Being.
Proof. Perhaps all is illusion. Without Being there would not even be illusion.
Therefore the conclusion that there is Being.
Commentary. Almost everything might be illusion but it is impossible that all is
illusion. But, even on an account that almost all is illusion, there is more—there
is the vast world of experience of which some we label illusion but much we
label real and we live in that part with much enjoyment and effectiveness. There
is still more—we will the fact of a real world (and, later, even more: limitlessness
of the real world).
49
The concept of metaphysics
Pure and applied metaphysics
Being and the verb to be
Uses of ‘is’. On robustness. ‘Ordinary language and experience’ have a net of
perfect precision. We begin with but need not remain in ‘ordinary language’ (by
ordinary language I do not mean some minimal common language but language
that is open because the world is open and therefore cannot receive the
definiteness that is possible for specific contexts—common, scientific, or
esoteric).
I.e., being is that which exists (existence will be clarified later).
Existence
Bring discussion of being and existence here—concept of existence; meanings
and differences; in itself and in-relation; paradoxes of existence
Power of the idea of being
Preliminary
This begins to show the power of the idea of Being. If we say—but we have
experience of matter what we mean is that there is something that corresponds to
our experience. However, not all experience is precise. Therefore the experience
of matter may be imprecise—and indeed the most precise of our definitions of
50
matter as in physical science are subject to imprecision. Being is not subject to
this imprecision. Use of Being allows the fundamental kinds to emerge.
Identifying the source of power: neutrality and therefore inclusivity
What are the sources of the power of being? First, its neutrality. Because being is
neutral there is being (substance is problematic and from the development which
draws from the neutrality, substance is untenable); and there is experience (on
materialism we have a problem with the being of experience, on idealism we
have a problem with the being of matter, on process we have problems with
entity, on solipsism to which no sane person actually subscribes we have a
problem with being-at-all).
Leveraging the neutrality
The fact of its neutrality is trivial. What is important is to leverage this neutrality.
The first leveraging of the neutrality results from the fact that all actual things
and no other have being (which means that if I have a concept of something that
does not exist that thing could perhaps have being but does not; later we see that
all realistic concepts must have existents—this is trivial for what measure of
realism can there ultimately be but existence). Thus there is being (the being of
matter is not given). A second leveraging is in laying out a system of
fundamental existents that enable the development of a powerful grounded
metaphysics. Experience has being and is grounding. Then, in succession, the
universe as all being has being (therefore the universe is not created), laws (have
being), the void has being (requires proof but this is leveraged by use of being
51
and the fact that the void is the absence of being), and finally the absence of laws
from the void—which results from the notion of being—leverages the proof of
limitlessness!
We will find Being and concepts built on it to provide a precise container within
which imprecise but instrumental kinds find great (greater) effectiveness.
Power of the idea of being—some details
Goes to explanatory module for being?
The power of the concept of being is that it differentiates only existence from
non-existence and it is therefore not charged with prejudice at outset (as are
commitment to—or against—such kinds as matter and paradigms based on such
commitment).
Being will be used as indifferent to matter vs. non-matter, mind vs. non mind…
substance vs. non-substance; to the distinctions of thing vs. process vs.
interaction vs. quality; and, whereas, ‘existence’ is often used to signify being in
space and time or being-in-relation, being will be used as indifferent to being in
or the being of space-time and in-itself vs. in-relation. Being will include all
extensive variables and being in our not in those variables.
Being will refer to what is discrete or not; singular or not
Being is not a being or all beings but it is what is common to all beings and to
nothing else. It is indifferent whether we say of some existent that it is being or
52
that it has being (with reference to the concept-object understanding the latter
implies also has only being).
Possibility. Actual, possible, and impossible being
Goes to explanatory module for being?
What of ‘possible existence’? What is a non existent but possibly existent object?
In order to talk meaningfully of things—this will be brought out more clearly in
Meaning and language—we must have a concept that purports to refer to the
thing (even in the presence of a tiger we have a percept and it is the fact that
others will have essentially the same percept that gives meaning to the directive
‘Look at the tiger!’). A non existent object is one for which we have a concept
(e.g. the concept unicorn is that of a horse-like creature with a horn) for which
there is no object (note that talking in these terms in which we distinguish the
normally conflated concept and object is practically cumbersome in a common
shared context but confusing and sometimes leading to apparent paradox in
general and in new contexts; thus the ‘cumbersome’ way of talking trivially
clears up the paradox of the non-existent object).
An impossible object is defined by a concept for which there can be no object
according to any criteria. That is the impossible object must violate fact or reason
(i.e. known facts or logic, i.e. what we will call realism or Logic). A possible
object is one for which the concept satisfies realism (it may or may not actually
exist; in a maximal universe all possible objects will exist). Thus ‘possibility’ and
53
‘impossibility’ in this paragraph are those of ‘logical realism’ which is most
permissive with regard to possibility and most restrictive for impossibility.
What is the source of the conception of objects that are impossible? Percepts –
perceptual concepts—correspond to the world. Free concept formation—
probably absent for lower organisms—is the ability to form an iconic and or
symbolic concept to which the world potentially corresponds. Its weakness is that
it is possible to form concepts that violate fact and / to reason. This is of course
not a true weakness but an essential aspect of the freedom whose positive side is
the ability to capture so far unknown aspects of the world. It would be a
weakness if we thought that every concept captures the world or if we thought
that the world is captured after insufficient comparison with the world
(experiment). In an ‘open’ universe comparison may be ever incomplete.
However, while it may be incomplete in some directions it may be complete
others. In these complete-able directions it is possible to get a complete
metaphysics. And what is incomplete vs. complete may depend on the power of
mind; our minds are more powerful than some others; but there may be more
powerful minds—perhaps there may be minds of ultimate power.
If we regard the universe as being-over-all extensive variables (of which
examples are space and time) then the actual and the possible are identical
regardless of kind of possibility. In this paragraph the ‘possible’ is whatever
possibility obtains in the universe. Physicalism or materialism are the hypothesis
that possibility is defined ‘that which satisfies material nature, e.g. physical law’.
54
If our cosmos is the universe and our cosmos satisfies our physics then the actual
and the possible are less than the material but only the non-material is absurd.
If being distinguishes only existence from non-existence then the existent are the
actual and the non-existent include the possible but non actual as well as the
impossible. But since the impossible are never actual we can omit mention of
them except for clarification.
Anticipation of the outcome regarding possibility
We will find the universe to be maximal in that the possible of logical realism is
actual above (for reasons stated later, we will need to be careful about the
meaning of ‘all possible objects’). That is, we will find that while the conceptual
intension of being is simply that which exists, the conceptual extension which is
obviously the actual will be found to extend to the possible. Thus in the universe
the possible and the actual are defined by realism as defined above but which
needs further careful clarification.
Preliminary on space and time
Goes to explanatory module? Omit?
It is useful to say something about space and time without trying here to be
definitive. There are a number of ways in which the nature of an entity can be
described: it may be red, warm, a foot across, have existed for five minutes. The
first two are ‘qualities’, the latter are quantities. The distinction is not absolute
for, in order to be a foot in size, the entity must have spatiality. Still we may say
55
that some qualities such as space and time are extensive while others are
intensive. The intensive qualities do not refer to size and so on. Mass is extensive
—depends on size but while space and time are measures of extension, mass is
usually seen as a function rather than as a measure of extension. Density (mass /
volume) is intensive and this is perhaps the source of the term ‘intensive’; for a
continuum density has a value for a point—as does color and this is a source of
regarding color as intensive even though color is not a density of any kind (but
may be a function of a density such as amount of red-light reflecting molecules
per unit surface area). Are space and time (or space-time) universal and are they
the only measures of extension? There are perhaps realms that are so limited in
structure as to have no such measures; realms in which there are proto-space-
time. Are there other true measures of extension? Perhaps. However, later
analysis of identity will suggest that there are not.
On other analyses of Being
Goes to explanatory module for being?
For Heidegger, Being is far from neutral. It derives from ‘Dasein’ and never
leaves this origin. Here, we begin from generality but—in the considerations of
Experience, Identity and more: we should say what—connect up with this realm.
Further, for Heidegger Being does not encompass time—for him, Being is a
‘kind’. Heidegger does, of course, (attempt to) transcend the kinds of matter and
mind. Sartre’s Being and Nothingness are psychological terms and not
metaphysical.
56
Heidegger claims that traditional ontology has prejudicially overlooked the
question of the nature of Being—dismissing it as overly general, undefinable, or
obvious. He is right. It is most general but whether overly general is a matter of
working its metaphysics; undefinable, if such is the case, is not the same as
incapable of specification; and obvious does not mean trivial. Heidegger argues
that the totality of Dasein must be grounded in temporality. He enquires of a
primordial time that is the ground of experienced time. He asks some questions
which are vague—but, for him, necessarily so since he is seeking something yet
unrevealed / undiscovered: How is this mode of temporalizing of temporality to
be interpreted? Is there a way leading from primordial time to the meaning of
being? Does time itself reveal itself as the horizon of being? In the present
metaphysics we will find that we do not need to invoke time; time arises out of
absence of being… coeval, perhaps, with the atemporal origin of manifest being.
And ‘Dasein’ has some access to that primordial situation.
Comments on substance
Goes to explanatory module? Omit. Is it included already? If so, combine.
Substance—what is it? The word has a number of meanings in the history of
attempts to understand the world. If, in an attempt to explain and understand the
world, I say that the world is made of matter I am regarding matter as a
substance. The power of the idea is that I am explaining the world in terms of
something simple (the weaknesses are that perhaps our understanding of matter is
incomplete and that there may be more to the world than matter. For matter to be
57
truly fundamental it should be the constitution of all things and there should be
no ‘stuff’ that is more basic. For ultimate simplicity substance would, perhaps, be
eternal, unchanging, uniform and not further reducible (thus, with present
understanding, matter is not ultimate substance). Informally, the idea of
substance is used to project what we find fundamental in experience to the
universe. If our chosen substance is based in limited experience then the
projection may be in error. A key to ultimate understanding, therefore, is to find
whether there are aspects of experience that project without limit. We will find
that there is no ultimate substance but that there are aspects of experience that do
project (and aspects that do not) and this leads us to Being which is not a
substance. We could regard being as substance but that would be no gain and
might be confusing. The present development shows the untenability of
substance and does not depend on it and therefore further analysis of substance is
not needed. There is another meaning of substance, one in which Aristotle asked
‘What is the substance of any species of thing such as, perhaps, a could or an
animal species such as the horse?’ He is asking, in material terms, for an alternate
to Plato’s explanation in terms of ideal forms. We will find this to be a good
explanation—relevant perhaps to proximate explanation in science and
mathematics but not significant for general understanding (metaphysics).
Experiential being
The discussion above shows a connection between Being and experience and
reflection suggests that the relation may be fundamental. Thus far, with the ideas
of Being and experience hardly developed, this is only a suggestion. When we
58
develop the ideas to the point where they constitute a foundation for universal
understanding as far is it may go (metaphysics) we will find Being and
experience to be a truly fundamental pair. This will require clarification of
‘Being’ and development-evolution of the meaning of ‘experience’.
We are interested in being in general and human being in particular. Human
being is significant as (a) having symbolic formation, concept formation, and
thinking (b) as an example of higher being (but we include all animals as higher
because, as we will find, there is a truly but non-animal level of primitive
experience; and we do not want to exclude exploration of other kinds and
possibilities in higher being) (c) as a focus of our interest (since we are human
and since it is the human that is our closest point of access).
However, some analyses jeopardize careful, grounded study of significant being
by particularizing too soon. This is a mistake frequently made by European
thinkers of an existential strain. They mire the study of significant being in not
only the particularities of human being but in the particularly European neuroses
and negative states of mind.
We are therefore interested in experiential—i.e., sentient being. Clearly,
experience as subjective awareness is critical to our being and sense of being.
This is one motivation to the study of experience that follows. The analysis that
follows will mesh the most general and primitive characteristics of experience
with some very general aspects of human being—the general aspects will not
focus on the particularly human but on higher forms of experience in general. We
can particularize later.
59
But we are also interested in experience for its own sake—especially as mind;
and we are interested in experience as a window on the study of being.
Let us begin with preliminary comments on the relations among being and
experience.
What does it mean to say ‘there is being’? This has already been answered—it
means that something exists. With what instrument do we know this? (The
instruments of ) Awareness. This is not to say that what we are aware of is
dependent on our awareness for its existence (we may contribute to the form of
the awareness but this is not true in general as we have seen in the case of being
itself where we ‘contribute’ only to the fact of the awareness). However, it is in
being affected by being that we talk realistically of it. What is the effect in
question? Somehow, in order to talk of it, the effect must include subjective
awareness or experience. Now in critiquing the content of experience we may
think it is a correlate of non-experiential effects that somehow enter into
experience or that it refers to fact. Facts, however are direct or indirect
experiences. What we think of as non-experiential effects must enter via
interaction (causal, common origination…) There is an intimate connection
between being and experience. If what we think to be non-experiential effects
can be shown to be essentially experiential in some sense and the indirect entry
into experience is ultimately experiential at some, perhaps lower, level, then this
intimate connection would be essential.
We now turn to analyze experience. The issues just raised will be among those
addressed.
60
A critical element of the analysis will be to simultaneously (a) identify and
clarify experience for what it is (b) analyze it in terms of being and (c) relate the
analyses (a) and (b).
Experience
The title has been changed from ‘Experience and Foundation’ of the first
production.
The following from the first production should come after developing the idea of
experience: Experience—awareness—is the place of knowledge of things…
We could proceed without experience but it is our anchor in being, and the
present analysis lays foundation for (a) for later improved understanding and
clarification of experience and being (b) detailed study of mind, experience, and
consciousness.
Definition and existence of experience
‘Existence’?
The first meaning of experience is that of subjective awareness.
The first meaning names experience (subjective awareness is not essentially other
than experience). Experience names, for example, our sense of being. Perhaps
experience is illusory but without it there would be neither the real nor the
illusory sense; the real and the illusory sense are both experience.
Experience is a fundamental given.
61
That it is a fundamental given means that it requires no proof in other terms.
Thus contrary to objections, e.g. from strict materialists—
There is experience—i.e.,
Experience has being.
Human experience is ‘reflexive’—i.e., we have experience of experience—
but not all experience, human or other, is reflexive.
Objections
Some people have objected ‘there is no such thing as experience or
consciousness’. This objection has already been refuted above. It is, however,
pertinent to reflect on sources of the objection. One objection is from
behaviorism. The primary behaviorist objection was that since experience
(consciousness) is private—not open to ‘inter-subjective’ study, it is not a proper
object of scientific study. Many scientific objects, however, originate as
hypotheses and are not open to study—it is their effects that we study (even the
most seemingly real things are subject to subject to this concern: a percept, even
on inter-subjective agreement, is not the object). Another objection is from
materialism. The materialist objection is that (a) everything is made of matter (b)
the subjective, experiential aspects of mind are not material; therefore there can
be no subjective aspect of mind. This brand of materialism, in which the
elements of mind are not present in the elements of matter may be called ‘strict’
materialism and, even on a materialist account, it is not clear that there is no
62
elementary aspect of mind present—known or unknown—in matter. According
to the behaviorist and the strict materialist, mental behavior is behavior as if the
organism had experience (to which it is pertinent to reply ‘Had what?’… and if
the reply is ‘Had an illusion’ the relevant reply begins with ‘But what is
illusion?’). While the objections of the behaviorist and materialist are based in
putative principle there is also the possible confusion that because experience is
unreliable—it is possible to hallucinate—therefore knowledge that there is
experience is unreliable. Another possible source of the objection to experience is
that there are some people for whom reflexive experience—i.e. experience of
experience—is not present or regarded by them as present but irrelevant to their
view of what is important. In all cases the answer is that we have shown the
existence of experience. To the objection of irrelevance we add that relevance is
not determined by fiat but by careful study and therefore we should not close
down our philosophy at the beginning of thought. However, we can make a
preliminary observation—we have already seen that experience is critical to
human being and, further, we may show that it is critically instrumental.
Show this under the material argument and, perhaps, again under ‘mind’
Some thinkers have found a way around these criticisms of arguments against
existence and relevance of experience. They argue that there are two kinds of
experience (or consciousness). They admit that there is subjective or phenomenal
experience. They point to experiments with brain damaged patients that purport
to show awareness without subjective awareness. They then argue that there is
another kind of experience ‘a-consciousness’ or access-consciousness which is
63
accessible for verbal report or action. They then minimize the instrumental
relevance of phenomenal consciousness (or deny it). However, experience comes
in varying degrees of reflexivity—i.e. there are degrees to which we are aware
that we are having experience (experience of experience). Therefore the fact that
a patient is unable to report awareness does not imply absence of awareness.
What is going on, then? The matter is subtle and is deferred to later study of
mind.
Another meaning of ‘experience’
The meaning above is different from the meaning in ‘cumulative experience’.
The first meaning is a factor in forming the latter.
When the sense of experience would not be clear use ‘cumulative experience’ to
distinguish it from subjective awareness.
The nature of experience
In this section we begin to study the nature of experience.
Much experience is or seems to be that some experience is of things. Perhaps that
is an illusion—perhaps as the solipsist suggests ‘there is only the field of
experience’. Perhaps there is nothing else.
However, that we know of experience is experience of experience. Some
experience has experience itself—other or perhaps even the same—as an object.
There is a world—and it is, at least, made of experience.
64
But perhaps there is nothing but experience. Perhaps the idea that experience
refers to things—to a real world apart from experience—is an illusion. This
‘solipsist’ claim is not intended seriously but is a challenge to the realist—the
person who claims that there is a real (or external) world that may be an object of
experience but is not experience and whose existence is not dependent on being
experienced.
The real world
We think there is a world that we experience but—except for the existence of
experience, established above—that could be illusion. That there is something
outside or external to experience could be an illusion.
This purported outside is sometimes called the external world but I prefer the
term ‘real world’.
Thee is a real world and experience is part of it.
Proof. I there is only experience then it either does or does not range over its
idea of the world. The latter entails contradiction; the former is an alternate
labeling of the world which is real and which contains experience.
Analysis of experience shows experience itself and the concept of the real world
be non-illusory and significant and this constitutes a certain robustness of the
concepts of experience and real world.
65
The real world—Wittgenstein’s arguments
Now Wittgenstein argues against the solipsist in §§401, 402, 403 of
Philosophical Investigations. He is talking of interpreting a new way of seeing
things as seeing a new object (this is what the solipsist does). He argues that this
is a mistake by giving an example “As if… ‘he has pains’ could be untrue by
some other way than that man’s not having pains. As if the form of the
proposition asserted something false even when the proposition faute de mieux
(for want of something better) asserted something true.’ Wittgenstein asks us to
contemplate a situation in which he used the word ‘pain’ for what he had called
‘my pain’ and others had called ‘Wittgenstein’s pain’. He then asks ‘But what
should we gain from this new kind of account? Nothing!’ He is saying that the
new account is merely relabeling.
On doubt
Doubt, here the doubt of the solipsist, has forced us to clarify our thinking and
our understanding of the world. This is a function of doubt—that it leads to
clarify thought and understanding. Now we did not take solipsism seriously as a
point of view; it arose as an idea—is there a real world—and we entertained that
idea seriously only to find that its only serious aspect is clarifying and
understanding. Thus we often consider doubt that we find, in the end, has no
practical value as a position in itself.
66
Of course not all doubt carries with it the sense of absurdity of the apparently
rational doubt of solipsism. For doubt can lead to a conclusion of non-existence
but that would be the same function.
There is another function of doubt. Sometimes we have a proof of some claim.
We may be able to show that the claim violates no fact or reason but we may
have doubt about the absolute certainty of the proof. In such situations we have
strong reasons to think that the claim is true; however, we are not certain. This is
the case for all significant ‘truths’; if it is truly significant there is some doubt.
What shall we do under this circumstance? Shall we proceed as though the claim
is untrue? Because the claim is significant we have even moral responsibility to
act on the claim but perhaps to exercise some caution. On the other hand,
proceeding as though it is true may enhance efficiency and enjoyment of the
process and that we therefore tolerate some risk of failure. The situation may be
described as having existential faith or an appropriate existential attitude. This
situation characterizes much human activity including science and reason and
even logic—and we shall see this to be the case.
Existential faith will be important in what follows.
Depth of the concept of experience is far from plumbed so far
We have considered he nature of experience. Its first meaning is subjective
awareness; it is a given; experience—at least some of it—is of things, i.e. of a
real world. We would like to probe deeper. How deep does experience go? Is
pure experience truly not of things? What is the relation of being and experience.
67
Should their relation be considered essential or contingent. Does experience arise
out of the organization of being (matter)—i.e., is it emergent? Or, higher
experience—experience as we experience it—a sum of lower, elemental,
experience in entities or organs that focus, elaborate, multiply, and give it
freedom from its original tight bond to the environment as in stimulus-response
and so allow for hallucination and iconic and symbolic imagination including
free concept formation?
On clarification of experience
Concepts can be clarified along two lines—on their own terms and in terms of
other (fundamental) things.
Experience can be clarified along two lines—seeking depth to its meaning on its
own terms and in terms of other something else—other fundamental things such
as being, matter, process, and interaction.
The greatest clarification and illumination results from proceeding along and
relating these lines of approach.
Experience on its own terms
Some experience is of things. Primitive experience is of an object. It is an aspect
of the effect of the perceived on the perceiver.
Primitive experience is (an aspect) of interaction.
Is all experience interaction? Pure experience appears to be an exception.
68
There are two ways in which pure experience is interaction. Pure experience is
stimulation in key centers by—the ‘seat’ of experience—of a trace snapshot-
collage of earlier recorded experience some internal or external trigger and is
thus (a) delayed and potential interaction of organism and world and, more
critically, actual internal interaction. The capacity for pure experience is at the
root of concept formation—iconic and symbolic.
So we may argue that all experience is interaction.
Pure experience is ‘in itself’ with regard to one object—the individual—but
interaction with regard to others—parts of the organism (e.g. parts of the brain).
Thus experience is an aspect of the interaction among elements of being.
Fundamentally, it is in the experiencing element in interaction with the
experienced element.
The relation of being and experience is intimate. How intimate is it? Is it in some
sense essential?
Being and experience
Is all interaction (associated with) experience? ‘All interaction’ includes
interaction of the most elemental parts or aspects of being and, to even give the
question meaning, we must think of some very primitive level at which there is
nothing like our normal experience but where there may be what in complex
systems compounds to our normal experience. What the question we are asking
69
is whether our experience is compound of primitive level ‘experience’ or whether
experience is an emergent feature at some level of material organization.
Here we give a tentative answer to the question in terms of substance theory,
particularly materialism. We have ruled out strict materialism. I.e., the
materialism in question must be that all being is material but not that matter is
exclusive of experience (mind).
On substance theory—e.g. materialism—the elements of experience must lie
among the elements of material interaction (which may be known or yet
unknown).
Proof. If matter is a substance then mind is either conjoint with matter as part of
the same substance, present with matter as a second substance, or it emerges with
organization of matter. The final possibility is unable to explain experience as
experience. The second one is unable to explain the interaction between mind
and matter. We are left with the first possibility—matter and mind are coeval.
We have shown that, on materialism, some interaction the primitive level has
primitive experience.
Thus we have shown that there is an intimate and essential connection. We have
seen that all experience is interaction but not some but not all elemental
interaction is experience. Thus the connection has not been shown to be perfect
or ‘full’ That all experience is interaction is unconditional. However that some
elemental interaction must be experiential is conditional on materialism.
70
This will be sharpened later after development of the universal metaphysics. We
will want to see whether we can eliminate dependence on materialism and
whether some or all elemental interaction must be conditional.
Is there Being without experience? On any metaphysics, there is no element that
has no interaction at all. We found all experience to be interaction. On
materialism—neither proved nor disproved so far—we then found that
experience is, at root, among the primitive interactions; i.e., on materialism,
being and experience are almost two sides of the same coin. All experience is
interaction. On universal metaphysics we will find that all interaction is past,
present, or future experience.
First comments on mind
Title?
We now turn to integrating the two approaches to experience (in its own terms
and in terms of being)
Experience is a first experience of mind. What is it? Is it all of mind?
The question ‘what is something’ means explanation in terms of something else
(another concept) or in its own terms (e.g. the higher concept in terms of the
percept; this is usually called ostension or ostensive definition rather than
explanation). The question regarding mind means is it a fundamental category or
is it a manifestation of another category such as matter. We are not yet in a
position to answer these questions because our experience of experience is
71
clearly primal in coming before matter but matter is the dominant modern
explanatory paradigm or category. However, we have not yet clarified the being
and nature of matter.
For the present we take as premise that matter is a fundamental category or
substance. We will find this premise to be rather approximate—is matter the
sole substance, are there substances at all and if so is matter the sole
substance—but analysis of mind in its terms will be illuminating because it
provides a first approximation that may be corrected later.
The following paragraph-proof is repeated from above.
If matter is a substance then mind is either conjoint with matter as part of the
same substance, present with matter as a second substance, or it emerges with
organization of matter. The final possibility is unable to explain experience as
experience. The second one is unable to explain the interaction between mind
and matter. We are left with the first possibility—matter and mind are coeval.
What then is mind? If we think of matter as substance in itself then, from the
considerations on experience, mind is substance in relation. In other words mind
is the interaction of matter. If the only interactions of matter are the known kinds
(force) then this is what mind is. But surely this is very remote from what we
experience as mind. The explanation of this difficulty must be that in the
complex cases—animal mind—what emerges is not mind as such but aspects of
mind—feeling-emotion-cognition, afference-efference, levels of mind, self-
reference, brain autonomy or freedom from environment (thinking, concept
72
formation). The difference between particle interaction and experience is that of
degree and not that of kind or category.
While the conclusion seems paradoxical (panpsychism) it follows from the
premise of materialism. It follows because the alternate of strict materialism does
not allow coeval or emergent mind: it disallows coeval mind in its strict nature
and it allows as-if mind (behavior) but not mind-as-such.
Our tentative conclusion, therefore is that experience, fundamentally construed,
is the essence of mind.
In the modern literature on philosophy of mind, ‘attitude’ and ‘action’ are
putatively two other ‘poles’ of mind—as though there could be, in violation of
what we have established, mind without experience. Therefore, attitude and
action are not poles in the dimensions of mind. They are of course significant but
experience is essential to both and experience plus something else that would not
be mental if dissociated from experience.
Later we will loosen the premise of materialism and correct and improve upon
the conclusions. The corrections will not fundamentally change the idea that
experience is the essence of mind.
Meaning and language
New section; content implicit in the first production; may import or repeat
Preface-Introduction comments on new / system meaning but in a form
appropriate to this: ‘newness’ contextual; system whole context
73
Discuss (1) Meaning: concept-object-word;; sense, reference (2) Its power (3)
Analysis and Synthesis of Being
Sense and reference
Experience refers to part of the world—and object. This reference is actual or
potential. This is a source of the sense and reference conception of conceptual
meaning due to Frege.
We will formalize experience and reference as concept and object
Concept and object
Here the primary meaning of ‘concept’ will be mental content and not that of
‘higher concept’ or unit of meaning or free or concept or imagination; the latter
are included in this primary meaning of concept. A percept is a concept (in the
present sense). Here ‘concept’ will mean ‘referential concept’—concepts that
purport to refer to something in the world.
In this section the focus is the iconic concept (icons are structurally related to
their objects; alternatively we may say that icons are parts or wholes of our total
experience of objects but not abstractions that relate to objects by convention)
A concept and its object (‘reference’) constitutes meaning. Having a concept
does not guarantee reference. Simple concepts with meaning may be combined
and the compound concept may have or lack meaning. There is a grammar of
combining concepts. Such a grammar would be impossible to elucidate in
absence of knowledge of the nature of the world (no perfect grammar without
74
perfect metaphysics); and even with this knowledge its elucidation would be
complex. Such combinatorics are acquired in evolution and development.
Meaning, signs, language, and grammar
In language signs such as words are associated with concept-object pairs. In
language icon-symbol-object constitute meaning. In pre-linguistic meaning the
concept is the icon. In linguistic meaning the concept is the icon-symbol; the
association is essential for without it there cannot be convention. In normal
language use the icon is implicit. This provides efficiency in representation,
communication, and transmission (but also loss of detail which is partly
compensated by context). Alphabets improve efficiency of word generation and
representation. Word concepts may be combined in sentence concepts according
to descriptive grammars. Such grammars presume at least a local knowledge of
the world; and reflects in the shape of sentences; further shape factors may be
convention / attitude / poetic / power / lack significance / ‘erudition’. They are no
doubt discovered by trial and error over combinations. Because of the apparent
precision of symbols at least formal languages and their grammars have an
appearance of necessity and from their remote origins present as a priori. Are
they necessary? Are they a priori? Are they empirical? Traditional answers tend
to the necessary and the a priori and away from the empirical. We are not yet in a
position to evaluate this strong traditional and perhaps intuitive tendency. We
will be able to make an evaluation later after development of metaphysics
75
Foundation of meaning
What is the foundation of meaning? It must, since we never get outside it, be the
organic relation between language and its use. However, while particular ideas
may lack identified objects, from the point of view of neutrality of being there
may always be implied objects. The metaphysics that flows from the fundamental
principle and to which we now turn will be one in which, subject to clarification
and refinement, a referential concept that is consistent by factual and logical
criteria has an object.
METAPHYSICS
The order below is not ironclad. Should §§ Universe—Void be in foundation?
Notes and changes: Universe through A Perfect, Unique, and Ultimate
Metaphysics. Transfer the following to a new section? Note on Method: method
= developing and demonstrating content (how and proof, discovery and
justification) which are traditionally distinct. Traditionally proof is emphasized
because proof is public and critical. However, careful analysis show that the
separation occurs only in isolated problems and static knowledge; in the whole
and dynamic case, perfect separation is impossible. Here’s a brief outline of
Method revised from previous treatments. (1) Recalling that a percept is a
concept, almost all knowledge is projection; therefore if there is to be perfection
it does not follow from the concept-object notion no matter how apparently
precise. It must follow from some other source and this cannot be universal
because we know that there are cases of error (some people conclude that
76
knowledge is inevitably tinged with error but this is erroneous). (2) What is an
essential outline of justification? In some cases the concept is a given! These turn
out to be non-trivial resulting in metaphysics—including the universal
metaphysics. This frames all knowledge. It also shows ultimates but the way to
the ultimates is via the proximate for which, therefore, error is not only tolerable
but also good. This applies not only to knowledge as such but also to value,
particularly ethics and aesthetics (check against first production), and moral
codes (and norms and laws)… which leads to a place in which we find that logic
and grammar, which we may have thought a priori, are themselves experimental
—provided we go far enough back there is no a priori (3) What are some
methods of creation? It all has to do with finding concepts to match the object.
This is the generating principle. Particulars include trial and error, particularly
extended iterative improvement; wide experience and learning; interpenetration
of criticism and creativity; respecting tradition without subservience; use of
whole being—emotion, cognition, action… Particularly in the arrival at
metaphysics care is needed but not more care than fits the situation; which allows
and encourages ‘creation’; however, this balance between care and forward
movement is not known in advance and itself is part of discovery. There are
special situations where local knowledge may be shown to be perfect via analysis
of concept-object perhaps in light of the universal metaphysics. . Where to treat
Applied Metaphysics; and what shall it be called—‘Applied Metaphysics’ or
some alternate?
77
Universe
Use sources.
Change the first production as follows: The Universe is All Being. Therefore:
There is one and only one Universe.
Change the first production as follows: The Universe contains all creation but is
not created. Any creator is part of the Universe—The Universe can have no
external creator. (Consider omitting word ‘creator’ or putting it in after the
comment; note that creation implies a creator—self-creation is impossible except
once in existence something can participate in its further evolution; ‘creation’
does not apply to something out of nothing which is better described as
origination.)
Uncreated
No outside
Possibility
Laws
Laws have Being
The Universe contains all Laws
Comment on power of being (in explanatory module)?
78
The Void
Use sources.
Explanatory module for The Void
The Void deserves its own explanatory module because (1) It requires to be
clearly distinguished from other conceptions of it and from related notions—
especially conceptions that arise from an incompletely neutral conception of
Being and which therefore do not result in a precise conception of the Void (or of
the Universe… or of Law). (2) Because of the difficulties attending the question
of its existence.
Explanation for existence of the Void. (1) Various proofs. (2) If the Universe
were in a Void state various consequences including the fundamental
principle. This shows the existence of the Void.
Fundamental nature of the Void. (1) Its power. (2) Equivalence to all particles of
Being and to all Being. (3) Relation to related conceptions, especially the
quantum vacuum, (4) Number of Voids.
The Universal Metaphysics
The metaphysics in terms of limitlessness
Development
Proof. Start with ‘if the universe were in a Void state’. (My written sources for
this.)
79
Meaning of limitlessness
The ways this can be confused (rethink this list)
1. Limitlessness does not refer specifically to the size or boundary of the
universe; or to its duration. This is a negative statement. Let us put the
meaning of limitlessness in positive terms as follows
In objective terms it means that all possibilities are realized (perhaps it is
better to say that the actual and the possible are identical and note that this
entails a proper definition of possibility and therefore care is needed in
importing any already conceived notion of possibility).
Thus an eternally infinite universe would be limited. For limitlessness the
universe must experience infinite (i.e. limitlessly infinite), finite, and non-
manifest phases.
The universe cannot be simply our empirical cosmos. Cosmoses must occur
without limit. This raises a problem of time. Can any one cosmos be of
infinite duration? That might contradict limitlessness. However the sum of a
sequence of cosmoses could be infinite. What of the universe? Is its duration
infinite? Perhaps the best response is to not specify but simply say, in a
tense-less sense that The universe is.
In subjective or conceptual terms limitless might be expressed: any system of
concepts that does not violate logical realism is realized.
80
2. When context is tacit, non-contradictory statements may seem contradictory
(true contradictories are not part of ‘all possibility is realized’).
3. It might seem to imply that when experience pushes beyond the known
cosmos all things will be in the immediate discovery; it does not; it implies,
however, that discovery is unpredictable and open—we may reasonably but
not necessarily expect near term continuity; long term discontinuity is
necessary; and regarding ‘all things will be in the immediate discovery’ the
meaning is that this is true of the variety of discovery over the collection of
cosmoses identical to a given limited cosmos
4. Logic (Realism) applies to relations between concepts and objects but not to
objects per se
5. That at any moment the universe is in some state implies that it is not in
others; this appears to be a limit; explain why it is not (that the universe is
not universally extensive with regard to space and time is not the reason that
it is not a limit); and not that, with regard to limited portions of the universe,
the original statement ‘That at any moment…’ is at most partially true when
predicated of the parts
Explanatory module for the metaphysics
This includes explanatory discussion of Law and Universe—all appropriately
done together with discussion of the metaphysics.
The explanation. Two things are crucial (1) The concept of Being (2) The system
of concepts—Being, Experience, Meaning, Universe, Law, Void. Experience
81
provides connection (relation) and robustness. Meaning provides method of
discourse (including Logic). The fundamental metaphysical system is, then,
Being, Universe, Law, Void, and Logic. Beginning with Being as neutral and
Universe as all Being—it follows that all Laws are in the Universe, therefore the
Void has no Laws and therefore can have no limitation and it is this that
leverages the fundamental principle and so the system of metaphysics including
Logic as realism.
Regarding proof and interpretation. Have a separate section?
Doubt
Mention. This is the one residual doubt. Note—consistent with all valid
knowledge and experience. Strong reasons. Knowledge and action principle.
Faith and attitude. Optimal resource allocation. Need not mention again.
Existential attitude—in this way incomplete certainty is better than certainty.
Other doubts and counterarguments. Mention / list / detail?
Incorporate criticism here or a separate section. Rename this section. Topics
under criticism: consistency, validity, meaning, and significance… also see the
section On limitlessness
Significance and validity
Where should this section go? Merge it with other sections? Check for repetition.
82
Significance and validity of the system(s)—develop, show, and present
significance and validity of the systems
Significance
Ideas—concepts (‘academic’)
Being esp. human—proximate (practical, human) and ultimate (realization)
Validity
Pure ideas—(1) Elementary metaphysics up to existence of the void;
existence of the Void—consistency, strength of proof, doubt and existential
attitude (2) The universal metaphysics: demonstration and development (FP,
formulations)
Application—relations between the pure-ultimate and normal realms in
knowledge and action—the normal within and interaction with the pure; FP
as a knowledge and action principle
Devoting (allocating) resources to realization of the ultimate—derives from
(1) Analysis of ideas and application in interaction with (2) Significance and
promise for being
Meaning of the metaphysics
I use the word ‘limitless’ to signify actual rather than potential infinity and to
emphasize lack of any kind of real limit rather than some particular infinity.
83
Realism and Logic
Logic (includes fact, science without specific specification because percept =
concept)
Relation to many worlds
Word ‘Logic’ to not appear in general text?
Replace ‘Logic’ and its equivalent ‘Realism’ by logical realism?
How will logical realism ‘fit’? Begin in patches? Do they mesh—if so (a) fit (b)
realize… an example of proof, not just interpretation
On proof and interpretation
Many proofs are trivial (just note this at the appropriate points). The
interpretation may be non-trivial.
However, the further development of logical realism will require non-trivial
activity—hypothesis? Demonstration? Test?
Knowledge and freedom
The metaphysics shows the universe as ultimate; we know this
However, our knowledge of detail is limited in extent and precision
We have a concept—fact and pattern—the empirical universe which lies in but
does not cover the universe
84
If we knew the entire universe as fact we would not need knowledge of pattern.
Our being would be the being of the universe. We would be ultimate but there
would be no further realization but dissolution.
In a sense, therefore, not knowing the whole is a freedom—the possibility of a
journey into realms unknown to our being
The ‘greatest’ being does not have this freedom. A lesser being—relative to us—
e.g., an elementary particle, has great freedom but lacks explicit knowledge of it
(at least on our models). Therefore the effective freedom of the particle—it’s
knowledge and experience of freedom—is limited. The ‘least’ being has greatest
freedom but no effective freedom
Which being or beings have the greatest effective freedom? That is what being or
beings has the greatest experience of freedom?
Ask, first for a characterization of our freedom. It is that our knowledge—fact
and pattern or percept and higher concept or, simply, concept—is sufficient to
show the nature of our real and given potential it is incomplete relative to the
whole. We know and will realize real potential but have not yet realized. We
have and know the opportunity
There is a range of being that is sufficient to know ultimate (given) opportunity
but is sufficiently incomplete that a challenging and rewarding journey remains
‘Being’ cycles through the primitive, potential, and realized states
85
Objects
This section is fundamental.
This section and the next are not new to my thought but are new to the essential
edition.
Form and its lack of ultimate importance
Mathematics…
Knowledge
Should this be explicit? Should it be here? Combine with Knowledge and
freedom above?
In the ideal case every concept in the field of logic has an object and this is
profound for attitude and action.
What is the implication for the practical case? Thus far I have been thinking that
this means that approximate knowledge is ideal or can be seen as ideal. Now
perhaps I see it differently. Given the ideal, there is no need for ‘practical
perfection’. Given the ideal framework and existential doubt (is doubt the word
I’ve been using?) frankly approximate knowledge is best from the ideal point of
view and the practical—the latter being increment and correction within the ideal
frame. In other words the imperfect is perfect.
Method
Should this be explicit? Should it be here?
86
Pure and Applied Metaphysics. These names? Here? This has been simplified
immensely (to three phases: pure, container for practical, special).
On rationality
This may be drawn within method
What is rationality? The idea of rationality is that of a way to choose the best
path of action—or, at least, good paths. Issues (a) what is the meaning of ‘good’
(b) how to get valid knowledge is a part of rationality
In absence of ability to conceive, choice does not arise. In omnipotence the
‘good’ is given. Rationality is an issue for beings lying in some range between
ability to conceive and omnipotence
What is the ‘good’? We do not precisely know. We can say with some reason
that it is connected to survival and quality of life. We can talk of best but there
may be more than one good path of action and, generally, there will be no single
best path. In some situations there will be no known good path (we will then have
to experiment)
In other words, though we know what rationality is, we do not know that it is
always relevant except in the sense that it includes knowing that sometimes
‘blind’ experiment will be the only known course and that when we know more
than just that we may have only guesses as to the good and how to achieve it.
That is the realm and practice of rationality are vague and imprecise
The nature of rationality is a question of rationality
87
All knowing and acting above a certain level of significance is like that. The
question ‘What is philosophy?’ is an open question and in particular it is a
question of philosophy. Similarly, the question ‘What is mathematics?’ is an
open question; it is a question for mathematicians of course but it is not
completely answerable within mathematics (Gödel showed it to be partially but
incompletely answerable within any formal system of mathematics); it is also a
general question of the nature of our understanding and as such it is a question of
philosophy.
These conclusions of openness follow from the open nature of the universe and
being-knowing in the universe. However, the expression of the metaphysics as
Realism and the understanding that that brings shows that the questions ‘What is
rationality… philosophy… mathematics?’ and so on have more precise general
answers than mere openness or vagueness suggest. Here we are in the process of
providing such precise answers.
Science and the sciences
What should the essence of this section be?
Title? Here? Keep?
88
Logic
Objects
Epistemology
Metaphysics
Pure knowledge
Doubt
Pure and practical knowledge
Metaphysics and science and their complementary nature is already addressed
Science
Nature of science—local fact vs. universal projection
Process or method. Historical and practical concerns. Modification from
universal metaphysics
Methods in particular sciences
Faith
Individual and identity
Is creative intelligence the apex of Being? Universe?
89
Addition to the first production after comment ‘Apparent limits are part of the
constitution Of the forms of Being: Form and limit are positive and negative
aspects of a being.
Identity
Individual
God
Not the purpose to identify ‘God’ with the god or gods of any particular religion
or given conception.
Main issues:
1. What is God? Need for analysis of meaning (regardless whether the
traditional meanings and objects have significance)
In talking of God, many decide that for their purpose God shall be the
Christian God or the God of the Abrahamic religions and so on. They choose
to talk in terms of a set of cultures or faiths. There is no harm in so doing
except that if god is to mean anything like ‘real’ and ‘greatest being’ or
‘greatest potential’ then they are off the mark, perhaps limitlessly so. But
their culture or faith blinds them to this and so blinds them to the greatest
realization. This is a great world in which to live but they would live forever
in the dungeons of the universe.
90
We shall use god in the sense implied above. We could use another word. It
could be argued that our use is misleading (some might say ‘blasphemous’).
But, then, to use another word would be to abandon the objective: to connect
culture really with reality; and it would be to give in to the intimidation of
those who use such terms as blasphemy.
Therefore, God will be the greatest being—or, perhaps, the way tot that
being.
It will be—or its knowledge will require—a process of discovery and or
realization. To choose some cultural picture—even one that is a good
metaphor or allegory—is to abandon the greatest potential of our own being.
2. Givenness
3. Where in the world do we see signs of ‘God’? The goal is to be empirical, i.e.
the signs are to be the best actual signs in the world (e.g. nature, an eagle,
humankind, aspiration…) and not evidence as in the argument from design
which refers not to god as such but god’s effects.
On evidence vs. signs. The distinction is hard but the words are not (as
English words they have overlap). So, to see my meaning, focus on the
following use and don’t be distracted by other meanings with which you may
be familiar. If I see bear paw prints that is evidence that a bear was there. If I
see a the tail end of a bear around a tree, that is a sign. I am particularly
interested in those signs that make me suspect ‘large animal’ or ‘bear’ but are
91
not altogether convincing. I think it is most pertinent to look for signs of
God. Where do we see signs. God does not reveal him / herself.
I do not exclude evidence. But to seek only evidence and not signs is to
invite error, to abandon infinite potential.
Where then do we see signs? In the beginning of this search we will allow
signs that are not altogether convincing. If we always stop because we are
not sure we will not find the real.
4. The first signs.
The first signs are in the world. Where are they? What are those things that
are capable of some of the powers we assign to god?
It cannot be other than ourselves.
It does not matter that we debase ourselves, that we may be imperfect. It is
not the case that god must be perfect. Perhaps the greatest perfection requires
a shadow side of imperfection.
In talking of ourselves as (early potential) god I do not of course intend to
exclude other creatures.
5. The limit.
Cosmology
The following concerns arise here. 1. Should I keep just this one subsection to
Cosmology? Even if I eliminate the title, I should probably emphasize that it is
92
physical cosmology? 2. Should Individual and Identity be made a subsection of
Cosmology? Where should Mind and Life be placed?
Modification from the first production: The Universe has neither beginning nor
end. In a sense of ‘is’ that accords with earlier remarks on the extension of the
meaning of ‘exists’—The Universe is.
Modification from the first production: That is, breadth is ever open—
particularly, the extension, duration, variety, Summit, and dissolution of manifest
Being have no limit. Subject to Realism, systems of physical law are without
limit.
Addition to the first production after comment that there are no indivisible
particles: There may be undivided particles of limited duration…But there are no
particles that remain undivided over all extension.
General cosmology
Extensive and intensive variables
Pre-extensive realm of absent to limited identity
Identity and variable
Extensive and intensive variables
Intensive variables and quality
Quality not essentially non-quantitative
93
Extensive variables
Argument that space and time exhaust the extensive variables—but attitude of
openness
Immanent quality of spatial and temporal extension
Non-standard space and time—differentiation and measure, dimensionality
Being, space, and time
Foundation in identity
That space and time are not universal measures of extensionality; that they are
perhaps not the only ones but on analysis they are perhaps the only ones (but
‘space’ and ‘time’ are not necessarily as discrete as ours where they obtain—
space need not have dimension and time is perhaps not restricted to one
dimension)
Origins of space and time in (a) the void and or (b) formlessness
Matter and mind
Origins of physical cosmology
Descriptive cosmology
1. The level of realism
2. The computational level of Logic
94
Physical cosmology
How to characterize physical cosmology? Is it the cosmology of extension and
duration? Of ‘matter’? Of what?
Cosmology and destiny. Destiny of what?
Where / when to discuss multiverse, quantum theory, fungibility, determinism;
remember that quantum theory is itself being and does not define the universe; if
the cosmos is a multiverse—it is still is a speck; remember the non-universality
of the speed of light (and of ‘matter’, space, time…)
Life
Is ‘life’ necessary here? What is life in this context? Is / how can life be an
instrumental / central concept? Relate to mind.
Mind
‘Attitude’ and ‘action’ are not poles in the dimensions of mind. Experience is
essential to both and each is experience plus something.
Creation
Mathematics and physics of infinity as an approach to measuring relative
significance of self-adapting or normal evolution and guided or created evolution
95
Realism extended
Mathematics
A Perfect, Unique, and Ultimate Metaphysics
Keep this section? Keep its heading level? Keep it here?
Metaphysics and action
Journey
Critical evaluation
Validity and significance
Here? Note its done elsewhere in concentrated form and in bits and pieces
JOURNEY
Crossed out material is absorbed to 1\story for outline.html
The order below is not ironclad
There is no section System of experiments. Instead there are new chapters The
way ahead and Notes from the edge.
Nature of the journey
Keep this? Keep title?
96
Neither the journey nor its contours were conceived in advance—and, though the
statement of the metaphysics may have been conceivable, its fact, proof, and
implications and nature of the journey were inconceivable without a journey:
having a hope, seeing a glimmer, and following it rather than some definite
promise. Further, the living details of realization are inconceivable for a limited
being at outset—this is a direct implication of the metaphysics
Engagement
Keep this? Absorb to above? Keep title? Individual and engagement?
Attitude and realization
Civilization and realization
A way of realization
Keep title? Ways?
More on ways and the way (of being); more on catalysts and their experimental
nature than in the first production (p 20); more on evolving the way (and how
that is, after all, part of the way); and more on an immediate program.
Approaches
Emphasize the intrinsic and the instrumental (which are not distinct) Different
societies have had different emphases. It may seem that the instrumental has
outstripped the inner today (to the extent that the inner-as-realization is ignored
in the mainstream: what the mainstream has is enjoyment-of-a-fixed-inner-
97
capacity). However, the inner is essential to full being. And, the instrumental is
also at a beginning
World
‘The proximate’. Not distinct from the ultimate.
Keep this? Place here or after transience and arrival (and if placed after, then
comment at last picture at bottom of page?)…or after Civilization and
Realization? Keep title—I’d originally wanted to call it ‘The World Today’ but
that is too limited? Still I can also discuss ‘The World Today’ for it is important
in itself and to the connection of this work to the world today and that connection
is (another?) connection to destiny!
A separate section or sub-section? Problems—opportunities. Relation to journey.
The essence of being in the world
Keep? Title?
Some practical dimensions
Keep? Title? Combine with previous
A story of world takeover by the military-industrial complex via manipulation of
the political system… there is no conspiracy but naked power… paradox of
Eisenhower… …role of intellectual in American vs. European history
98
Challenges and opportunities
Combine with previous section? Title was: Problems—opportunities.
The future of nations and national boundaries.
Relation to journey.
Politics and economics
What should the essence of this section be? Separate into two sections? Relate to
the section ‘Science and the Sciences’?
Title? Here? Keep?
Ultimate
System of ideas and experiments
Transience and arrival
Keep title?
Conclusion
Last picture at end, not side, and with comment on pictures. Here if there is no
epilogue—otherwise at epilogue.
99
THE WAY AHEAD
Function
Plans and planning.
The plans should be minimal and revisable
Wide-angle view
Way of life
There can be no way but being—that is, be-ing and becoming intertwined. What
will vary is emphasis.
Emphasis will cycle through sustaining (be-ing) and transforming (becoming).
Sustaining
Sustaining has a single section below.
Planning
Planning is an identifiable part of and should intersperse the total process; it is a
connector of sustaining to transforming.
Transformation
The scheme of execution is as follows:
Ideas-publishing transformation of being return to ideas.
100
While the distinctions are blurred there are four sections on transformation: one
section on ideas and three on transformation of being according to the following
scheme:
Individual being and identity-sharing civilization artifact-technology.
Sustaining
Time frame—ongoing
Modified to suit transforming activity
Daily Practice
1. Routine—rise and sleep early. Review planning (below), plans and tasks.
2. Dedicate. Meditate—review, practice: focus, spaciousness of being…
Meditation in-action: pro-act—values, goals, others, death as spur and
transition.
I dedicate my life to the way of being— // Its discovery and revelation—
Shedding the bonds of limited self / In meditation and action and not in
avoidance of or waiting for perfection / As incremental action—inner and
outer—illuminated and contained by the ultimate / That I may see the way so
clearly / That living it, especially in difficulty / And by knowledge of
difficulty, / Will merge force and flow… / And reveal The Way and its /
Truth and power. // May I always live and share the way.
101
3. Transition. Experiment… Ideas, write, art, music…
4. Exercise. Aerobic, flexibility, posture, hiking fitness.
Sustaining activities
1. Place and transportation—aims, nature spirit, community… university… a
life of feeling.
2. Skills—for aims, money. Work: web, workplace—online, for community,
aims, finance.
3. Health—physical and dental; and spiritual.
Planning
It will benefit the entire endeavor for this study to be preliminary, parallel, and
subsequent to transformation.
Time frame—immediate and ongoing
Immediate and ongoing.
Design, planning, and review
1. Review of the entire process being becoming, its elements, soundness,
completeness and needs. This is self-referential: it includes reflection on the
nature of planning, making it efficient (quality, quantity), and reflection on
the nature of rationality (rationality is a topic in rationality).
102
2. A way to express the ‘method’: analysis and synthesis of being and meaning
(sufficient to ends that emerge in the process).
3. Needs for fundamentals and phases of realization.
Principles
‘Just do it’ expresses these thoughts (1) There is an optimum balance between
planning and execution; (2) We do not always know perfectly where the balance
lies, nor can we plan perfectly; (3) Therefore ‘just do it’ is not mere impulsivity;
and (4) Action is energizing; (5) Plans are enhanced by experiments—and ‘just
doing it’ is experimental; (6) ‘Doing’ engages others.
Review the above. Other principles?
Overview of plans
Since the ideas are relatively complete the immediate emphasis will be on
transformation with support from ideas.
Improving and extending ideas, means, and plans preliminary, parallel, and
subsequent to transformation of being will be effective for the entire endeavor or
journey.
After a phase of emphasizing transformation of being, it will be useful to re-
conceptualize the entire endeavor.
103
Ideas
All ideas could be placed here but the following arrangement is more effective.
1. This section focuses on ‘general knowledge for transformation’—that is,
metaphysics on a broad sense.
Here, metaphysics is understood in a general sense—the universal
metaphysics (a) itself and (b) in interaction with and as container for
practical knowledge (especially science and the sciences)—for synthesis and
as mutual sources of criteria and significance.
2. Each of the three sections on transformation of being will have one or more
sub-sections on the ideas or concepts pertinent to the aspect of transformation
considered.
Time frame—parallel to and after transformation
Parallel to and after transformation.
The metaphysics, its foundation and development
Foundation—metaphysics, practical knowledge, and method; and completion in
action—mostly done; begin with The metaphysics of this narrative. Process—
Analysis and synthesis of (meaning and) being. Proof—consolidate proofs and
arguments for the metaphysics. Logic—carefully think through demonstration
that the metaphysics and logical realism (Logic) are identical.
104
Logic—(1) Studies in literature of logic to see if my conceptions stand up and to
see if the extension to realism (Logic) as science-logic stands up (2)
Understanding of and facility with first order logic, perhaps more, for use in
development (3) Development of the new conception ‘Logic / realism’ and
analysis-synthesis of the realms harbored in realism.
Development of the metaphysics and application—see Metaphysics, Journey;
later, iterate through and reduce dimensions of human endeavor and knowledge
Science and symbolic systems
Science and symbolic systems as studies and studied—subjects and objects. As
objects this includes formal study, models, self representation. Topics: from
grammar to language, logic, set theory, mathematics—much done; implications
for realism
Knowledge database: principles and development
Source—knowledge database.html
Knowledge database (and system of human knowledge)—(1) Refine (2) KDB
software (3) Plan, implement
Foundations of physical cosmology
‘Physical sciences, especially quantum theory (1) For comparison to the
universal metaphysics (2) To find whether quantum theory contains the universal
metaphysics—if it does at all, I expect QM and FP will be identical for
105
possibilities but not for probabilities (3) To consider laws as objects—is there a
hierarchy of laws, e.g. from QM to FP. (4) To consider the relevance of other
physical theory (especially relativity) to such questions and the universal
metaphysics (5) For information on the elements, dynamics, and structure of our
cosmos
Note—sciences of life (and mind) and social sciences are entered under Symbolic
and experimental being and World studies, respectively
Foundations of ethics and value
Examples morality, civil law and value and their immanent (local…) forms of
Ethics, Justice, and Value.
Individual and identity
Principles and means are outlined above.
Time frame—2014…
2014…
Ideas—ways of transformation
General aspects
Givenness, beginning in the present. Learning, experiment, iteration are essential;
tradition is a beginning
106
Ways and catalysts
Catalysts act on the organism, e.g. via shock or resonance. Their aim is to unlock
innate (e.g. savant-like) capacities. They act indirectly on the person.
Ways, e.g. the eightfold way and psychoanalysis, act on the person and indirectly
on the organism.
The distinction is of course blurred as is the organism-person distinction. Ways
may include catalysts; catalytic change is integrated via healing and personal-
cultural interpretation.
Elements of the ways
Means (ideas, action)-vehicles (individual, civilization)-places (nature, culture)-
modes (intrinsic—especially immersive: ways, catalysts, art and religion;
instrumental—science, philosophy, technology)-disciplines (established
interacting with experiment and selection / criticism)
Core mechanics of risk (experiment, splitting) and consolidation (rebuilding,
increment in reason, recollection, and artifact)—i.e., analysis and synthesis of
being and meaning.
Sustaining
Tradition and experiment,
Synthesis
107
To organism by iteration upon small change… To person and culture by
synthesis-reason, record, transformation, iteration… To process (including
evolution) by entry into to transience-permanence.
Examples for study and experiment
Introduction: it is important that the meanings of the systems, while presented as
systems, are not at all fixed and should not be; there is experience but not
expertise
1. Religions of native peoples—Shamanism, Native American religion.
Shamanic systems—(1) Communally guided tradition of plant use (a. plant
chemicals, b. preparation) (2) Communally guided and interpreted vision
quest.
2. Mysticism—Greek, Jewish, Christian, Islamic; and mythic cosmology as map
of world and psyche
3. ‘Indian’ (Veda, Upanishad, Vedanta and other ‘non orthodox’)—Yoga
(transformation, connection), meditation (openness; meditation—not
available on the Internet; instead see yoga), Tantra (embrace; and the also
existential: death as horizon and spur to closure in this life and gateway to
universal life), Death—its understanding as horizon and spur to closure to
this life and gateway to universal life
4. Buddhism: Mahayana (four truths, eight-fold way) and Tibetan (Tantra:
Chöd, Beyul)
108
The way of the Buddha—an example. Four truths—there is suffering; it has a
cause; there is a permanent end to suffering; there is a way to this end.
Eightfold way—eight ‘rights’—Wisdom or prajna (1) View (2) Intention;
Ethical conduct or sila (3) Speech (4) Action (5) Livelihood; Concentration
or Samadhi—(6) Effort (7) Mindfulness (8) Concentration. The eightfold
way has been analyzed as cognitive-emotional-behavioral. Shamanism
includes a way of psychic transformation—ways of transformation neurology
to receptive states, especially vision seeking without and with psychoactive
substances.
5. Modern—hypnosis, EMDR, psychoanalysis (Freud, Jung, object relations, self
psychology…), psycho-behavioral re-education (REBT), 12-step logic
Ideas—catalysts of transformation
Approaches to transformation are evolutionary, systematic (ways, ideas) and
catalytic.
Types of altered and enhanced state
Dream, hypnosis, meditative—focal and open space, unconscious access, object
free but vivid perception and thought (‘hallucination, delusion’), enhanced
vision, receptivity, feeling-emotion, ideation, kinetics and kinesthetics.
Enhancing and Inducing Factors
Isolation-deprivation, inaction, exposure—extreme environments, shock, trauma,
pain, exhaustion… Fear—presence, crisis and opportunistic sense, dissociation
109
and reintegration via exposure to anxiety (Chöd)—volitional or not—and
purpose… Repetition, rhythm, dance, point focus (e.g. breath), and engagement
as sources of experiential space and concentration; ritual… Immersion in new
perspectives—handedness, new languages, travel—cultures and emote
environments (receptivity in Churches, Beyul), sacred texts and poetic
expression, acting as stepping outside the bonds of self… Fast, diet, psychoactive
substances… Charismatic transformation via purpose, preparation, risk-exposure
to people and places, and insight into motives… Brain state technologies…
Goals
1. Experiment, increment, consolidation toward greater being.
2. Immersion in civilizing.
3. Build at every stage upon what has come so far so that the outcome is far
removed from the beginning and what may have been conceived in the
beginning.
4. Reflect on the means (experiment, immersion) and ends (build); to concretize
(making notes will help)—so as to see progress, strength, weakness, need;
and so to conceive and implement ideas for improvement.
Experiments
Preliminary
1. For planning, see the goals above. Also, at some point—‘just do it’
110
2. Transition requires openness to essential newness and therefore to ignorance,
searching, and inspiration… and places of inspiration
3. Preliminary trips and experiments.
Nature
Travel-share-vision-experiment.
Culture and civilization
Being. Immersion.
Risk
Get out of comfort zone. Do good work—civilization.
Civilization
Experiments and ideas toward knowing and realizing the ultimate emphasizing
Civilization.
The primary mode of transformation is intrinsic: individual—identity,
participation, and immersion—and civilization as such: individual-group
synthesis.
Time frame—2014…
2014…
111
Ideas—world studies
For World—values, laws (e.g. constitution), ecology, politics (immersion / grass
roots), exchange values (international and local), and economics.
Ideas—civilization and realization
Analysis and role of civilization in realization—(1) The idea—civilization is the
web of human culture across time and continents. Greater civilization is the
matrix ‘civilizations’ across the universe. Individuals foster civilization;
civilization nurtures the individual. (2) Concepts—the universal metaphysics
reveals a limitless universe open to individuals and civilizations.
Disciplines
Disciplines including the discipline of discipline are progressive.
Significant topics from Transformation of being—Ideas for transformation are:
Catalysts of transformation; Ways and means of transformation and realization;
World studies; Civilization and realization
Approach
Approach—integrate with individual transformation; participation and
immersion; this world and the universe.
112
This world
This world—participation, immersion; problem and opportunity; politics,
economics, technology, and the trans-secular.
Shared endeavor, community, communication (publication)… See
TranscommunityDesign and a first plan—TransCommunity.xls (Excel) or
TransCommunity.html.
Civilization of the universe
Civilization of the universe—shared endeavor; metaphysics and transformation;
retreat and return; exploration, artifact, and technology
Artifact
Time frame—2014…
2014…
Ideas—symbolic and experimental being in realization
Artificial being including life and experiential being (including study of life and
mind); concepts; computation; modeling, symbiosis; design; experiment;
evolution. Technology for Civilization. Theoretical (and experimental) study of
transformations with organisms, individuals, selves, and dissolution of self—
psycho-biology.
113
General considerations
The primary mode of transformation is extrinsic or instrumental: science,
technology, artifact—artifactual aids and symbiosis and constructed being—
including life, mind, and intelligence
The approach is defined above in plans for Symbolic and experimental being in
realization—see the topic Symbolic and experimental being in realization.
See immediately above for TransCommunity.
Adjunct to civilizing the universe
Technology as adjunct to Transformation of being—civilization.
After achievements in transformation
Return to ideas; analysis again, integration, open attitude
NOTES FROM THE EDGE
Time frame—transformation
Function
Record ideas and transformation—to refine and enhance process, to share, to
weave into narrative.
114
Versions
Web. The heading Notes from the edge will link to a page titles that link to
content pages that appear in a separate window or frame.
EPILOGUE
An alternate title: After-word
Some possible elements are:
Prospect
The author
Invitation
LEXICON, SOURCES AND INDEX
Words
Coin words—for meaning and power
Collect a set of basic words—so that capitalization is not needed, confusion with
common technical and everyday use avoided. Enhance this by coinage
An initial set:
115
Being, Metaphysics, Existence, Experience, Meaning, Laws, Universe,
Possibility, Creation; Void, Limit, Logic, Science and Realism; Object,
Identity… Space and time words…
Names such as Universal Metaphysics may be capitalized without further
remark.
Civilization… need an alternate for ‘Civilization’
‘Futurology’
Replace academic / intellectual disciplines by conceptual disciplines. Then, the
disciplines are: conceptual, practical, and human
Being. When used in the sense of that which marks existence—being. ( colloquial
use, e.g. ‘this being the case’ need not be remarked. For particular beings—entity
(or process, interaction, quality…) regardless whether concrete or abstract.
Tense-less use of being and exists—somewhere in extensivity!
Existence. This word will be unremarkable except (1) There will be a use of it
that is neutral to tense or place or, more generally to extensivity (2) The given
that there is existence (3) Existence very close in family meaning to Being will
be differentiated in emphasis as follows: Being will be emphatically neutral to
marking substance or non-substance, the being of or in space and time (especially
universality of space and time), being as entity vs. process vs. quality vs.
interaction) and (4) For the problem of the non-existent object which however
will be shown to have trivial resolution.
116
Experience. This word will be reserved for the range of meanings captured by
‘subjective awareness’ (seen as relation). For cumulative experience I will use
‘cumulative experience’. Alternate. Use awareness instead of experience (and
point out that at root there is no awareness without elementary consciousness)—
in this use ‘awareness’ will mean ‘content or feeling of awareness’ whether
elementary or compound, perceptual or free concept and or symbolic; use
experience for cumulative experience.
Meaning. Among the common meanings of ‘meaning’ are (1) conceptual and
linguistic meaning and (2) significance as in ‘the meaning of life’. The former is
the conceptual use of meaning in this text. The latter use will be important but
informal. Where it is necessary to make the distinction I will do so.
Concept. Use concept for mental content—which will include free concept and
percept; use higher concept for higher concept; use representation for
purportedly referential concept (actually referring or not).
Extension. Use extension to refer to proto-space (extension as the range of
reference of a concept will be a secondary use restricted mainly to its mention).
Use duration for proto-time. Use extensive variable or extensivity to refer to
markers of identity and, perhaps, quality to refer (tentatively) to distinctions that
mark identity without necessary change in extensivity. Regarding the intension
and extension (sense and reference) of an object, use conceptual intension and
conceptual extension (or, simply, sense and reference)
Logic. Use realism or logical realism. Mention Logic.
117
Sources
Index
118
![Basit Gaus Eleme 1 Yöntemi - İstanbul Üniversitesi Basit Gaus Eleme [A][X]=[C] formundaki lineer denklem takımının çözümü için bir yöntemdir. İki adımı vardır 1. İleriye](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/5f105d5f7e708231d448bf65/basit-gaus-eleme-1-yntemi-stanbul-oeniversitesi-basit-gaus-eleme-axc.jpg)
