|
A MAP OF MY WORLD / A MAP OF THE WORLD ANIL MITRA PHD, COPYRIGHT © 2001 AND February 2013 Introduction – what this map is about The World: Approach from the abstract and the general Relation to the concepts of the Absolute, of Substance The accidental nature of the individual Accident or magnificent, regardless, you are real What, then, is the relationship between the absolute and our world? Using quantum dynamics and physical cosmology The Nature of Being: approach from the immediate The Nature of Death / on Immortality The Dynamics of Being and of the Real Points incorporated by the map and the metaphysics of presence A Map of My World: My Immediate World Is Finite Being an Incarnation or an Expression? The Fundamental Tenet of Religion A Map of My World: The universe, the larger world Document Status February 11, 2013
A MAP OF MY WORLD / A MAP OF THE WORLD An outline of essentialsThis map is the beginning of an outline of essentials Other characterizations below [written later but preliminary] Wednesday 11.28.01 A map of my world is a map of the world. How so – that sounds self-indulgent! When an author writes a book entitled, say, “The Nature of Reality” he writes from his own awareness. Let’s not quibble about the merging of his awareness with the cosmic, in the everyday worldview he writes from his own awareness. Of course, his awareness includes his experience of the world and what he has learnt of the world from the various traditions of experience and learning – oral, written. However, it remains true that, in a sense, “The Nature of Reality” is a part of the “Map of His World”. Thus, my concept of “A Map of the World” is part of a map of my world. Of course, if individual and cosmos are one then the maps are identical Introduction – what this map is aboutPersonal: what is real and important for me? Universal: a simple map of all being that connects with my personal map; and contains the essence of fundamental metaphysics Reality and the good life are the same: action in balance with feeling. Feeling includes thought and emotion. Without action, feeling is empty; without feeling, there is no action. The moment insight begins to be codified it is lost; insight is ever a process – and needs balance by action More than this, there is no ultimate knowledge as knowledge, belief as belief. Knowing arises in relation to the process of adaptation; knowing exists only in continuity with action – and action only in continuity with knowing The state of My World
The ideas are essentially complete
-->
Onward to Experiments in the Transformation of Being
A Universal MapThis is about basic metaphysics and ontology. We state it in the form of Foundations of the MapThe World: Approach from the abstract and the generalA foundation of the world is in nothing – nothingness, the void Nothing – is that a simple or a complex concept. Just as spaces of many dimension challenge the imagination, so does nothing. Nothing goes beyond “no-thing” Space and time without things and events can be pictured; that picture is not a picture of nothing although it may be a picture of no-thing. It is not implied that space-time without being is possible or meaningful There is a sense in which void, chaos and “uniform grey” – meaning a world without distinction – are equivalent There is no principle that is violated in saying that the world is equivalent to nothing In nothingness there is and can be no causation and no determinism If nothing remained so – that would be both causation and determinism Neither causation nor determinism can reign in the final realm of infinity of infinities, eternity of eternities which is equivalent to nothing Universal causation – and therefore, any thought of universal determinism – must be abandoned in the temporal domain. This is [?] trivially equivalent to: all being º nothing [ B º F ]. Mechanism, causation, determinism are products rather than the generators of original creation; they are also products of “selective perception” Common origins provide an explanatory principle due to unity. Common origins from no-thing is deeper than origins from something, a substance The essentially new, that which is not contained in what came before, requires indeterminism and a-causal process… and selection. Evolution – variation and selection are necessary [why and for what] and precede determinism and mechanism – even at the most fundamental/basic level of creation… and of the origin of the universe[s]. Just as a-causal process precedes cause There is a way for structure to arise from indeterminism, absence of causation. This is described in the previous point and above. This is contrary to what many have written: that, while determinism may be empty since it does not allow choice, indeterminism is also empty because it does not allow form or the creation of form. But, the error of the argument that indeterminism does not allow form or the creation of form has been made manifest. Additionally, while form is consistent with determinism the creation of form is not There is, was and will be one universe. The universe is that which has no cause – and requires no cause for its understanding. Causation is essentially a part of the universe and the mode of being of the universe. In the absence of the [manifest] universe, in the presence of nothing, there is no cause; and, in the absence of being, cause and determinism, manifestation is necessary. This has truth even in the temporal domain There is spontaneous eruption of transient elements from nothing. This necessarily involves transient becoming-decaying of elements in occasional relation; here are the primitives of being, of process, of relationship – and so of primal category [if such exists], primal time, primal space The manifest universe is of transient existence, based in selection of near symmetric, near stable structures – away from absolute symmetry; evolution is possible; near symmetry makes for greater variety. “Regarding transience, what is a moment to God may be an infinity to a finite being” “Facts”, categories, patterns and Laws are in a process of mutual creation. The bulk of the creation of Law may according to its kind, physical, biological… be strongly focused at a particular epoch While Law is not symbolic or iconic, law, the human expression of Law is intuitive, iconic, symbolic… While law is human expression and Law is the form or the form of the dynamics of our [phase of the one] universe, we may think of LAW or LAW as the form, or the possibility of form of all universes or, rather, all phases and epochs of the universe. This leads to the idea of a “Platonic Universe of Ideas behind the real universe.” This idea is an approximation to the concept of a Platonic Manifold that is part of the one The formation of more-than-merely-transient structures is self-selecting. More than-than-merely-transient means: exists long enough to form combinations A world with variety will be one with repeated microelements “atoms”, “elementary particles” – atomism is necessary! [Why and for what?] [ Note on June 6, 2003: as noted in Journey in Being, I no longer think that atomism is necessary. In Journey in Being I note that in a continuum, the problem of interaction is solved because every “element” has structure] The initial elements are seed More-than-merely-transient means, also, relative but not absolute stability Relative stability requires near symmetry. Nearer to symmetry implies greater stability, the potential for greater variety, slower becoming and decaying, i.e., slower evolution but with more variety. Variety depends, also, on the initial condition, immediately after the void and upon the creation of causality. In the limit of absolutely symmetric foundational [elementary] structure: the universe would be absolutely stable; the rate of evolution, of change, of coming into or going out of existence and variety would be zero; in an infinite amount of time there would be infinite variety; the world would be perfect, beautiful but frozen. So much metaphor there. And: this is why we like imperfection. But: perhaps I misunderstand time and process: perhaps in the eternity of eternities there is a perfect world of the Gods. Perhaps that is not merely a metaphor The coming into existence of the “elements” is neither causal nor deterministic. However, it is self-selection that results in structure-in-process-and-relationship. Thus, there is an origin of near causation; and there is an origin of phases of near determinism. It is often thought that indeterminism is mere randomness and therefore cannot lead to form and structure. This shows the error Coming into existence of the world may be interpreted literally. Then we would be interested in the variety of kinds and ways to know. We would not be mere empiricists or mere rationalists or mere pragmatists. Or, coming into existence – since the world is equivalent to nothing – could be a way of understanding the world. This is just as the posited mechanisms of biological evolution can be seen the actual mechanisms or as a way of understanding – or both The elementary constituents, due to their primal ability to interact, part of the requirement of existence, may combine and recombine. The process includes trial and selection. This leads to increasingly complex structures. Selection leads to the following: structure codes world. This means that a merely or apparently mechanistic universe can lead to intelligence, design, teleology; these are at least local. However, the stamp of mechanism violates the fundamental equivalence of the world and nothing. This in itself is not an argument for other kinds of cause, especially teleologic cause. It simply means that the categories of mechanism, of teleologism, of substance, of process are phases of the world; are not ultimately substantial The basic mechanism of evolution, of the origin of the essentially new in the temporal domain, is trial and selection. Trial and selection has a number of characterizations: variation and selection, destabilization and equilibrium, indeterminism and determinism. Without further specification, the meanings of the various terms are metaphorical. Talk of determinism in the temporal domain refers to a phase or a mode but not to an ontological character. In a super-temporal view or domain, determinism reigns. Any approach to a finally determinate state is through indeterministic process Thus being: the existence of being requires it to be in the triadic relation: being-relationship-process. However, this does not follow, here, from the requirement of being or of observation of the world but from the origin in nothing. Requirements of being and observation can corroborate this The world is made up of distributions of kinds of being. Being can be thought of as in the triadic relation: being-relationship-process. Alternatively, being may be thought of as constituted of the elements in that triad To understand the world we will understand the kinds and the distributions – and their relations and processes. Causation and determinism [in the phases of their reign] are found in being-process-relationship There is third way to see being: it is the “integration” of the triad: the cumulative or historical development of being-relationship-process that gives meaning. Alternatively, we can write: being-meaning-action, or structure-relationship-process… This [concept of] being stands above process, extension, and relationship. The actuality of nothingness, which is equivalent to all being, also stands above process, extension, and relationship. What else dwells in this realm of “standing above process, extension, relationship”? From the point of view of a mind that consciously sees across from one epoch, one moment of universal-existence to another far removed: universal causation and determinism at a super-temporal level. The metaphysics of presence shows the possibility of this kind of mind Being may be regarded as the historical cumulation over beings-meanings-actions, or, rather [being-meaning-action]’s. There is now an interesting point regarding determinism and causation. The full particular history of being from nothing is neither causal nor deterministic – although phases of history may approximate to determinism and may be capable of causal explanation. But when we look at all history over all being, as being cycles through phases of being and non-being [nothing] we may see at this level a non-temporal determinism and causation: all possibilities are visited; and having been visited once, they will be visited again. This is the matter of the “myth” of the eternal return. In this sense, everything is given, determined. Causation requires reference to the metaphysics of presence below To know, speculate, hypothesize the nature of primal being we look to proximate being, to “our presence in the world” IdeasFrom the Metaphysics of Presence [§§ 8, 9 of notes 2001,] the essence of mind is present in original creation. The genesis of thought – especially new ideas – is similar to the genesis of being. The origin of a new idea is an elementary “spark” that is cultivated and guided by the existing matrix of [stable] thought patterns Being == One == Zero == Blank Mind == Creation Relation to the concepts of the Absolute, of SubstanceThe first general idea of the Absolute is that of substance whose necessary mechanisms produce the world. The absolute º nothing Substance: undifferentiated or minimally differentiated, enduring, not transmutable in its intrinsic nature but variable in its forms and transformations and manifestations. Necessary: from the nature of that un-differentiation, that non-specification. Nothingness º the essential substance This is at once the first cause and no cause - and this eliminates any paradox of original causation…these are realms in which causation cannot be pinned down to its immediate and contingent manifestations; similar and temporal paradoxes are removed in that it is apparent that it is atemporal and the origin of time NoumenonThese concepts are related to the “noumenon,” the thing-in-itself. There is something contradictory about the concept of the thing-in-itself. The contradiction is not that what is known is not “in-itself” and therefore even if the thing-in-itself exists it is not knowable. The reason that this is not a contradiction is that being in-itself does not imply un-knowability; it does imply, though, that mere apprehension of a thing does not mean that the apprehended-thing is a thing-in-itself. The apprehended thing may be a “thing-in-itself” coincidentally; but the “in-itself-hood” may be required to be known by other means. That this other means is yet “another picture” does not imply that we can not get out of the loop of apprehended-ness The contradictory aspect is as follows. On an atomic view the assignment of Thinghood to some collection is to some degree conventional because there is always some circumstance in which the “thing” ceases to be a thing. Therefore the only absolute things are [1] atoms or monads and [2] the absolute or the all; all other things are “relative.” Further, it is not clear that there are atoms. At least the fundamental building blocks of science [mind, matter] are not clearly fundamental. There may however be a logic of atomism based in the possibility of existence from nothing-hood; such an atomism would be Logical in nature; but the Logic would not stem from given logic or logical systems but from Possibility. At the same time, the relative Thinghood of things does not make them ephemeral [to mortal men.] The Thinghood of things, though relative to an absolute universe-scape, is highly real in a practical way To understand the noumenon, the thing-in-itself – start with this absolute based in nothing; timeless, it contains the seeds of time; spaceless, it contains the seeds of space The noumena include the absolute, the one, and the no-thing behind the world. The absolute is equivalent to [the] no-thing. In this sense the world is equivalent to and has origin in the absolute, in the no-thing The accidental nature of the individualThere is a profusion of philosophies and scientific viewpoints that give accidental status to the existence of the individual. The individual is an ontological accident. This point clearly needs to be separated from the psychology of the individual – one day feeling potent, another day feeling insignificant… separated from the phenomenon of the “powerful” who feel lonely and depressed, the “insignificant” who feel euphoria from an “accident” of brain chemistry. It is not that there is no relationship between true and felt power. One assumes that there is a healthy state where felt power corresponds to real power But what is real power? From the equivalence of the world to no-thing, the individual is no more accidental than the entire world, the entire cosmos There is no power in material things or the material universe. [This refers to Power, not to Watts or something of that nature.] The Power in things is assigned. Rather, it has a dual status of being assigned and being real that coincide in the healthy person. This generalizes to agency – replace “person” by “agent,” “being,” “mind…” Power = Agency [Power = “healthy” agency.] Accident or magnificent, regardless, you are real… and always potential in the womb of being, the absolute, the state of no-Thinghood Proof1. 1. You are real 2. 2. You are a product of the state of no-Thinghood, of the absolute, of Being 3. 3. You are eternally potential within Being – which as no-thing is unchanging Note that in any corner of “the” universe there is the potential of eruption of a universe from an infinitesimal part that is no-thing What, then, is the relationship between the absolute and our world?4. 1. The structure of our world [including culture, human nature, values, art – but also the natural universe...] is not “necessary” 5. 4. But from the general character of the absolute [no-Thinghood, determinism, indeterminism, structure-variation... emergence], we can understand general features [the principles apply at multi-levels] and conceive change/or accept change based in absolute principles Is there a role for combinatorial growth? For the absolute the origin of the world is not an effort or an action? On Space, Time and CausationThe nature of cause, space, time [space-time] and relationship. Space and time themselves are not real. Relationships are real and space-time is a [mental] grid that is employed in description. Here, a comment on the reality of, say, causation and theories. Both causation and scientific theories are arrived at by induction. We dealt with Hume’s and Popper’s treatment in Hume’s brilliant error where we saw that Hume’s mistake was to think of science as necessary truth rather than the process of discovering nature’s patterns: as a process it is ongoing and no stage is regarded as final. We may have to be satisfied with the contingency of the predictive ability and the beauty of explanation from science. However, although science is tentative and even if we can find no better foundation of knowledge than representationalism, we are of the world and we assert the existence of patterns and their discernment. Of course, we may be unable to provide an “external” foundation for that discernment but, being of the world, we also realize that the demand for external foundation is unrealistic even if the hope is not. These thoughts apply to causation, theory, and understanding in the realm of our world. But, above, we have been talking about causation in the realm of the entire world: the cosmos and not merely the “physical” cosmos. We saw that there can be no universal causation in the temporal sense that includes The Creation. In fact, although causation my reign in certain realms or epochs that is part of actual the pattern of that realm or epoch and, while it may reign well, its reign is not absolute. For a universe may originate in my eyelash; and that that has not been seen and does not fit with “the pattern” does not mean that it has not happened or could not. We also saw that there can be and is causation in a super-temporal sense. This causation is absolute and necessary though not all-pervasive and is not subject to Hume’s argument: it is not the projection or induction of a mind; and, as far it is dependent on mind [presence] it is still necessary since mind [presence] is the heart of being The universeThere is one universe but there may be causally isolated domains and distinct realms corresponding to different fundamental constituents, different fundamental laws, and different historical branchings The entire universe is equivalent to nothing. In the manifest phase, it is possible for a spontaneous eruption of an intrusive universe; what is the likelihood? Suppose we have a complete physical theory of one realm of one causal domain. This does not at once or at all give us a complete science of that domain. If we knew the fundamental physical theory of our universe, we would not thereby be able to predict or understand chemistry, the course of life on earth, the history of humankind or a given society. Complexity and history would remain partially refractory to the physical theory of our universe Is it possible to write down one “fundamental theory” for the eruption of a universe from nothing; or the possibilities of fundamental constituents and laws of all realms and causal domains? Practically the variety is, likely, an order infinity that means that there is no capturing the essence of reality other than actuality: the actuality of the one universe. Can we say anything theoretically? There must be a Gödelian argument to show that such a kind of completeness cannot be reduced to an algorithm DynamicsWhat are necessary elements of dynamics of an “abstract” universe? Consider elements from [1] The abstract and the general: near symmetry, seeding and repeated structures, the origin of causation, interaction and relation [force-space-time], variety and hierarchy, and [2] The immediate: as below Using a principle of locality The foundation of particle, and string / m-theory Every point of gradient in the universal continuum has it own time. These times are correlated through the dynamics Using quantum dynamics and physical cosmologyThis section, Using quantum dynamics, is not an essential part of this development The most basic state, the ground state, is the vacuum state which is not void, not nothing, certainly not no-thing. The universe will visit the base state Between the void and the base state is the a-causal realm before physics and law: likely before 10-43 seconds, the Planck time. It is a “time” of history – history in the sense of something that does not follow a linear, predictable pattern something that is not predicted in the temporal domain but may be understood in retrospect. Something that we often mistake for a pattern and attempt to base design upon it. In the extreme: there is no prediction, no pattern, just pure happening. Again, in the super temporal understanding or realm, where there is democracy among and inevitability of all worlds [literary license: I mean all possibilities], there is that meaning and that sense in which determinism reigns as does causation as more than a projection of a mind As noted elsewhere, quantum dynamics lends support to the variation + selection paradigm in the causal epochs. Classical dynamics is largely a “variation” paradigm? TimeTime exists in the quantum vacuum. I.e. there is process; a grid for process would be very irregular. Thus there are “epochs” of time There is perhaps no co-ordination of process in the a-causal realm before physics and law. In this sense, time has origins SymbolLanguage, logic, mathematics. Propositions and propositional calculus. Groups… Linguistic domain… These are some possibilities for the symbolic representation of the original or near original dynamics Local and differential dynamics; local and discrete dynamics; co-foundation A classic mapThe Encyclopaedia Britannica provides a classic map. I would modify that map: § § According to the metaphysics of presence § § According to the principles of Journey in Being; especially the integration of Knowing and Acting § § “Psychology” would be replaced by “mind” or “psyche” § § The sciences physical through social would be one section § § Art, technology, religion would be one § § Humanities and the symbolic sciences would be combined as philosophy; the union of the natural and the symbolic would be emphasized § § Emphasis on “written record” is arbitrary. History would not, therefore, be the story that it is regarded to be. History, and the story would be written as one The Nature of Being: approach from the immediateIn the previous section “The World”, I approached the “Map” from the high vantage point. Here we look to the immediate. But, details are developed elsewhere We see that
The essence of the ultimate can be seen and is in all beings. Every being contains that essence
We saw that mind is at the core of being; value or ethics. However, not mind-as-I-know-it nor ethics-as-we-have-it. Rather that appears as a primitive in the “elements of being” described above. That primitive, I called “presence” Presence corresponds, in the quanta of being, what at the level of our being – animal, human – is the subjective [relation]; but presence also has objective existence. It is not other than matter This is not the absurd and traditional caricature of pan-psychism that finds “little minds”, rather like ours, at the core of being – any more than materialism would be the idea that there are little Empire State Buildings at the core of matter. Also, note that materialism ought to be called pan-materialism. The materialists are sophisticated with regard to matter but [deliberately?] primitive with regard to the understanding of mind So: mind is part of Mind; being part of Being Good and evil [though not good-and-evil-as-we-have-immediate-and-enculturated-experience-of-it] is at the core of being, at the core of the elements of being. Fact and value are not distinct Comment on the immediateAlthough the suffix -as-I-know-it seems to make things complex it is simplifying. First, we do not become committed to mind-as-I-know-it, matter-as-I-know-it… as ontologies. Second, it clears the way for universal understanding through abstraction and the transcendental analytic. The transcendental analytic is, in one essence, argument from effect to cause, from circumstance to foundation… The abstraction cancels the loss from the accidents of history. As far as interpretation, one can think of the results of transcendental argument as fact or explanatory principle. The transcendental analytic sounds esoteric and is often presented as such “Kant’s introduction of a first truly philosophical mode of argument.” But, that kind of argument pervades our every moment to moment existence under the guise of intelligibility and discovery But, if I step back from the “-as-I-know-it” as something fixed; we can see the identity of mind and matter even in the proximate realm The Nature of Death / on ImmortalityThe foundation of the universe, of all being in “nothing” immediately calls into question the nature of death. What is death? The various biological, medical and legal definitions of death, though necessary and practical, are not to the point. What is the concept of death? Absolute cessation of being? The foundation of being in nothing: being is connected to, merged with, part of Being. Death is cessation, but not final cessation. While death is cessation, here and now it is also a door to the ultimate. But, not the only door. There is no need to imagine cycles and hypercycles of birth and death. Hypercycles? They are the cycling of being, through Being, through BEING, through BEING. And, also, the achievement of greater perspectives: individual life, the perspective over multiple lives, over all being Now consider the fact of an individual’s existence – your existence. You are here, alive, sentient and existing as such. You were born. If you always existed despite the appearance to the contrary, birth is not associated with coming to be, to exist. Therefore, assume that you did not exist at some time before your birth. You came into existence from a place where you did not exist. The fact of your existence shows that your coming into existence from non-existence is possible in this universe. Therefore, it is possible again. One could argue that the universe has changed slightly and therefore it does not follow that your coming to be is possible again. That seems to be splitting hairs, the universe has not truly changed that much. But, it can be argued, an individual is unique and so coming into existence again is, at least, unlikely. That assumes, however, that the universe itself is a unique event in some sense – it will cease to exist or be subject to an eternal frozen fate at some time in the future. But, the idea of the universe being a unique event itself is subject to the same argument regarding the individual. If the universe will die, it can be born. If it can be born, it can be born once more. If it can be born once more, you can be once more Death and suicide are conceptual in nature. From the point of view of the real, i.e. not from the usual cultural vantage point, the concepts of death and suicide as commonly held are laden with delusion Death is not absolute; death is the door to the infinite The universe is equivalent to nothing. That is not merely logical: the universe could have come into being from nothing. You are part of that which came into being from nothing. The probability that you will come into being in some specific manifestation is more than zero. Therefore, the probability that you will manifest again in the infinite number of future manifestations is “one,” i.e., your future [and past] manifestations are certain; and certain over and over again. There is always the potential for a universe to manifest that has no contact with this universe. But it will always have the potential to interact with this universe. It will not be a truly distinct universe. There is one universe but there may be infinitely many causally separate “universes.” Causal separation at one time does not imply causal separation in eternity The argument so far produces a result that is not interesting. All individuals will manifest again, and again… In this manifestation one is not aware of other manifestations. I know people who claim to have lived before but have never met anyone who claims to be aware of past lives. The claim is of the form “because I instantly recognized something – a place, a person – I must have known it before.” I tend to view with suspicion claims of actual knowledge of past existence by human beings. I cannot “rationally” discount those claims and there may be some prejudice involved – they are uneducated, I find them uninteresting… Perhaps I find my own thoughts on “immortality” more real, more interesting. The realm of the possible is more interesting – because I can do something with the possible. Regardless of the truth, assume that human beings do not have awareness of past lives. Then, the result so far is not interesting because the argument merely shows the eternal rebirth of the same being – or a similar being who knows nothing, truly, of eternity and possibility. Even if one were aware, the result would be quite boring – rather like having only one cinema and seeing it again and again. Eternal rebirth would not be quite as boring as that – there could be an infinite number of you and you could meet: think of the possibilities. And if you have been able to create some novel, grand ideas or machines in one life think of what might be possible with an infinite number of you. It might be interesting, it might be quite dull What will make the eternal cycle interesting, exciting? The possibility that the individual could come back in different forms – including some forms of which we are not currently aware. As a being that can see or even integrates past and future existences – a “higher” form and the limit: the individual manifests as all being. It does not seem at all impossible but it does not follow in the clockwork way that eternal rebirth follows. Since all being is equivalent to nothing, there is some reason to the claim that a frog is the equivalents of tiger or a human of a dolphin or of a star, but that reason applies only to actual beings and not to ones imagined to be possible For that argument we have to turn to an alternative approach in the following section The Dynamics of Being and of the Real. That section will show a much more interesting, exciting form of higher being, of the immortal – one of which no actual being has guarantee. That is, indeed, more exciting for anything that is guaranteed is, in the end, dull. That is not totally true. Familiarity can be good. But the actuality in the present case is a middle ground. Even if “destiny” is guaranteed its security, time, place, manner of achievement are uncertain, require effort, labor, application of the full faculties of the whole organism First, however, note that it is important to consider the form of immortality. Eternal rebirth of a rather ignorant being [human being is quite limited so far especially in the perceptual realm – of course the limit is not absolute because we do not know the true boundaries of human being] is not true immortality. The form of immortal is: that which is and truly knows that it is immortal There is a similar issue regarding “God.” There are circles in which it is considered to be in bad taste to discuss God: it is a personal issue – certainly not one that has any academic value… discussing God would be a pollution of academic or of rational values. But what is it that we are not to discuss? It is an idea – and to say it is an idea is not a commitment to existence or non-existence of a corresponding object. For example, God is the god of some religion. That may be a rather confused concept because the canons of religion are not logical treatises; but we can tolerate contradiction – a confused concept is a concept. We can focus on some relatively clear aspect of the God of [a] religion. I will not do that here because the God of religion is tied up in historical accident – that does not mean that the idea is devoid of power – and politics of various kinds In the 11th century, St. Anselm said “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” must exist in fact as well as in thought, for if it existed only in thought and not in fact, something greater than it could be conceived, namely the same thing existing in fact. God necessarily exists, because the idea of God is the idea of that than which nothing greater can be conceived. This is the argument later known as the ontological proof. This is an argument that uses the form of the idea. However, we cannot jump from the argument from form to the form of the scripture. There is, however, a real problem with arguments from form and that includes the kind of argument given here. There are in fact, two problems. First, the meaning of terms of comparison is unclear – what does “greater” mean? Second, linguistic designation need not imply existence. Consider “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Assume it exists only in thought. Now “something greater than it, the same thing existing in fact” – is that a concept? It is not clear that it is The Creative PrincipleHuman being is of the universe. The creative “principle” [not to be reified] behind creation and evolution is, in human being, conscious. Is this the limit to that creative principle? Likely not. This does not imply that the ultimate is not accessible to human being The universe may become a conscious designer What does this say about mechanism vs. teleology? In that ultimate state, what next? It is the realization of the state that is significant rather than the state Beyond the ultimate, there is again, the a-causal realm. There is no design or designing in that realm. Nor is there mechanism or teleology Should we call that ultimate state, God? Or, should we say that god as the creative principle permeates all being. Or that god and God are equivalent though not identical? And, why use “god” at all? There is a role for the ultimate. It may design a reduction not quite to the a-causal realm but to a near place from which evolution to a higher phase of being is more likely, the ultimate of that phase beyond the previous ultimate. These relative ultimates may or may not be capped; if capped, that defines the Ultimate Note on June 6, 2003: nothingness requires no imposed creative principle; it that is not nothingness which is required to be given or fixed even if it is a given zero The Dynamics of Being and of the RealThis is the approach to understanding the concept of limits and the actual limits of [human] being. From: an understanding of knowledge as actually and conceptually bound with action; from experiment with knowledge and with [one’s] being; from the testing of possibility; from an understanding of the temporal and spatial boundaries of being… we come to approach the understanding and knowledge of the limited reality of limits Other ApproachesThe two above are sufficient to provide a foundation of a map of the world It is not necessary for a separate approach from “mind”, from “matter”, from “physics”, from “biology”, from “culture, society”, from “ethics”, from categories and substances… these are of course interesting, provide elaborations
Saturday 10.13.01 This is about what is real for me and what is important – and places I might travel. If you are thinking geography in its literal sense then you should be interpreting ‘map’ also metaphorically I want this to be simple, from the heart. I was thinking first of myself in my immediate world – my feelings, what I want as a human being with a desire for love, comfort, hardship as it comes my way or in the service of some ideal… as I walk at work and in the forest. This comes first – and since it comes from the heart, it is real: I can use explanation but this is alien to proof. But, my immediate world is in, is integral with, is of, is connected to, is the larger world which is also my world. That, too, will be part of the map I am wanting to put down the simple picture, the intuition, that is the dynamic world of how I live and act – a world of intuition, feeling, imagination, words – many elements all a little too complex for any rationality based only in abstract symbols. Sometimes these elements control the center… and at other times the center is the primary influence and the elements include the unconsciousness which has many meanings [Sometimes we use the word ‘conscious’ when ‘verbal’ ought to be used. And, so, when feeling enters it seems to have an unconscious origin.] Some elements of the map: § § Visible – forest / trees / pine needles § § Dynamic – relates change in being to cause and cause to being… and world: at least on an intuitive level § § Cycles through – the primitive elements of myself / the ultimate § § Recognizes, holds the identity: Atman = Brahman § § All modes of thought, feeling, perception, experience, intention, action, including the unconscious and the sub-conscious And, finally, § § The metaphysics of “presence”
The essence of all being is in every being. Every being contains the essence of all being. This is implied by the metaphysics of presence and by the principle that all being taken cumulatively is equivalent to nothing. All beings participate in the ultimate. The ultimate can be seen and read in every being. Existence requires delusion
Points incorporated by the map and the metaphysics of presenceThe following points have been incorporated and may be eliminated. They are maintained for possible future use § § Abandonment of universal causation and, therefore, obviously of any thought of determinism § § Therefore, all being º nothing [ B º F ]. This is trivial in view of the absence of universal determinism, causation and mechanism. That is, mechanism, causation, determinism are products rather than the generators of original creation § § “Transient” existence based in selection of repeated near stable, near symmetric structures [near symmetry makes history and evolution possible]. Regarding transience, what is a moment to God may be an ¥ to a finite being § § There is a way for structure to arise from indeterminism, absence of causation. This is described in the previous point and above. This is contrary to what many have written: that, while determinism may be empty since it does not allow choice, indeterminism is also empty because it does not allow form or the creation of form. But, the error of the argument that indeterminism does not allow form or the creation of form has been made manifest. Additionally, while form is consistent with determinism the creation of form is not § § Mind is at the core of being. Value at the core of existence. But, not in the forms of mind-as-we-have-it or value-as-we-have-it § § From the point of view of a mind that consciously sees across from one epoch, one moment of universal-existence to another far removed: universal causation and determinism at a super-temporal level. The metaphysics of presence shows the possibility of this kind of mind § § The dynamics of being and the real § § The nature of cause, space, time [space-time] and relationship. Space and time themselves are not real. Relationships are real and space-time is a [mental] grid that is employed in description. Here, a comment on the reality of, say, causation and theories. Both causation and scientific theories are arrived at by induction. We dealt with Hume’s and Popper’s treatment in Hume’s brilliant error where we saw that Hume’s mistake was to think of science as necessary truth rather than the process of discovering nature’s patterns: as a process it is ongoing and no stage is regarded as final. We may have to be satisfied with the contingency of the predictive ability and the beauty of explanation from science. However, although science is tentative and even if we can find no better foundation of knowledge than representationalism, we are of the world and we assert the existence of patterns and their discernment. Of course, we may be unable to provide an “external” foundation for that discernment but, being of the world, we also realize that the demand for external foundation is unrealistic even if the hope is not. These thoughts apply to causation, theory, and understanding in the realm of our world. But, above, we have been talking about causation in the realm of the entire world: the cosmos and not merely the “physical” cosmos. We saw that there can be no universal causation in the temporal sense that includes The Creation. In fact, although causation my reign in certain realms or epochs that is part of actual the pattern of that realm or epoch and, while it may reign well, its reign is not absolute. For a universe may originate in my eyelash; and that that has not been seen and does not fit with “the pattern” does not mean that it has not happened or could not. We also saw that there can be and is causation in a super-temporal sense. This causation is absolute and necessary though not all-pervasive and is not subject to Hume’s argument: it is not the projection or induction of a mind; and, as far it is dependent on mind [presence] it is still necessary since mind [presence] is the heart of being A Map of My World: My Immediate World10.12.01 My immediate world is the world I live in and what has importance, meaning to me. Meaning can be clarified, enhanced; but I was born with the capacity for meaning. That requires no justification. It would be nice to show that meaning and the ability for meaning are not accidental and alien. The metaphysics of presence and its logic show just that; that is nice but not necessary for me to have and find meaning. The usual distinctions need to be made: meaning-as-I-experience-it and Meaning; the historical [non-linear, contingent, lacking in predictability] or temporal origin of meaning vs. meaning at a super-temporal level Meaning is both created and given. The logic behind that that statement is the logic of the Metaphysics of Presence Meaning is created by the universe. It is jointly created by individuals and the world; individuals, minds, the world are in the universe The appearance of meaning is meaning. This has a deep and a cheap interpretation My world, in a casual sense, is my immediate world – the world I live and what has importance, meaning to me; and my knowing and knowledge of that world and the ability to know that makes negotiation, participation in the construction of meaning and of my own being possible Here is what has significance for me – it is an answer to the question of who I am:
|