§ Journey: (1) Arc of my life (2) Beauty in the world and ideas (3) What can I become—i.e., what is a human being (this requires understanding of the world including human being) (4) This and the intrinsic interest are the prime sources of my interest in ideas (the applied or extrinsic and the intrinsic are interwoven) (5) ® Civilization.

§ Being is the unknown of the entire universe which is only partially known (in metaphysics, cosmology, science…). Face the journey with ‘here is what we think we know’. Do not reject what I think I know: hold it with a neutral attitude (+ neutrality to neutrality). But what is there that I don’t know: search understanding and knowledge.

Journey in Being. II. 5:12 pm

The centrality of ‘intelligence’—focusable, feeling, understanding and free, persevering consciousness—to the cosmology.

Gear. 5:30 pm

Stove heat reflector and wind shield.

Closed cell foam pad.

September 28, Sunday: at the Upper Meadows – day hikes

Journey in Being. III 12:58 am

An enhanced approach to transformation:

What I’ve written

§ Sources (Yoga-Tantra, science, west, personal, dream)

§ Elements (include mechanics)

§ Program

World cultural resources

Comments in red font, some added ‘during and after’ require follow up.

Fill out items and details later:

§ India

§ Tibet

§ Japan

§ China

§ Amazonia

§ North America

§ Siberia

§ Personal

§ Middle East (Sufi)

§ Australia (Dream Time; New Zealand)

§ Christian Mystic

§ Russian Orthodox

§ Modern West

§ …

The Modern West

§ Academic: science, philosophy, art, secular humanism… (system of human knowledge)

§ Technology of matter, energy, space exploration, information (applied to transformation: ref. to Frank Tippler’s Physics of Immortality of 1994).

§ ‘What is science?’ the ± is that it shows a local universe described in literal and generic terms suited to ‘control’… but though it begins in and requires speculation and magic it rejects these

Personal

§ Ideas

§ Beyul

§ Synthesis

Psychology and its Elements

Synthesis

Program

Plan for today. 7 am

§ Organize, clean, hydrate

§ Exercise, Yoga, Read notes

§ Letter to Robin

Robin.. 9:50 am

The essentials are #1—my priorities, #2—listening, respect, openness, not blaming

§ My priorities: truth (universe É people)

§ R: Listening, respect

§ Me: openness, not blaming

Return. 11 am

Super macro mum’s diary.

Meditation. 11:10 am

Combine with meditation

September 29, Monday: Upper Meadows – final valley overlook before Lower Lake

Gear. 10:30 am

Options.

§ Precooked rice

§ Ramen

§ Think

Journey in Being. IV. 12:15 pm

Above the trail junction to Boulder Creek lakes: Robin = Carissa = … = Universe

Place. 12:15 pm

§ Weaverville x 3 months

§ Place, space, community, spirituality, are important priorities

Reflect on plan 5:50 pm

§ This trip (Buddhist center)

§ General

September 30, Tuesday: the overlook – day hikes to the Upper Falls and Lakes

Today. 8:34 am

§ Low 30's this morning

Reflect on plan. 10 am

§ …

§ Find a spiritual community

Blue heron? 10:15 am

§ Down Canyon

Why I am neither sinner nor non-sinner. 10:51 am

Because I am the universe… and the universe is all possibility

Journey in Being. V: Metaphysics. 10:52 am

Possibility: need another word

Reflect on plan. 11 am

Immersion

Gear: essential knots 2:02 pm

Hiking

§ Bowline

§ How to tie a Tautline to a staff or tree when there is a lot of rope left over (3 pm)

§ Tree-caching (October 15 note)

§ …

Climbing

Other

October 15 note

Make photographs of the knots using a large diameter colored rope and super macro photograph.

Dealing with ‘stuff’ 3:54 pm

Wait till the storm blows over.

Avoiding storms.

Am I blaming others? 5:25 pm

Be secure in myself.

Define a program.

State my point of view.

Spirituality and spiritual community (October 15).

Heron flight. 6:30 pm

§ The second time today from the last ledge below the lakes

§ From a distance of about 40 yards.

§ It’s single cry was remarkable for its short, single tone, ‘au’ without emphasis

§ From 20 yards as I approached the stream bed, thinking I would see it no more, the heron took off in flight and followed the bed up canyon at least until it disappeared by becoming obscured by the trees lining the curving stream

October 1, Wednesday: the overlook, more day hikes

Plan for today. 9:06 am

Clean

Meditate

Write outline for a non technical version of journey in being

Hike / wash

Journey in Being. VI Outline. 9:10 am

§ Motive, reason, and aim

§ Essence of the metaphysics. Brief proof and importance of proof

§ Fundamental consequences (Identity, cosmology and the role of ‘intelligence’)

Remarks on cultural relativism and related points of view

The revelation of an immense realm (not just the frame)

§ Limited—not just finite—form and significance for limited form: journey of realization in literature and its inner and outer forms

The inner form is potent

The outer form is not for if it were the form would appear (metaphorically) as 1000 suns

§ Doubt

§ Principles

The metaphysics + tradition

The metaphysics

…but more—what are the principles of the metaphysics? The common ones are analysis and synthesis of being in search of the place of no a priori and potency which results in the metaphysics.

Tradition

Science, especially logic, mathematics, physical and life sciences

The inner way—essences of India…

Interaction of metaphysics and tradition

Ideal elements and ‘limits’ of the join

Mechanics, elements, psychology, catalysts, and ways

§ Program

Journey in Being. VII. Formatting the outline 9:20 am

‘Telescope’

Study XSL. 10:56 am

Paraphrase of an A. Gupta quote. 11:16 am

The original quote:

“That pure unlimited consciousness—transcending all principles of reality, that are limited by nature, from Earth to Śiva—alone is the supreme reality. That is the ground for the establishment of all things. That is the vital essence [ojas] of the universe. By That the universe lives and breathes, and That alone am I. Thus I embody the universe and yet transcend the universe.”

First paraphrase:

That pure unlimited consciousness that is all reality—and is and transcends all limited and local principles and forms of reality, from earth to Śiva—alone is the supreme limitless reality. That is the vital essence of the universe. By and in that there is the life and breath of the universe, and that alone am I. Thus I am and embody the universe and am the self-transcendent universe that is all being and that has no other. 11:23 am.

Final version of the paraphrase, 11:27 am:

That pure unlimited consciousness that is all being—and is, subsumes, and transcends all limited including local principles and forms of reality and principles that are otherwise limited by nature, i.e. constitution—alone is the supreme reality. That is the (vital essence of the) universe. That is the life and breath of the universe and That alone am I. Thus I am and embody the self-transcending universe that is all being and that has no other.

Final version without parentheses: 11:34 am

That pure unlimited consciousness that is all being alone is the supreme reality. That is the universe. That is the life and breath of the universe and That alone am I. Thus I am and embody the self-transcending universe that is all being and that has no other.

A good meditation. 12:50 pm

I’ve just had a good meditation from the paraphrase above. Everything was my breath—the creek in the distance, the breeze, the sounds (the breath of my ears), ‘good and evil’, my death and images of my death including some violent.

Now, 20 minutes are over and there is a difference in how I see earth, and hills, and sky.

Beyul. 2:05 pm

Upper falls close up.

Internet programming. 2:46 pm

Languages

Java, JavaScript, other

Platforms

What?

Journey in Being. VIII. 3:45 pm

This is guided by the outline in Journey in Being. Outline. 9:10 am above.

On the meaning of ‘Journey in Being’

The Title ‘Journey in Being’ combines an opposition. Being is what is there over all extension (e.g. time and space) and non-extension (if there is such—what seems more likely than non-extension is grades of definiteness to extension) and is thus given or fixed. Journey denotes the process and states within—mechanical and intelligent, blind and seeking (and from blind to seeking), deterministic and indeterministic. Journey includes the process and seeking of human being and human civilization and of Being and Civilization.

The origin of the narrative is in my journey, of which what follows bears some mark. However, the narrative is not intended as a record of my process. It may of course refer to my process to make a general point. Of course the outcome of my process—the idea of and approach to a journey in being—is a primary emphasis.

On the world view and the aim of the journey. What follows includes discovered ultimates. Yet the aim of the journey is to discover and realize what is good in the ultimate and immediate worlds (which includes but requires no particular reference to the highest good and which requires knowledge of the world and of the possible and the feasible).

The natural appeal is to those with similar aims, be they immediate or ultimate or of their join.

Other foci—the immediate: in that the ultimate is immanent in and impacts the immediate, those whose focus is primarily the immediate may find interest here.

Other foci—academic: because the narrative is naturally divided into a conceptual or knowledge part and a part devoted to action and process, academic readers will also find an interest in the narrative.

The worldview

…developed and demonstrated is that the universe is the realization of all possibility (the concept possibility must be appropriately defined and understood so as to give full and clear meaning to the worldview and also so as to avoid paradox).

The significance of demonstration is (1) of course, to give confidence but (2) also to bring out the meaning of the view and (3) to tie the view in to concepts of fact reason which empowers the view as an instrument of further demonstration and development—particularly as a metaphysics and cosmology.

Proof. Therefore it is appropriate to give the briefest proof as follows. Being is that which exists (over all extension or otherwise). / There is being (for even if all is illusion, there is then at least illusion; but if all is illusion then illusion is nothing but a relabeling of the world and so there is a real world which contains objects, appearances, and illusion; i.e.—the first meaning of experience here is subjective awareness whose being is objective and which is the place of significance and our relation to the world which includes ourselves). / The universe is all being. / The universe exists (i.e. has being). / A domain is part of the universe. A domain and its contents both have being. / A world is a domain of interaction such that different worlds have no interaction over all extension. If a world has experiential beings, the world is the world of significance of the beings. The existence of other worlds has no significance (that we conceive them has no bearing on their existence or significance in ‘this’ world). The universe is all worlds (the lack of significance of other worlds raises the question of their possibility. / A natural law is the reading of a pattern on some domain (laws are often expressed in abstract terms). A Law is the pattern itself. All Laws have being. / The void is the null domain—a domain without content. The void exists even though it has no content (it exists as the complement of any domain relative to itself / therefore a void may be seen as attached to every domain or object). / The void contains no Law. If from the void there is a state that never emerges that would be a Law in the void. But since there is no such Law, every state emerges from the void. / This means that the void of any object is equivalent to all states including all voids and therefore there is effectively exactly one void. Therefore every state of being is equivalent to every other state. That is, there is one world and the one world and the one universe are identical. / The universe has void and manifest states—something always emerges from nothing. The void—as seen it may be regarded as associated with any domain—may and so will destroy the domain, i.e. make it void or non-manifest.

Logic and realism. The emergence of every state from the void may be expressed tentatively—every concept has an object. This expression overstates the case in two ways. First, facts cannot be violated. Second, two incompatible concepts cannot both have objects. But what is a fact? It is the agreement of one percept with other percepts and concepts—i.e. it is a relatively trivial case of compatibility of concepts (and scientific laws and theories on domains have interpretation as facts for it is only when regarded as ‘universal’ that science is hypothetical in nature). Similarly compatibility of concepts is the satisfaction of logic. In this way we find that science and logic combine, with an extension of meaning, as logic and logic so conceived is the constraint on the freedom of concept formation for realism (i.e. to have objects). The following points are important. The first is that really implies an new meaning of logic which may be called Logic. The second is that Logic as revealing the possible is not a limit on the real; rather it is a constraint on the freedom of concept formation (the freedom allows the formulation of essential paradoxes, of which a trivial case is that some material assertion is both true and false). A third is that the definition of Logic is implicit and marks the beginning rather than the end of discovery. A fourth is that this notion of Logic is the notion of possibility that was earlier implicit. A fifth is that though ‘logic and science’ can and have been regarded as restricting, in the present meaning Logic reveals immense and maximal freedom of the universe (this freedom begins to be brought out below and will be seen to also be a freedom of the ‘individual’). Finally, it is implicit in the definition of Realism as Logic that—the immense freedom notwithstanding—there is no violation of what is valid knowledge in our traditions from ancient times to the modern day by this principle of Realism.

Logic or realism as framework. Now Logic is not the worldview under development but a framework for it—i.e. the outer framework of possibility. But in a universe that is all being over all extension there can be no distinction of possibility and actuality (the distinction occurs only in domains other than the universe itself). Therefore Logic or Realism as defined above are the outer framework of the actual.

The fundamental principle of metaphysics or fundamental principle can now be stated—the universe is the realization of the possible.

The worldview. If we have gotten only a framework how do we arrive at the worldview itself? The key lies in the consistency of the frame with what is valid in the tradition. (1) The frame is that the universe is limitless in that all possibility is realized. Therefore our cosmos, our intelligence constitute an infinitesimal fraction of the universe—of all being. Yet our intelligence—perhaps the intelligence of any being with freedom of concept formation and adequate power of expression—is capable of seeing this through the lens of limited conceptual-cultural systems. What is limited about the systems is that though they conceive the ultimate and its nature (Realism) they know and realize only an infinitesimal fraction of the detail. There is therefore neither hope nor any realism in hope that we will realize the ultimate in all its detail in our limited form (but Realism allows and therefore requires that we are and will become part of a form that does ‘know’ and ‘realize’ all this). That is, the quest for an ultimate science, e.g. of physics, of the universe while remaining ‘within’ our cosmos is undesirable positively because our tradition should be regarded as transitional and negatively because it is impossible. There lies a key to the point being made—our cultures are instruments on the way rather than ends in themselves. But there is more that can be brought out with a simple example. Ask whether space and time are relative (immanent in being) or absolute (framework for being). The answer brings out in one more way the power of the present concepts of being and universe. Since the universe is all being, space-time must be immanent and this is a matter of necessity rather than contingency or fact (but particular domains may have as if absolute spacetime frames that are sustained by other domains). Thus the new worldview is more than a juxtaposition of Realism and Tradition; it merges them; Tradition is on the way to the Real; and Realism resolves many ambivalences of Tradition (the spacetime resolution is one but there are many more that cover roughly an entire domain of problems of metaphysics, philosophical cosmology, science, ethics, and logic).

While the worldview constitutes a metaphysics which I will call the UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS or, simply, THE METAPHYSICS, its working out provides a philosophical cosmology.

Logic or realism as worldview. We can now see that the details of the worldview are already present but implicit in Logic. Thus we may say Logic is the worldview. Perhaps there is a ‘logic’ of Logic; its beginning is already in our traditional logics and sciences; however a full logic of Logic must be immensely greater than our systems of knowledge and it is reasonable to think that we may acquire far greater purchase on it than so far but unreasonable to think that we will acquire the greatest possible purchase on it available to any being , or that there is a greatest of this kind—i.e. there may be no complete Logic but as emerges below the Logic must always be in process, an ever fresh adventure of ideas and being.

The philosophical cosmology. I say ‘philosophical cosmology’ because today cosmology has become equated to physical cosmology defined roughly by a cosmos that is 13.8 billion years old and 80 billion light years across but, as seen above the universe is far greater than this conventional cosmos (that the empirical cosmos is not 2 x 13.8 = 27.6 billion light years across is supposed to be due to the expansion of space and thus does not require the light speed of one light year per year to be exceeded). Having made this point I will now drop the adjective ‘philosophical’ and use the term ‘cosmology’ to refer to the larger universe revealed by the new metaphysics which I will call the universal metaphysics or, simply, the metaphysics.

Perhaps the fundamental consequences of the metaphysics are that

1. The universe has cyclic manifestation and identity in acute, diffuse, and non-manifest (void) phases and these cycles and the extension and variety of the diffuse and the acute are without limit.

2. Any limited form—finite or not—inherits this ultimate power of the universe (if one or more forms inherit this power it or they coalesce as the universe and so there is no contradiction of two equally and ultimately powerful forms). While in limited form approaching the ultimate is an endless journey in being (as seen from the above, even the ultimate is not static perfection but limitless process). The journey, whether for the limited or the limitless, is always new.

The next few sections work out the first and second consequences, respectively. It is important to recognize that from the metaphysics the proofs are trivial while it is interpretation that is comes to the fore.

Cosmology

The universe has unending cyclicity of manifestation and identity in acute, diffuse, and non-manifest (void) phases and these cycles and the extension and variety of the diffuse and the acute are without limit.

Thus there are forms (e.g. physical laws) and cosmoses (expressions of the forms or laws) without limit against a void-transient background.

The formed systems (our cosmos and others that are limitless in number, variety, and magnitude) require no mechanism—per the metaphysics However, the number of formed cosmoses from some type of mechanism will be roughly proportional to frequency of formation x lifetime of the form. Thus mechanisms that favor both frequency and longevity will be favored. Since forms come ultimately from the void, formation must include indeterministic process. However, it seems that indeterministic process (if one reads random for indeterministic) seem unlikely to result in structure. Surely, the argument goes, form can result only from deterministic processes that somehow possess stability. However, this common piece of two part reasoning is deficient in both its parts. The metaphysics requires formation of form from the void in a single step (which must logically be an indeterministic step if regarded temporally). On the other hand, determinism cannot result in novelty but only in form that is already immanent. This shows that indeterminism can and does result in new forms and determinism does not. The question, however, is what is the nature of kind of indeterministic process that results in most forms in the universe. If we think of a single step as random then it seems counterintuitive that random process will result in stable forms with continuing emergence of novelty. Evolutionary biology provides an analogy. At every stage the organism possesses symmetries that make it more or less stable-adapted and further, at every stage, only those new forms that are also stable and adapted survive. That is, a variation and selection model suggests itself as a natural candidate for a model process (of course the details are likely to be quite different from those of living systems; it is not to be presumed that cosmoses have something like DNA but on the other hand it need not be thought that there is no blue-printing whatsoever). Details of the particular kinds of process need not concern us here (see The Life of the Cosmos, 1997, by Lee Smolin). The question is why universe population of formed systems might be mostly the result of such process. The logic is implicit in what has already been said. Small increments are most likely to ‘find’ stable and novel forms which are also the longest lived.

Note that from the perspective over all extension this is all—the single step and the incremental, the transient and the long lived—determined (but not necessarily knowable or under a single influence); locally, however, the process is necessarily indeterministic. The universal perspective may be seen as absolutely deterministic: every state emerges from any state. But it is also absolutely indeterministic: from any state the immediately subsequent states have no definite determination (there may perhaps be probabilities).

Thus the new metaphysics or worldview reveals an immense reality beyond the standard secular and trans-secular cultures. The standard cultures provide paradigms of action. But there is more. The cultures are vast and articulated but while framed by the new metaphysics they are revealed by it as limited (when assumed to constitute a universal view). As seen earlier the framing is not a mere juxtaposition: the metaphysics gives both firmness and meaning to the cultures and the cultures are temporary instruments on the way to the universal.

October 2, Thursday: day hikes, in the Upper Falls

Plan for today. 9:55 am

§ Read – Y – read – meditate

§ Write (defer letter)

§ Beyul (falls)

§ Hydrate

§ Be open

§ Plan tomorrow

Priorities 10:05 am

§ Myself (define the priorities)

§ Essential contacts

§ No other contacts except casually

Beyul is central 10:07 am

§ Preparation—health, fitness; gear, transportation; what place; ideas—meditation –y – etc... (philosophy)

§ Immersion

In Weaverville 10:11 am

§ Plans for trip (refer)

§ Permits

§ Closest wilderness access?

Journey in Being. IX. 11:59 am

Continued from October 1, Wednesday, Journey in Being. 3:45 pm

A clarification of Platonic Realism

Platonic Realism is the position that mathematical and perhaps other abstract objects are real—they do exist and are more than just concepts—but exist in an ideal or Platonic world or ‘universe’ and not in our putatively material world. According to the metaphysics the universe is the object of Logic (and thus the universe is ‘one’ not merely by definition but also in effect). Thus the real abstract objects are those whose concepts do not violate Logic and therefore must exist in the one universe. But where, for example, is the number one? This kind of question in modern thought on abstract objects has led to the conclusion that even if they do exist they must exist in ‘another’ (Platonic) world beyond time and space, which is not absurd but not obvious either, or that they are conventional objects (not absurd but surely they are more than mere convention), or that they are ‘mental objects’ (i.e. not concepts but that they somehow exist in some mental place which seems far fetched and without any substantial basis and thus absurd to hold as true or even meaningful), or formal objects. Now the universal metaphysics shows that the ‘abstract’ objects must be objects in the one universe but this leaves open the question ‘where and when’. The answer is that they are in our universe, they are not beyond time and space, but where they are atemporal and or non-spatial, they are not truly so but the process of abstraction omits or suppresses the temporal and or spatial characteristics. So the correct and detailed ontology of particular objects remains to be investigated but the number one, for example, may be thought to be the common property of all objects that exhibit one-ness and which by the metaphysics and the analysis of being exists.

Consciousness

What is the role of consciousness in the net process?

Introduction—our local cosmos often seems substance like (e.g. the materialist claim that matter is the fundamental real). Perhaps such claims make practical sense but as regards absolute truth, the case is that while science sees no need for non-material kinds it gives no demonstration of their non-existence (and this is often carelessly regarded as proof of materialism; and in any case any real proof would require perfect and final definition of the nature of the material or physical which we do not know that we have).

Plan—let us therefore, so as to clearly understand the mind / matter issues, consider a simple substance model and then relax the axiom of substance. I emphasize that I am not giving or attempting to give support to materialism but to use it’s difficulties as a path to clear knowledge and understanding. An objection may be raised ‘But if we relinquish all definiteness, how can there be any understanding at all?’ The answer is that the universal metaphysics and ancillary reasoning will provide the understanding (and when such understanding has emerged we will subject it to further critical scrutiny).

In a substance cosmos—perhaps an ideal one—mind and consciousness cannot emerge and must therefore be there alongside matter. If mind were a strict substance too, there would be no interaction with matter. Therefore, on materialism, mind must be a function of matter. What kind of function? Experience or awareness or consciousness are relation or interaction (this is obvious in the case of being consciousness of something but even ‘pure consciousness’, from its structure, must involve internal relations). That is mind must be among the interactions of matter (though perhaps not among the so far known interactions). Incidentally, this kind of thinking led Leibniz to his conception of the ‘monad’ in response to his thought ‘what is the feeling of an element of being in interaction with another element’. It would seem that I am suggesting a pan-psychism of the kind that attributes minds something like ours to atoms and so forth. Two responses are pertinent (1) I am doing this no more than the assertion that the Eiffel Tower is material is equivalent to saying atoms are little Eiffel Towers (2) Materialism itself requires the ‘kind’ called mind or experience or consciousness to be already present in matter (but to say that mind is already so present is not to say that its elementary manifestation is anything like our ‘higher’ consciousness). Substance theory says mind and consciousness cannot and do not emerge. However, just as complex material forms such as ice crystals and brains emerge from elementary material forms, higher conscious forms may emerge from the elementary (and on materialism this is the only way) from elementary material interactions by concentration, coherence, focusing, layering, … , and especially the leveraging of the indeterministic to render novelty through conscious intelligence. Evolution is clearly the mechanism but whereas a most common argument is that consciousness emerges in evolution without precursor what is really happening on substance theory must be that it is complexity (concentration, coherence etc) that is emerging by natural selection (i.e. incremental variation and selection).

Let us return to our cosmos. What is the story of our consciousness (of course the consciousness of all animal life)? It is not unreasonable to think of our cosmos—once life began its course—as essentially substance like and therefore that it is the focusing etc. of consciousness rather than consciousness-as-something-essentially-new that is emerging.

In the universal—from consideration of possibility—substance has no absolute reign. Therefore, form and consciousness are not necessarily interwoven. However, consciousness must have form and, from possibility, all form—conscious or not—may become interwoven. Earlier arguments in this section suggest that intelligent form is conscious, not because consciousness is the cause of greater intelligence but because the form of intelligence implies more intricate interaction and therefore more focused and intricate consciousness. In any case, for significant form to exist there must be consciousness for appreciation and feeling are the place of significance.

The role of intelligence in the universe. What is the role of intelligence in the articulation of form in the universe? Let us think that the most primitive forms are ‘blind’ in not having ‘higher’—i.e., focused and so on as stated earlier—consciousness. There comes a point where consciousness becomes involved in its future and evolution. This is more than just natural intelligence. When natural intelligence occurs there is no doubt an interaction between the intelligence and adaptation—e.g., natural intelligence opens up new niches—without becoming consciously involved in its evolution. Becoming involved in the evolution of the species—and more—requires concept formation and understanding at least to the point of conceiving evolution but understanding the mechanisms of evolution allows more powerful involvement: knowledge that there is evolution enables experimental involvement and even some design but knowledge of mechanisms makes this more effective and opens up possibilities such as some control evolution of the culture and society without further biological evolution as well as incisive involvement in biological evolution including the creation and transformation of species. If we were to judge humankind we find that intelligence has numerous positive outcomes but that there are also failures. We cannot expect no ‘failure’ at all but at present we cannot assert that human intelligence has arrived at any apex of success; we judge this by looking at our world which is clearly not beyond bifurcation between ‘devolution’ of culture or extinction of the species and further positive evolution. We are sometimes thought to possess the necessary knowledge and intelligence but not the collective will. But it is not clear that we do possess the necessary knowledge; it is not clear that the collective will is an evolutionary possibility; it is not clear that sufficient knowledge will compensate for lack of collective will. Our situation is familiar; even given all the positives regarding the state of human being we are not at a point where higher evolution or even continuation at our present state is given. In fact we know from the metaphysics that while it is given that this will occur somewhere in the universe for some species and that it may happen for ours the fact of its happening is not given. This is not negative but should be a spur to greater understanding and seeking greater accord sufficient to collective positive will. The resources include the range of culture—metaphysics, the symbolic sciences of language-logic-mathematics, the natural and social sciences and technologies including information technology (encoding of human mind in information machines is intriguing though I should say that I do not currently see it as feasible or particularly desirable), the arts and aspects of religion—and we should cultivate what we find most promising for intrinsic as well as directed interest (directed specifically in directions that include higher evolution). We should not expect such evolution to be in absolute control (the judgment for this point lacks sufficient empirical data—obviously—as well as inadequate theory). What we may expect is that the greatest outcome will involve interaction between natural and intelligent evolution (the difference between natural and intelligent evolution being one of degree but perhaps of sufficient degrees as to mimic difference in kind). Further the metaphysics implies that such process is inevitable but if we are not already in it then our identity will somewhere meet up with the synthesis of sufficient natural and conscious intelligence as to markedly enhanced in its rapidity and extent (but not eternal as the metaphysics rules that out). It is reasonable then that the highest articulation of being will be intelligent in form and significant in its manifestation—which means that it will be conscious of the participation of its consciousness in its own life and evolution. This does not appear to be necessary for the metaphysics implies that whatever is possible as a result of intelligence is also possible by ‘blind chance’. There may be a way around this conclusion if it can be shown within some chapter of Logic that the measure of the population of the blind occurrences is essentially zero (as is the measure of any countable set among the real numbers).

A note on the universe as pure consciousness and love. The universe is not pure consciousness but consciousness is all significance. Is the universe pure love? I ask the question because some philosophies maintain that all is love, all is good and so on. (Some would argue that pain is good because it shows us what not to do but that is not the kind of question I am asking—the kind of question is not whether pain has function but rather is the universe essentially good; and I should note that not all pain is functional but that there is non functional pain only because there is function al pain.) My thoughts are as follows: the universe has a neutral essence but that ‘evil’ can exist only where good exists and that the level of good is an essential local ceiling to evil (reasons are not hard to adduce). The issues of love and significance can be combined to give love an exalted place; we can think of psychological reasons to think that the universe is pure conscious love; however I think it true to that the universe is not pure love and therefore it is more effective to think that; of course the importance of love as caring is hard to exaggerate; and of course the good gives significance to evil (not of course to justification of evil acts) as it does to pain.

A note on the dimensions of consciousness—some dimensions recognized in western thought are cognition (perception, thought) and emotion (including feeling and pain) . I recognize the unconscious in more than one sense but these senses do not use the term ‘unconscious’ literally: they are (1) items in memory that are latent conscious and which may be evoked by association (2) actual mental content that is outside clear consciousness not by being un-consciousness but by not being sufficiently intense or by not being self-referential (being at least somewhat explicitly aware of explicitly aware consciousness). The dimensions under cognition and emotion-feeling naturally include hallucination, illusion, and delusion when we recognize that most mental content that is putatively referential is not perfectly faithful to the putative object.

What is the status of the ‘dimensions’ of cognition and emotion? Some thought assigns privilege to one or other while other thought sees them as part of an essential whole. It makes rough sense that neither should be privileged but that they should function as a whole. On the other hand there are activities where one or other seems privileged; further, emotion and cognition do not appear to be ‘functions’ of identical parts of the brain. Therefore, a more careful argument is needed regarding the question of privilege.

Let us begin, for convenience—i.e. non-definitively, with a consideration of feeling. Similarly, let us also begin with the James-Lange theory of feeling (emotion) according to which the source of emotion is physical arousal but which I will reinterpret to say ‘the feeling part of emotion is the perception or sensation of physiological or body states’. In this interpretation there is a parallel between feeling and what we normally call perception: perception is perception of states of the environment. There is something odd about J-L in the form adopted here for, surely, just as perception is form (including quality) arising in relation to the environment, so feeling is form (perhaps emphasizing quality) in relation to the inner or physiological. Thus it is talk of ‘perception’ that is odd for that talk interprets what is direct as reflexive. But J-L has an essential point for talk of feeling as mere floating ephemera makes no sense at all.

What is the status of feeling vs. (outer) perception? We stand in adaptive relation to the environment but we are (at least simplistically) our bodies. Therefore there is a strong component regarding perception that is about choices while feeling is largely about the imperative to act (including in the case of comfort the decided lack of imperative to change a course of action or inaction). But feeling arises in relation to inner contexts (pain, hunger, free anxiety) as well as the external (fear on sighting a tiger in the forest) and concepts (tigers are dangerous—which need not occur as a concept in terms of words). It should be remarked that whereas the inner is more direct or primary, the outer as a source of feeling is secondary and is perhaps mediated by the a primary feeling.

Now what is emotion? It is invoked in the interplay of feeling and cognition, each affecting the other. And cognition, too, is ever imbued with feeling that allows or encourages freedom of conception (which includes perception) us connected in multiple ways to the world (directly as above but also indirectly in a monitoring of the contents of free conception for realism and note of course that there is also a place in conceptual creativity for turning of at least some of the monitoring so that the freedom of concept creation becomes its own master for purposes of realism in the form of logical and empirical consistency).; but even here there is some low level monitoring; and even here where lesser stimuli (mild hunger while focusing on a scientific hypothesis) may be suppressed, greater ones (a fire) will come to the center of attention.

Thus the elements of cognition and emotion are ever in interplay; and this interplay is essential for various reasons, the generic one being that of maintaining connection with the world. Still, from the point of view of an individual reflecting on their experience a distinction can be made among the dimensions and their variety. And from the ‘point of view’ of the universe of world-and-individual consciousness the dimensions are one. 12: 19 am.

A comment on philosophical relativism. 12: 49 pm

The indented comments are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism.

In Museums of Ethnology and their classification, 1887, Science 9:599, Franz Boas first articulated the idea that: “...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes” and is regarded as then having originate the notion of cultural relativism (the term ‘cultural relativism’ is attributed to Alain Locke in 1924). The term became common among anthropologists after Boas' death in 1942, to express their synthesis of a number of ideas Boas had developed. Boas believed that the sweep of cultures, to be found in connection with any sub species, is so vast and pervasive that there cannot be a relationship between cultures and races.

But the idea is ‘ancient’:

Herodotus (Histories 3.38) observes on the relativity of mores (νόμοι):

“If anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of choosing from amongst all the nations in the world the set of beliefs which he thought best, he would inevitably—after careful considerations of their relative merits—choose that of his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best; and that being so, it is unlikely that anyone but a madman would mock at such things. There is abundant evidence that this is the universal feeling about the ancient customs of one's country.”

Twentieth century philosophy is marked by relativism. In Of Grammatology, Jacques Derrida argued (with inspiration from Heidegger) that all Western literature and philosophy depend implicitly on a metaphysics of presence where intrinsic meaning is accessible by virtue of pure presence. Derrida denies the possibility of pure presence and thus of essential or stable and intrinsic meaning.

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein offers, even in his highly analytic Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a strong critique to any system of meaning that goes beyond the bound of a definite body of analytic meaning. Later (even though the word deconstruction was to occur significantly later with Derrida), in Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein deconstructs our intuitive ways of thinking about the world, science, and mind.

The term ‘grand narrative’ is pertinent and rather than writing my thoughts on it I’ll conveniently quote the Encyclopedia of Marxism:

Grand Narrative

Grand narrative or “master narrative” is a term introduced by Jean-François Lyotard in his classic 1979 work The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, in which Lyotard summed up a range of views which were being developed at the time, as a critique of the institutional and ideological forms of knowledge.

Narrative knowledge is knowledge in the form of story-telling. In the tribal times, myths and legends formed knowledge of this type; that such-and-such a mountain was just where it was because some mythic animal put it there, and so on. The narrative not only explained, but legitimated knowledge, and when applied to the social relations of their own society, the myths functioned as a legitimation of the existing power relations, customs and so on.

The great religions of the feudal world – Christianity, Islam and Buddhism – institutionalised this narrative knowledge, and monotheism invested the narrative with a unitary extramundane subject as the central agent. It was Feuerbach who exposed how the Christian narrative was not an explanation but a legitimation of the norms of Christian society.

With the arrival of the modern era, natural science introduced a different kind of explanation of things in terms of material processes and causes. However, the narrative form continued – as it must! – in social theory and histriography. The telling of history is, after all, a narrative.

Looked at from the postmodern perspective, all knowledge becomes narrative however. For example, rather than saying that “the existence of oxygen has been proved”, there is a ‘little’ narrative about the experiment Lavoisier carried out.

The concept of grand narrative, and in particular what Lyotard called the “emancipation narrative”, concerns the kind of meta-narrative which talks, not just about “one damn thing after another”, but sees some kind of interconnection between events, an inner connection between events related to one another, a succession of social systems, the gradual development of social conditions, and so on – in other words, is able in some way to make sense of history. More particularly, when pronounced as it usually is, with a sneer, the “grand narrative”, the “narrative of emancipation” is all those conceptions which try to make sense of history, rather than just isolated events in history, concepts like “class struggle”, socialism and capitalism, productive forces and so on.

According to Lyotard, in the postmodern period, people no longer believe in grand narratives, and consequently, to the armies of postmodern pen-pushers, ipso facto, “grand narratives” are old fashioned and oppressive – oppressive because one grand narrative excludes another and doesn’t my narrative have just as much right to truth as yours?

The contradiction in all this is that this narrative about narratives is itself a grand narrative of the first order, as outlined above with the narrative of narratives from tribal to feudal to modern times and up to the present.

And what is this theory about “grand narrative” really about? It is another version of the end of history, another way of saying that bourgeois society is as good as it gets.

Nevertheless, the concept does tell us something about postmodern capitalism. Postmodern society has made the conception of real progress difficult to sustain, meaning is contested and fragmented, and it is difficult to see a way out of the morass. The old conceptions of the onward march of the working class to socialism are no longer convincing. This is the nature of the political terrain in which socialism must find a way forward.

The criticism of systematic philosophy in the twentieth century is not new: Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the will to system as a weakness of thought.

A perspective on relativism

I offer a nuanced perspective. Most sweeping relativisms are themselves grand in their scope (and many are self negating and signify an official position rather than a new way in which the critics consistently think). Yet there are of course truths.

§ The oral narratives of many communities, especially the hunter gatherer, are not perfectly literal in their ‘expressive form’ and yet they contain important (a) information on attitudes to the world as a whole (the ‘spiritual’) (b) information pertinent to living and survival (where and when to hunt, what we would call sustainable attitudes to resources). It is important of course to note that there is no idealization here as though all such communities practice perfect sustainability. The scientific attitudes of our society—which some take as universal and as the only narrative—are adapted to our technological mode of life and do indeed contain a limited universal truth (limits are discussed in earlier sections). Although there are conflicts, the two types of society and two modes of narrative contain important truths about realms central to those societies and that are not in essential conflict.

§ Philosophical relativism often makes universal critiques where a more limited critique would be more precise and more valuable. A primary example is seen in juxtaposing the universal metaphysics with the valid core of traditional knowledge (literal or narrative in mode).

§ The kind of system that should be criticized is the one that is sweeping in its scope and incompletely critical in its application. Yet, as seen in the universal metaphysics, a partial system may emerge from ‘dialog’ between concepts and world (the universal metaphysics—the individual concepts, the system, a careful interaction among system and parts and comparative and integrative analysis with other thought arrived at the metaphysics and its pre and pro scribed range of application. The critique of grand narrative should be of those systems that are sweeping and imposed rather than of emergent systems regarding which neither the application nor the system are forced.

§ The universal metaphysics is already immanent with its own deconstructions of the relevant concepts and even a deconstruction of the putative boundary between metaphysics of presence and its opposition. It is easy to imagine an oral narrative that says “beyond the time and place of our grandfathers there is a region of nothing that has no form and so must be a source of all form”. 1:02 pm

Consequences of the metaphysics for human being and civilization. 6:42 pm

The consequence for any limited—not just finite—form is that it inherits the ultimate power of the universe. While in limited form the following options arise:

§ Knowledge of identity with ultimate is available in free concept form and direct knowledge may be cultivated but, while form is limited, that is at most partial. The individual may achieve two kinds of enlightenment (1) direct and partial (2) overcoming ‘asudha vikalpa’. However, outer identity is not achieved for if it were the moving of mountains and brilliance of a thousand suns would be trivial. Further, individuals (as far as known) remain in this world (and incomplete enlightenment of either kind should not be regarded as a bar to achievement in general—i.e., incomplete enlightenment is not a reason to avoid material and social achievement and incomplete overcoming should not be a reason to wait for direct progress in identity. Especially the following should not be avoided for reasons of incomplete internal enlightenment (for in any case there is no final avoidance of pain or even suffering):

§ While in limited form approaching the ultimate is a never ending journey in being and is one of endless variety and limitless extension. It is both inner and outer and its means are ever in revelation (by the efforts and initiatives of individual and culture) and our human being and civilization are a start. Though in process what means are available have some description below they flow from the worldview and tradition in interaction with imagination, criticism, and experiment (including practice).

§ It is important that the ultimate itself is a journey and that there is no final static perfection except in communication across all extension. 6:48 pm

§ Note entered 10/20 10:30 pm. Human civilization is the web of human community across time and continents. Greater Civilization is the matrix of civilizations across the universe. Individual Being fosters Civilization and Civilization nurtures Individual Being. The movement of Civilization in the universe is one mode of approach to ultimate identity.

October 3, Friday: day hike to Canyon Creek Lakes and L. Lake

Journey in Being. X. 7:30 am

Improve index of documents (include ‘bites’ and recent docs)

Gear. 8:02 am

Handling rope

Hiking list 9:15 am

ChapStick

October 4, Saturday: overlook – Upper Canyon Creek Meadows

Priority: return 7: 18 am

Research trail and living and community and accessibility across America

Journey in Being. XI: Outline of Human Knowledge 8:14 am

Include anthropology.

Include other modes of expression (oral…) and other cultures

Journey in Being. XII: Make a thorough outline 8:14 am

Include the above, especially modes of expression

Priorities 8:24 am

Since truth is the priority, place and sharing must be true

Hiking list. 12:26 pm

Some passwords

October 5, Sunday: overlook – Ripstein Campground

Dawn. 6: 18 am

Lovely.

Journey in Being. XIII. 6:37 am

Is not ‘realization of all possibility’ a law? No, it is a statement that there are no universal contingent laws.

Journey in Being. XIV. 6:40 am

Study of ways—India, China…

§ Eclectic

§ Immerse

§ The interaction of these ways with my system

Gear 9:17 am

Knots for all regular functions (laces, tent, cache, storing rope, notes above…)

Hiking times 9:22 am

	Trailhead to Upper Meadows	Upper Meadows to Stonehouse	Total
In	3:30	2:45	6:15
Out	2:12	1:30	3:42

Driver’s license 10:05 am

CA / WA / Uruguay

October 6, Monday: Ripstein – Junction City – Weaverville

Weaverville. 2:07 pm

Wash

Rest

Bank

Clothes

Bergamot

Pants

Fun

Ranger

The open space just south of Ripstein Campground (they say it is public use / access)

Nearest hiking (East Fork lake via the road past the high school)

Housing / quality of life

Place

Think deep (spirit, green)

Opportunity / challenge

Problems ($, DL)

October 7, Tuesday: Weaverville

October 8, Wednesday: Weaverville

October 9, Thursday: Weaverville – Willow Creek – fog – Arcata – Eureka

PLAN FOR RETURN

Miscellaneous pre-planning

No coffee for a period of time

Eliminate distractions (room)

Essentials

Sanskrit, Gita?

Executing the plan

Perception over judgment—i.e., especially, no compulsion

RETURN

October 10, Friday: Review

Miscellaneous: 7:30 am

§ Dentist for appointment, Chlorhexidine tablets or equivalent

Priorities: 7:30 am

§ I must go into the wilderness—beyond secular and non-secular reality and influence—to find truth,

§ ‘Truth’ is my ultimate priority

§ Study and plan for trips—purpose, needs, cash…

§ Get out maps of the Trinity.

Review of plans upon returning

Preliminary October 15

Time draws short. I must focus on essences.

Plan October 15

1. What to do—truth, realization…

Cull the foregoing and other materials.

Minimize—i.e. what to not do in space and time.

2. With whom to do it—shared spiritual action and support.

3. Do it.

October 17, Friday

Journey in Being. XV: Grammar and its Logic

Which of the following is correct?

There is fifty dollars in my bank account.

There are fifty dollars in my bank account.

An argument can be made for either, depending on the meaning of ‘fifty dollars’ for if the phrase refers to a sum of money rather than fifty individual dollars then the singular is correct. Perhaps we need a way to signify the two meanings, e.g. the lump sum could be written ‘fifty-dollars’.

The point seems somewhat trivial when we consider that the conventionally correct English terms are ‘one tiger’, ‘two tigers’, ‘three tigers’ and so on. The triviality seems to be that there is an apparently arbitrary differentiation between one and two but not between two, three, four or any higher number.

But consider that we say ‘0.25 dollars’, not ‘0.25 dollar’. The distinction now does not seem so arbitrary for the singular case has the unique quality of referring to a whole. Thus the singular case has two functions, (1) to distinguish one from many and (2) to distinguish a whole from a non whole. And the latter may explain why ‘0.25 dollar’ sounds strange even if one has never thought about whether the singular or plural is correct in this case.

There are of course cases where ‘two’ refers to two wholes and where it refers to a pair. Thus, some languages are inflected to reflect the distinctions, not only of singular vs. plural but singular vs. two-ness vs. greater plurality.

Thus the issue of singular vs. plural, in grammar, is more than that of number. It is also that of whole vs. non-whole and, within the non-whole the possibility of pairs (and triads and tetrads and so on).

And now there are two further questions. (1) How important is it the whole vs. non-whole distinction be made in grammar—whether by inflexion or otherwise? This is a question that transcends the formal aspect of grammar. (2) Are there similar issues of ‘logics’ of kinds other than what we conventionally regard as the ‘thing’ or noun—of verbs and so on… and of the putative distinction between noun and verb?

October 21, Tuesday

Journey in Being. XVI. 7:44 am. Doubt

Some of the doubts and questions raised so far are (1) Is there being? (2) Is there experience? (3) Is there anything but experience? (4) Why do we choose being, universe, law and void as fundamental concepts with the specific meanings given? (5) What do we mean by Logic, Realism, and possibility. The answers to the first three questions are ‘yes’, ‘yes’, and ‘yes, there is a real world that is the object of and that contains experience’. The significance of the first three doubts is not that we entertain them seriously but that they clarify our understanding of the concepts so that they can be a sound basis for metaphysics (we want the framework at least to be perfect and in this metaphysics as developed here is unlike science in which we permit varying degrees of imprecision in the interest of science as an instrument). The answer to the fourth question is (a) that being as defined is a definite concept but its object is open and it is therefore not subject to the limit that matter or mind would be as foundational and though this makes the object of being indefinite at the beginning of investigation it allows investigation—thought and comparison with our experience of the world—to find definite objects of being and (b) that the system of concepts so chosen empower a perfect and powerful metaphysics, one that has been glimpsed in history but for which so far there has been no demonstration (this is why the literature continues to report ‘something from nothing’ as an unresolved problem) and consequently no precise or potent understanding and application.

The doubts just considered may be considered critical doubts in that they improve understanding and knowledge and not in that they have no resolution.

However, though I gave a ‘proof’ of the existence of the void that existence remains subject to doubt. It is important to recognize that there is no empirical or conceptual contradiction that arises from the said existence or its equivalents and that various other proofs and heuristic arguments may be given. Examples of heuristic arguments is that the Laws pertain to objects and therefore not to nothing and that there is no difference between existence and non existence of the void and therefore the void may correctly be taken to exist. Still, doubt remains and is heightened by the significance of the existence of the void.

Such doubt may be called substantial. At a later time if the doubt is resolved we may then regard it as critical. However, at present it is substantial.

What shall we do about this doubt? There is a tradition in mathematics in which substantial doubt—doubt that concerns objective conclusions but not the consistency of such conclusions—may be withheld for practical purpose of the richness of conclusions that result from allowing doubted hypotheses into the reasoning. Of course not all mathematicians agree with this but the bulk of practicing mathematicians do and mathematics and the world are richer for it.

Thus we may admit existence of the void into reasoning and living while also maintaining doubt. The value of the possible / probable outcome together with the reasonableness of the existence are the bases of this admission. Now the outcome is certain if the existence is true but it is only possible or likely if we do not know that it is true. Are we in a better position for the uncertainty? If you prefer certainty then we are worse off. However, in other ways we are not worse because even under truth of the existence the ultimate goal is remote. Further, there is a way in which we are better off and that is if we do not prefer certainty and if we enjoy the challenge of the uncertain. Therefore the present doubt may also be called ‘existential’.

Journey in Being. XVII. 8:14 am. Principles

Fundamentals

The fundamental knowledge principles are the full world view—the metaphysics and its join with tradition. This is of course a system of ideas.

If we look at the development of the ideas we find at its core the analysis and synthesis of meaning. There is a view that knowledge can be derived from analysis of meaning; however, it is clear that this is mistaken: knowledge that is already present but perhaps implicit may of course be revealed but new knowledge that is not even implicit in meaning obviously cannot be forthcoming. However, given that knowledge is inherent in meaning—the relation between concepts and objects—the synthesis of knowledge and the synthesis of meaning are the same process. Thus the fundamental nature of analysis and synthesis of meaning.

If we reflect on the process of being (becoming) we see, similarly, that the ‘rational part’ of becoming is analysis and synthesis of being (the a-rational part is also breakdown and buildup but I reserve the terms analysis and synthesis for the thought and action of sentient beings with some degree of freedom of concept formation and action).

What is fundamental in this endeavor? It is that there is no a priori. In our present form we find practical a priori—elements of knowing that we accept as fundamental but even there the moment we recognize them as refractory or opaque they begin to lose their opacity. The fundamental principle implies that there is no ultimate a priori.

Some details

The metaphysics and tradition

The metaphysics

…but more—what are the principles of the metaphysics? The common ones are analysis and synthesis of being in search of the place of no a priori and potency which results in the metaphysics.

Tradition

Science, especially logic, mathematics, physical and life sciences

The inner way—essences of India…

Interaction of metaphysics and tradition

Ideal elements and ‘limits’ of the join

Mechanics, elements, psychology, catalysts, and ways

Journey in Being. XVIII. 8:25 am. Program

Some current references for a program are the following documents:

§ The present document

§ Realizations of Being (most recent full template as of October 21, 2014) has:

An action template for pathways

Tentative pathway elements (8) which may be rethought and redesigned

§ Journey in Being-detail.html (detailed but dated version of the above—about June 2014; note that the date on the document is September 2014 but this is the date of some minor editing).

§ Select Files

8: 39 am

SOME COLLECTED TOPICS

Pre-planning and other

No coffee for a period of time

Essentials, minimize (room, essentials)

Sanskrit, Gita?

Executing the plan

Perception over judgment—i.e., especially, no compulsion

Write outline for a non technical version of journey in being

Essential priorities for return

Time draws short. I must focus on essences.

1. Truth

Be open—do ‘nothing’ rather than ‘random direction’

Since truth is the priority, place and sharing must be true

Research trail and living and community and accessibility across America

Save / earn and realize

Minimize—i.e. what to not do in space and time.

Myself (define the priorities)

Essential contacts; no other contacts except casually

2. With whom to do it—shared spiritual action and support.

3. Do it.

Dealing with ‘stuff’ 3:54 pm

Wait till the storm blows over.

Avoiding storms.

Am I blaming others? 5:25 pm

Be secure in myself.

Define a program.

State my point of view.

Spirituality and spiritual community (October 15).

Beyul is central

§ I must go into the wilderness—beyond secular and non-secular reality and influence—to find truth,

§ Study and plan for trips—purpose, needs, cash…

§ Preparation—health, fitness; gear, transportation; what place; ideas—meditation –y – etc... (philosophy)

§ Immersion

Some other priorities for return

This trip continues a transition between emphasis on writing (ideas) and living (being) the ideas of Journey in Being. This must now be year round.

Super macro mum’s diary.

Driver’s license: CA / WA / Uruguay combine with short list

Buddhist retreat

Follow up and year round trips

Hiking

Lightweight gear – ready – try – buy

Year round

Hiking poles

Some passwords

Gear and supplies

Stove heat reflector and wind shield.

Closed cell foam pad

ChapStick

Options.

§ Precooked rice

§ Ramen

§ Think

Knots

Handling rope

Knots for all regular functions (laces, tent, cache, storing rope, notes above…)

Hiking knots

§ Bowline

§ How to tie a Tautline to a staff or tree when there is a lot of rope left over (3 pm)

§ Tree-caching (October 15 note)

§ …

§ Find a spiritual community

§ Immersion

Place

Think deep (spirit, green)

Opportunity / challenge

Problems ($, DL)

PHOTOGRAPHS

Trinity Alps 2014

Some photographs

Canyon Creek Below Lower Falls

Meadow above lower falls

Slender branches

Creek

Meadow morning

Looks like snow

Trees near upper lake

More trees

Blue lake

Late evening