Being and the Absolute

And Development of the Idea of Being

Preliminary

The development is not yet fully explicit for individual beings, being as a whole, and being-over-time. This and various other details need to be filled in

A fundamental difference between the present exploration and many others is as follows. Here, the fundamental category of being is openly acknowledged as partaking in the unknown and therefore its determination is also part of the discussion or problem. This is in contrast to an explicit monism such as materialism or a dualism where the fundamental category [or categories] is specified at the beginning of the analysis and the fundamental problem is to demonstrate the fundamental character of the fundamental category. Thus the problem of the nature of being is part of the “science of being” and may turn out to reveal a monism or a pluralism. But in its necessary neutrality, this science, goes beyond being non-specific with regard to number of fundamental categories or substances. It does not specify whether there are or are not fundamental categories at all - it is neither categorial nor non-categorial. It will not be specific with regard to subject-object or inner-outer issues. But this is not the place to specify what ontological issues touch the question of being. These are also part of the question - to be discovered in the search for being and the nature of being. Further, although I am emphasizing the mode of question here I should not rule out the mode of answer. In my attempt to be neutral I should not avoid pretend that the universe is something to be viewed from an armchair on a placid Sunday afternoon. Truth and reality may themselves be demanding a commitment. In the beginning, however, so as to enhance acuity and accuracy of vision I may allow myself the luxury of neutrality - with one exception: I am committed to the exploration¹³...the exploration, the mode of question and answer...these are all elements of being. Thus the science of being is regarded as an implicit and neutral ontology. I emphasized the openness of the acknowledgement in the present case because the fact of incompleteness is always present and may be acknowledged in various ways and at various levels