THE POTENTIAL AND ELEMENTS OF BEING
ANIL MITRA PHD, COPYRIGHT © 2001 REFORMATTED May 2003
Document status: May 16, 2003
Essential content absorbed to and no further action needed for Journey
in Being; maintained out of interest
INTRODUCTION: A JOURNEY IN VISION AND
BEING
To Anyone Who Asks “What Do I Want From Life?”
BEING AND THE ELEMENTS OF BEING THE
PHASES
2 What is the most that an individual can do, become?
INTRODUCTION:
A JOURNEY IN VISION AND BEING
I want to present a journey in vision and in being.
It is my journey. I share it because I have something to say - a new vision of
being and of human possibility. Any truly new and significant idea or vision
must, in the beginning, I think, rest upon tradition. I have learnt much from
the modern western tradition, from the traditions of the east and from some
native traditions. However, to be new, it is necessary to go beyond learning to
discovery and beyond discovery into a journey. The process is essentially
personal and communal: this presentation is a sharing and an invitation
to others to join in what I have learned, to undertake their own path, to make
their own contribution, to share and work together
I call my vision “new” but, perhaps it is not -
perhaps all discovery is rediscovery. That may
be true. However, rediscovery is essential - is renewal.
Also, every path of rediscovery - whether that of an individual, a civilization
or more - finds its own colorful, perhaps unique, expression
Where does a journey of becoming begin? Does it
begin with awareness, with seeking, with both...? So as to address the interest
of the reader, I will begin the description with a question:
|
...... especially |
“What is the Most I can Know, Do or Become?” |
|
...... or |
|
|
|
|
|
...and to
anyone who would undertake |
I
use my process, my journey as an example - as a way to communicate, to share.
I’m still in the process - there are many paths. I have come to realize that a
person can do, become much more than I thought, much more than is commonly
thought or even imagined. What is the source of this realization? It is a
combination of experience and reflection. It is in the experience of my
journey... in coming to places previously unknown and unimagined; and it is in
reflection on the experience and on the nature of what is real. In reflection
on what is real I have, naturally, drawn on the common tradition and that
includes the traditions of science and philosophy. The journey is personal; the
traditions are a beginning guide to what is possible - to the universal
It
is a process, a journey, not a lesson - not one step. Each significant step
results in a new vision, an unimagined place. The path that the journey traces
is not known - cannot be known - in advance. The journey is not one of
awareness or vision alone; it is necessary to commit my being, to allow for
fundamental and unforeseen change. Some steps begin with an idea or a feeling
which later becomes part of who I am; other steps begin in the dark and lead
slowly to light. In the early stages my journey was not designed but, then, I
discovered an approach to the process. Full design is not desired or even
possible. Rather, the approach includes the growth of a feeling for when to
flow and when and what to anticipate. The approach is not something I learned
somewhere else [of course there are influences] but in the process itself - by
doing and reflecting. This means that the process is open to all
individuals
This
version of The Potential of Being... and the
Elements of Being is an outline for the general reader. Elaboration will be
provided later. I have attempted to focus on the essentials. I have attempted
to keep technical words and details to a minimum - these will be incorporated
later by means of references and hyperlinks. However, the reading will not be
easy for everyone. It should take time to absorb the ideas. This is
because I have attempted to present a new vision or concept of being, knowledge
and the universe - and of human possibility in that universe
About
living in the moment - small things are important, necessary. Without that the
big picture is empty. Moments color the process. I have had joy, pain - in
life, in the process. I’m not saying that pain, “sacrifice” is necessary but I
have not tried too hard to avoid them. The process itself - being involved in
the process, learning about it - is necessary
There
is a logic to parts of the process, to developing the
concept of being, that is very neat. I have become amazed at what can be known
through reasoning that starts with what is commonly known to be true. The
reasoning could start with ideas from esoteric disciplines such as those in
modern science and philosophy or in ancient religion. However, this is not
necessary or even desired. It can be seen to be unnecessary when we remember
that the roots of esoteric knowledge are in what is immediately visible. It is
not desired because what is immediately visible is the
firmest and the most meaningful foundation. When I provide the logic I will
start with common knowledge and provide support and elaboration from the
esoteric disciplines. “What is common knowledge?” - that
is not clearly defined and we should be prepared to question its meaning while
answering the question
There
is a “toolkit” of ideas that I have learned from various places, traditions and
disciplines. It is handy, a way to build new ideas from old. I have learnt
about and tried to cover significant portions of human thought, concepts and
experiments in being. A useful toolkit has an arrangement - this toolkit is
organized by the concept of being that I have developed... and by the way to
realization of the potential of being. There are phases to the process -
they interact and, so, do not occur in a linear progression. Although the
following phases are not a linear progression in time they are one - and only
one - logical progression that illuminates the answer to the question
“What do I want from life?”
BEING AND THE
ELEMENTS OF BEING
THE Phases
Is
it all doing? It is also becoming, being
A
variety of ways and degrees
How
can I even begin to answer the question “What is the most that an individual
can do or become?” This can be written as two questions:
In
order to answer this it is necessary to know:
Being
has common and technical meanings. In common, everyday meaning a being is an
entity, a thing - something that is. The technical meaning is a
reflection on the everyday meaning: what is it about an entity that makes it
exist, what is its being? This question is abstract but important - it is
necessary to understand the meaning of being as part of knowing what are its
potentials and limits. I will make this concept of being accessible
How
does one know what is claimed in the working out of the phases? What is
knowledge - and how this is question important?
What
I want to show is that knowledge is not only what one has or does, it is what
one is - it is a part of being
“What is knowledge?” is important
- it determines whether we accept claims, especially claims about being and its
possibilities, as valid. But how can that be? It is a new conception, not only
of how to “test” for knowledge but, also, what is knowledge
...and, how can that be? How
can someone say that what knowledge is according to the tradition is wrong? The
response is that I do not say that the tradition is wrong. There are two ways
in which the tradition says something about what knowledge is. First, consider
various writers analyzing knowledge. There are many opinions here. Even the
good ones are not in agreement. One reason for lack of agreement is that the
analyses are incomplete. Another is that some disagreement is not real
disagreement but looking at a complex phenomenon with many aspects from
different perspectives. You can focus on why a knowledge claim is correct, you
can focus on how people do research, you can focus on the nature of knowledge,
and you can focus on individual knowledge claims or on systems of knowledge or
programs of research, or you can focus on social or economic aspects of
knowledge... If these different aspects or perspectives are viewed as the
essence of knowledge, as may be expected from an excited researcher, then they
may seem to be in conflict. Second, the tradition of knowledge itself “speaks”
- how the knowledge is come by, how it is used, how it fits into the growth and
development of society, of civilization
I am not saying that any of that
is wrong. Instead, I am saying that there are many ways in which our usual
perspectives on knowledge are limited. The problem, then, is not of overcoming
those perspectives - they have validity - but of finding the broadest
perspectives and understanding and placing the limited perspectives in terms of
the broader ones. For example: day to day vs. long periods of time; knowledge
as settled vs. knowledge as essentially transitional; knowledge as being about
the world vs. knowledge as having a function... Is knowledge “just a set of
words or pictures in one’s head” or is it something that is organically rooted
in the being of the organism, and so of the universe itself? That is important
for, then, it is important to act, to live out bold beliefs because knowledge
itself is something that comes before an understanding of what it is. In other
words, since our knowledge of “what is knowledge” is open to error and
incompleteness we should not be too worried about criticism and
“correctness”
In consideration of the nature of
knowledge and being, and of the nature of the individual we are led to consider
the relation between the limits of being and of human being. If individual
being is identical with being, then the limits of individual being are those of
being itself
Language
is effective in expressing, recording, generalizing, arguing or deriving,
communicating and using knowledge by description. Offshoots of language such as
mathematics, when applicable, are especially effective
A preliminary to effectively
understanding the way language is used in knowledge is to understand meaning
A
key to the broader concept of knowledge is to recognize other, more inclusive,
kinds - kinds that do not necessarily use language
Knowledge by description - using
symbol systems such as language, logic and mathematics - is an indirect and
somewhat flat form of knowledge... and in this is its strength and weakness and
its sometimes seeming inauthenticity. More direct
forms are experience and perception; and, even more direct, the form of an
organism that is adapted to the environment. This is an approach to seeing how
knowledge is bound into the fabric of the organism, and to a broader concept of
knowledge. The different forms of knowledge are not in opposition but function
together as a continuum. Language provides a “picture” of what is depicted - so
as not to enter any of the modern debates about the faithfulness of the
pictures of mind and language, I note that the word picture may be used
metaphorically. A sentence may express a fact about the world - this kind of
sentence is a proposition or expresses a proposition. The ability of a sentence
to express and communicate a fact derives from - at least - two sources: first,
that the components of the sentence may be symbols for parts, components of the
world - objects, processes, relationships... - and, second, that the structures
of [systems of] sentences may represent structures and processes in the world.
[It is not being said that every word or linguistic construction refers to
something - or that such reference is the entire function of language; it
should be noted, also, that viewing language as a function is not the only way
to understand language - we can also look at a system of communicating
individuals and ask whether the structure of their actions and interactions
represents an adaptation of the group to the environment.] An individual may
think, also, in pictures and this may be more faithful, more lively, more
direct than expression through language which may be seen as linear and one
dimensional. Language is not necessary for the knowledge or expression of facts
- for propositions or propositional knowledge. Thought can be carried on in
pictures and expressed through, e.g., a painting or, perhaps, evoked through
music or poetry. Poetry is an example of a non-literal use of language; in
poetry there is a use of the form and sound of words and sentences - not just
of what words and sentences refer to or “represent”; parts of poetry or even an
entire poem - or of any text - convey meaning or provoke an action that is not
conveyed or provoked by the individual words or their mere juxtaposition. Such
uses of language are non-atomic: the “meaning” or action of the whole is not
derived from fixed individual meanings; the whole has a meaning or action of
its own and, in part, determines the meanings and actions of individual words
in their specific application - to the extent that they have individual
meanings or actions. However, it is the atomic, linear, flat aspects of
language that make it useful for communication - especially in the realm of
what is sometimes called the objective, in examination for critical analysis,
in generalization to realms where pictorial imagination fails. However, even in
realms where language and its offshoots are especially effective, pictorial
imagination and subjective coloring are in the background, binding further the
linguistic forms into the mind - thought and feeling - of the individual. Part
of linguistic ability is the partial capacity to translate back and forth
between symbols and pictures... Even more basic than pictorial representation
and feeling are, as noted earlier, the form of the organism that is adapted to
the environment. That form has many layers that correspond, perhaps, to stages
of evolutionary adaptation and includes all levels of “mind” and “body”.
Imagination and language are also forms of adaptation - they represent a form
of adaptation that can be called adaptability... an adaptability that is built
in to the organism - the organism acquires, through evolution, a measure of control
over its own evolution. Finally, somewhere between explicit imagination that
the organism is able, to some extent, to control and maintain in consciousness
lies dreaming and the unconscious. The unconscious is a vast territory covering
many levels and modes but not the explicit conscious. There is a degree of
autonomy to the modes - the adaptive functions are different in nature. The
body and unconscious have their own knowledge and thus feeling and behavior are
not under complete control of conscious thought and perception; one cannot will
oneself to believe or “know” whatever one may choose. These different aspects
of “knowledge” are not completely separate or in opposition; to repeat, they
function together as a continuum
The broader concept forms a foundation
for a concept of knowledge that is lived out rather than merely known
intellectually. In science, for example, there is a separation between thought
and experiment. The separation is not clear in for lived out knowledge. There
is a transition from knowledge as something an organism does to something it is
A
toolkit: A variety of civilizations and life forms. Their practical and
theoretical arts, e.g. technology and science, and their forms of thought
[symbol systems] and life, e.g. art, language, logic, mathematics, philosophy,
law, politics and religion
My
discoveries: There is a way! [1] A way of navigating limits that
includes questioning limits - the nature of limits and the nature of being as
subject to limits. The distinction between real and apparent limits is called
into question. After navigating some limits, new ones may appear... This way
may be called the approach of incremental limits - [2] Realizing the broader,
integrated concepts of knowledge and being
In cultivating these approaches
one negotiates limits and then, by reflection and experiment, one learns the
nature of seeming limits and how to negotiate them... and, so, enters into a
dynamic relationship with what is real - one enters a dynamics of being
The nature of limits and
possibilities: Caution leads us to be skeptical about possibilities but liberal
about limits. This leads to many positive results but not to full realization
of possibility and potential. Limits can be criticized - if I regard a limit as
absolute, that is a form of absolute knowledge but that is what skepticism
questions - but the best way to discover whether they are real is to see how
far you can go with them. For example, how much of the world can I understand
from science. The method of limit testing
The nature of the individual: Is
the distinction between the individual and all being - the universe - absolute?
Acting
out one’s ideas and knowledge is important - living out the potentials and
limits of being. A variety of kinds of experiments and experiences is necessary
A
toolkit - a variety of approaches from various traditions and cultures:
example, the Yogas. A variety of applications such as somatization and its
cultivation in health; transformation of personality; the nature of charisma;
Drawing from my own experience and from the traditions, I have developed a
comprehensive system of experiments
What
are The Elements of Being? The idea can be
described as follows. A world with no variety or structure is dead. A universe
with so much variety that there is no repetition of structure at all cannot
sustain being or existence, life or sentience [awareness], or understanding.
The repeated structures of a universe that sustain variety, being and
understanding are The Elements of Being. The Elements of Being are what
make being, becoming [growth, change, evolution] and understanding possible
Some common concepts of the
elements of being are as follows. In physics, the elementary particles are “the
elements”. Here, finite variety at a “microscopic” level - elementary particles
- results in seemingly infinite variety at larger scale levels - there are more
than one hundred atomic elements and countless molecules and more complex
structures. In biology, cells and genes - DNA - are elements. In the philosophy
of mind - sensation, emotion, thought can be taken as elements or kinds of
elements. There are problems associated with these systems. The history of
philosophy includes an, as yet unsuccessful, attempt to bring these systems
into a coherent relationship. They do not address, fully, the core of the
questions and desires of being
I described the universe, above,
as containing both being and understanding. However there is no commitment to
either as more or most basic. There is no commitment to the existence of both
as fundamental kinds or to a real distinction - or lack of distinction -
between them. I am comfortable with the idea that one or other or neither may
be more fundamental and using both as ways of description. Instead of a
substance or a process ontology a “cyclic” ontology is
conceivable. For example, matter yields mind which then creates matter. This is
not completely counter to modern science in that there is - as one example - a
matter-energy conversion in nuclear reactors based in principles developed by
human minds. An “empty” ontology is, also, not absurd: existence is equivalent
to nothing: this contradicts neither logic nor physics. At the level of
discussion in this section, however, there is no commitment to or against any
such ontologies. This is not a minimization of
ontology; rather the purposes of this attitude are as follows. The first
purpose is to avoid an encumbrance with unnecessary detail and distinction.
Thus, in the following paragraph on the levels of The Elements, there is no
mention of being vs. understanding. The result is a way that is refractory to
the question of existence and distinctions of being and understanding. The
result is simple, actually and logically robust, and - in one important way -
avoids a distinction between world and theory, between object and concept.
There is, thus, no error to be committed in the question of reality content. I
prefer distinctions to fall out of - and then interact with - experience rather
than to be stamped upon it. Note, also, that the following paragraph also
de-emphasizes the distinction between individual and world. The second reason
to avoid a distinction is to avoid the mind-matter dualism and the associated
problems and burdens on our systems of thought. The dualism exists even for the
committed materialist in that what he or she may think of as the ghost of mind
- of consciousness - cannot be shed
The
Elements of Being exist at a number of levels. Consider two levels, the
concrete and the abstract. The first is concrete or detailed - the various
toolkits described above. Primary to the first level is the direct experience
of the individual. The second is an abstract or general system that reveals the
most fundamental ingredients or ways of being. An example of such a system is
the triad structure-relationship-process or entity-meaning-action. Where do
such a systems come from and what are their uses? The system is a distillation
of thought from many areas - we can see its signature in ancient ideas from,
e.g., Buddhism - the universe is a web of causation, the idea of Logos from
ancient
It
is necessary to say something about cause and change. First, causation is not a
linear chain; the idea of a web is a better description. Second, the idea of
causation does not mean that being is completely determined by its past;
otherwise there would be no true origins, no real growth or evolution... In a
non-deterministic system the distinction between existence and non-existence,
the sharp boundaries of individual consciousness begin to fade. In such a
system of understanding, concepts of understanding and being begin to merge in
a concept of the real. Understanding and being merge in the real
Anil Mitra | Resume | Horizons
Enterprises™ | Home | Site-Map | Useful Links | Contact the Author