Why Being? (1) Its qualities—inclusiveness; neutrality of reference (without even exception of the ‘non-existent’ regarding which it is without significance whether ‘Being’ has reference to it); the given—without assumption or need for assumption—a result of the neutrality of reference; and so (2) Being is a naming of the existent rather than a definition in terms of other concepts, and (3) Its instrumentality in showing the fundamental nature of the Universe: The Principle of Being (PB), below

In the history of thought, ‘Being’ has had a variety of connotations. For example, Being is often associated with essence. Here, however, ‘Being’ shall mean nothing more—or less—than what is specified in the first sentence of this discussion of Being

The givenness of Being

What is the givenness of Being? It does not lie in the thought (at outset of investigation and analysis) that there are fixed ‘things’—e.g. matter or mind or electrons or footballs—that definitely exist. Practically these things do exist and it is practically absurd to question the existence of, say, a football. However, the point of such questioning is to understand the nature of existence, of Being. There are two gaps between understanding and Being. The first is that in perceiving, e.g., a tree I may see the tree as a single object but not as the accumulation of organs or fundamental particles that it is; and if I now understand it as an accumulation of particles I may doubt my understanding because I do not know whether there are precisely fundamental particles as conceived in the most rigorous physics. Secondly, and more basically, the concept of a tree is a joint product of world and mind and I may therefore question whether there actually is a tree as I understand it (the two issues are related). How then do I know that there is anything? There is experience! Perhaps there is an illusory character to my experience of the tree but there is the experience itself. This is the givenness of Being. It is now a reasonably easy exercise to give appropriate and adequate robustness to the objects of my world

While the questions may seem academic they will, we will see, lead to the most profound and encompassing of conclusions

Being and Existing as Concepts

If something exists should we say ‘it exists’ / ‘it is Being’ or ‘it has existence’ / ‘it has Being’? ‘It exists’ and ‘it has Being’ seem more natural but the alternate locutions are also permissible. That something may have Being implies that some things may lack Being. This appears paradoxical. The key is that ‘having Being’ is used as concept as well as object. All objects have Being but some concepts may be so formed as to not have any object, i.e. to not refer to anything. An example is the concept ‘an apple that is entirely green and not green at the same time’. The concept is easily formed but on account of the built in contradiction it can not refer to any object. Consider the idea of an elephant that flies by flapping its ears. Surely there is no such elephant. However, in a place where gravity is 1/320,000 of its present value, a 20,0000 pound elephant would weigh 1 oz and (it would probably have to be in a pressurized chamber) would be able to fly by flapping its ears. It would be amusing and clumsy but possible. This suggests that the only true impossibilities are that the concepts that violate logic

Universe

Definition

The Universe is All Being—over all extension and duration

Reasons for this definition

Why this definition rather than the often implicit ‘known universe’ of science and common discourse? (1) It is definite rather than changing, clear rather than vague, inclusive rather than exclusive, (2) It is instrumental in leading to some fundamental conclusions regarding the nature of the actual and the possible, the Universe and its creation, and the immensely powerful and illuminating Principle of Being that reveals directions of ultimate knowledge as well as directions of ever open knowledge (that is process wise accessible to concepts)

The Principle of Being

The Universe has no limits (PB)

Demonstration of PB

The idea of demonstration

Demonstration: transparent proof from the given

Transparent proof: transparency arises with proof, not prior to it

The demonstration

Being ® Universe (and Law) ® Void (Complement of Universe ® Exists and contains no Law) ® PB

Dual and Simultaneous Development of Metaphysics and Epistemology

This follows immediately from the immediacy of Being in the given

What does PB say?

Dimensions of the principle

The Universe has no limits may be called an absolute, immanent or real form

Formulation in terms of concepts and Logic: Subject to Logic or Well Formed-ness, Every concept of referential type has reference—this may be called a relative or conceptual form of the principle

The following examples do not exhaust the consequences of the principle

Cosmology—e.g., subject to logic: the variety of Being is without limit, every cosmos is repeated without limit, every conceivable physical law is realized, every state of Being is equivalent to every other state

Identity—the Universe has identity as well as states of Acute Identity; the Identity of the Individual is (becomes) that of the Universe

Destiny—this shows our destiny; and its realization is a fundamental value

Culture (Religion, the Sciences)—are illuminated, founded, and immensely expanded by the principle and its metaphysics; the rotten parts of culture are excised; culture and imagination and criticism provide example for and leverage of the metaphysics

The Fundamental Problem of Metaphysics

A fundamental example of the power of the principle. PB implies that Being is necessary. Therefore what has been called the fundamental problem of metaphysics (Heidegger)—i.e., why there is Being is trivially answered and a new and essential fundamental problem revealed: What has Being? PB provides a strong handle—in some ways it is demonstrated to be the strongest—on this problem

Meaning

The idea of meaning was implicit in defining ‘Being’ and ‘Universe’

The whole range of the idea meaning now becomes explicit: meaning lies in context: the range of concepts and the objects to which they refer. I.e., meaning is a function of context, intension, and extension

What kind of statement is PB?

Metaphysical

Here, metaphysics is transparently empirical and Logical

Lineaments of the metaphysics: Being—Metaphysics-Epistemology (what kinds of objects are there?), Concept, Logic, Cosmology, Object, and Identity, Ultimate nature (absolute depth, covering, unlimited breadth or variety)

Objects

The object is the fundamental entity of the Universal Metaphysics

Particular and Abstract Objects; their uniform theory

Inhabiting abstract objects

Doubt

Meaning

Semantic Doubt—E.g., operations that depend on relations have no meaning for the whole

Consistency and Logic

Logical Doubt—E.g. Inheritance, Contradiction

Consequence—a new and fundamental conception of Logic

Science

Empirical Science as knowledge of the known universe is not universal

Consequences of doubt

Semantics, Logic

Science can be seen as fact over restricted domains

Faith

Faith is the attitude that maximizes process and outcome

The metaphysics is consistent. Therefore even while doubt remains it remains a fundamental action principle

Significance. Is the resulting metaphysics important, useful, significant?

Historical significance. Has it been seen before?

The principle of plenitude

Upanishad. Atman = Brahman

Significance for Human Identity

Religion and the meaning of religion

The Journey

Culture

The metaphysics frames (and founds much of human) culture

Journey in Being

Nature

For finite Being—Journey in Endless Variety; Endless Summits; no Limit to Elevation; Summits followed by dissolution

Process

Journey of Realization by Immersion, Participation. Phases—Ideas, Transformation, Social-Creation. Approaches. Goals

Future Science and Religion and their nature