Central Statements

The content is complete. It does not have every development or idea for development but the core is solid; interpretation and elaboration is sufficient to show the power of the ideas; and the program of realization is ready enough

What remains is significant editing. In the editing I shall prefer to eliminate than to add; I shall be selective as to what is central; I shall be careful in organization and presentation; I shall be especially careful in marking material according to intended audience

Follow Plans

Follow plans from Plan for essential version.doc

Poetry of precision…

A priority: central headings, central and main statements; every thing else very selective ® academic / general / detail…

Remember that ‘this essential version’ is about ‘essentials’… but that detail may be incorporated directly as detailed (normal, academic, general, stem) text as well as links and other devices in Plan for essential version.doc

Editing

‘Being’ omits profundity, e.g., of the Existentialists

Identity, space, time; attributes of Spinoza

Make the final table ‘thinner’

Editing

Shorten the long paragraphs

Minimize too much numbering e.g. (1) and ‘punctuation’

Words Etc

Rethink title:

Yoga

Import words from Plan for essential version.doc

Universal Metaphysics®universal metaphysics (define UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS)

Names

Names of authors will be in academic or general or detail sentences

Documents

Minimize documents—especially peripheral and planning documents

Journey in Being

Introduction

The following have been identified—identify them with headings for editing and decide whether to retain these headings (a) The main ideas—aim (b) Motivation—universal, civilization, individual (personal) (c) The vehicles—individual, civilization (d) The modes—ideas, action-transformation (e) An outline of the narrative, and (f) Significance of the title

Journey in Being is a narrative of discovery and realization

The primary aim of the endeavor described in this essay is dual. One aspect of the dual aim is understanding and living well in our world. The complementary aspect is understanding and realization of high ideals of Being. The two aspects are naturally related and the relation gives meaning to our world and grounding and realism to ideals. The goal requires and will benefit from understanding of the Universe, of our world and human nature and of their relations

There are three significant sources for the origin and motive for this endeavor. I will provide a description of the sources tailored to illuminate the narrative. It will be effective to begin description with the most recent source

The most recent driving force for the endeavor is a worldview or metaphysics whose development has occupied a number of years. Writers who present worldviews are often and naturally driven by passionate commitment to an ideal; however, the history of such views is that they are speculative at their core. Passion and emotion are crucial but, contrary to some views, passion and reason achieve their highest expression in integration. The present worldview is demonstrated in the narrative. Here it is appropriate to state the central principle of the worldview in a form that is suggestive though not as precise as the forms stated in the narrative—The Universe is the greatest possible. The implications of this principle are immense; they include a picture of the Universe and of human being that is far greater than allowed in standard secular thought or imagined in traditional myth and religion. There will be objections, e.g. that metaphysics of a certain type is impossible, that the development violates what we know from science, and that it strains credulity. However the narrative demonstrates (1) The view itself (2) The possibility and fact of metaphysics (3) That far from contradicting science, the view is consistent with and requires science—but goes far beyond the science of today. Regarding the issue of incredulity, I must refer the reader to the narrative with the forewarning that understanding will require careful attention to the narrative and may require reeducation of his or her intuition

The ‘central principle’ of the previous paragraph will be called the fundamental principle of metaphysics. The development has basis in the concept of Being. My conception of ‘Being’ has—of course—similarities to other conceptions of the idea but, importantly, particulars that are crucial to the development. Regarding my conception of Being, I have found that it is essential to not attempt to build profundity into basics at the outset of understanding. Therefore, the final understanding of Being at which I arrived avoided profundity to the point of plainness; however, it is this plainness—even triviality—that gives the concept its power. Further, what is valid in the profound notions of Being, are at least implicit in this conception. The metaphysics concerns all Being, i.e. the Universe. It will be shown to be—essentially—unique and will therefore be called the universal metaphysics or, simply, the metaphysics

The metaphysics has a number of sources, especially my interests in the sciences, art and literature, philosophy, the history of humankind, and the nature and possibilities of religion. I have learned much in my reading, reflection, and experience in these disciplines

Interest in these disciplines reflects an interest in human being, human civilization and their destiny. This interest is a second source for the endeavor that I think of as a journey in being. Individuals and civilization are vehicles of the endeavor. The metaphysics implies that these ‘vehicles’ participate in ultimate Being, i.e. the process of the Universe. By ‘civilization’ I do not imply any sense in which modernity is the mark of an essentially superior civilization (science and technology are not seen as the enterprise but may be significant to it). Rather, I refer to communication and perhaps cooperation across time and space among world cultures. Perhaps we will meet and integrate with other civilizations in our cosmos. Even more than that is given—the metaphysics implies the fact of pan Universal civilization. What, precisely, does all this mean; how is it concluded; how may it come about? These issues are addressed—given answers—in this essay. The metaphysics is crucial to the answers; however, integration of the metaphysics with the traditions of human knowledge and endeavor is also essential

In the history of human civilization various disciplines and endeavors arise. These provide knowledge methods—a method is the ‘how’ of doing something but, in general, it does not guarantee a positive outcome—for various kinds of activity. At a higher level we may realize methods for development of the disciplines—e.g., the scientific method. Methods may appear to be received but in fact evolve in interaction with the specific activities

Is there any method for the whole enterprise? We are tempted to say that there is not for at the highest of levels there can be no ‘outside’ perspective. In the metaphysics developed here we will see the interactive emergence of content and method. We will find that there are certain directions—depth—in which questions of method are definitive but there are other directions—breadth of variety—that must be ever open; this marks the other directions as more ‘important’. This is an exciting conclusion for it implies no end to process and adventure

Ideas—knowledge, perception, reflection—are crucial to the process. However, without action and transformation realization is (shown to be) essentially incomplete. The narrative therefore has two main divisions. The first division develops the metaphysics and related topics; the second division describes a system of transformation grounded in this world and aimed at the ultimate. We partake of both limited and unlimited form. In limited form we are ever in a process of realization but may have vision of and partake in the ultimate (as we are already in this world). The demonstration of these claims regarding ideas and action is part of the metaphysics. The aim of the second division is to present means of realization (transformation of Being, technology); to present a way of realization; and to describe progress so far

The metaphysics reveals that for limited form, realization is endless process. However, since the process is one that has multiple pathways and is sometimes intentional but at other times ‘flowing’ and follows fortuitous leads, it seemed to me that the term ‘journey’ might apply. The first source of the idea of a journey was in my personal experience. The development of the endeavor of this essay have taken me through much ideational and experiential terrain; I have tried and rejected or simply dropped many different approaches—some traditional but others experimental. My life and experience is an original source for the endeavor and the idea of a journey

The title ‘Journey in Being’ has two sources. One is the idea of a journey in the sense just discussed. The other begins with the fundamental nature of Being that makes it pivotal in the development of the universal metaphysics and as a container for realization

The metaphysics reveals that the ultimate is accessible. However, in the process of access the individual is transformed. The transformation is more than technological transformation of the world in which we live or the acquisition of knowledge or awareness. It is an essential transformation of Being

Experience

Understanding the Universe does not grow in a flash of insight. Appreciation of ideas grows

The idea of experience begins as the feeling part of awareness, e.g. consciousness

It is not mere feeling but includes the awareness in feeling, sensation, perception, cognition, emotion, and action; experience includes shape, structure, quality but it is the feeling side of quality and not instrumental quality

Many thinkers steeped in materialism have minimized and even denied experience. It is part of the pragmatic if altogether pervasive attitude the modern attitude to minimize anything that is not clearly ‘material’

The idea of matter—regardless of the reality of matter—does not mention experience (mind) but does not exclude it either except as an afterthought. Absence of mention does not imply absence in fact. The idea that matter excludes experience of a ‘fallacy of misplaced concreteness’

Experience—though not all its content—is a primary fact of our ‘being’. Though not everything, experience is the place of significance. Although the information in experience may mislead, it is in experience that we know experience (that fact is at the core of what we call self-consciousness and introspection). In a metaphor, it is our lens or aperture on the world; everything that we know that we know is known in experience. Speaking in hyperbole, experience is our world. If we are to be neutral to commitment at outset we should allow that the apparent metaphor is more than metaphor. We will find this to be the case on an expanded meaning of ‘experience’

‘Experience’ names this primary fact of experience. It is given and named; it is named experience. In experience we know that there is a world and there is experience; for if it is all illusion then there is still experience for illusion is experience; and the world is then made up of illusion

We can doubt matter but we cannot logically doubt experience (doubt—logical or other—is experience). In a true pragmatic sense experience is more real—more ‘material’—than matter

That the world is rich we do not doubt; we know this from the rich variety of experience. However, the reality of the world—in richness and in starkness—may be illusion

The extreme regarding the illusory nature of the world is the solipsistic view that ‘all is experience’. However, from a degree richness which is properly inferred but not directly known in experience we conclude that ‘all is experience’ is either (a) a renaming of a world that is real or (b) contradictory

There is therefore a real world (which is rich and which is known in and contains experience). The real world is sometimes called the external world; however I prefer the term ‘real’ because the external world is not actually outside anything

In western thought the name of Descartes is connected to the intimate connection between ‘being’ and experience

But the question ‘precisely what exists’ has hardly been answered. We know that there is a rich real world and that experience is real. However we do not yet know that the objects of everyday experience and science—for example—as we experience them are real for all purposes even though seem are real enough. This suggests that we are at the beginning of answering the question ‘What really exists?’ Though it is not the main purpose of the narrative, what follows may be seen as an extended reflection on this question

Note that ‘experience’ has not been defined in terms of other concepts. Rather, examples of it were given. That is because experience is so basic in the realm of mind that there are no concepts that are more basic (perhaps there are but at some point we would have to stop finding ‘more’ basic concepts to avoid infinite regress). Does this mean that experience is not really definable? Does it mean that we must doubt that there is experience? It does not for we have found it so basic that although it may benefit from explanation and illustration, we have no need to question the fact that there is experience. When we define by example we employ what is called ‘ostensive’ definition. When we define what is basic beyond question we ‘name what is given’

Some readers may find the discussion so far too far removed from real significance. I expect that other readers will find it insufficiently analytic. My thoughts on this issue are as follows. One objective of this essay is the understanding of the Universe beyond everyday understanding and even beyond science (it will emerge and be shown that what lies beyond the borders of the latest science is immense). Errors of thought that are inconsequential on a day to day basis might be fatal to correct understanding in the larger realm. There is therefore a sense in which thought cannot be too careful. To do philosophy—for example—therefore requires that we revaluate all our knowledge and attitudes to knowledge. However, it has always been my ambition to do something positive with thought—i.e. to know and act in the world. Therefore I have endeavored to build a positive understanding of the world (here ‘positive’ means simply that the intent is to be critical but more than critical, i.e. the intent is to say something true and instrumental). And it is therefore that in the thought and action that is the subject of this essay in this essay I have endeavored and will endeavor to find what may be called a maximally useful balance between care of thought and constructive action

Meaning

Here meaning is, roughly, the meaning of concepts and includes linguistic meaning

The interest here is in ‘referential meaning’ which we therefore abbreviate to ‘meaning’

Referential meaning is not as limited as might be thought for other kinds of meaning, e.g. a cry of pain as in ‘ouch’ may have implicit reference andor may be explained in terms of reference

A concept and its object constitute meaning; the object may be explicit, implicit, or empty

A concept may have many objects but multiple objects may be seen as compound or, sometimes, as abstract

‘Concept’ refers to mental content. The idea of concept as, e.g., ‘unit of meaning’ is a sub case. Percepts are concepts

Experience is a primary example of mental content. All experience is mental content. Not all mental content is experience as we have understood it so far. However, in the extended sense of experience in Mind and Matter, all mental content is experience

A concept is an association of icons and non-iconic signs. For a concept to refer, it must have iconic content. Non-iconic signs acquire iconic character—and iconic signs acquire further iconic character—(a) in association with iconic elements—thus the abstraction and efficiency of language—and (b) by their arrangement (e.g. sentences)

Reference invariably carries projection; thus the very concept of an object is in question. However, we will find cases of perfection in which the projective contribution is eliminated by abstraction, and—later—practical objects that are good enough in some pragmatic sense. The practical objects that we call concrete are also abstracted but the abstraction does not eliminate all projection (the price of immediate usefulness is lack of perfection)

A concept and its object constitute meaning—we may repeat this roughly as follows. A concept and its object constitute the meaning of the concept or associate word-sign (or sentence or proposition)

In normal affairs it is natural and efficient to conflate concept and object

However, the conflation of concept and object leads to much confusion. If, for example, I ask what is the meaning of ‘Being’ answers to the question will be as if forever catching their own tail if I conflate concept with object. Making the distinction allows identification of various meanings and selecting a desired meaning (which may be discovered by trial and error)

The significance of the present concept of meaning is that the distinction of concept and object is essential to the clear understanding and deployment of meaning, elimination of obscurity, vagueness and paradox. We find that experience is incorporated in meaning and the advance of meaning, i.e. analysis of meaning is already profoundly and simultaneously empirical and conceptual; and the trial and error synthesis of new meaning makes it experimental. With appropriate interpretation method in general can be incorporated as part of analysis (and synthesis) of meaning

What is the nature of a concept in itself, i.e. as part of the Universe? Concepts have been seen as mental and as abstract ‘objects’ in some mental or ideal ‘space’ or ‘world’. However, these cases will later be ruled out and it will be found that concepts are just things in the world (they are at least and in some sense organizations within the brain and perhaps entire body)

Thus conflation of concept and object opens the way to self-reference which is one source—sometimes though not invariably—of meaninglessness and paradox. However, self-reference is not the only source of paradox. The source of many paradoxes lies in the naïve expectation that concepts will do what they inherently do not do. Three such sources of paradox are (1) Implicit reference, i.e. reference that is not explicit in the concept (2) That conceptual freedom which is a source of creativity also allows formation of illogical andor fact negating concepts (3) Assumption that the form of reference entails reference

For determinateness, meaning is ultimately not to be founded in further meanings—as it is in a dictionary—but in context and use. Dictionaries are of course useful but are often over specified—precise beyond realism—as well as under specified e.g. in capturing only a part of reality—even of significant. Context and use provide appropriate balance between stability and fluidity of meaning and knowledge. In a stable context meaning is stabilized in use; variations may be accommodated but if too severe they are likely to be rejected. In a changing context the severe variations are adaptive and may be selected by the process itself or, in special situations, by cognition

What is true of meaning is also true of grammar (grammar is part of meaning). Consider ‘The boy hit the ball.’ The essential feature is an agent performing an action on a material object. This is an aspect of reality. However, any specific language does not capture all such aspects; and, where it captures a range of aspects with different forms (e.g. tense) it sometimes does not have the general case (verbs without tense). Further, the subject-predicate form captures a part of the real it does not capture all—ways of referring to—reality. Thus language sometimes functions as an unnecessary filter and sometimes as a strait jacket. We sometimes think that the sentence order agent-verb-object of English is arbitrary because other languages have different orders (as does English in the passive voice). However this order is not entirely arbitrary for it suggests what the culture emphasizes (whether language determines emphasis or vice-versa is not altogether clear). These aspects of language are sometimes thought of as ‘limitations’. However, our biological forms—and therefore cognitive abilities—are the result of adaptation and therefore limited to a range of environments. We can use language to assist in freeing ourselves from these limitations. Why? In the common arena to provide a greater range of cultural expression; in exploration of the Universe to be able to understand and represent a greater range of the real than our linguistic forms currently allow. Language is suited to this for, in context, a single sign has a world of meaning; in an emerging context a sign may acquire a new world of meaning

To go beyond our known contexts, i.e. to know the Universe, may require us to go beyond our linguistic comfort zone

Thus (i) Study of meaning is not mere lexical meaning but the study of the nature of objects, already empirical, and, when analyzed in relation to changing or formation of contexts it is experimental and incorporates new empirical content; such study and development of meaning will be called ‘analysis of meaning’. This will be seen to be an immensely important aspect of the method of all knowledge, especially of the metaphysics to be developed. If we admit seeking consequences and experiment into analysis of meaning—they are already implicitly present—then, with appropriate interpretation, the foregoing analysis already includes scientific method (ii) Analysis of meaning may be deployed in resolution of numerous significant and minor paradoxes

Existence

To say that something exists is to say that ‘it is’

Existence marks what is there

It is the most elementary of distinctions

Since, at least naïvely, ‘everything’ exists, existence has been called trivial. On this view ‘the world exists’ says nothing

Let us however, use what we have learned regarding meaning to analyze existence

From analysis of meaning every reference is conceptual. The meaning of ‘The tiger exists’ includes that ‘There is something that corresponds to the ‘tiger’ concept’. Since I can conceive ‘things’ that do not exist, existence is not entirely trivial. If we are not sure that there is a Higgs Boson the statement ‘Higgs Bosons exist’ is more than trivial. Still, ‘existence’ is trivial enough and it will be seen that it is precisely this triviality that is—will continue to emerge as—a source of power of the concept of existence

From analysis of experience we know that existence is a robust fact—there is a real world and not experience or illusion alone and that it is rich in variety (answers to the fundamental question of what ‘things’ there are—beyond experience, real world, variety itself—will emerge in the development ). Existence—the concept—is trivial, it is trivial but its triviality is a source of its power

There is another well known problem of the concept of existence called the ‘problem of the non-existent object’ or ‘the problem of negative existence’

Consider ‘Unicorns do not exist’. The sentence in quotes appears to lack meaning for if ‘unicorns’ then ‘unicorn’ has no meaning and therefore the sentence lacks meaning. However, resolution in terms of the earlier analysis of meaning is trivial. ‘Unicorns do not exist’ means ‘There is no thing that correspond to the concept of ‘Unicorn’’

The Verb ‘To Be’

The verb to be, e.g. ‘is’ has a number of uses. In ‘experience is subjective awareness’ we are providing a meaning or definition for experience. In saying ‘experience is’ we are asserting that there is in fact experience

Thus the word ‘is’, in one of its meanings, indicates existence

The concept of existence is so basic that, like experience, it is in a sense beyond question. In naming existence we are naming a given

The linking of existence and experience shows the fundamental relation between the two concepts

It is not at all being said that something must be known in order to exist

However, and this has been noted earlier, experience is the place of the most intimate acquaintance with existence. Metaphorically, experience is existence. Later, as already noted—and of course subject to appropriate interpretation, the content of the assertion ‘experience is existence’ will be seen to transcend its metaphorical sense

Abstraction

Two aspects of the approach to understanding of experience and existence are worthy of repetition

First, that we know the fact of their reality perfectly—i.e. there is experience and there is existence—even though we do not know that experience always indicates something real and even though we have not established the existence of most of the common and uncommon objects of (our experience of) the world

How do we know the fact of experience and existence? We talk only of their facts and not their details. In other words we have abstracted from the conceptions only (some part of) what is beyond projective error

We further found these concepts to be best defined by showing what they are rather than describing what they are. They are so basic that they are rather beyond description but their basic character also puts their givenness beyond doubt

Thus we do not need to define experience. Instead we name a given

Abstraction and naming givens are the two aspects of understanding worthy of repetition for the understanding is already remarkable

Further, this approach is an aspect of the analysis of meaning which further empowers that analysis as an approach to understanding and which will be employed in what follows

Being

In saying something exists, the present tense indicates existence in the present. However the place of existence is not specified. Here we want to use the word ‘is’ or ‘exists’ to mean existence over some unspecified range of locations and times. Time and place assume sufficient regularity to permit such measures. We do not assume that the entire Universe has sufficient regularity to allow precisely measurable time and space or even ill defined extension and duration. There may be regions or phases of the Universe in which there is no extension or duration or other marker of distinction. In that case ‘is’ will mean in or of the Universe. The words ‘is’ and ‘exist’ are used in this general sense in talking of Being and Universe below

Being is that which is

I.e., Being is that which exists

We could elaborate—Being is marked by existence, Being is that which has existence and so on. At the level at which the idea of Being is applicable it is not significant whether we think of property or state or interaction or process. The later discussion of Objects will confirm these remarks. Therefore a more qualified definition of Being would provide no further information

Although beings have Being, Being is not a particular being. However, language forms (‘Being exists’ parallels ‘The boy exists.’) and our tendency to concrete thinking may lead us back into the deception that Being is a being. Since English Language use is not definite on this issue, we will need to remind ourselves of the non particular nature of Being. Having said this, it is noteworthy that the discussion of Objects will show that we may, after all, consider Being to be a ‘thing’. The point is that the distinctions are important but not too important. Precision is important but it is also important to allow flex (a) for further discovery (b) because theory should, finally, be accessible. Precision is important but it is also important to use our concepts toward action, i.e. toward understanding, establishing, and realizing our ambition

There is Being

From the discussion of experience and existence Being is robust, rich in variety (as emerging here and emergent in what follows), and trivial yet powerful in its triviality

Another meaning of triviality, in this case, is that it is perhaps the most ground level and neutral of concepts. Being is thus neutral to questions of matter versus mind versus spirit, to questions of fact versus value, and to questions of method of knowing, e.g. empiricism versus rationalism versus pragmatism. Here, it avoids slogans such as ‘existence before essence’. Thus, as conceived here, Being is not burdened by prior commitment to some specific if tacit metaphysical view. It is not committed even to neutrality or commitment. The value of neutrality is one that emerged in the present development, was found useful, and allowed understanding to develop without prejudice. The development was not entirely marked by lack of commitment. In its early phases I was committed to materialism; that commitment did not work out successfully. Later I experimented with other ‘commitments’. Those too did not work out. In the process, however, I learned much in the way of understanding and approach that served a vital function later. In particular I learned the value and real nature of neutrality and non-commitment. Human being can hardly avoid commitment; however we can—in service of better understanding—learn to hold commitment in appropriate check and to re-educate it

A distinction has been made by thinkers of Being-in-itself (‘pure Being’) versus Being-in-relation (‘existence’). The present meaning of Being is neutral to this distinction. It will turn out in the development that follows that this distinction is empty

‘Being’ has had numerous special connotations. It has been used to refer to the ‘divine’, to the essence of an entity, to what is defining—perhaps unique—of human being. The present meaning of Being is neutral to these senses. It contains what is valid in them. It will allow them to emerge according to interest. Academic psychology has been largely concerned with the measurable and instrumental side of psyche and this of course has its utilities. However, it seems intuitive to me and the developments that follow will confirm that there is something singular—in the senses of deep, significant, and outside the pale of statistical analysis or preconception—to human psyche. The present conception of Being allows the regular and the singular It will not burden the development with preconception according to what appears to have depth

Universe

The Universe is All Being

The Universe is all that there is

The Universe exists

There is one—and only one—Universe

The Universe has and can have no external creator

One part of the Universe may be involved in the creation of another part

These conclusions already show the power of the present concepts—conceptions—of Being and Universe

Law

A law is our reading of a Pattern

The Law is the pattern

All Laws have Being

A Law may be seen as a compound fact

In that a Law refers to more than possible situation the Law is abstract

The Laws and Theories of science are parts of human knowledge

This does not mean that they are not real

It does mean, however, that known domains of validity of the Laws are finite

Even if the known cosmos is infinite in extent it may still be immensely limited

The theories of science allow but do not necessitate that the Universe has parts—known and unknown—outside their domains of validity are not just infinite but unlimited

That is, science allows that the Universe is unlimited in extent, duration, and variety of Being

A Famous Puzzle—Why is there a Universe At All?

I.e. why is there something rather than nothing

Why is there a manifest Universe, i.e. why is there Being at all?

This is a celebrated question. Heidegger called it the fundamental question of metaphysics. William James said ‘This is the darkest question in all philosophy.’ Ludwig Wittgenstein said ‘Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.’ And, there are many suggestive answers. One example is to consider all the ways the Universe might be and to then note that the state of nothingness is a very small fraction of these ways; therefore nothingness is improbable. The argument can be taken further. The ways the Universe could be is unlimited. Regarding nothingness as one way (an assumption of course), the fraction of ways that it represents is zero. We think that something with a probability of zero cannot occur. This is true of a finite number of alternatives but not of an infinite number. Even if we allow the foregoing assumption, nothingness is not ruled out by this probability argument

Modern physics has a tentative explanation from the quantum vacuum. Quantum theory does not allow nothingness as a ground state. The quantum vacuum is a place of immense actuality that we do not normally notice because its effects normally cancel out. The quantum vacuum requires that worlds will arise out of it. Regarding the vacuum as nothing, quantum physics explains something from nothing. However, the quantum vacuum—regardless of what it is called—is not nothing. It is the closest to nothing allowed by quantum theory; however, while quantum theory is immensely successful in the known world, there is no logical reason to suppose it applies to the entire Universe (and it will be seen below that it cannot)

The failed attempts to solve the mystery ‘that there is a world’ come tantalizingly close to a solution. In their failure they suggest that a solution is impossible—that the world is an existential but not a logical given. In their closeness to a solution they suggest that a solution may be possible

A Solution to the Problem ‘Why Is there Something?’

Why is there a manifest Universe, i.e. why is there Being at all?

In a non-manifest state, i.e. in the absence of Being, there would be no Laws

If from the non-manifest state there is some state that cannot arise, that would constitute a Law in the non-manifest state—which is a contradiction

Therefore from a non-manifest state, manifest states must arise

The Universe must have manifest states

This does not mean the Universe will not have non-manifest states

The question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ has been called the fundamental problem of metaphysics. This problem has now been resolved quite trivially. What remains as the fundamental problem is the question “What ‘things’ exist or have Being?”

The Fundamental Principle

Reconsider ‘If from the non-manifest state there is some state that cannot arise, that would constitute a Law in the non-manifest state—which is a contradiction’

Therefore from a non-manifest state, every state must arise (and, in particular, the Universe must have manifest states). I.e.—

The Universe has no limits

In this essay, the assertion that the Universe has no limits will be called the fundamental principle of metaphysics or FP

The proof of the fundamental principle solves the problem of ‘why there is something rather than nothing’ as a special case. In the development the proof of the general problem came first. This suggests a not unknown general though not universal principle of proof—cast the particular in terms of the general, i.e. embed the particular in class of general problems that—with luck andor insight—capture the essence the problem

The Void

The state of non-manifestation, however, is ever present; when the Universe is in a manifest state, the state of non-manifestation is present together with the manifest

Except that there is at least one, the number of non-manifest states has no relevance

The Void is—defined as—the absence of Being

The non-manifest state is the Void. The earlier conclusion regarding ‘every state’ may be repeated in terms of the Void—

From the Void, every state must arise

That is, the Void—and, consequently, the Universe—has no limits

Except that there is at least one, the number of Voids has no relevance

Every part (or ‘particle’) of Being may be regarded as having its own private attached Void

Observations on the Significance of the Fundamental Principle

From common experience andor science (especially the theories of physics) where various kinds of regularity obtain, the fundamental principle will almost certainly seem counter-intuitive

The theories of physics can be seen as constraints. Certain states of affairs can obtain; certain behaviors may occur; other states and behaviors may not obtain or occur. The constraints on the physical world may be seen as the constraints of logic, laws, and (known) facts

The constraints of logic and fact are universal. The constraints of the laws are constraints on the physical world. They are not in their nature constraints on the absence of (physical) Being—i.e., they are not known to be constraints on the Void

These considerations may assist in intuitive assimilation of the fundamental principle. They will not of course complete that assimilation. The following developments may be viewed as an extended assimilation of the fundamental principle with common experience, science, logic and other elements of our traditions. We will find no inconsistency and address a variety of objections. This will help eliminate critical concerns that may prevent intuitive assimilation. Further, the development will provide occasion for familiarization that is typically necessary for intuitive assimilation of a new system of knowledge or understanding

The fundamental principle is immensely important. It is the centerpiece of a metaphysics whose development continues below

The emergence of a manifest state from the Void is not causal

The fundamental principle implies that causation is not universal

The meaning of causality is not entirely clear. It is not that of simple cause and effect. Of course the term has multiple connotations. There is a common though not entirely meaning in our everyday world. Perhaps the most precise rendering—for our cosmos—lies in the laws of physics. However, whatever its precise meaning, for causality to obtain there must be some degree and kind of connection between events

Under the fundamental principle there can be no such universal connection

However the fundamental principle requires that there be limited domains of (at least as if) causation

Our cosmos—an outer limit of empirical knowledge and the place that in modern scientific and secular thought is often thought to be the universe—appears to be causal

However, the fundamental principle shows that our cosmos cannot be the Universe. It can be no more than in infinitesimal fraction of the Universe

There is no contradiction between the a-causality of the Universe and the pattern of causation we perceive in our cosmos

This thread of discussion is taken up in a number of places below. It will be seen that (a) There is no contradiction between the fundamental principle and science and reflective common experience (b) The fundamental principle requires the laws of science in their domains of validity

Another Form of Demonstration of The Fundamental Principle

An alternative form of the above demonstration of the principle is now given

A domain is a part of the Universe

The complement of a domain is the part of the Universe ‘outside’ the domain

Every domain has a complement

The Void is the absence of Being

The Void contains no Laws

The Void is the complement of the Universe

Therefore the Void has Being (exists)

I.e. the Void which is the absence of Being contains no Laws and exists

If from the Void there is some state that cannot emerge that would constitute a Law in the Void

Therefore the Void and—consequently—the Universe have no limits. I.e.—

The Universe has no limits

This concludes the alternate proof of the fundamental principle of metaphysics

The significance of the alternate proof is that it is more ‘crisp’; it makes clear a doubt about the proof—i.e., that there is doubt about proof of existence of the Void (i.e. that the complement of the Universe exists); and, further, since there is doubt, alternate proofs are important

A third proof begins ‘there is no difference between existence and non-existence of the Void…’

It is important to note that the fundamental principle does not violate any logical principle. It may appear to violate scientific principles concerning out cosmos; this concern is addressed below

The question of doubt regarding the demonstration of FP is addressed below

Meaning of the Fundamental Principle

It is crucial to be clear about the meaning of the assertion that ‘the Universe has no limits’

It cannot mean that validly known facts do not obtain; this includes simple as well as compound facts such as the Laws and Theories of science

It cannot mean that states whose being would violate logic can obtain. As an example I can conceive of an apple that is entirely green and, simultaneously, not green. Such a state does not exist. Is that a violation of the assertion that ‘the Universe has no limits’? It is not for logic is a constraint on our freedom to create concepts. It is a part of creativity that we have the ability to conceive illogical states; logic constrains realistic conception but is not a limit on the Universe, on Being

The entire system of states whose conception does not violate logic obtains—i.e., exists

In the foregoing assertion it is implicit that a violation of a validly known fact is to be regarded as a violation for such a violation says of some state x that x does and does not obtain

The propositional calculus has been shown to be consistent, complete, and decidable. However this does not extend to all logics (and mathematics). How, then, can the logics and mathematics—in general—be guides to what obtains under the assertion that ‘the Universe has no limits’?

Realism, Logic, and Logos

Define Realism or Logic as the requirement that concepts in referential form have reference

Then—that the Universe has no limits is equivalent to the assertion that the Universe (in all its detail) is the object of Logic

In this conception, Logic is a ‘theory’ of maximal freedom of the Universe—i.e. of Being

We may conceive of Logos as the object of Logic. Then—the Logos is the Universe in all its detail

In the assertion ‘the Universe has no limits’ it may have seemed that there are violations of science, common experience, and logic. It is now seen that there is no such violation. In fact Logic includes what is valid in science, common experience and logic. In fact Logic includes what is valid as formal knowledge, as experience, and as know how in the entire human tradition. Insofar as concepts, linguistic expressions, logics, mathematical disciplines, philosophy, art, music, religion, and literature including ‘fiction’ have or can be given referential form then subject to Logic (abbreviated STL) or Realism (abbreviated STR) they are realized in the Universe. This realization may, subject to Logic, be repeated without limit

The human tradition including this work barely touches the surface of Logic, i.e. of knowledge of the Universe

It is likely that Logic harbors immense realms of Being; of these an immense realm will be immensely difficult for human intelligence

However, there are simple conclusions that follow immediately from Logos as object of Logic. For example, there must be an unlimited range and variety of cosmoses and physical laws which obtain against a transient and Void background. Many such conclusions are given, some systematically, in what follows. The ‘demonstration’ of such conclusions is trivial. Their interpretation is not trivial

It is now appropriate to address the issue of doubt regarding the fundamental principle

Doubt and Attitude Toward Doubt

Recall the observation that the fundamental principle violates no logical principle. Recall also that the proofs have force not only from their form but because the doubt does not clearly arise in every version of the demonstration. A version with clear doubt was provided because the question of doubt is important

The question can be put in the following form. What is or may be our attitude generally toward knowledge claims that have at least inductive proof (this holds for FP), that have no absurdity, and that are immensely powerful and fecund?

This situation exists regarding science and even in many branches of mathematics and logic

It obtains generally for significant human knowledge. There is a pertinent Einstein quote ‘As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality’

One attitude is to eschew what may be doubted. Another is to accept the doubt and build upon what is fecund but not absurd (one cannot build upon the absurd or the true paradox for that leads to what has been called the explosion of contradiction—i.e., if one contradiction is true, all propositions are true)

One attitude toward such doubt may be called ‘existential’. I.e., we accept the doubt and build upon what we have and are emboldened by fecundity rather than being overcome with timidity in the risk of failure

This situation obtains for all significant endeavor

The existential attitude extends even into domains where we do have certain knowledge of general principles. This is because possession of a general principle does not permit computation of all special cases

Earlier, two aspects of Realism or Logic were identified. They are (i) Empirical Realism, i.e. agreement with fact (including science) and (ii) Conceptual Realism, i.e. non-violation of valid principles of logic

To these a third aspect may be appended (iii) Existential Realism which conditions our use of Logic (but does not otherwise change the principles of Logic or blind us to the value of and need for criticism)

Is the Fundamental Principle Reasonable?

It is also reasonable to ask what may be reasonable about the fundamental principle

It asserts that the Universe is maximal

It frames every possible science, every logical calculus, every mathematics, all endeavor

If we wanted to form a ground level system of understanding—one that could have no further, more fundamental level—that system would be the Universal Metaphysics

If we apply Ockham’s Razor to the question ‘What is not in the Universe?’ we obtain the fundamental principle

One way to look at the fundamental principle is to consider its source ‘There are no Laws of the Void’. What does that mean? It has the particular meaning that the Laws (patterns) pertain to (cases of) Being but not to the absence of Being

Analogy With Science

The principle has or implies explicit general and particular similarities to modern theories of space, time, and Being (i.e. matter and energy) and evolution of life. The Void is suggestive of the quantum vacuum (however the Void is more basic and obtains in cosmoses that are pre-quantum in nature—the vacuum of quantum theory is the lowest state of Being allowed by quantum theory but the quantum theory is not universal and the Void lies below the quantum vacuum); it is suggestive of the variation and selection and incremental development of evolutionary biology from which it may draw inspiration; the multiple cosmoses picture affords similarities to the many histories interpretation of quantum mechanics; we will see that it harbors some general features of ‘general relativity’ and the nature of space-time; however, it describes the most basic level of Being and as such is the ground of every element of Being and every science—and therefore more varied than any particular science of a particular cosmos to an unlimited extent; every future science is harbored within FP; any non absurd religion too is harbored within FP, this may seem empty if traditional religion is our model but ‘use of all dimensions of Being in realization of All Being’ is, as will be seen, a valid, pertinent, and useful re-definition of Religion; and, in this connection—again as will be seen—the principle and its consequent metaphysics suggest necessary expansions of the scientific method

The principle is not entirely new in the history of thought. It bears similarities to what has been called the principle of plenitude. However, the formulation of the fundamental principle is more precise and powerful than that of the plenitude principle; the fundamental principle is demonstrated whereas the principle of plenitude has plausibility (and is clearly incorrect in some of its formulations); and, finally, the implications of the fundamental principle are demonstrable and far more significant and varied than those of the principle of plenitude

On the Method of Demonstration

It is pertinent to comment on the method of the developments so far

In saying that ‘Being is what is there’ we avoided the problem projection—i.e. that much of our knowledge is joint result of the apparatus of knowing—‘mind’—and the world

The conclusions that ‘there is Being’ and ‘The Universe’ follow from analysis of meaning

The extension to the development of the ideas of Logic and Logos-as-limitless are extensions of this same method

The (extended) method is (1) One of naming what are known givens via abstraction that eliminates projective distortion (2) Conclusions by analysis of meaning (which is therefore empirical and not merely ‘analytic’) (3) Extension or synthesis to incorporate further given facts and conclusions

Comments on Method

We often think of method as received. Here we see method and content emerging together. This is natural and the naturalness can be seen in two ways. (1) Although we find that our methods are received (e.g. in our uncertainty regarding the nature of science, logic, and mathematics) they must, in the forms in which we entertain them, have arisen in the course of human history (and evolution) (2) While ordinary knowledge has the world as its object, method has theories as—an example of—its object. However, theories are in the world. Therefore the distinction between method and knowledge is artificial

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is knowledge of things as they are

I.e. metaphysics is knowledge of Being (as Being)

This was an original meaning of—philosophical—metaphysics and we will find that it is fundamental for (1) It is a meaning of immense power (2) It incorporates what is valid in other meanings

However, in the modern era this idea of metaphysics came under scrutiny

David Hume’s view was empirical—all our knowledge has its source in experience and we therefore know nothing of ultimates, substances, causes, soul, ego, external world, and universe. Hume’s critique was considered devastating and even today the critique is valid when applied to scientific and common categories and theories as ultimate. Kant attempted a response to Hume. The critique of Kant was that all knowledge begins in experience. He used this fact to argue that the world must have certain forms for our forms of experience to be possible. We do not accept Kant’s conclusions today but the beginning of knowledge in experience remains. Add to this the immensely imaginative yet wildly speculative metaphysics exemplified by Hegel’s thought and the ongoing encroachment of science into the reaches of the known world—and the result is the modern distrust and widespread rejection of metaphysics

However we have here demonstrated via the method given an actual metaphysics and therefore the possibility of metaphysics. This metaphysics does not violate the valid concerns of Hume, Kant and the modern era. It is empirical to the core

If metaphysics is knowledge of things as they are, metaphysical knowledge of some domain must be unique (there cannot be another true metaphysics that gives different results; of course there may be different forms of expression and different degrees of detail)

As knowledge of things as they are, to the extent that we have any metaphysics it must be perfect

The Universal Metaphysics and its Identity to Logic

The metaphysics developed above shows the Universe to be ultimate (the Universe has no limits)

It is further ultimate in (a) having foundation in the Void, i.e. foundation without substance or infinite regress (from ‘no limits’ any state may serve as foundation) and (b) implicit capture of the Universe—All Being—as the object of its fundamental forms

This metaphysics has the Universe as its object. It is therefore named the Universal Metaphysics

It is a perfect, unique, ultimate, and universal metaphysics. Since it is unique, it may be referred to as the metaphysics or even Metaphysics

From foregoing considerations, Metaphysics and Logic are identical

The theory of Metaphysics is the theory of Logic

Implication for Substance, i.e. Foundation of Metaphysics

The power of the concept of Being includes that it is neutral to whether the world is matter, mind, or spirit. It allows development of understanding without having to be concerned about such issues at an early stage where definitive conclusions are not yet possible. It allows conclusions regarding the nature of the world to emerge from investigation. The neutrality of Being will be similarly empowering regarding questions of the nature of knowledge and its justification. It will also be empowering with regard to commitment and judgment (e.g. regarding issues of substance and knowledge) and neutrality itself. The empowerment results from not making advance or prejudiced commitment but allowing commitment to emerge

As seen the metaphysics does not require substance. Further it allows no classical metaphysical substance which is uniform and unchanging yet deterministically generates the world. The metaphysics is absolutely indeterministic in that given a state, there is no determining successor states in the large (locally, as in our cosmos, there are at least probabilities). Locally, as in our cosmos there may be as if substances. In an alternate sense of substance as the substance of kinds as in the Platonic idea of Form, the metaphysics shows that every object may be regarded as its own substance. It is interesting that the Universe is absolutely deterministic in that every state emerges but this is not the usual temporal determinism

Implication for Foundation of Knowledge

The development of the metaphysics shows that the foundation of knowledge is neither strictly empirical nor strictly rational. It is a synthesis of the conceptual and the empirical. The conceptual can be reduced to the empirical in that concepts are compound facts but as will be seen in discussing Mind and Matter, the stuff of Being is the stuff of concepts

Objects

What is an object? The question is a good one for the answer is certainly not entirely clear. Somewhere there is a meeting or join of a concept and a region of the world that constitutes what we call objects. Philosophers and others have given us admirable formulations of the issues. A merit of the present development is that it enables us to stand above these issues and thereby to have significant understanding of objects. In the first place there are perfect objects that we know in abstraction. Perhaps unexpectedly this turns out to be the entire range of objects. However, we know some important objects directly but direct knowledge of all objects—even the local ones—is far from complete. The metaphysics provides indirect—non-perceptual but still conceptual—knowledge of objects and thus provides some framework for them. We can talk of ‘practical objects’ which are the ones of common acquaintance—the ones tinged by projection. From adaptation, i.e. in that we negotiate the world, knowledge in the practical realm may be labeled ‘good enough’ for some purposes. For these purposes, as in the case of the perfect object, possession of the concept is knowledge of the object. From another perspective, e.g. valuation of what is given—used in a sense different from the earlier sense of ‘given’—to us, such knowledge is perfect

The first metaphor or model for the idea of object is the thing. However, there is no reason to suppose that this metaphor can and should not be extended to process, property, states of affairs, and compound objects made of such ‘things’. These define what we may call concrete—sometimes particular—objects. The Logic gives some foundation to this ‘theory of objects’

A number is not a concrete object. What then is it? From the Logic (metaphysics) every Logical concept has an object. Therefore numbers are in the one Universe. Such things as number have been called abstract objects in modern thought. Numbers do not seem to be physical, to reside in space or time, and do not seem to be causal. They do not seem to reside in the physical universe. Therefore the question has arisen ‘What are they and where do they reside?’ They have been called ‘mental objects’ and alternatively they have been thought to ‘live’ in an ideal or Platonic Universe. However, as seen they are in the one Universe (or they do not exist). Now it is not given that the Universe is entirely spatiotemporal. We seem to live in a region whose space-time is fairly concrete. According to the metaphysics (Logic) there must be regions of not so well defined extension and duration; and other regions perhaps without space and time at all. Whatever the place of their residence, the abstractness of abstract objects is the result of our process of abstraction. I.e., concrete and abstract objects are on the same footing. Abstract objects are not categorically non-temporal or non-causal but have what is abstracted does not have time and cause as part of its description. Concrete objects also have a degree of abstraction and this can be seen by noting that what I think of as a tree is known via an immense degree of abstraction and projection. What we call concrete are known primarily in perception; the abstract objects are known in non-perceptual conception. There is no Platonic Universe except as such a ‘universe’ is an abstraction from the one Universe

What kinds of things are concepts? We can now see that they do not reside in a Platonic World and that the idea of mental object without further elaboration is not illuminating. To achieve further clarity it will be necessary to clarify the nature of mind and this will be done in the discussion of mind and matter below

If a value is a tendency to behave in certain ways, it must be—based in—the arrangement of the individual. A value is therefore an object. Since the arrangement in question is most likely abstracted from the entire arrangement, values are abstract

Cosmology

In this version this section develops aspects of cosmology important to the journey. Provide links or academic text for further topics

Stems? Topical stems?

The Universe is subject only to Realism or Logic. Therefore

The Universe has Identity

Identity of an object is the nature of its seeming enduring character or sense of sameness. In the present use it emphasizes the sense of identity of a person and therefore the sense—and nature—of the sense of sameness of self over time. In the remainder of the paragraph read ‘Universe and its Identity’ for ‘Universe’

Identity, whether the sense of identity of a person or perceived identity of an object, is an aspect of objecthood. The concept of identity is already present in the concept of an object

The Universe and its Identity have acute and diffuse manifest phases and non-manifest phases

There is continuity (soul) across non-manifest phases

This is a statement more about the nature and pervasion of duration and extension than it is about some thing like quantum tunneling; i.e. this states a fact, tunneling would be a means

A fundamental aspect of perception is sense of sameness versus difference or distinction. Sameness and difference (and therefore their perception) are possible only in a region of the Universe that is sufficiently regular

Time or duration is distinction associated with change in association with sameness

Space or extension is distinction associated with different objects at the same time

The analysis suggests that there is no further kind of generalized extension (time-like, space-like…) but there is no further clear Logical reason to think so

The capitalized form, Extension will refer to range over any kind of distinction. The kinds of extension that we know appears to be limited to extension and duration. In general quantity is not extensive in this sense and quality is ‘intensive’. Quantity and quality constitute ‘variety’

There is no clear Logical limit to the variety of Extension and quantity, and kinds and variety of quality

The interwoven character of sameness and distinction suggests the interwoven character of extension and duration

That there is no clear reason that all regions of the Universe are sufficiently regular that there can be sameness and distinction suggests that the Universe at large is not characterized by space and time or space-time

Since there is nothing outside the Universe there can be no universal space-time grid. Extension and duration are immanent in Being: they are relative and not absolute; however, regions of the Universe may have as if absolute space and time

There is no limit to the Extension and variety of Being which includes peaks or elevations and their magnitudes and subsequent dissolutions

It has been seen, for example, that there is no limit to the number and variety of cosmological systems and physical law in the Universe

The Individual inherits the power (limitlessness) of the Universe (otherwise the Universe would not be limitless)

This occurs by becoming the Universe; however two or more individuals can become the Universe in which case their power is subject only to conditions of co-existence

I.e. ultimate realization is given

Except for Realism (in the sense of Logic, which is not a limit) the only limits experienced by individuals or of a cosmos are contingent or ‘normal’ limits. For example that behavior in this cosmos follows physical laws is contingent (e.g. to conditions of origins of the cosmos). Therefore, except for Logical impossibility and necessity, what we normally call impossibility and necessity are high but local improbability and probability

While in limited form realization must be an endless process or journey of unlimited extension, variety, peaks etc

While this realization is given, its enjoyment and effectiveness is immensely enhanced by intelligent and dedicated commitment

Growth of individuals and civilization and of civilizations in connection and communication across the Universe in ultimate realization is given

Intelligent action applied recursively, therefore holistically and analytically, entails enjoyment and effectiveness of realization

Intelligence is not limited to conscious cognition but includes all modes of conscious and unconscious psyche, each separately but also integrated—i.e., in reflexive and synthetic interaction. The unconscious, the imaginative, the intuitive, and catalysts of psyche suggest, reveal, and create paths; conscious thought and action realize the paths, e.g. give them substance and permanence; and the conscious and unconscious join in continuing realization

Consciousness and reason provide permanence and continuity to change because the entire path is lit; however intuition, risk, other catalysts provide ‘vision’ and finite step increments; the process is conscious ® unconscious ® conscious ® unconscious…

For limitlessness form, realization is an act of Being/Perception; and while in limited form the individual may and will partake, e.g. have some vision, of but not become the Universe

Space and Time

Sameness and Distinction are fundamental

What is sameness? It is maintenance of identity (object or person) through change or constancy. It is possible only in regions of sufficient stability or regularity

Duration is marked by degree of change in an object. Intrinsic duration requires internal structure (a pure point has no intrinsic duration). This is not sufficient for universality of time but does give time some local objectivity. Universality of time is possible only if there is some kind of synchronization in a region, e.g. as a result of simultaneous and similar circumstances of creation

Extension is marked by difference at the same time. Without some coordination of time, difference does not ‘differentiate’ as extension and duration at all. With partial coordination of time or duration, separation of extension and duration cannot be complete

If a region has sufficient regularity to permit only rough identity, infinite divisibility of extension and duration will not be possible

‘Logically’ it might seem that there may be some kind of distinction over and above extension and duration. This does not seem possible on the foregoing analysis. There may of course be multiple modes of Being and therefore multiple modes of duration (and corresponding extension) and these may be in weak interaction. Thus there may be multiple signal velocities (analogous to speed of light)

Pure stasis and perfect uniformity would be a limit on the Universe. There must therefore be phases of extension and duration

Extension and duration are of Being and therefore immanent in Being. What space and time there is must therefore be relative to or part of the Universe. However, one part may impose measure of extension and duration. Locally, extension and duration may be (as if) absolute

Perception or measure of extension and duration requires sufficient regularity of object (region) and perception

Mind and Matter

That experience is basic to our being as beings who know and act has been seen

Experience is the fundamental aspect of mind for us—if we choose to use the term ‘mind’

The development has neither espoused nor rejected materialism. For purposes of discussion it will be convenient to assume some materialism or physicalism and to subsequently lift the assumption

The elements of physics make no reference to mind. Therefore matter is often conceived as a substance that has no mental elements. In this case mind must arise in the organization of matter. However, in this case experience—though not behavior—is merely coincidental; beings could be identical yet some have experience and some not. Therefore matter must co-exist with experiential, i.e. mental, elements. These may be (a) other than matter or (b) inherent to matter—discovered or undiscovered—but perhaps not recognized as such

Mental causation shows that mind cannot be entirely other than matter; further the distinction at the elemental level is surely terminological (an artifact of the peculiar way in which we naïvely experience our own minds)

That the structure of mind has correspondence to brain organization shows that physical-experiential (mental) elements include the already known-discovered elements of physics. However, if physics so far is deterministic, creativity requires that some elements of the physical-mental are as yet undiscovered. Even if physics so far is indeterministic there may be some yet undiscovered elements

This direction of thought provides resolutions to (i) nature of experience (mind) and matter, i.e. as having the same root and of primitive-macroscopic matter relation as similar to primitive-macroscopic mind (ii) primitive mind as roughly ‘feeling’; macroscopic mind as variety, intensity, layering of same, the bound-free aspect (see discussion of psychology for more detail) as adaptation (iii) problems of mind and matter, e.g. their coexistence and interaction (iv) mental causation (v) freedom of will (i.e. of creating choice and consequent action)

Given that mind (experience) is inherent to matter, what is it? First, at the elemental level it is so primitive that it is not ‘experienced as experience’; i.e. human level experience is the result of amplification, layering etc. Second from the character of experience, mind in one element must be associated with the effect of another element—this suggests that mind is not pure ‘affect but affect-effect. At the non-elemental level ‘pure experience’ is internal affect-effect. However, pure though primitive experience is possible at the elemental level because from FP, there are no atoms, i.e. infinite divisibility

Thus, if we regard matter as first order Being or Being-in-itself then mind is second order Being or Being-in-relation. On account of infinite divisibility—actual or potential—the distinction is not absolute; mind and matter are forever interwoven

Kant and Spinoza thought mind to be intrinsic to Being and space an external measure. When I introspect it does in fact seem that time but not space is intrinsic to my thought. Kant, Spinoza, and this introspective intuition can now be seen to be in error. The time-like and non-space like character of mind appears to be an illusion that results from the (more or less) unity of consciousness whereas, in fact, consciousness has multiple centers in my body (bright to extremely dim which is not in good communication with the bright) and is spatial even though it does not seem spatial. Spinoza reflected that thought and extension are two attributes that the intellect perceives; for Spinoza attributes were a resolution of mind-body dualism. We now see that the theory of attributes is mistaken as is the dualism it is attempting to resolve. Spinoza reflected that the mind of God may perceive an infinity of attributes. Given matter and mind as first and second order Being (Being as Being and Being in relation) there would seem to be no special significance to a third or higher order. Therefore while there can be (and are) infinitely many modes of matter and mind, it seems that the series matter, mind… (or extension, thought…) has precisely two terms and that no Being has and therefore no Being can correctly perceive more than two ‘attributes’ (and since a perceiving Being must have two attributes every perceiving Being with self awareness perceives exactly two attributes)

We can now see that a concept is the effect of one object in another. However, that statement is a first approximation because (i) the second object (mind) contributes to the effect and (ii) therefore the concept is a compound of knower and known. However, consider the interwoven character of mind and matter. It follows that concepts are objects themselves, perhaps abstract over numerous minds in reference to numerous objects, and their instantiations in particular cases are relatively concrete. Concepts are abstract or concrete depending on point of view and interpretation

The compound or non-elemental case allows explanation of numerous phenomena of mind and consciousness that are otherwise puzzling—e.g., the apparent on-off nature of consciousness, cases—e.g., in brain damaged persons—of behavioral response to stimulus without awareness of the stimulus, consciousness as focused and intense versus lower lever consciousness versus unconsciousness as a continuum versus opposition, ‘body consciousness’ as part of the unconscious, self-referential consciousness and language as intensifying and enabling insight into and talk of consciousness, that it is not consciousness-feeling as such that are adaptive (though perhaps a sufficiently ordered cosmological background is necessary and that might have some relation to stability and therefore population of the Universe with stable over unstable cosmoses) but their intensification and adaptation to environment

We now relax our for-purposes-of-argument-materialism

What is different in the Universal case? First, there may be multiple modes of matter (which can be substantial only for limited practical purposes). Therefore there may be multiple modes of mind. These may arise at various levels. However, the levels are not fixed for there may be reaching across modes and reaching up and down within modes. The variety of phenomena is broad and includes what may appear to be ghosts and spirit

Journey

Individuals are invariably on a Journey in Being

The journey begins in the present; the present—which includes what we have received is ground to the process

We have choice whether to remain on this ground, whether to indulge only in flights of imagination, of to undertake a path of connection

The means of the journey are ideas and action

Ideas are an incomplete form of action

Ideas are essential for it is in ideas that we conceive and enjoy process. Without ideas there is no action—there is blind process

Action completes ideas

Action may include transformation of Being

Transformation is an essential part of realization

The vehicles of realization and transformation include the individual and civilization

Here, civilization is understood as a community of individuals in communication and acting toward common purpose

Human civilization may be seen not only as community and communication among individuals but as connection over time and place. A metaphor for the connection is that of islands separated by ocean while connected beneath the surface

An aim of civilization as understood here is population of the Universe via transformation of individual and community—supplemented perhaps by technology—and population of the Universe with the aim of realization of the ultimate

There is no eternal ‘material’ realization. Eternal realization would be equivalent to a limit on the Universe

However, there is continuity across dissolutions (soul)

The idea of Civilization is that of civilizations across the Universe in communication and mutual population and dissolution at a level at which continuity becomes manifest in the Being of the individual and the culture of the group

Disciplines

In the history of the human endeavor various disciplines have arisen. These include the academic disciplines—the sciences, mathematics and logic, history, philosophy, and the humanities; art, music, and literature; technology and exploration; practical disciplines of politics, law and economics; religion whose aim may be likened to that of the journey in Being but which may tend to dissolve into corruption; practices such as yoga, shamanism, and meditation whose goals include ‘higher’ or ‘spiritual’ values

Each discipline makes routine some limited area of activity. Some disciplines are entirely local. Others may be transplanted but are best transformed and adapted in the process. Some disciplines aspire to universality

The making routine of an area of activity provides an approach or method. A method is generally a ‘how to’ though not generally not a guarantee of accomplishment

At a more general and less routine level, the disciplines come into being and develop and there may be some method to this process. There is for example the ‘scientific method’. There is no named method for the development of mathematics and logic but there is a parallel to the scientific method: experimentation with symbolic forms (with inspiration from the ‘real world’). We tend to not associate ‘disciplines’ or endeavors such as art and religion with method but there no doubt some experimentation in parallel with an external selection of the activity itself andor the culture in which it which the activity takes place

Is there a method to the whole enterprise? There could perhaps be said to be a method only if there is some idea of where it is ‘going’, e.g. if there is some overriding ideal

It seems that there cannot be a method to the whole enterprise of Civilization. How, for example, can the Universe have a method

And there are a variety of ideals, e.g. community and sharing, moral ideals, enjoyment, and ‘spiritual’ ideals which are sometimes regarded as symbolic though sometimes real as well. Is there however a single ideal

The Universal Metaphysics provides a framework of understanding the universe; some aspects of the framing of the practical by the abstract (which is not non practical or non concrete or non empirical) have been discussed in general terms under the topic of ‘objects’. It reveals some ideals (community and realization) but also directions (variety) in which openness will always remain while individual and civilization are in limited form; this latter, too, is an ideal—that of remaining in process across even peaks of realization

The metaphysics provides a framework but also guarantees directions of no method, i.e. of ever freshness

Two kinds of discipline may be recognized. First there is the way of external transformation that is exemplified by science and technology; in this approach we undertake transformation of our circumstances and, secondarily of our Being. Second is the way of transformation of our Being as in yoga, meditation, shamanism and other ‘disciplines’

We might name these two approaches Science and Yoga. These two words used in this way will not have their traditional meanings. I like ‘Science’ because it suggests openness to correction. I like ‘Yoga’ because one of its connotations is yoking to the Universe

I like the combination because science tends to ignore ‘being’ and yogas tend to become formulaic and ritualized

From the Universal Metaphysics science of the future must grow to include immersion and participation, i.e., Yoga. To grow, Yoga must include experiment. Both science and yoga have immense insights and contributions; to grow they must integrate and go far beyond their formulaic roots

Science, Yoga, and metaphysics will fuse in experimental thought and action. A journey in realization will draw from and will build upon what is received; this ‘building’ will be experimental, imaginative, critical and in the light of what we know so far to a universal metaphysics

With appropriate generalization the entire enterprise may be seen as falling under either science or yoga. It may also be seen as falling under Logic

Human Being

This section serves as part of the foundation for the program of A journey in being. Though cast in terms of human being, the basic principles have some generality for beings who can see themselves as in realization of Being

The main interest of this section for the journey is ‘freedom’

Animal being. Material and animal necessity and freedom. Experience—material level and up; embedding and adaptation of body-environment; multi-modality and layering. Central and peripheral consciousness. Modes of action, sense-perception, and communication. Origin of intentional communication

Human Being. Memory, freedom, concept creation—and necessity. Heightened awareness of experience. Origin of (free) linguistic-iconic thought and communication; cooperation; culture and value. Experience, intentionality, action

In view of our interest discussion of human being will emphasize ‘psychology’, though not its being-sterile academic manifestation. Psychology may be developed according to a number essential distinctions: nature—culture, inner—outer, afferent—efferent, bound-free, freedom—determinism, time—timelessness, and personality

The treatment itself shows the essential nature of these distinctions as arising naturally in beings that live in and negotiate a world that includes the beings

Nature—Culture

Nature determines sensory and motor modalities. The culture of the group provides a context of structure and freedom

Inner—Outer

The inner is metaphorical reference to the body as locus of identity and direct action; it is dominated by feeling—quality and intensity—and identity; it is the locus of direct action. The outer refers to environment and is dominated by structure (shape, size, quantity, quality, and degree; degree may be experienced similarly to affective intensity in extremes); it is the locus of instrumental action

The outer is standard perception-conception; the inner may be thought of as inner perception (and possibly conception). The two are not independent in their origin or interaction: thus the connection of cognition and emotion and emotional bonding and conditioning in relation to others and the group. The modes of feeling are body modes (and include traditional feeling and the kinesthetic). The modes of cognition are environmental modalities (light, sound, contact, chemistry)

Afferent—Efferent

The distinction is: being affected by (sensing) and affecting (action) the environment. Body may function as part of the environment. The afferent—efferent dimension is incomplete from the point of view of identity and this will be seen in the discussion of the bound-free ‘dimension’

Bound—Free

The ‘bound’ refers to the fixing, e.g., of perception according to nature of stimulus; it is also associated with body perception or feeling. With memory, the ability to have recall which is reconstruction, comes the ‘free’ image. This is the source of thought and ‘free’ conception. It is natural that feeling should be quite bound to context; however, it is an error to think that emotion is altogether bound for it has loops with cognition which may be modified therefore modifying emotional response but, further, emotional responsivity (intensity, reactivity, quality) may change with patterns of response and changes in the body (development and age)

The freedom of psyche—cognition-emotion—adds a third dimension to the afferent—efferent continuum, i.e. that of pure experience and thus we may write the continuum as afferent—internal or pure experience—efferent. This suggests that ‘attitude’ and ‘action’ are not separate dimensions of mind as is fairly standard in modern analytic philosophy. Instead attitude and action are experience—not always very conscious—associated with afference and efference respectively; without the experiential component afference and efference are merely ‘physical’. This reconfirms the idea that experience is basic to mind

Freedom—Determinism

This corresponds roughly to the free—bound continuum at a level of personality. From context—environment, body, received culture—we are determined. However, we are not entirely determined. We conclude this from differing responses to the same situation; we may conceive new responses. We have the capacity for essential newness, else there could be no significantly—i.e., not randomly new response. We are thus a balance of freedom and determinism. This is the source of two great errors. One is the error of the determinists such as Freud who conclude determinism from the fact of determined behavior (a further motivation to determinism is the erroneous thought that indeterminism does not allow structure where in fact it is determinism that does not allow structure for it allows nothing truly new, i.e. it allows only what is essentially eternal structure). Freud understood determinism but was mistaken in thinking that all psyche is determined and determinate. Jung understood freedom and the ideal of integration. The great error of supporters of freedom is characterized by the existentialists who think that freedom is a act of will based on choice and the liberal empiricists and some analytic philosophers who seem to have thought that freedom is simple, conscious and rational choice. We are significantly determined at least normally and therefore expression of freedom is difficult. It is difficult first to see choices and not only because they are not visible but also because it is required to conceive them. Secondly it is difficult to execute them because it may go against what feels to be our nature. However, it is further difficult because creation-execution is iterative and learning may be difficult and slow. Thus, clearly, freedom is more than a difficult act of will or rational but otherwise simple and easy choice. Expression of freedom is perhaps our most significant and difficult task

Time—Timelessness

It is over time that we learn of life and value, grow, understand-create-make choices, develop commitments and values, act, and continue to learn and grow…

It is in time that we know death grow into some understanding of it and what it means for this life regardless of our ‘theory’ of death—i.e. as absolute, as gate to the ultimate, or as one of a series of steps, e.g. karmic steps. In all cases our death is very real even if not absolute or eternal… and it is available to teach us something crucial even if we resist or do not see. What does it teach us? Of course, the importance of this life in its singularity or its eternal return or its nature as gateway or step. If life is growth, death is the end of a certain phase of growth if not of growth itself. Growth is looking beyond to what we are not and death gives us valuable information on this looking beyond. It does not say ‘stop it’. Rather it gives us two urgencies. The first urgency is a non-urgency urgency: every day is valuable. The second is an urgency-urgency. Although commitments are ever open we can bring them to closure not merely by acceptance but by realizing that there is a certain deceptiveness to the every-openness of youth even though that ever-openness is wonderful, powerful, and lovely. The deception is that it is a necessarily eternal state. I find, over and above any acceptance as closure and over and above any flailing railing against finitude (abandon however can be a good thing), it is possible to have knowledge of and be in and be in the process of the unlimited in this finite form. Do it

Personality

Personality may be understood as integration of psyche in relation to psyche itself, body, culture, environment, and universe; and growth and change and constancies of this integration over time

Some stages of growth may be identified. They are natural—the stage of biology, social—the stage of enculturation, psychic—the maturation and independence of thought and emotion, and universal—transcendence into universal understanding. The phases overlap. Adults tend to stabilize between the social and the psychic

Further Reflection on Freedom

All life on earth reflects the environment. However, the environment and the evolution of life reflect the origination of novel forms. The emergence of novelty requires process that is indeterministic in time. It is a common misconception that indeterminism cannot sustain structure. Since every state emerges from the Void, the Universe may be seen as absolutely indeterministic. This however, requires the emergence of structure—with and without mechanism. Mechanisms, where they obtain, are a balance of stability and indeterminism. Novelty is found by indeterministic change which ‘finds’ new stable states (as well as unstable states which however do not persist)

From the perspective of this development the most significant human characteristic is that of freedom. The freedom in question is to be able to conceive and act upon alternatives. The outcome is not always as expected but here again freedom of conception is important for we can at least imperfectly discern why the outcome is not as expected and discern and take corrective action or, alternatively to recognize that an unexpected outcome is valuable in a sense either known or unknown and unanticipated

Freedom is required by the Universal Metaphysics. It is locally founded in the fact that there could be no progress in social or cultural forms without it (since they are not mere accidents). The way of freedom is partly suggested by a balance of the extreme views on it. We are significantly determined. Therefore seeing and acting upon what may be new is difficult. However, there is more. We act not merely on received value but toward the creation of value. In the process we learn a little of the nature of freedom, how it is a balance of design and fortuitous (or un-fortuitous outcome that is now recognized as fortuitous). The process may be slow and incremental; it may offer difficulties of resolve; it certainly offers difficulties of insight and creation—regarding what is possible and what is worthwhile for the ‘possible’ and the ‘valuable’ are in a process of coming into being and vision

Freedom and its difficulties—and opportunity—are at the core of a journey of transformation and realization

The Way

Conservatism versus Liberalism

Liberalism is required for change. Circumstances change, cultures tend to decay and without liberalism there is only decay even if circumstances are fixed

What is received generally has some value. Human reason is not perfect and the outcome of liberal change is not always desirable even when it is the desired outcome

Therefore conservatism and liberalism balance one another; in a thriving culture they must have; in any future thriving culture their balance is an at least practical necessity

The way will use the received elements as well as intelligence and experience in realization. That we are learning while realizing results in content (way as method) and method (empirical-rational-experimental development of ways)

Elements

The elements of science include—conceptualization, hypothesis, experiment, disconfirmation or local confirmation; the elements are not entirely separate for what to conceptualize may be suggested by previous conceptualizations and significant experiments

Received ‘Yogas’ include some of the following elements—metaphysics, psychology, mindfulness and morals, practice and practice-in-action, retreat and return, catalysts

Metaphysics refers to ultimate, mediate, and proximate realms. Psychology is embedded in metaphysics—i.e. in the body, in nature and culture—and thus for example the sensory modalities and language and freedom in balance with determinate elements

Integration

The Universal Metaphysics including an associated psychology also suggest ways (see Journey in Being-Essential.html-Psychology)

These ways and the received ways will be integrated by analysis and subsequent synthesis via reason and experiment—empirical trial—under the Universal Metaphysics and its psychology

The Way

The Way of realization, a part of Logic, is experimental in ideas and action

It is—best as—an amalgam of traditional ways (valid parts of ancient through modern disciplines and disciplined activities, e.g. technology, exploration, and yoga) and experiments in ideas and transformation illuminated and directed under the Universal Metaphysics

A Journey in Being

This section is the program

Use A Minimal Program of Experiments in Realization.doc? Bring into synchronization with central statements ii.doc and Journey in Being-Essential.doc

The following defines A Minimal Program of Experiments in Realization

Introduction

Ideas and transformation (action)—the modes of endeavor and realization—are essential to realization. Realization is impossible without ideas and incomplete without transformation. These define the essential phases

We have commented on the limits of—human—knowledge. We found that variety is more fundamental and significant than depth. We found that there is no absolutely certain and significant knowledge of variety; there are of course degrees of certainty regarding which we can form estimates. Further, knowledge is essentially complete from the point of view of Being—for completion it must be continuous with action, i.e. transformation of Being. Any design of an approach to action must add further uncertainty to the incomplete certainty of knowledge. Underneath all this remains the uncertainty of the universal metaphysics. The appropriate attitude toward action under these uncertainties may be called ‘existential’. That word sometimes suggests courage in the face of nihilism. Any nihilism that we derive from alienation—whether from science or human nature—has only basis in the thinker’s tendency to depression. The doubt regarding the universal metaphysics concerns its positive assertions. That it has been shown that we can draw no conclusions from science regarding the nature of the entire Universe has been shown. If there is no ‘objective’ basis for optimism, there is also no objective basis for nihilism. In fact both optimism and nihilism may have a basis in motivating action. In the absence of full knowledge human beings are probably bound to waver between optimism and nihilism. However, discovery and adventure are not closed by science or the attitude of materialism (because they have not at all been shown to apply to the case). This in itself is occasion for optimism. The proper existential attitude is one which favors maximal outcome. Given the potential for realization of the unlimited, this attitude will be one that values ground and sky (metaphors for our world and the unbounded, respectively)

Ideas and thought constitute the first essential phase. The metaphysics is its main result; and the metaphysics is central in defining and illuminating the journey. Metaphysical content centers on foundation review, development, cross-application with and among disciplines and endeavors

Transformation of Being is the second essential phase. The approach begins with standard systems which it develops and deploys in interaction with the Universal metaphysics. It analyses the standard systems—metaphysics and ways—into practices and practices in action, and catalysts. It experiments with these eclectically, toward incremental and step realization; this naturally includes learning—and synthesis and evolution of systems; the process is illuminated by the Universal Metaphysics. It proceeds everywhen—in the present, i.e. in inspiration and pain (pain is inspiration) and in the conceptual future; and everywhere—at home, in culture, and nature; and learning, change and synthesis of approach

I choose two secondary and supplementary phases as follows

Development of artifactual Being—organic, mechanical and symbolic—to assist understanding, implementing, and complementing transformation

Understanding and deployment of civilization as a vehicle of realization is the second complementary phase. This phase is one of community and charismatic action and sharing. The approach requires openness to concepts and processes of civilization and destiny. This openness is essential from local indeterminism and the need to balance conservatism and liberalism; and from guiles of utopia. In realization Civilization is the matrix of civilizations across the Universe—a pictorial analog to islands superficially separate, connected in the deep. Modes of approach include those of civilization itself—of culture, immersion, and participation; an approach that cultivates organic adaptive community; and an instrumental approach to Being from science and technology

Ideas

The content of the ideas emphasizes knowledge of All Being—the metaphysics and Method or Way; it includes knowledge of disciplines and methods both formal-explicit and informal-tacit. The idea of method includes transformation of implicit to explicit knowledge

The process of the ideas is that of development of content and method. In specific situations a systems of ideas and their approaches separate out from general action. This separation is not universal over all ideation

The method(s) for systems of ideas include abstraction, naming of givens, analysis and synthesis of meaning. These activities have an obvious conceptual component. However in abstraction from experience and in analysis of the relation between concept and object it is also empirical. In the synthesis of meaning it is simultaneously conceptual, empirical, and experimental. At the edges ideas and action cannot be separated. Ideas are not only verified but completed in action, i.e. in immersion and participation. Because discovery is endless (for finite form) all science of the future will encompass immersion and participation

Individual Transformation

The ‘vehicle’ of transformation is the individual—body and person

Objectives of individual transformation are determined and illuminated by the metaphysics—the ultimate ideal or aim is universal identity, the immediate is being in the present as ground and being in process toward the ultimate

Analysis and synthesis of transformation begins with standard systems which it develops and deploys in interaction with the Universal metaphysics. It analyses the standard systems—metaphysics and ways—into practices, practices in action, and catalysts. It experiments with these eclectically, toward incremental and step realization; this naturally includes learning—and synthesis and evolution of systems; the process is illuminated by and interactive with the Universal Metaphysics. It proceeds everywhen—in the present, i.e. in inspiration and pain (pain is inspiration) and in the conceptual future; and everywhere—at home, in culture, and nature; and learning, change and synthesis of approach

A practice that emphasizes everyday and home is as follows. The practice is meditation for centering, focus, reflection on means and objectives. Action—presence, accept anxiety and doubt, focus on care and goal, charisma

A practice that emphasizes nature and presence in nature is as follows. It begins with presence in nature as essential to opening up to its way, meaning, and inspiration. Specific practices will be catalyst—risk, exertion, isolation, and nature presence. Action—deploy mind-body toward ground-ultimate in presence of nature which is inspiration, gateway, to the ultimate and ultimate

Here is a moral practice and action—it is first, right thought and action in the present and toward the ultimate; and second, setting up of and presence to opportunity

Limited form is not complete in itself. Civilization is one natural vehicle. Charisma and its development merge individual and group

Transformation of Civilization

Objectives of transformation—preliminary and final—are as follows. (1) Work toward reflexive defining and realizing potential of this civilization (2) Explore and realize setup for individual expression (3) Search for and communication with other civilization and, in parallel with the third item (4) Population of the Universe

Approaches to transformation will include the following. (1) Focus on civilization as such—definition, potential; charisma and communication; science (social, e.g. political-economic), participation, and immersion. (2) Focus on organic Being—transformations of the individual. (3) Deployment of artifact perhaps emphasizing science and technology and investigating cosmology, life as information, technology of space travel and population of organic and information modes

An Institute—I have long had an interest in founding a research group dedicate to the goals of the journey. There would be workers in relevant fields. The common purpose would be the goals of this program. In addition to special interests, general interest, cross communication, and synthesis would be required. The ideal would be that every worker would be a generalist and a specialist. Years ago I wrote a plan and estimated a budget at Institute.xls; this needs much change for in its original version the emphases were modern, secular, and academic. The original emphasis is now one emphasis. Older traditions are now important for their suggestive character and understanding of psyche and a world outside the secular (the older views may be incorrect in their picture of that world but are correct in thinking that there is such a world). Further, the metaphysics of the narrative introduces a new and encompassing perspective

Transformation via Artifact

An artifact is a construction. It may be organic—bio-physical—andor symbolic. An artifact may be stand-alone or symbiotically integral with (human) being. This section details aspects of science and technology in transformation of individual and civilization

Objectives—understand sustained Being; build artifacts that will populate the Universe with soul andor assist (human) being in population

Study and Research—Develop and assimilate source material from cognitive science and related material (AI and artificial life or ALife, robotics, adaptive and self-replicating systems, ontology, physical eschatology, theology, cognitive science, computation and information theory...) Develop concepts (theory) in relation to the objective

Design and Development—Systems may be symbolic including computational, mechanical, and mixed. Approaches may include design, fabrication, experiment (systematic and ad hoc or ‘tinkering’), and adaptation

A Brief Version of the Program with Timelines

1. Ways. Design ® Action ® Learning and modification of Ideas, Ways, Transformation approaches ® Ongoing review (implicit in ways)

2. Aspects of Being—sequence. Individual—fall 2012. Proceed sequentially and in parallel as groundwork is adequate ® Civilization ® Artifact (interactions are three-way)

Program

Way® Place Time ¯	Metaphysics / Psychology /	Mindfulness and morals	Practice and practice-in-action	Retreat and return	Catalysts	Method—i.e. analysis-synthesis
Transformation of Being Emphasizing the Individual and Community
Everywhere Everywhen	Reflect, experiment	Attitude, care, expression and caring Dedication, affirmation	Physical and meditative Yoga—center, emptiness-vision, focus, review Presence through ego and physical distraction	Dialog— conversation and learning	Practice Exercise—nature—general and therapy	Review
Home, town, nature, exercise Immediate	Write	Contribute ®	Routine Chores—Thursday Diet		Honesty Quiet reflection
Culture—milieu, order / chaos, pub speaking and interaction, others—being, care, charisma Immediate	Model universe Milieu of metaphysics Process	Deriving value and sharing metaphysics and implied value Care and sharing	Initiative Moral behavior Abandon	Travel—intellectual, spiritual (e.g. bike tour), and other cultural destinations—learning and interaction	Exposure to anxiety Public speaking Inspiration Charisma
Nature Immediate-2013…	Gateway and ground	Dedication	Presence and awareness Climbing, x-country, exploration	Extended immersion Travel	Fasting, isolation, inaction Exertion, exposure
Travel Immediate-2013…	‘Journey’ metaphor	Open mindedness and sharing	Being in the moment	Exploration	Risk
Dying and illness Be prepared	Horizon / gateway Telescope ambition	Advance directive Self awareness Care / share	Meditate on death; relation between transience & wholeness	Meditate on and prepare for after death	Acceptance ‘Near’ death
Transformation of Being—Civilization and Artifact
Civilization 2013-2014…	Matrix of community and communication	Perception and theory	Meditate on past and future lives	Individual transformation; sharing	Communication and charisma Shared endeavor, research group—Institute
Artifact 2013-2014…	Ontology, cosmology, AI/ALife, robotics, cognitive science	Deploy as independent, as adjunct, and as symbiotic	Research, Design, and Development	Build, experiment, learn	Use Shared endeavor, research group—Institute