JOURNEY IN BEING

General—all interests—use in transformation, human endeavor, civilization, destiny

Form of the Version

Content—kernel versus details, which will be automatically and visually distinguishable

Kernel—short; central statements with poetic precision; supporting main statements

Purpose

Use for transformation—individual, civilization, artifact; stable core and in-process parts

Flexibility—ease of adding new material; stable and in-process, ideas and transformation

Semi-automation—for production of multiple versions; brief, academic, and general

Ease of access for readers—academic and general; reading, understanding, and criticism

Formatting and Writing

Select and Order Central Headings—interactive with Writing Central and Main Statements—See An Example Below

Central headings are a set of primary virtual heads to arrange the central and main statements. These headings may be made real and combined with divisions and other levels of heading, all at levels not pre-determined

Note The metaphysics (perfect knowledge) should come before the practical (disciplines, endeavors, and actual journey / ways / catalysts). This makes the flow efficient and the development logical. Exceptions—Introduction which will be done later; brief mention of science in Logic

Central Headings—Styles

Styles—Heading (i.e., not one of heading levels built into Word). In view of the decision to use virtual heads one level is probably sufficient. However, two styles will be used: Heading (Alt + H), and Sub Heading (Alt + Shift +H)—paragraph levels 1 and 2, respectively

Choice of chapter versus section levels for some main topics. Should the topics of ‘Universe’ in Journey in Being-Essential.doc be sections or chapters? Make a similar decision for other material. In view of the fact that the central headings are virtual, this decision is not as critical as I first thought it was

Employ Document Styles

Write Central and Main Statements

The writing will be a poetry of precision. It will deploy aphoristic one line assertions

Central (style)—central statements these are main statements that are central to the main enterprise of the journey; they should stand out

Main (style)—other main statements

Words and Alternates—to Avoid Dreary Repetition

Journey vs. process | essay vs. narrative vs. article vs. book vs. | Real-Logic or alternative word | Yoga; All = Yoga; classical use = yoga | Civilization

Words to Consider for Capitalization—to Avoid Ambiguity

For Capitalization—Being, Universe, Civilization—the matrix, Law, Void, Logic, Journey (sometimes), Universal Metaphysics, Identity (sometimes)

Capitalize andor note the possible ambiguity—experience, extension, abstraction

Some Points for the Central Narrative

Arrangement of the program of ways and catalysts by place—use central statements ii.html (1) Review needs—e.g., specific activities (2) Review and improve the way-place table

Psychology—the psychology of Journey in Being-Essential.html-Psychology is particularly important and relatively brief

Set the Divisions

Decide in process—(1) Preliminary—Introduction (2) First division—Ideas (3) Second division—Program (may call it Journey but realization and journey and principles of ways are dealt with in the central headings and this very in-process part focuses on details of ways and a program of minimal experiment)—process, program, report from the edge—achievement (4) Optional appendices as in Journey in Being-Essential.doc

Set and Order Secondary Headings

Identify peripheral topics early; put the bulk of each in one place—allow a small number of pertinent referring comments elsewhere

(1) Important but peripheral to the main enterprise of the journey—e.g. science, religion (2) Supporting to the main development

May be hidden; hidden heads will not show up in a TOC. May also mark with a * or ^D

Write Detailed Narrative

Academic (style), Ctrl + Alt + A. Academic statements—most demonstrations; all details of demonstration; technical explanation and elaboration; developments regarding method; significance for, relation to, and integration with academic disciplines; relation and reference to history and history of thought…

General (style), Alt + G. General interest statements—plain forms and interpretations of central statements; significance for individuals, civilization and human endeavor, general aspects of culture, e.g. religion and secular society; practical comments on ideals and use

Normal (style), Alt + N—detailed comments; consider other styles, indentation for even greater detail or lesser relevance

An Example

In the example that follows the paragraphs are labeled ‘Central’, ‘Main’ and so on; the purpose here is illustration. This may be done in the main narrative but it is preferable to use other ways to make these distinctions. Hidden text may be used and web versions may display / hide such text with java-script. The approaches suggested in Presentation may be used

Head* [The starred items are not to be hidden in a general version of the document][In this version the heading is Heading 2 for convenience]

Being

The original excitement and interest of philosophy was that of understanding the world and, consequently, that of living according to the ‘way’ of the world (to which we contribute)—e.g., to living and action under high inspiration and value. This was my original interest in philosophy and metaphysics

Today, however, philosophy and metaphysics have taken a turn away from this original interest

It was natural that at some point in its history philosophy would turn toward the nature, criticism, and justification of knowledge. The reasons for the turn include security—for we would, after all, like knowledge have practical application. However, more than security is involved. First, knowledge is in the world and so the urge to know the world is also an urge to know knowledge. Second, while we can and need to tolerate some inaccuracy in practical matters, if we are looking to understand the Universe as a whole the slightest error in concept or measurement may be magnified so as to completely negate the net result. In so far as perfection is an ideal the only knowledge is perfect knowledge and it can hardly be said that perfection has yet been achieved in the history of metaphysics

In understanding the world and what is in the world we often appeal to common, basic, and simple terms—e.g. explanation in terms of matter and cause or in terms of mind or spirit. However, too early commitment to or against ‘substances’—e.g., matter, mind, and spirit—or to substance at all is often based on limited experience, reflection and criticism. Perhaps it is the case that we have brought our best experience to bear on the question of substance. However, that best experience may still be limited. What is needed is a neutral concept that will not prejudice inquiry at the outset—one that will not commit either to or against substances. It is not the aim of this attitude to rule out commitment altogether. The neutrality should allow commitment to emerge as it is justified. Thus if it should emerge that the Universe is material or physical—or otherwise—the case for materialism or otherwise will be strengthened. The approach to knowledge and understanding may—and will—be fortified by such a neutral concept

In this narrative ‘Being’ will function as a neutral concept—one whose neutrality includes the neutrality described above. It will permit return to the original excitement and an important original function of philosophy without denying the valid concerns of modern thought

Being will be neutral with regard to substance, neutral with regard to commitment, and neutral with regard even to neutrality. In other words Being will also be a symbol for the appropriate emergence of commitment and emergence or denial of substance

It will turn out that this neutrality will yield more than understanding of the problem of substance. In the turn toward a critique of knowledge, philosophers became concerned with a number of significant questions. When I see and name something, e.g. a tree, what I ‘see’ is clearly a joint result of my cognition and the world—i.e. is there a real thing-in-itself and if so what is it? If metaphysics is knowledge of things as they are is it possible at all? What are concepts, objects, and what is their relation? (The question of the nature of meaning is implicit in this question.) What, in view of the foregoing comments, is knowledge and how is it justified—e.g. by perception and experience andor conception and reason; or is the final justification of knowledge pragmatic or in-process? What is the justification of justification? Is there an end to justification—i.e. a context in which, e.g. because there is no standing outside it, there is no possibility of justification? Is the world to be understood as substance versus non-substance or as process? What is the nature of the idea of value of which we spoke at the beginning of this discussion? What is the source of values; how are they related to knowledge; and are all values ‘relative’ to culture and point of view? Philosophers have engaged in such concerns with care and sophistication. However many of the issues remain issues, there is no universal agreement and, meanwhile, an affirmative approach to knowledge—in the sense of claims about the world and justification of such claims—and action in light of such knowledge is deferred to more practical realms e.g. science and technology or, in the absence of reason though not for want of trying, to stories and myth—e.g. as are found in religion

The neutrality or abstraction that the concept of Being will allow some transcendence of the concerns of the previous paragraph (without of course eliminating or minimizing those concerns). ‘Being’ has a core sense but in its use in the history of thought has had many connotations over and above this sense. In this narrative it will be conceived so as to allow the transcendence noted above and so allow and encourage positive metaphysics. Logically this may have been predicted in advance but I did not make the prediction. It was, instead, a discovery. The discovery was one which had its own force—as if I was not at all its author but was led by the inexorability of its logic. It was the discovery of a metaphysics—not just some metaphysics but a unique, perfect, and ultimate universal metaphysics

We can value the great questions of philosophy as beautiful themselves—i.e., in their contemplation and as reminder of the mystery of the world. The greatness of the questions—and their difficulty—should not, however, lull us into complacency. We may value the questions and seek levels at which the questions become conduits to their answers

In this essay Being will function as a concept that enables transcendence of the useful sophistications of modern philosophy. It will permit the development of a unique, perfect, and ultimate universal metaphysics. The metaphysics will enable the discovery and articulation of the highest ideal and its ground in this world. Consequently the metaphysics will enable action, transformation and realization in light of understanding—i.e., of knowledge and ideals

The transcendence of sophistication results in a powerful and transparent metaphysics whose foundation and formulation are laid bare to be seen, to be appreciated, to be subject to criticism, and so to be accepted and improved or to be rejected and, if possible, to be re-founded and reformulated

It is a criticism of certain approaches to thought and philosophy that there is a preoccupation with getting all sophistication down before mapping the entire context which, in philosophy, is almost invariably the entire Universe

The Universe however is not given in thought and therefore some attention should be paid to developing—at least—some contours of the Universe. This is what is done here

Would this make every work in philosophy too bulky? Not necessarily for we can have, e.g., a standard theory of the Universe and particular works would develop this theory further or in alternate form only if the author finds fault or incompleteness with the standard theory

It may be objected that philosophy should begin with, e.g., a theory of meaning and a laying out of the particular field. I would respond that theories of meaning and are in and pertinent to a theory of the Universe and that particular fields are in and often better understood as part of the Universe. Further the narrative develops a theory of meaning which learns from extant theories of meaning and further develops theory in some directions

It may be objected that science—for example—provides a theory of the Universe. I respond that science is incomplete with regard to the real metaphysical contours developed in this narrative. For anyone who needs or desires the detail provided by the sciences, the sciences are there and always available and, further, that there is in fact no competition between the metaphysics of the narrative and science. Rather, the narrative shows, at least in some generic cases, how to use the metaphysics and science in cooperative interaction

Note that the word ‘is’ is used in two senses above. The first use in relation to Being and the only use for Universe is that of definition, i.e. in these cases ‘is’ may be replaced by ‘is defined as’ or perhaps ‘will be understood to be’. In the definition of Being there the second occurrence of ‘is’ designates existence. The definition of Being may therefore be restated

These definitions require further qualification which may be passed over by the general reader

One qualification concerns the reference to All Being. From the paradoxes that led to reformulation of the foundations of logic around the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries we know that there are sometimes problems associated with the use of the word ‘All’ in an absolute sense. The idea of the set of all sets—e.g. that do not contain themselves—is paradoxical. However it is not given that such sets do in fact exist and this has something to do with the paradox (even if the set of sets that do not contain themselves seems superficially non-paradoxical, consider its complement). That Being is that which exists entails that All Being is all that exists is therefore not intrinsically paradoxical (but un-careful use of the idea of All Being may of course lead to paradox)

Another qualification concerns the phrase ‘is that which exists’ in the definition of Being. The phrasing suggests that Being is a noun, i.e. that the term refers to things. At the level of use, however, it will emerge that it is not relevant whether Being is a thing, a process, a quality, an interaction or combinations of these. What is relevant is that ‘Being’ does not refer to particular things, or particular processes and so on. It refers to all of these in so far as they exist or have existence. The definition could thus be rephrased

There are various qualifications regarding the notion of existence. (1) Because ‘everything’ exists, existence is a trivial concept. A sufficient response to this concern is that this triviality is associated with the source of its power (which power has been indicated and which will continue to emerge) (2) In the history of thought distinctions have been made between Being and existence. In response it may be noted that the developments will show that for Being as conceived here the distinction is empty. Further, what meaningful connotations over and above its present fundamental meaning obtain regarding Being may be included within the concept—i.e. the special connotations apply to particular classes of Being (3) The problem of negative existence. The ‘problem of negative existence’ may be illustrated by considering the proposition ‘Unicorns do not exist.’ The problem is that if unicorns do not exist then to what does the term ‘unicorn’ in the assertion refer? There are various responses to this problem in the literature; agreement regarding these responses is not entirely universal. Resolution of the issue follows from a careful but simple analysis of meaning. A concept and its object or objects or compound object—i.e., a concept-object pair—constitute meaning. A concept is mental content that includes associated icons and pure signs (i.e. non iconic signs such as non iconic words) (an arrangement of pure signs may be iconic). For a concept to have the possibility of reference one requirement is that it have iconic content. The statement ‘Tigers exist’ then means that there are things that correspond to the concept of a tiger. On the other hand ‘Unicorns do not exist’ means that there are no things that correspond to my concept—derived, e.g., from fairy tales—of a unicorn

It may be observed that the kind of meaning discussed above is referential meaning and that not all meaning is referential. A response would be threefold. First, the observation is valid; however, the present need is for a conception of referential meaning and therefore, unless otherwise specified, meaning shall mean referential meaning in this narrative. Note that referential meaning may be further qualified by neutrality versus intentionality; this distinction is not pertinent to the development of the metaphysics in this essay; and its consideration may be taken up elsewhere as needed. Second, if meaning is a concept and its object, there is always the case of the empty object, i.e. no object, which may allow non-referential meaning. Third, it may be possible on a case by case basis—at least for some cases—to find implicit andor internal reference in explicitly non-referential meanings

It is now possible to make a qualification regarding the formulation ‘BEING is that which has existence’. Does it mean that something that has part Being and part ‘non-Being’ exists? Further what could it mean that something has part ‘non-Being’? The concept-object formulation of meaning enables the following clarifications. That something exists means that there is a concept to which corresponds an object (the case of more than one object is included for a number of objects may be regarded as constituting an object—viz., a compound object. That something does not exist or has non-Being may mean that there is nothing that does in fact correspond to the concept (as in the case of unicorns) or that nothing could correspond to the concept (as in the case of square circles in Euclidean space). It is now possible to formulate an improvement of the above definition

To explain the meaning and significance of this form of the definition consider the phrase or concept ‘planet Earth, the planet between Mars and Venus, and a square circle’. This notion may be regarded as having some existence because Earth exists. However the other parts of the compound concept (or concept-object) regarded separately do not exist. Strictly, the compound does not exist. This shows the meaning and significance of the above form of the definition of Being

Incidentally the foregoing analysis of non-Being may be appropriated to a use of the concept of non-Being in existential thought. We may say that ‘Sartre has non-Being’ because the concept of ‘Sartre’ had Being (and may have re-Being in the future) but does not currently have Being. In this use non-Being refers to possible or potential Being

A further qualification is important. When it is said that ‘Tigers exist’ it is usually meant that there are in fact tigers at the present time; however the place of their existence is left unspecified—i.e. it could be ‘here’ andor ‘there’; and it could be a region. Now, it is desirable to also use the time of existence unspecified because (1) The resulting generality will result in a more succinct—and powerful—treatment and (2) We want to allow that there is or may be Being and forms of Being to which ‘Being in time’ (or Being in space) does not pertain—e.g. (a) in ‘regions’ of the Universe outside well defined space time and perhaps even outside ill defined extension and duration and (b) in the case of abstract objects which do not reside in space andor time or which do reside in space andor time but—this is the view of abstract objects developed in this essay—for which space and time are not relevant as a result of the nature of the abstraction involved. These observations apply also to causality in that there may be regions where causation does not obtain and in that there are objects which have had all causation eliminated in abstraction

It is interesting that the foregoing analysis of meaning is immensely potent and lies at the basis of clear formulations of many concepts of this narrative; may be pivotal in the resolution of many paradoxes—e.g., the ‘paradox of negative existence’ above; and, most importantly, is the basis of an analysis of meaning that shows the meaning is not a merely conceptual affair but already incorporates experience and where such incorporation is revealed as incomplete the analysis may be balanced by synthesis to incorporate further experience (and experiment)

The motivation for the definitions of Being and Universe is as follows. We are interested in understanding the Universe. The Universe is all that there is; we want to avoid introducing unnecessary commitment to error at outset; we do this by saying that Being is what is there and that the Universe is all Being—i.e., all of what is there

This result and the definition of Being do not constitute circular reasoning because the definition does not assert existence while the assertion ‘there is Being’ does in fact assert existence

Although this result, demonstrated below, is far from revealing all the power of the concept of Being that follows in the narrative it is powerful enough. It cuts through sophistications of thought, not by suppressing them, but by finding a core of experience that stands above the sophistications—i.e. unaffected by them. The notion of Being is immensely simple, immensely real, immensely powerful, and immensely practical

The fact of Being should seem fairly obvious. Perhaps, though, all is illusion. Therefore the claim ‘There is Being’ calls for demonstration

A demonstration. However, if all is illusion, there is, then, at least illusion. In other words there are either actual things or there are illusions (or both). More precisely, illusions are actual things and therefore the statement should be ‘In other words thee are either actual things in a non-illusory world or there are illusions which are also actual things in a non-illusory world (or both)’

Comments. (1) The neutrality of Being is pivotal to the demonstration (2) Although the demonstration is unsatisfying in that it does not demonstrate ‘concreteness’ of Being it tacitly lays the foundation for concreteness in pointing to actual things versus illusion both of which are or are found in experience which is a starting point for a robust interpretation of the fact and nature of Being

It may be complained that the demonstration—proof—above is rather trivial. A response is that it is not only trivial but it may also be seen as trite. However this triteness which will also be addressed in the next paragraph and the triviality are not reasons to disengage for the proof is an essential part of a larger non-trivial and far from trite development—the development of a universal metaphysics. And triviality is important in its own right for the goal of understanding includes the reduction of what may be remote or profound to what is immediate and obvious. Further the demonstration, though superficially trivial, points to the profound and intimate though not (here) transparent connection between experience (for concreteness and illusion are both found in experience) and Being

It may now be objected that the notion of Being—and therefore the nature of the world—is perhaps rather thin and flimsy. In what follows the narrative will demonstrate richness and robust reality of the world

Points for Detailed Narrative

Presentation

General

Parallel Narratives, e.g. main points on even and details on odd numbered pages?

Versions

Web

See General with a wide table (main points on left, details on right) andor links to details

Tables of Contents

Possible Tables of Contents

Disciplines and endeavors, e.g. sciences, symbolic sciences, literature, art, history, religion, technology and exploration, humanities including philosophy

Legend

Operational Items—in sequence

This Version

Audiences and Interests