3. Some interpretations seem distinct but may all be consistent with what is known—and interpretation may show them to be mutually consistent. Each may be appropriate to some circumstances—which may be disjoint or overlap, e.g. as when one is a case of another. Often, one alternative is considered ‘standard’ by parsimony but may become regarded as true by tacit dogma which, when lifted, may be opening to greater factual truth. Further, we may sometimes find a way to show one interpretation to be true. This would be a larger conceptual truth, of consequence for fact.

Aim

The aims are to

1. To lay out a range of interpretive metaphysical presuppositions from the most restrictive to the most open.

2. As far as possible, by empirical and rational reason, to determine a true and universal metaphysics.

A map of metaphysical positions

It is convenient to chart some metaphysical positions ranging from restrictive to open, sufficient to a comprehensive map of true metaphysical possibility.

A standard materialism

The world is made of matter and only matter. We are material beings—i.e., our bodies are material and if we are indeed at all aware at all, our awareness is really a material phenomenon.

As dogma, some tacit correlates of such materialism may include (a) strict materialism—that matter has no part that is mind, (b) that the universe is defined by physical cosmology, e.g. the big-bang, (c) the universe is deterministic.

Some interpretation that is commonly associated with materialism are, from items a, be, and c, respectively, (i) awareness or experience is an illusion, (ii) we seem to be a lonely, alien accident, devoid of transcendent meaning, and capable of at most local meaning over a lifetime, and (iii) we have no free will and so no true freedom and so, of course, the sense of free will is a tragic illusion born of blindness, denial of truth, and religious and moral dogma; and human destiny is severely limited and not in human hands.

A possibilist metaphysics

This is the position that the universe realizes all logical possibility.

That the universe realizes all possibility is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics.

The consequent metaphysics in its fullest form is the perfect metaphysics or perfect universal metaphysics.

Associated terms are ‘pure’ or ‘abstract’ metaphysics and ‘pragmatic’ or concrete metaphysics’. The perfect is a mesh of the pure and the pragmatic.

Some details of the possibilist or perfect metaphysics

It stands in polar contrast to the standard metaphysics.

Insertion of the word ‘logical’ prevents paradox from tacit multiple meanings of ‘possibility’. The singular term ‘possibility’ defuses thought of contradictory logical possibilities.

The perfect metaphysics seems to contradict science and common experience. In fact, the metaphysics requires our experience, our cosmos, our science. By appending ‘known fact’ to ‘logic’—the term is argument or Logic—there is and can be no contradiction.

If our cosmos is as it is, how then can all possibilities be realized? The answer is (a) in repeated manifestations, (b) other cosmoses perhaps temporarily causally isolated from ours, i.e. other epochs, and combinations of these two items, (c) all the foregoing and more against a background void.

Some consequences of the possibilist metaphysics

Our cosmos may be classically causal, at least for some purposes, but the universe is not.

The universe has identity, realized in myriad cosmoses, limitless variety, extension (e.g. space-time), peak of being and dissolution; individual identity, which seems limited, is part of and the same as universal identity at peaks in which all identity merges.

Universal identity will and must be realized. In this world, that may seem remote, but there are ways to begin the journey whose quality is immensely enhanced by endeavor that ‘respects’ the immediate and the ultimate.

Given any state of the universe, a greater state can be achieved by intentional, imaginative, critical, and active sentience.

A neutral metaphysics

There is a neutral metaphysics that starts with the standard.

Begin with experience in the sense of sentience, awareness, and consciousness. The standard denies experience but even the denial is a form of experience.

Experience includes all aspects of psyche; it includes experience of experience, attitude, and active experience or action.

Seemingly, not all is experience. However, the being that affects no sentience is one whose existence is irrelevant. Effectively, the universe is experience.

Enquire into the ‘material’ nature of experience. Strict determinism denies experience but our very experience denies strict materialism. On a materialist account, dropping the strict part, experience must lie in interaction; even ‘pure experience’ is interaction internal to the individual. Thus, also referring to the previous paragraph, we arrive at a picture of the world as individuals and each individual as experiencer-experience-experienced. Experiencer includes the experience of a locus of self; experience is just the givenness of experience; the experienced corresponds roughly to the world, other individuals and their minds, and the self and its experience. We have of course glossed over interpretive distinctions and difficulties but the goal here is to build and not to prove a picture (and resolution will be given for those aspects that are part of the final picture in this narrative).

In summary, the picture of the world is experiencer-experience-experienced.

We may see the world, then, as a field of experience because the three phases above, lie within or are points on the map of experience.

This has interpretation as materialism but not strict materialism; it has interpretation as an idealism but is not an idealism for it essentially presumes only experience which is given. It is therefore a neutral metaphysics; but it is not a monism for it assumes no substance, being, e.g. neutral to mind or matter; and it is open to the possibilist metaphysics.

Final comments

The three metaphysical systems above provide a map for interpretive possibility that will be used on a path via dilemma to a final picture that will in fact be the perfect metaphysics which will contain a version of the standard metaphysics as local picture and also be the neutral metaphysics with the neutrality relaxed where reasons are found.

We have not referred to religious metaphysics. These are frequently dogmatic and contradictory; however, if we clean up the contradictions, the religious metaphysics are located on the metaphysical map laid out above. Similarly cleaned up, primal, secular, and classical metaphysics are also locations on the metaphysical map.

Dilemmas and resolutions

Since this is a brief document, I lay out only the dilemmas and record a final picture at the end. Details and proofs may be found in the essential concepts and documents linked from there.

Experience

From materialism there can be no such thing as experience—vs—even on illusion, experience is a given and, at minimum, the direct medium of our presence in the world.

We are alien creatures in a strictly material universe—vs—from experience we are grounded and the universe cannot be strictly material.

The world is material—vs—perhaps it is but this suggests strict materialism which cannot hold and it is better to think of the world as natural for this does not lend itself so easily to reductive elimination of sentience and psyche.

Experience and sentience are do different than atoms and fields that only some third kind can relate them—and—this is of course the standard Cartesian substance position and its resolution—vs—it is a categorial error stemming from strict or substance materialism and not seeing all of nature as natural.

Experience cannot be causal for it would be an insertion into the causal chain—vs—this is a mistake in careless materialist thought for experience is a natural phenomenon and a natural part of the natural causal chain—further—will is the experience of being part of the causal chain.

That experience as not causal is a position called epiphenomenalism and there are experiments demonstrating that consciousness does not cause action—vs—the interpretation of the experiments is not definitive and they do not apply to the course of experience in which there is ongoing three-way communication between the conscious, the subconscious, and the world.

Experience is not rich enough to map the world—vs—this is the essential argument against a solipsism that argues that it is a consistent position to say that there is only the experience of one individual—vs—but on the neutral metaphysics above, which includes the continuum of metaphysical positions, experience is certainly rich enough.

Experience as the sole existent is insufficient to the world as well as inconsistent with materialism—vs—as seen it is not insufficient to the world and it is along with good enough materialism that are essentially the same interpretation—and—there is no conflict between the two positions—which therefore—are not essentially distinct and suggest a neutral philosophy, e.g. of Being—and—the conflict of different positions in such regards arises from a need for too much concreteness where concreteness is not indicated.

Consciousness is emergent so it cannot be on par with matter—vs—as we have seen all is on par within experience and that consciousness should emerge is, as already seen, essentially self inconsistent—rather—the world can be seen neutrally as a field of experience in which the ‘material’ is (at) the lower level and what emerges is not the kind of consciousness but its degree—vs—which is consistent with the notion of adaptation for adaptation does not obviously need consciousness at all but only intelligence—vs—and so there must be other reasons for consciousness—which—on the perfect metaphysics will be seen to be necessity.

Freedom of will

There are experiments demonstrating epiphenomenalism which is the position that experience and consciousness are acausal and therefore there can be no freedom of will—vs—the negation of this argument has already been seen

From determinism there can be no freedom of will—vs—there is no proof of determinism for the interpretation of quantum theory on this score is not determinative and there is no proof of the finality of quantum theory—therefore—determinism is mere projection—which is—negated by evolution and creativity.

There can be no proof of freedom of will and this is especially true as there can be no science of psychology—vs—we have already seen one outstanding proof n phenomenal psychology, it is the givenness of experience itself which dates at least to Descartes—and—and similarly phenomenal proof of freedom of will cannot be ruled out on the presumed ground—and—the proof then lies in our seeing, creating alternative actions, selecting and following through, in ongoing process and review—and—regarding psychology more will be said below.

There can be will without freedom—vs—the point to such an argument is one more try to negate freedom of will—vs—will without freedom would certainly have no adaptive value—in fact—even awareness without freedom seems to lack adaptive value.

Meaning, reason, and the a priori

Meaning lies in the word—vs—from analysis of experience, primitive meaning must lie in experience-experienced or concept-object and referential linguistic meaning lies in symbol-concept—object.

Symbol-concept-object is quite unnecessary, e.g. lexicon is sufficient—vs—without the concept from memory recognition and communication are impossible; symbol improves efficiency and communicability tremendously; and the lexicon is a great convenience but no more even though it dominates the relatively static context.

Meaning is indefinite and vague—vs—this stems from meaning being a practical and evolving instrument—vs—and while giving power it also results in confusion—but—in metaphysics we must give unique meanings and be willing to adjust and perfect them—and—will see how care with meaning give precision.

Precision cannot be given as exemplified by paradox—vs—there is no semantic paradox that does not arise due to admission of at least tacit contradiction of meaning.

Reason is significantly a priori—vs—it can be at most tacitly a priori for otherwise there would be no source—and so—‘a priori’ means prior to our reason, rational and empirical,—and—there is no part of experience that is necessarily and permanently barred from light.

There is no way to the effective a priori—vs—the way is to be holist, reflexive, and in process.

Being

There is no clear concept of Being—and—it is quite true that there are multiple conceptions in the literature and some seem rather vague—vs—a simple conception can be give: Being the distinguishing property that marks existence or, simple, what is there (somewhere in sameness, difference and absence—e.g. in spacetime).

There is no such thing as being and existence—vs—we have already seen the existence of experience, world, other minds—vs—and, though this is abstract, we will establish the limitlessness of the true by correspondence abstract (experience as experience is abstract in form but not abstract as ‘immaterial’; and it is an example of Being in which reside other minds and world) and its mesh with the limited pragmatic concrete.

Being is too primitive a conception to be useful—vs—this already admits that it is a concept and in any case the concept has already been seen definite—and—we have begun and will continue to find it potent.

We do not know beings—vs—we know both abstract and concrete—which distinction—does not have to do with reality—vs—but perfection of correspondence knowledge and degree of separation of experiencer-experienced.

Experience is not a true measure of Being—vs—the only measure of Being can be power, ordinary experience is case of power, and extended experience and power are identical.

Natural laws do not exist, i.e. do not have Being—vs—that thought arises when we think of ‘law’ as imposed—but—there is no imposition except as one way of thinking of laws—while—in fact all that is observed are data and patterns—and—data and patterns real and so, then, are laws (i.e. the data, the patterns, and the laws refer to the real).

We do not know the universe—the term ‘universe’ is used with vague and multiple meanings—vs—here universe shall meaning all that there is over all sameness, difference, and their absence (e.g. spacetime)—and—while there are a range of uses of the term ‘universe’, e.g. cosmos, multiple universe, parallel universe, we avoid such use—and—if there is occasion to refer to them we will use other terms.

The idea of the non-existent object is a contradiction for the question arises What is it that does not exist?—vs—this is a prime example of the potency of the concept-object conception of referential meaning for the statement ‘x does not exist’ means ‘the concept x has no object in the world’.

The void does not exist—vs—the concept of the void is that of the absence of being—and—the void exists as the complement of every existing object relative to exist.

So there are infinitely many voids—that is vague—vs—that immaterial for the number of voids has no significance except that there is at least one.

Possibility and logic

Possibility is severely limited—vs—this is contingent but not necessary—vs—and a proof of limitlessness can be given—e.g.—all logically possible states emerge from the void for the contrary would be a law in the void.

This is a position out of the blue—vs—that is not a logical objection—and in any case—we have proven it—and further—some variations of it are well known, e.g. the principle of plenitude for which there are no proofs in the literature—and—I name the principle the fundamental principle of metaphysics.

But the fundamental principle of metaphysics shows not only why there is something rather than nothing but why there must be—vs—in truth that is the implication—vs—it seems to deny our causal paradigms—but—in fact while it does deny our understanding of cause, it implies that the understanding can be local but in the universal there is no cause—or that we need a broader conception of cause.

Limitless possibility is contradictory of logic and experience—vs—as seen in the introduction there is no contradiction—but—in fact, limitless possibility is necessary and requires our logic and ordinary experience of a local world.

But this an austere metaphysics—vs—‘logical necessity’ would be austere but ‘logical possibility’ is the richest possible.

But logical possibility would result in a chaotic world—vs—we have already seen that this is not true but is a misinterpretation of the term ‘logic’.

But this does not account for fact, e.g. the fact of our world—vs—as far as logic is concerned no further accounting is needed except to append ‘fact’ to ‘logic’—and—while our logics may be limited and rough, metaphysically speaking—this results in—a new conception of Logic.

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is impossible—vs—we now see that it is entirely possible—and—begin typing

Metaphysics of limitlessness is impossible to prove—vs—if there is a proof it must be necessary and from the void—and—there is proof—as seen above.

Metaphysics of limitlessness is contradictory—vs—this objection has already been addressed—and—we can summarize the perfect metaphysics as done in the introduction.

Cosmology

Cosmology is the big bang—vs—this is our standard cosmology and the argument would be that we know no other and that it is internally and empirically consistent—but—this does not demonstrate that that is all there is—and—we have demonstrated infinitely more and laid out a description in the introduction.

But this is a pretense at a metaphysics for it does not demonstrate origins and sustenance—vs—metaphysically origins and sustenance need no demonstration beyond the proof of the fundamental principle—vs—but in fact there are particular contingent demonstrations contained within the metaphysics—vs—e.g. stemming from an adaptation of the structure-variation-selection of adaptive variation of Darwinism, whose form but not particulars are of necessity applicable according to the metaphysics but also give us a most probable source of origins, sustenance, and even dissolution when adaptation is blocked—and further—this is an example of a mesh of the abstract and the concrete, the pure-correspondence and the pragmatic-coherence-correspondence—and—we mentioned that dogma that is cleaned up to be freed of contradiction finds a place on a metaphysical map but can now see why it is relatively insignificant for it is not stably adaptive in the foregoing way.

Psychology and agency

There is no way of realization—vs—in fact we begin where we are, use all our valid culture, particularly psychology as study of psyche-body and, particularly, agency

A study of agency, e.g. psychology is non scientific—vs—we can see from the above and standard reason that the objection is moot for the point is to engage and later correct for error—vs—but it is also an error to claim that psychology is non scientific for what we need for science is interpersonal repeatability.

A systematic theory of psychology and agency is impossible—vs—it is and it stems from the experiencer-experience-experience paradigm of Being, enhanced with foresight to will and agency—and—improved by an analysis of dynamics.

No systematic universal dynamic is possible—vs—with identity as sense of sameness and duration as change with sameness and spatial extension as change without sameness we get a process-interaction-account of dynamics—and—now by considering logical parameters of psyche as in other documents (e.g. the way of being) we arrive not just at a dynamic but a rational and of course emotive account of psychology and agency.

But we are adrift with regard to an approach to realization—vs—we have the valid cultures of the East and therapeutic approaches of the west, together with application of reason as a process of observation, conception, action, will, learning—vs—which can be developed in template form as in the essential concepts which also has resources.