PARADIGMS OF THE REAL

Anil Mitra, © NOVEMBER 2017—December 2017

This document is in process.

Plan:

Make headings, combine related points and collapse repeated points, plan—edit, later eliminate repetition.

Narrative

Introduction

There are many paradigms of the real. Sometimes they are or seem to be in conflict. The purpose of this document is to list ways of seeing the real and related issues, reflect on the paradigms and their interpretations, and so build a picture of the real—i.e., a philosophical gestalt.

The overarching tool toward this end is a reflexivity in which we allow interaction of (a) the traditions through today of knowledge and reason and (b) experience, reflection with feeling, study, and action. Thus reflexivity includes mutually informing disciplines.

When we regard our paradigms and interpretations to take on concrete reality, even in absence of justification and alternative interpretations, we create a false ‘either / or’ dichotomy. Often times alternative interpretations that seem oppositional are not so.

Central to this is doubt or methodological skepticism and intuition-imagination. This is intended as a remedy for overweening speculation and criticism.

Paradigms of the real

1. EXPERIENCE, generic for all forms of subjective awareness or CONSCIOUSNESS, begins as a fundamental named give, and includes conscious modes of perception, knowledge, feeling, reflecting, willing, acting and reason. See standard metaphysics.

2. Relation between argument (establishing truth) and the a priori, reason (clear thinking and feeling), and psychology (how people think).

3. Because FORM is prior to it, experience is not everything.

4. Since form is finally known in experience, in an inclusive and at least pragmatic sense experience is everything. In experience we go beyond experience-so-far which includes reason-so-far; which has universal value though personally valuable and imperative only for some. Effectively, Being is a region in experience. As we will see, this is complementary to the objective-experienced view of reality.

5. Is experience FAITHFUL to the WORLD? I.e. to the OBJECT? To answer this, at least tentatively, let us look at what is happening in the brain. In perception there is a neural arrangement and process which has some relation to the world but we cannot argue a priori that the neural ‘image’ is anything like the experiential image (at this stage of the discussion we admit that the thing and the image may not only not conform, they may be altogether different kinds of thing). So now ask whether the experiential image anything at all like the object? In fact given a conception that the brain is in intimate relation with the world (which includes brain and experience, the latter to be explained later) contrasted with the conception of brain as distinct from object, we must ask whether there is an independent object? Or, perhaps the ‘real object’ is some function of the brain and the world or some function of experience and the world. But perhaps experience is that function (or the ‘experiential function’ of the function). Anyway, this paragraph so far is but preliminary and its purpose is to raise questions rather than provide a line of argument; it paves the way into the main discussion in the paragraph. So, then, what does it mean that experience is or can be faithful to the world (which of course includes experience itself)? In the first place experience allows us to negotiate the world with at least partial success, so there is some kind of at least implicit faithfulness—perhaps it may be labeled PRAGMATIC, meaning efficient or effective rather than ‘true’ but the label does not mean ‘not at all faithful’. Secondly, adaptation suggests some pragmatic efficiency and therefore some kind and degree of faithfulness. However, that is all very vague. So what might faithfulness mean? When I think of my image of a mountain as faithful I mean something like (a) the image is stable, (b) it follows a pattern of ‘mountains’ in general (c) it is roughly like the geometrical shape I call a pyramid, and (d) I can make measurements that are consistent with my image. But since the patterns, the shapes, and measurement are all experiential, I am comparing different experiences rather than the experience of the mountain and the mountain itself. Thus the system of experience has ‘self-corroboration’. That is, from the earlier pragmatic and the present corroborative considerations, we conclude that faithfulness is a join of CORRESPONDENCE and COHERENCE, both at least rough. But I think it is safe to say more than merely or very rough: visual perception is remarkably clear and can be quite acute (which of course is ‘relative’ for it is not perfectly acute). However, we know that perception goes only so far. Does our perceptual SPACE and TIME as a CONTINUUM that is clearly very nearly (if locally) Euclidean and Galilean extend to all space and time? We know that it does not, but is curved (SPACETIME) in the large, and not a continuum in the small. However, in knowing this we have used our conceptual and mathematical representation—general relativity and quantum theory—of the same to further our knowledge and improve its precision. Yet, the object of the mathematical science, is neither perfectly precise and nor is it essentially of the ‘pure object’. So, is that the best we can do? Well, let us note that in going from perception (tinged of course with cultural interpretation), to mathematical theory, we have moved in the direction of abstraction—i.e. of an effective ABSTRACT of the whole data (thus in this sense the abstract is simple rather than complex, immanent rather than remote, real rather than merely theoretical). In the ultimate metaphysics that follows we find a dual and integral system—a metaphysics and epistemology—one with an abstract side of precision and perfect faithfulness and with a CONCRETE side that is pragmatic; one that is a perfect instrument of an ultimate realization to be defined; one for which the epistemology is also dual; one that includes perfect and pragmatic reason—the formal and informal sides of argument—drawing conclusions (or a CONCLUSION), e.g. from premises (a PREMISE), and making decisions (a DECISION); and all this lies in experience in the extended sense; which is possible because we are adapted in and to the world (for this latest observation, we need not in this paragraph assert whether the adaptation is a priori and form-al, evolutionary and historical, externally formed by another cosmos or gods, or some mix of the foregoing).

6. A PARADIGM is a framework of ideas on the world and its ways or nature.

7. Note that ‘reason’ arises above in the transition from perception to (higher) conception (‘higher’ because perception is elementary conception). Reason will be part of our paradigms; and on the abstract side it will have pure ‘logic’ and ‘fact’, while on the concrete side it will have our systems of argument which include our logics, facts, and science. In this document I do not emphasize reason but see argument and the essential concepts. Though there are distinctions, it is not essential, at a general level, to distinguish formal from informal reason, reason from logic and science from argument, and reason from rationality. But it is essential to point out that conclusions are not necessarily single valued and that the entire psyche—perception / fact, cognition / inference, and emotion / value / ethics) is implicated in reason.

8. A first flexible paradigm, a STANDARD METAPHYSICS, is immediate naïve experience, cultural interpretation, and the idea that we can go beyond the immediate via reason (perception, cognition, and value)—perhaps to the ultimate.

9. The ULTIMATE PARADIGM, presented early as an example of a paradigm, as a goal, and as an interpretative framework, and proven in the essential concepts (also see a program and topics for the way) is—(i) the universe is the realization of all logical POSSIBILITY, it is the greatest possible universe in that sense, it is the greatest possible universe qualitatively and quantitatively; (ii) consequently we are ultimately the universe which has identity and is limitless in sameness, difference, kind, and variety, e.g., there are limitless cosmoses of limitless variety against a void background, and given any realization, there is a sentient realization, (iii) this is consistent with and requires our COSMOS as a NORMAL state whose ‘natural’ impossibilities and necessities are relative and which is a unity with the universe, (iv) our current and historical TRADITION(s), where true, are the stepping stones from world to world, and, integral with the ultimate abstract above, (vi) give rise to an ultimate dual epistemology in which the abstract and its image correspond perfectly, while the concrete, though roughly known in local terms, is known perfectly in a pragmatic sense relative to the ultimate—and this dual system is perfect in relation to the ultimate. This metaphysical and epistemological system is well founded and its truth shows a well founded meaning of completeness in terms of which it is complete. The recent sentences begin showing the ultimate as interpretive; this is completed at the end of the document. Note that the proof mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph and subsequent discussion demonstrate a factual and non-speculative METAPHYSICS that is PERFECT and ULTIMATE in nature, the ultimate and UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS, and associated with an EPISTEMOLOGY that is also perfect: the ULTIMATE DUAL EPISTEMOLOGY. Note also that these ultimates and perfections, reinterpret and perhaps lessen but do not eliminate the significance of our enterprises of metaphysics and epistemology and drive to local perfection (or not).

10. Though I said I would not prove the universal metaphysics here, consider the ‘mystery’ of Being—i.e. that we, the manifest universe, are here. If there is a contingent explanation, it has a terminus that requires another contingent. It can end only in a NECESSITY or NECESSARY AND GIVEN TRUTH. But from symmetry, if our—very special—cosmos is necessary, then all logical possibilities must also be necessary. But what could be the source of this? It cannot, seemingly, be a special Being. It must be either all being, the universe itself, or the absence of being or the void—i.e., the explanation must be ultimate and, from above, necessary. If the void exists, all logical possibility must occur for the contrary would be a law of the void but the void can have no laws. Therefore the proof of the universal metaphysics is reduced to proof of existence of the void. But the void does exist alongside every particle of Being since the void and the particle are the particle. Naturally, questions and objections will arise—see the outline of essential concepts.

11. Fundamental concepts and definitions of the universal metaphysics. The fundamental given is EXPERIENCE as the subjective. Further concepts:

ABSTRACTION—selection of the given of and in experience

DIFFERENCE—a fundamental GIVEN, SAMENESS—absence of difference, EXTENSION—sameness, difference, and their absence (may also refer to spatial extension)

UNIVERSE—all that is there over all extension (the universe can have no OTHER)

BEING, BEING-EXPERIENCE, or EXISTENCE—‘what is there’, the QUALITY of being ‘SOMEWHERE’ in the extension of the universe (Being is of necessity knowable, and by the universal metaphysics to all knowers—abstract-perfectly or concrete-pragmatically)

BEINGS or A BEING—a defined REGION of the universe

POWER—the ability to have and receive an EFFECT

THE VOID—absence of Being including PATTERN and NATURAL LAW

POSSIBILITY for a Being—consistency with the concept, definition, or reality of the being

LOGICAL POSSIBILITY—possibility from which contingent limits are abstracted, i.e. the logic in question is deductive

LOGIC—DEDUCTIVE LOGIC but interpreted generally, may be: FACT, deductive logic, ARGUMENT, INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT and SCIENCE, and the absence of an ULTIMATE A PRIORI.

12. Standard cultural paradigms of the real are (i) PRIMAL—usually unwritten: spiritism, animism, totem, taboo, unity of existence; totem, empirical taboo, and animism; (ii) SECULAR—metaphysical: limits to the real, materialism–including universal mechanism, causation, non-teleology, and scientific realism; idealism–ordinary, Platonic, and ethical; neutral-synthetic and of Being; and TRANSSECULAR: neutral, karmic, remote vs. immanent Gods: material-ideal, approaching ultimate consciousness in which we participate eternally. Essentially all pre-ultimate paradigms are metaphysical in that their foundation has (a) limited ontological motive and commitment, or (b) limited empirical support, or limited rationality. That is, while not necessarily in disagreement with perceptual and conceptual reason, they are incomplete with regard to foundation. Many metaphysical paradigms are limited in scope and reason; however this does not of necessity extend to all metaphysics.

13. By the end of ‘paradigms’ it will be seen that the idealist and materialist paradigms are not essentially different and would be the same under their ultimate / convergent / neutral (Being) forms.

14. I do not develop ETHICS or ethical systems here. However, it is important that while cultural ethical systems may have differences they have (incomplete) objectivity relative to their own culture; and while the systems are not universal, the idea of ethics and of its adaptivity is universal; and there are universal ethics that emerge from any ultimate metaphysics; and pragmatic ethics from pragmatic metaphysics.

15. There is a plethora of SPECIAL METAPHYSICS (even excluding special pleadings), each designed with some objective in mind. Such objectives are usually limited in the sense of not being designed in order to know general truth. We should be careful about the term ‘special’ for it is defined variously and is not to be confused with ‘merely speculative’. One notion of special metaphysics is that it is the metaphysics of particular beings while general metaphysics is the study of Being as Being; but it is not clear that there is this absolute divide although of course there is a gradation. But here, by special metaphysics, I do not mean metaphysics of particular beings, real or hypothetical, but particular metaphysical theories, primarily of Being, but also of (important, even if speculative) beings (e.g. God). Thus, emanationism as all beings (except perhaps one) flowing from a first principle or original Being. Emergentism as the emergence of kinds and essences. Substance as the essence of all being—and perhaps as eternal, everywhere, ultimately simple, indivisible; as essentially different from any other substances and so capable only of self but not of substance-substance interaction.

16. In the standard metaphysics we see the world as populated with individuals that have experience.

17. That there is experience is not a hypothesis that is tested empirically in the sense of “the empirical as external or as sense data”. It cannot be for there is no ground from which to test. Experience is the first and sensed medium of Being that needs only IDENTIFICATION and NAMING but not conventional PROOF. That is the content of Descartes’ cogito argument, stripped of the identification of a self—for if all we have found is experience, the world – self – mind – other are not yet known as being more than names for regions within experience. That there is experience is part of any true (and ultimate) metaphysics. Note that it was not just implied that there must be experience (the being of Being and experience are generally a mystery unless they are somehow necessary and indeed they are necessary on the universal metaphysics).

18. Solipsism is that there is only experience in which the standard metaphysics is an interpretation. In this form, SOLIPSISM is not differentiable from the standard metaphysics.

19. However, there is a naïve solipsism that says ‘only my experience exists’. It is absurd for it posits an I while denying it. Pragmatically the ‘I’ of naïve solipsism has the limits of an ‘ordinary I’ while denying them.

20. But there is an extended view of solipsism, NEUTRAL METAPHYSICS—(i) the universe is experience in the extended sense above, (ii) it is not essentially different from the standard metaphysics in which we see the universe as populated by sentient individuals, but (iii) it allows an interpretation in which individual and universal identity are united—which is a part of the ultimate metaphysics (the extended solipsism also allows the rest of the ultimate metaphysics). In this interpretation, solipsism allows both metaphysical MATERIALISM and metaphysical IDEALISM. The universe is established as a field of Being which includes interacting fields of experiencer-experience-experience.

21. To further clarify and establish the nature and reality of experience, let us consider NATURALISM (or, variously, materialism and PHYSICALISM). There is an argument that says that nature is all there is and nature is not mind or experience. This argument has led a number of thinkers to deny the existence of consciousness / experience. But of course they cannot really deny it because of Descartes’ argument ‘the ILLUSION of conscious experience is an illusion which is conscious experience’. So they say, essentially, “consciousness is not what it is commonly thought to be”—they identify two forms—access or a-consciousness, which is functional, and does the real work, and phenomenal, the real version or, what we thought was real, p-consciousness which is e.g. the quality of the brilliant red of the sunset but which is neither causal nor functional. The materialist-naturalists—this is essentially what they are—are led to this by their limited view of materialism, science, and matter. They find it paradoxical so deny it while they admit it. Let us go back to the thought “nature is all there is and nature is neither mind nor experience”. In face of consciousness, the p variety, it is untenable. If we are going to keep naturalism, we have to relinquish “nature is not mind or experience”. But how to explain mind? Whereas nature is what we view on the ‘outside’, the experienced, experience itself the medium of viewing, and must be nature experiencing itself, i.e. ‘interior’ relations in nature. However, ‘interior’ and ‘exterior’ are metaphorical for experience experiences experience. The ‘p’ and ‘a’ kinds of consciousness are but one kind.

22. Along the same lines that lead to the above confusion, consciousness (mind) is often claimed to be a-causal or epiphenomenal. But the response is simply, that mental causation or will is cause and effect from the mental side. This discussion is continued in taking up free will below.

23. Primitive MIND, on the standard paradigm is already present in nature (MATTER). This is not paradoxical as this primitive mind is an aspect of nature or matter. What emerges is not consciousness but higher consciousness. This emergence is not mysterious but is the emergence, not of one kind from another, but the emergence of higher from lower form, by formation (which may have come from adaptation, whether evolution—which is a preferred explanation—or chance or external intervention such as another cosmos or a god, which are conceivable… but god is a cosmos and there is no ultimate god outside the universe which leaves two paradigms of formation: the more likely step-wise and gradual variation and selection by adaptation due to near stability and symmetry vs the unlikely large or single step chance variation to an adaptive or stable-symmetric state). Mind and consciousness are not EMERGENT substances, on the standard paradigm.

24. On the standard and neutral metaphysics, there is also an experiencer—or, are experiencers.

25. Thus experience is not other than nature but is nature from ‘the inside’. There is no insertion of mind into nature (this insertion point is a common materialist objection to mind in nature, and especially mental causation—e.g., will—and free will). Mind and nature are one. Of course ‘mind’ is metaphor for part of experience-EXPERIENCER-EXPERIENCED. This paragraph repeats the content of a recent paragraph but I leave it here for the present.

26. That is, mind extends to EXPERIENCE-OF, PURE EXPERIENCE which is INTERNAL ACTION (‘mental’), and WILL – MENTAL CAUSATION – EXTERNAL ACTION (physical).

27. On this account it is reasonable that mind and consciousness are not emergent; rather it is kind, quality, variety, power, and intelligence of mind that are emergent; it is not consciousness that is emergent but higher from lower consciousness. This would be part of a standard paradigm except that on the ultimate metaphysics it is ‘normal’ rather than necessary. More repetition.

28. To continue with the clarification afforded by considering strict naturalism, let us now consider FREE WILL. We have already seen that naturalism cannot be completely strict for mind must be part of nature. But now the materialist-naturalists, even if they accept experience, argue against free will. A first argument is that free will is a violation of causality, i.e. of the two canonical elements of cause—antecedence, and continuity-contiguity. We have already seen that there is no ‘insertion’ but mind is nature and so there is no violation of continuity. Again, since mind is nature there is no violation of antecedence unless nature itself violates antecedence—but of course there may be mis-perception and erroneous conception of non-antecedence (we are assuming these properties of causality which are its nominal but unproven properties—of course we acknowledge that violation of antecedence may be paradoxical). A second naturalist argument is that nature is either LAWLIKE (meaning DETERMINISTIC or CAUSAL determinist or ordered and so on) so there can be no freedom; or nature is ‘random’ and INDETERMINISTIC so there can be no will (the same argument also implies that there can be no emergent structures in nature, if by emergent we mean essentially novel). But of course this is making strong assumptions of nature; they are projections. We have cases of emergence of novelty—evolution with its variation and selection, the origin of cosmoses (if indeed they originate), and in the ultimate metaphysics (which we mention but do not use in the counterargument). The counterargument is simple. The free part of free will acts in the border between determinate, approximately determinist structures, and random variations there-from, of which some are selected for seeming truth and then subject to reason, which is part of the structure. The paradigmatic similarity, which need not be universal since mere chance is also possible though improbable (note that please—those who argue from randomness, including you, David Hume of Scotland past), to the mechanism of evolution (and a mechanism of ultimate metaphysics and possible mechanism of cosmological formation), is noteworthy. Note, by the way, that the physics, especially quantum, are likely incomplete, therefore at most suggestive; but some interpretations of quantum theory can be suggestive for free will. A third objection to free will is that ‘it cannot accomplish just anything’. That is based in an erroneous and enormous misconception of free will, perhaps merely erroneous, perhaps over-optimistic, perhaps straw-man. There is no need for free will to be unimpeded; and of course this depends on the meaning of ‘impedance’—there is a sense in which nature is flow but this sense does not exclude trial and error and therefore an impedance that does not contradict flow. Finally, here, is the block universe concept that seems to negate free will. The block universe is determined, the argument goes, so how can there be free will? Well from the perspective of the block that is true. There is one universe and it is given. But it may, and on the ultimate metaphysics does, contain all possibilities. All outcomes are given and that is determinate. However, on lesser ‘views’, e.g. sections or strata of the block, there may or may not be determinism. It depends on what is built in. A classical block universe would be determinist, but this is not news. In the block quantum universe, world-lines may merge and bifurcate. On a temporal and epochal consideration (see the program and topics for the way, for definition of EPOCH) history is neither determined nor deterministic.

29. PSYCHOLOGY as knowledge and study of mind may inform natural science as much, in principle, as natural science may inform psychology. Because we think physics fundamental, and it is, we think it informs psychology in a necessary way. For example ‘physics is deterministic, therefore free will is impossible’. We have seen that the implication does not follow even if quantum theory is deterministic because of the incompleteness of quantum theory. That is where incomplete or approximate (not perfectly precise) neither physics nor psychology force the other but are mutually suggestive. However, it is a good argument that human beings do have free will, therefore physics must be indeterministic. Similarly, evolutionary biology must have an element of indeterminism; therefore physics must also have indeterminism. We must eradicate the presumed tyranny of physics and those physicists who appoint themselves the priests of the real.

30. One of the objectives to this document is to see how from some standard skeptical positions regarded as quandaries or challenges, can we build up a coherent picture of the word—is there anything, is there experience, is there anything but experience, is the metaphysics of observers in a material world true—or is the natural world one of perceivers and thinkers as part of the natural world true, is there free will, is there an a priori, that there could be nothing but the void—versus the necessity of Being. Along these lines, I take up the possibility that we are simulations in a simulated universe. But why fixate on computation? We may well be the creations of another more potent cosmos. But that does not make us unreal. And, relative to the universe that is all being, there is an end to simulation; and therefore as part and whole we are not simulated or created for there is no simulation or creation of the universe. Could there be evidence that we are simulations—what would it be? If a simulated cosmos must be some way it is also possible that an organic cosmos could be the same. There is nothing extra special about being simulations; it would of course be interesting and useful to know; still, if a simulator could pull the plug, so could nature; and in the end ‘simulation’ is not ‘not real’.

31. What about a host of other realities. The cosmos began five minutes ago and we were made complete with memories and data that indicated the past as we ‘know’ it; we are brains in vats; and so on. Not one of these possibilities means that we are not real; if discovered it might be interesting; but where standard and alternate reality are indistinguishable it makes no sense to do anything much but be open to discovery; and, finally, according to the ultimate universal metaphysics that is a fact, supplemented, by the ‘evolutionary’ paradigm, the alternate realities do occur but are immensely improbable—so improbable as to be worth only passing acknowledgement as long as evidence is absent. The same is the case for the religious ontologies, especially those of the dogmatic Abrahamic religions.

32. Note here the probabilistic paradigm of numerically preponderant yet not universal origin—‘random’ variation (i.e. not directed to selection) and adaptive selection which applies to all novelty, particularly epochal / cosmological origins from other systems and the void, evolution and origin of life, novelty of thought and choice. Which is a numerically preponderant source of near stable, near symmetric, dynamic form.

33. All that is needed for ultimate extension these thoughts regarding experience and nature is extension of the neutral metaphysics to the ultimate metaphysics (which is trivial).

34. We have seen three paradigms so far, apart from the cultural—the standard, the neutral, which are consistent and allow the third or ultimate.

35. Now any paradigm of the real ought to account for the real ultimate, its attributes, and space, and time. On the present ultimate, the primitives include—sameness and difference, universe as all there is over sameness – difference – and their absence if any, Being or Being-in-experience as existence in some region of sameness and difference, beings as examples of Being, power or the ability to give and receive an effect (as the conceptual glue of a universe), and the void (which can be shown to exist and which implies the ultimate metaphysics and universal interaction and so that there is one universe and only one universe).

36. From sameness and difference, can be derived time (perhaps not one dimensional) and space, the only logically possible coordinates of extension but not necessarily extending to the entire universe; this is consonant with our physical descriptions of space and time but show that space and time are metaphorical if they are thought of as distinct from Being; the foregoing is consonant with quantum theory but does not limit the universe to it—and it is consonant with structure and indeterminism in quantum theory, and the quantum vacuum which, however, is not the void; it is consonant with the indeterminism of quantum theory or any future local physics as the residue of prior formation and ultimately, formation from the void (or, therefore, any state of Being—i.e. any being); it is consonant with an occasional pantheistic god; and an approach to an ultimate God in which we participate and are—and dissolution there-from; it is dissonant with Spinoza’s infinitely many attributes of God beyond extension and thought, i.e. space-time and experience, but it allows (and the ultimate metaphysics requires) infinitely many properties such as color, the properties of sound, and so on; but, more, it allows and requires infinitely many physics, each with its own range of properties (development of the ultimate metaphysics as of this writing, 12.6.2017, has not determined limits or further necessities on such properties and physics); it shows that the unity of the attributes stated as fiat by Spinoza and arbitrarily elevated to profundity by empty intellectualism, is in fact necessary; it supplies a Kantian framework, not from classical or modern science, but from the essential abstract concepts of sameness, difference, universe, Being-experience, beings, power, the void, possibility, and reason (argument); and it provides a realist interpretation of logic and the alleged a priori; it eliminates universal interest in the special metaphysics, relegating them to at most local occurrence and interest.

37. We can now see that the neutral and standard metaphysics together provide a framework to understand the ideal and material aspects of the universal; and that the universal in turn frames them. However, while under a naturalism based in the naturalism of our world, mind and matter appear as one, the situation in the ultimate metaphysics is different. There may be many different modes of mind and matter in the universe. Of course given that matter is being-as-such and mind is being-in-interaction there can be no further such modes; which is analogous to space and time being the modes of difference. Whereas we find mind and matter a unit in our cosmos, may not mind as pure mind appear from another cosmos (another epoch and note that light speed is not a universal limit and that other epochs might already be ‘here’ with minimal interaction). It would seem that mind may so appear. However, to be mind it seems clear that there must be some form (question this). If that is so, the said form is matter, if of another epoch. But what of matter? May it too ‘invade’? True; but if it were to interact, it would participate in our matter, so possibly in our mind (even though this would likely be destructive, there must be constructive instances). Further, even non sentient matter, if it is possible, cannot be eternally non-sentient if it should be at all eternal. That is, the general scene is one of multiple space-time, and matter-mind modes, acting as individuals that constitute pantheistic and perhaps focused God and approach it and depart from it, all in eternal joy and pain; and generally though not universally from the evolutionary paradigm, joy exceeds pain. Note that on this account, God is rarely perfect; but on the general account contradiction free renderings of scripture occur if too infrequently and too unstably to be of much significance.