|
SOME PATHWAYS OF A
ANIL MITRA © Anil Mitra PhD, February 2012—February 2012 IntroductionJourney in Being was introduced in 2002 and has since become more comprehensive and precise. It is unlikely that I will ever be satisfied that its form is complete or final but it has achieved what seems to me to be a remarkable level of breadth, maturity, precision and significance. This is a short version whose aim is to quickly introduce you—the reader—to the aims, ideas and ways of a Journey in Being. This is an abbreviated version of Ways of a Universal Journey which may be used for background detail. For still more detail there is a dense forest of information at the website for a Journey in Being The idea of a journey has origins in a personal sense of purpose and destiny. The expression of this sense has been in a range of activities that include nature as inspiration and ground, ideas and thought, and travel Because it might frame my purpose, one of my aspirations has been to develop a vision and understanding of the way the Universe is. In philosophy such a view is sometimes called a metaphysics. I have therefore endeavored to develop a ‘philosophical metaphysics’ My early approaches to metaphysics were via a variety of ideas and included, in turn, evolution and time, matter and materialism, mind and idealism. I realized that if such systems were to be comprehensive that the terms ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ would have to be generalized to a point where the specificity of their original meaning would be lost; ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ would non-specific to the point of identity and would be different names for the same underlying ‘substrate’. I began to search for a metaphysics in terms of such a substrate. I realized that, provided its interpretation is elementary and neutral, Being could form such a substrate. Later, I realized that the power of Being lies in its neutrality—in that it is not and makes no commitment to or against a substance or substrate at all. All that had gone before was explanation of the world in terms of something too specific; further, it was explanation in terms of something else—something not known to be of the world. In turning to Being, the actual search for metaphysics had begun These thoughts occurred in 1992. I had thought and written much and for the next few years was occupied with other activities, especially, starting in 1995, reflections and writing on consciousness which had recently burst on to the scene as something worth writing on. In 1999 I wrote an essay on consciousness and in thinking on the nature of mind I returned naturally to the more general concerns of metaphysics In the fall of 1999 while hiking in the Trinity Alps Wilderness of northern California, I had a strong intuition that the universe was equivalent to the void or absence of all things and that this equivalence would lead to a metaphysics. The intuition drew inspiration from reflection and suggestions from physics but the intuition while hiking in the ‘Trinities’ was sensed more than thought. However, my notion of ‘to develop a view’ included and emphasized demonstration and having an intuition is not demonstration I use the word ‘demonstration’ that includes but is more than proof in that (1) Whereas proof may be difficult, demonstration aspires to be as simple and as transparent as possible while still being proof (2) Whereas proof proceeds from premise to conclusion, demonstration undertakes as far as possible to show the truth of the premises—e.g. as obvious or given (3) Whereas proof depends on methods of inference, demonstration endeavors to develop and provide foundation for its methods. Clearly this demands much of the idea of demonstration. However where it is pertinent to the development we endeavor provide transparent demonstration and to be open and transparent regarding doubt. The openness to doubt is not the result of some principle of a principle of honesty and truthfulness abstracted from the world; it opens up the option either of resolution of doubt or of existential though perhaps temporary acceptance of doubt. The highway to the real has doubt in its cement I searched for a proof using ideas from physics, logic, and the philosophical literature of metaphysics. I attempted to reason my way through a proof. I attempted to visualize the equivalence of universe and void. From 1999 through the summer of 2002 these attempts yielded no effective idea of how a proof might proceed Then in the fall of 2002, again with the Trinity Mountains as backdrop, I had a second intuition—an intuition of how a logical proof of how the equivalence of the void and the universe might proceed. I had been focusing on the concept of the Universe but the insight, near trivial once it occurred to me, was to focus on and carefully conceive the Void. Once this insight occurred, the proof itself was remarkably simple in its main points The story—a very abbreviated and direct version of the actual story—illustrates the theme of power derived from the interaction and mutual conditioning of reason, imagination, and intuition Refining the proof, building up a system of metaphysics around it, elaborating, and applying the system; and interpreting the system in terms of our traditions of knowledge has occupied much time since 2002 In executing the proof I found that it is far more effective to use the idea of Being—defined in the text—around which to build a metaphysics than it is to use a more familiar idea such as mind or matter. The earlier thought, a rather intuitive one, to use Being as a focal point of explanation paid dividend The resulting system of ideas was ultimate in that it demonstrated a perfect metaphysics without reference to further foundation, and in that it made clear that there is one Universe and showed (demonstrated) that it is the greatest possible Universe. In other words, if some thing (some conception) could be true of the Universe it is true (of the Universe). That means that the Universe is without limit in extension, duration, and variety of Being—for example, it implies that the kinds and varieties of physical law and the instantiation of each law in cosmological systems is without limit. The Universe has no limits—this assertion will be called the Principle of Being (which is demonstrated in the text) Many parts of this metaphysics have been seen before. However, while there are new insights what is especially significant here is the way in which the parts—content and method—come together in a new way and with new breadth, new depth, new conclusions, in an essentially and powerfully new understanding Who is the creator of the metaphysics? I sometimes think of myself as its creator. However, my contribution to the creation would not have occurred if it were not for the ideas other thinkers. The list is not too long and includes Plato, Aristotle, Samkara (the possible author of the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy), Eriugena, Leibniz, Newton, Kant, Einstein, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Whitehead, Einstein, and the creators of quantum theory (persons whose names are in bold font were especially important). Those are main explicit sources and having recalled their names I then remember that I think in terms of images and language and that I am neither creator of the human facility for language nor the language in which I speak and think. I am not the creator of the idea of ideas or the human facility for ideas. I did not create my own body via which I experience the world; I did not create the world of which I am a part. I did not create the beauty of the world and of human art that have inspired and driven me in my search… It remains the case that I have been the ‘creator’ of the central and essential insights; I forged the system—its articulation and concepts, and I have elaborated the metaphysics and applied in novel ways and to resolve many problems of metaphysics regarded as intractable. An example is the problem of Why there is Being at all; Heidegger called this the fundamental problem of metaphysics; given the equivalence of the Void and All Being the problem is trivially resolved and it becomes apparent that the problem of what kinds of thing there are in the Universe becomes worthy of being called the fundamental problem of metaphysics (which the Universal Metaphysics goes far toward addressing) Still, I have the following experience. It is that once the insights (a) That The Universe and Void are Equivalent and (b) That it was critical To focus on the Void and its properties had occurred the proof and development of the metaphysics were as if self driven. It was as if Logic itself took over, and the ideas were as if self-driven. I was less creator and more discoverer. My participation sometimes seemed as if even less than that of discoverer. I sometimes compare the experience to that of being a tourist led inexorably by some magnificent tour guide through some new, alien, and wonderful landscape Readers should be aware that the meanings of the term ‘possible’ and expressions ‘if something could be true’ and ‘has no limits’ are not automatically clear and may on some interpretations be open to paradoxical conclusions. The meanings of these and other expressions is clarified in the text and the definite and clarified meanings are shown to be part of a coherent, consistent and powerful system of ideas A little thought may suggest that, even with clarification, the foregoing conclusions may well violate science, logic, and our sense of shared everyday experience. A more fundamental objection is the thought that a perfect metaphysics is impossible. These potential objections and others are resolved in the text—the objection to perfection is overcome by having the fundamental concepts of the metaphysics be formed by abstraction of those details that need suffer no distortion. Here a further potential concern arises: if this abstraction yields concepts that refer to the world without distortion, must not the system of concepts be trivial? Resolution of these and other issues is taken up in the text. For each problem there is a resolution and the most common kind of resolution is clarification of meaning. It turns out that the system of concepts is far from trivial; this may appear to be paradoxical and the resolution lies in understanding that the system constitutes knowledge that the Universe has variety without limit—i.e., it is definite though indirect and not direct knowledge of the ‘things’ in the Universe. Resolution of such problems is not merely an exercise in defense of the metaphysics—anticipating and searching for such problems and resolving them strengthens and develops the metaphysics and its agreement and mesh with the valid portions of traditions of human knowledge and culture In the text the applicability of the metaphysics to the Universe is made clear and the application is brought out in fair detail. Because it is perfect the metaphysics is unique (it may of course be expressed in different forms and be developed to different degrees of detail). I therefore thought it reasonable to name it the Universal Metaphysics. In the text the phrase ‘the metaphysics’ will refer to the Universal Metaphysics. The metaphysics is an Ultimate and Universal Metaphysics Because the metaphysics is ultimate and universal it has great consequences for the major academic divisions of the sciences, the humanities, philosophy, theology and the arts. The metaphysics illuminates and provides foundation for the disciplines and the valid portions of the disciplines illustrate and go toward provision of meaning for the metaphysics The metaphysics and the related system of reason that emerge together clarify the nature of scientific theory: a theory is or may be seen as a fact over a limited domain. Because of the unlimited variety in the Universe, a scientific theory of detailed direct knowledge of phenomena cannot be Universal. A new conception of logic emerges and is labeled ‘Logic’. This conception includes the valid portion of any collection of classical logics and has vastly greater scope than the collection. It is seen that Logic is likely to be an immensely rich area for development. In this conception Logic is more than the form of demonstration but a definitive picture (theory) of the Universe The metaphysics also has consequences for the essential human aspirations and endeavors and that includes the potential object of the spiritual or religious search which is so often expressed in dogmatic and grandiose but deficient and distorted terms I referred to ‘tradition’ above. What do I mean by tradition? In this narrative TRADITION will be understood to be some cumulative sum of human cultures throughout history; it includes our modern culture. It will be useful to characterize the tradition here because evaluations of the tradition are developed but not confined to one place in the text. Here it will be useful to characterize and provide a net assessment of the tradition. I find it convenient to consider the tradition as two partially overlapping parts defined by (1) Myth, religion, and imaginative art and (2) Experience, science, reason, humanism and critical art. The first is characterized by the religious attitude and the second by a scientific attitude The limitations of the religious attitude are fairly clear—at least to the non-religious. What are the limitations of the scientific world view? Science does not talk directly to important aspects of the human spirit. However, this is not an inherent lack for that is not the function of science and such aspects of spirit may be addressed by humanism (even while this is also and in some ways more effectively done by the symbolic aspects of religions). The limits of the scientific world view depend on the attitude taken toward science. The following attitudes are found (a) Science is the only valid knowledge (b) Today’s science is the end of all knowledge (c) Today’s valid science is incomplete but science will approach complete knowledge of the universe (d) Today’s science is incomplete and we do not know whether science will ever be complete or what its final state of completion will be (e) Today’s and future science will have degrees of validity but a direct, detailed, and empirical science of the (entire) Universe is not logically capable of being achieved It is a pertinent diversion to remark that while we talk of science and other institutions in generalized terms what is actually the case depends (from the point of view of easy opinion that passes for definitiveness) on seemingly fine distinctions such as the cases (a) through (e) above The metaphysics shows that (e) is the only valid point of view regarding science. Further the metaphysics goes far beyond science—while the metaphysics does not of course reveal direct detail beyond the borders of the science of the time, it shows this comprehensively though tacitly. Thus even though the metaphysics is ultimate it leaves open the discovery and experience of variety; it is thus existentially open: the Universe is never closed to experience and discovery What does the metaphysics reveal of the religious attitude? It allows and confirms that a robust aspect of the religions is the address of the concerns of the spirit. I.e., religion has spiritual and moral meaning even where it has no literal sense (spirit is understood as pertaining to the one Universe and not some ‘other’ world; thus ‘spiritual’ is not ‘non-material’, not of ‘another’ plane). What can be said of the literal sense of religion? The secular attitude is that the religious cosmologies are absurd. The metaphysics shows that so far as they are not illogical, those cosmologies are realized but suggests that this realization is not robust (the meaning of the term ‘robust’ is explained in the text); further no support is given to the truth of the religious cosmologies in the observed regions of our cosmos. Further, while the metaphysics is not itself a detailed map of the world of spirit it provides a framework that permits a view of the spirit that is immensely greater than those of religion or science and secular humanism Thus with regard to ‘worldly’ and ‘spiritual’ matters and with regard to precision of thought, the metaphysical framework far exceeds the framework of tradition The metaphysics reveals that the individual will and must experience the entire variety of the Universe and that this must be a journey without end. It is shown—not merely stated or hypothesized—that the Universe has Identity and that this Identity has acute and diffuse phases. Further, all identities—including human identities—do occasionally and repeatedly assume and then dissociate their explicit connections with Universal Identity. The details and demonstration are left to the development of the text. It is important to emphasize that there are no promises of ideas such as heaven or nirvana or definitive instructions for realization. However the metaphysics does show the limitless nature of the Universe that will be experienced and that there is no part of the Universe that is essentially another kind of world—the limitless variety is ultimately connected even though extension and duration are also without limit The metaphysics shows that every individual will live the process described above. It will be seen to be reasonable to expect that intelligent application will significantly enhance efficiency and enjoyment. However this is not a guarantee. There will be experience of heaven but there will also be great pain and challenge and then there will be periods where, as for many individuals in our world, life is a simple feat of endurance even when of hope Still, the challenge and possibilities are exciting. What is revealed in the Universal Metaphysics shows the Universe and our Being in it to be far greater than generally imagined before; and it demonstrates the truth of this vision The metaphysics reveals the universal nature of a Journey in Being as a journey that is given for all individuals. It is a journey whose challenge includes seeing and seizing what is given The narrative, especially the metaphysics, uses common words such as ‘Being’ and ‘Universe’ and ‘Void’ and even ‘metaphysics’ (there is a gulf between the meaning of metaphysics as used in philosophy and a common meaning of metaphysics as study of the occult). However, the meanings used in the narrative are very specific and are carefully specified by definition; and meanings are brought out by proof and example. What is true of the individual terms is true of the metaphysics itself. The concepts stand in definite and articulated relation that is clearly specified. If the reader would understand and use the system, he or she will have to attend to the meanings specified here. Since the metaphysics is ultimate it is expected that meanings shall go far beyond previous use The various meanings were not fixed in advance. There is no dictionary that sets the meanings. The individual meanings and the meaning of the system emerged as the system was iteratively refined. Criteria for the system included internal coherence and agreement with experience which included direct experience and valid human knowledge. Meaning is set and stabilized in use—in interaction with the world of things and ideas. In the process, meanings—even the meaning of ‘metaphysics’—came into focus and definiteness. This definiteness was possible on account of the net system of understanding being definite and ultimate (and this explains why in the modern climate of specialization and—in philosophy—of piecemeal study, there is no clear understanding of the nature of metaphysics or the important concepts of metaphysics) At the core of this new and ultimate system lies the assertion: The Universe has no limits. This seems to imply that any concept that potentially refers to something shall be realized. However there are illogical ideas and the implication should be modified: provided that it satisfies Logic, any concept is realized (‘Logic’ denotes to the new conception referred to above and its meaning and use in this context are developed in the text). A more precise statement of the assertion regarding the satisfaction of Logic will be seen to be: The Universe is the object or referent of Logic. How is it possible that the Universe has no limits but is subject to Logic? This is because Logic refers to our conceptions: Logic is a constraint that guarantees realism of our conceptions but is not a limit on the Universe itself. Among meanings that are crucial are the meanings of the terms ‘limit’ and ‘Logic’; and among distinctions that are crucial is the distinction between a concept and the object, if any, to which it refers The reader may find his or her intuition taxed as a new vision comes into perspective. The reader who expects to see—and therefore sees—nothing but a piece meal presentation of common ideas will be frustrated by lack of comprehension. The reader who understands that a new vision is being revealed will be rewarded by patience as the vision is built up and as the transition is made from one world view (based in myth, religion, common experience, science, or prior metaphysics) to a new and ultimate view that is immensely more powerful than the sum of the prior views and that agrees with that sum in its domain of validity Execution of a process of realization lies in a journey of transformation that is driven in part by ideas (the metaphysics and its mesh with traditional knowledge and traditional systems of transformation). Ideas make for efficiency and appreciation but in themselves they do not realize full transformation; transformation of Being is necessary to realization. Thus the text or narrative has two main parts, (1) Ideas and (2) Journey. Transformation is emphasized in ‘Journey’ which is driven by a mesh of metaphysics, tradition, experience, experiment, and risk Earlier, I mentioned objections and responses. An essential source of search for objections is doubt; in removing doubt, the responses strengthen the foundation and further the application of the metaphysics. In the development so far I have not been able to remove all doubt. However the resulting system is not therefore irrational (it is internally and externally consistent and coherent); instead it is perhaps not absolutely certain—I use the word ‘perhaps’ to emphasize that the status regarding certainty is itself is not certain The metaphysics therefore remains—at least—immensely powerful, useful and suggestive; and in this it is not different than any other significant human endeavor. We imbue many endeavors with certainty but in the end, after all the extant analyses of science and mathematics and logic, there are illusions of certainty but there is no absolute certainty except in absolutely trivial cases. Given this situation what are we left with when we cast all illusions aside? What remains is a choice among positions such as (a) the neutral—that is just the way it is (b) nihilism and (c) positive faith Here faith is not blind belief in dogma or the absurd: it is not belief at all. FAITH is that attitude, always adaptive and always adaptable, that has as its intent the greatest outcome of action The net process is a Journey in Being |