|
About Journey in Being Anil Mitra © 2010 About the author Anil Mitra—I am the author of this website and its essays. I live in Northern California. My passions are ideas and transformation, the world—especially nature, and people Divisions of the document
Origins of the idea of a journey ‘Everything has changed and nothing has changed’ Logic, theory of objects, and mathematics Thoughts on the future of science and Logic Concerning the implications of science Concerning intuition, insight, mystic vision, speculation and proof Forms of the fundamental principle of metaphysics Guide to the Journey in being website Guide to the Journey in being narrative
About Journey in BeingJourney in BeingJourney in Being is a journey of transformation in being and discovery in ideas. It is also the name of this website and its collection of essays and other information about the Journey. Journey in Being is presented as an original contribution to the human endeavor in the areas of ideas and transformation of being Outline of this articleThe first part of the article is about Journey in being. The outer range of the work is set up in Origins of the idea of a journey, The aim of the journey (the highest in ideas and being,) and Framework, and made explicit in Metaphysics and cosmology—the central or fundamental principle of the Universal metaphysics: there are no ultimate limits to (human) being: the limits of our experience are real (physical, biological...) but not ultimate (‘Everything has changed and nothing has changed’ is a metaphorical statement of implication of the metaphysics.) Now that the metaphysics has been presented, it may be more meaningful to talk of the meaning of the ‘highest:’ this is done in On ethics and aesthetics (and may be refined as part of but shall ever remain in process.) Range of the journey defines the envelope of the journey. Some accomplishments in ideas and transformation and progress so far in transformation are outlined in Implications and contribution through Logic, theory of objects, and mathematics, Science and Thoughts on the future of science and Logic, Method, Religion and Faith. Method emphasizes the idea that our methods are not absolute and not a priori to there fields of application; scientific method arises with science and is sharpened in its development; Logic arises in primitive deduction and attempts to improve upon it; method and content are interwoven. Faith is followed by sources of Inspiration which are integral to the journey and its narratives. Finally, in An open life, there is a brief statement of my attitude in light of my experiences and discoveries There are two supplements: The first supplement explores proofs of the metaphysics and related concerns. Its sections are: Concerning the implications of science in which the main goal is to show that science does not contradict the Universal metaphysics, Proof, Doubt, Alternate proofs, and Forms of the fundamental principle of metaphysics The second supplement has two Guides—Guide to the Journey in being website and Guide to the Journey in being narrative, and a section on Sources for the ideas Origins of the idea of a journeyThe origins of Journey in Being are personal—in my ambitions, passions, and interests; in this personal sense the journey is my life: but less—explicit and complete self-knowledge is improbable (in the metaphysics later developed this will be seen to be a ‘normal’ though not ultimate limit;) and more: (my) discoveries have revealed universal aspects of possibility and actuality and journey as a universal way of realization for individual and community (it is implicit that I want to share this process, that I seek to share, that I believe that sharing will enhance the process as well as my experience of it.) The word ‘journey’ is used to emphasize that (a) many paths or ways are tried and many abandoned, (b) process and experience are significant and not all process is oriented toward an end, (c) ends or goals are not fixed but emerge with process. I did not initially think in terms of a journey; I began to use that word when, after many trials and shifting means and aims, it emerged as appropriate The word ‘being’ is used because (a) It is instrumental in developing the metaphysics (below) that illuminates the process. I experimented with a number of metaphysical paradigms—matter, process, mind or idea—before the discovery, described in the section Metaphysics and cosmology, of what is essentially a ‘paradigm of no paradigm.’ ‘Being’ is one of the concepts that is instrumental to the development and its power derives from its neutrality: it makes no prior commitment to the kinds of thing that inhabit the Universe; thus, although, use of ‘being’ suggests a paradigm, there is, in fact, no paradigm. The metaphysics revealed, in a sense described later, that it is ever incomplete as a system of ideas and that the completion requires eternal engagement in the transformation of one’s being (which entails transformations in identity.) Therefore, ‘being’ is also used because (b) The process concerns the entire individual or group Early, my goals were tacit—an adventure in the realms of ideas and the world. In our modern worldview we tend to think that our lives have no aim other than those that we collectively assign or ascribe to it. The metaphysics revealed, in resonance with Plato’s Ideas, that there are Universal aspects to the aims of being; in contrast to Plato’s thought, however, these aims are revealed in the metaphysics to reside in this world (Universe) and not in another: there is but one world The aim of the journeyThe central aim is to discover and experience the highest in ideas and being that is available to human being. The word ‘highest’ is used metaphorically; and its meaning is not given in advance; nor is it merely assigned; it is part of the discovery and creation. Although this meaning is not given before discovery, it is easy to conceive some general frameworks for it. The immediate world is essential to the journey as ground and inspiration; achievement of the ambition cannot neglect this world; however, the common conception of ‘this world’ is not definite and it is seen in the metaphysics below that what we commonly consider to be this world is an infinitesimal fraction of the Universe and that there is no essential boundary between ‘this world’ and the ‘beyond.’ Similarly, and this follows from my intuition as well as from the metaphysics discussed below, I see no absolute distinction between a ‘spirit’ or ‘spiritual’ world and an everyday world: there are distinctions but these ‘worlds’ are at least interlaced, without absolute boundaries, and spirituality or a religious life are (should be, I think) manifest in the everyday even if invoked by special ritual on special days FrameworkOne framework for realization of the aim of the journey is the envelope of all human possibility—the journey will lie within this envelope; naturally this is not known in advance but naming it is a first step in discovery. A second framework is the envelope of possibility of all being; this envelopes the first framework and the journey. What is the relation between the two frameworks? In the beginning I was inclined to think that human possibility must be significantly less than that of all being. Later reflection showed this thought to be wrong. Why? Does not this mean that in some sense the individual transcends all death? How can that be? The study of the outer framework is metaphysics; therefore my thoughts turned to metaphysics. I use metaphysics as knowledge of things as they are: in this sense metaphysical knowledge is immediate rather than remote. The very possibility of such knowledge has been questioned: an immediate reason that it may be in doubt is simple: knowledge and object are distinct and therefore there is nothing logically inherent in knowledge that makes it perfectly faithful to things-as-they-are; the issue is addressed below (because we have some success in negotiating our environment we must have some adaptation to it and this adaptation is reflected in that some of our knowledge must be ‘sufficiently faithful’ in some sense.) The metaphysics that I developed concerns metaphysical knowledge of the Universe as a whole (rather than in all its details) and reveals that the two envelopes are identical and that there is no limit to the extension, duration, and variety of being; and it shows an approach to answering the questions just raised Metaphysics and cosmologyThere are individuals, including thinkers, who, from practical concerns, regard metaphysics as idle. The interest in metaphysics, however, seems to be a function of kind of personality: some are attracted to it, some unmoved, and others, perhaps, are repelled Is metaphysics idle? I have the following reflections on this issue. First, it seems true that we all have some tacit metaphysics. If I think ‘there is no soul’ and someone else thinks ‘there is a soul’ we are both thinking metaphysical thoughts. But to think these thoughts we must have some idea of what ‘soul’ means; that is a metaphysical thought as well and, if we are to have a satisfactory answer to it, we may want to develop a metaphysics or, at least, to think some explicit metaphysics: a metaphysics. A metaphysics? Does this not suggest that many metaphysics are possible and that the choice of metaphysics, then, is rather arbitrary? It may be arbitrary but is not necessarily so for we may develop discriminatory power; this is precisely the case in the present developments: I develop and demonstrate a metaphysics which is therefore not speculative and which is shown to be the one and only true metaphysics. A second thought on the idleness of metaphysics is that whereas speculative metaphysical systems of the past may be idle in that they lack implications for ‘this world,’ it does not follow that all metaphysics lacks implication… and perhaps the only way to know whether metaphysics is idle is to attempt to develop and analyze metaphysical system. The present metaphysics is shown to have implications that are immense in magnitude In the history of thought, speculative metaphysics and even the possibility of metaphysics have been doubted and even claimed impossible. However, in the developments: 1. It has been shown that metaphysics as knowledge of being-as-being is possible in the case of the Universal Objects: Universe-as-a-whole and the Void and others, and that there is one metaphysics (the idea of being is, roughly, ‘what is there’ and is instrumental in the development because, unlike use of matter or mind or other definite substance, it allows the deep nature of the world—and whether the world has a deep nature—to emerge with study: it avoids the potential error of commitment at outset of study) 2. The criticism of speculative metaphysical systems of the past, e.g. the Absolute Idealism of Hegel which stands as a paradigmatic example of speculative metaphysics, is that they are merely speculative. Another term for ‘speculative idea’ is hypothesis formation. Speculation or hypothesis formation is essential to creation of new knowledge; and if they are demonstrated, the criticism of ‘mere speculation’ is addressed. Confidence in the demonstration depends its kind: scientific theories are generalizations and therefore subject to replacement. It seems likely that any detailed account of phenomena must be of this type. However, I employ a kind of abstraction which suppresses detail and allows perfect knowledge (more on this later in Method.) I used this approach in developing a metaphysics—a Universal metaphysics (its core concepts include the Universe as all being without reference to its detail and the Void conceived as the absence of being.) The metaphysics that I have developed and demonstrated has been shown to be explicitly ultimate in depth (foundation) and implicitly ultimate with regard to extension, duration, and variety of being; and that the extension, duration and variety are without limit. A metaphysics can be expressed in a variety of ways and developed in various directions and differing levels of detail; except these superficial differences, there can be at most one valid or correct knowledge-of-things-as-they-are—i.e., at most one metaphysics. Since the Universal metaphysics has been demonstrated, it is the one metaphysics 3. Metaphysics is knowledge-of-things-as-they-are (Aristotle used the phrase being-as-being.) What is the variety of being? That is the province of cosmology. Roughly, metaphysics concerns depth, cosmology concerns breadth; but the distinction is not fundamental. If there is no limit to the extension, duration, and variety of being then to every concept of an object there must correspond some object (not necessarily in our cosmos but somewhere in the infinite Universe.) Consider, however, the concept of an object that is simultaneously a brick and not a brick; clearly that does not exist (the law of non-contradiction from logic.) Therefore the limit on concepts is that they should not violate logic. However, every law of logic has been questioned, even the law of non-contradiction which is regarded as the most basic of the fundamental laws of logic. Therefore, invert the reasoning: regard Logic, independently of the metaphysics, to be what concepts must satisfy in order to have the possibility of reference. Then, from the Universal metaphysics, if a concept is ‘Logical,’ it must have an object. Since it is defined we may ask Is Logic empty until proven otherwise? No, for the classical and modern logics must be at least approximations to Logic (and there are good reasons to regard the main logical systems as precise Logic: e.g., there is a proof of soundness and completeness for the propositional calculus) 4. Here are some examples of variety: they follow from the conclusion regarding Logic. Our cosmos is but one of infinitely many: a speck (a speck that, in our imagination, often takes on the role of the Universe.) Cosmological systems without end: identical to, similar to, different and immensely different from ours. Every concept that we have has a realization somewhere (except that Logic cannot be violated by the concepts; this ‘example’ was written before I inserted the previous item#3.) There are ‘ghost’ cosmological systems passing through ours with barely a whisper. Karmic places. Biblical realizations (all of them except the issue of Logic; this gives no support to Biblical realization in our cosmos.) Vedantic places: individual identity ‘equals’ Universal identity and therefore death is not absolute; peaks and dissolutions (subject to Logic.) I.e., there are souls and there is Soul but, no final Soul; and while this provides some conception of ‘soul,’ it says little on the nature of soul except, that recall is necessary to eternal identity and, therefore, perhaps, that it is some kind of repository for aspects of recall that (assuming that repository is necessary to recall.) Unicorns; every bestiary. Unending adventure... (All subject to Logic which means that there are no actual limits but that some things that we imagine are unrealizable; further, however, we do not know what the absence limits allows in its Universal sense) 5. Thus the metaphysics implies a new general cosmology (distinct from the physical cosmology of our immediate or empirical cosmos.) What has been presented here is a small fraction of the actual developments 6. What we regard intuitively as real, e.g. everyday behavior of things and the laws of physics, are ‘normal’ in that we live as part of a small phase of the Universe where this ‘real’ is a local and contingent but not necessary pattern. In fact, there is Universal interaction over sufficient time, the only Universal ‘law’ is Logic, there is Universal interaction over sufficient time, and the idea of a boundary between ‘this world’ and ‘beyond’ is artificial and contingent. There are local and contingent patterns of behavior that, rather than ruling out miraculous exceptions to local physics, makes them improbable. An example of the idea of the normal is that death is final only in a normal sense. The normal is relative to our knowledge; in 1850 AD flying machines would have seemed super-normal and transmutation of atomic nuclei had not been imagined 7. In consequence of the realization of all Logical concepts, individual identity participates in universal identity which realizes a sequence of peak forms without end in time or variety and that peaks are followed by dissolutions 8. The individual will experience adventure without end; this adventure and its enjoyment is immensely enhanced by intelligent trying and experimentation in thought and being; there will be pain; pain cannot be avoided and while pain is not sought, and some pain should be avoided, attempts to avoid all pain are counterproductive and even worsen pain ‘Everything has changed and nothing has changed’‘Everything has changed and nothing has changed’ is a metaphorical statement of the revelation by the metaphysics that the Universe is eternal, infinite in extension, and of unlimited variety while preserving valid knowledge of the local world On ethics and aestheticsWhat is this highest that was spoken of earlier? It is not something that I possess fully: it is an aim; and therefore I do not know that it exists (thinking in common terms.) It is connected with the ideas of ethics and aesthetics—with values. It does not exclude the immediate—higher vs. lower is not a dichotomy Plato says that there are ideal forms (Forms) that inhabit an ideal (Platonic) world. Plato thinks in terms of the Good. Plato equivocates but let us speak simply (in referring a position to another thinker my purpose is acknowledgement and inspiration rather than authority.) The Good is the highest form. In this world we try to discover and approximate the Good What is the Good? Perhaps we do not know it but we may think that it includes our values: love, justice, health, satisfaction of basic needs, learning, honor, respect, participation in mutual governance, truthfulness, the other, beauty in the world (art, people, nature,) the search for and creation of the higher in ideas and being… In what realms do we encounter the concepts of the highest or the good? We come from a perspective of the modes of being as: matter, nature, society and state, psyche and mind, and Universe In the metaphysics I developed and demonstrated (discussed above) it turns out that there is one world, one Universe. There are forms (see discussion of objects below) but they inhabit this world. The Universe is immensely larger and more varied than we commonly think (in religious, scientific, and philosophical cosmologies.) Whatever forms there are, are in this one Universe. They exist. They are not ideals merely awaiting discovery, they are Objects awaiting creative realization (by beings including human beings) I do not know that this is different from Plato’s idea: perhaps Plato was expressing metaphorically what I (am logically able to) express literally; this was because Plato did not have access to the Universal metaphysics outlined above Regardless of the fact and facts of the metaphysics, we both talk in terms of ideals: for Plato the ideal is in another world—a world that does not have the imperfection of this world—from the perspective of ‘my’ metaphysics the ideal is in this Universe (and while there is pain in the immediate, it is not clear that we ever transcend pain; and if there is no transcendence of pain ever, then pain and other negative but untranscended values cannot be signs of imperfection—on account of the metaphysics untranscended and cannot be transcended have the same meaning.) Thus the present metaphysics discredits the notion of ‘imperfection’ of the world; but it shows, not only that there is the possibility and necessity of movement toward the Good, it shows that there is no end to this movement. The journey starts with the local world and the local good; and it aims to expand and refine our local knowledge, our local being, and our local good. It suggests that the higher Good may be something that we can conceive but do not yet recognize; we are in a dual process of discovery and realization of being (which includes knowledge and value) Under Christian morality ethics and aesthetics become separate. They are not: there is a continuum. We might call that continuum either aesthetics or ethics. I prefer aesthetics. Acting and thinking morally is a kind of beauty or aesthetic and is not set apart from other kinds. Also, metaphysics, aesthetics, epistemology, and politics (mutual and principled governance) are not to be set apart. We see the join of metaphysics and epistemology in the development of the metaphysics and its framing of the disciplines of the world (the local disciplines.) And aesthetics-ethics is not distinct from metaphysics. Superficially a distinction has been made between ‘is’ and ‘ought;’ but this has been debated. There are two joins—a practical join: If I ought to do something then both the ought (moral or norm) and its principle (aesthetic or good) is in the world; and a metaphysical join: the good… as an Object. This higher join: what shall we call it? Not epistemology; not politics even though politics is perhaps preferable to epistemology. The alternatives seem to be either aesthetics or metaphysics. That aesthetics could be considered means: aesthetics cannot be merely about questions of action and choice as if they were a dangling appendage to the world. It would be an expansion of meaning of aesthetics to choose but not a stretch; and it would be suggestive. Metaphysics already includes aesthetics-ethics-politics-cosmology-the form of human being; at least for now I incline to metaphysics Range of the journeyThe metaphysics and related topics which are expressed as ideas show the necessity of the journey. However, ideas are incomplete realizations and do not show the how of realization. Therefore (1) Transformation of being (and identity) is essential as realization and (2) Experiments in ideas and transformation and their interaction are essential to effective realization. The ground of the journey is this world and the ideas include those of others as well as experiment (3) I have started a set of experiments that is designed, first, to begin in this ground, and second, to be in process toward the ultimate. Some remarkable achievements have been made but the journey so far remains very much in ‘this world’ and, of course, in-process. (However, ‘this world’ is not definite and depends on knowledge: today we achieve the alchemist's dream of transmutation.) Examples of what have been achieved include personality transformation, charisma, healing, mystic vision, and the demonstration of the ultimate metaphysics A concern that arises in relation to realization of the ultimate is this: Is it not better to focus on the problems of the world? Here are some responses. (1) There is no absolute distinction between this world and any ‘beyond;’ what we think of as beyond the immediate may have interventions and implications in the immediate (2) In human history what have been thought of as idle pursuits have born fruit (this recalls Bertrand Russell’s essay In Praise of Idleness) (3) In my concept the way begins in the immediate (4) Even though the chance of my (human) realization is small, the reward may be great (I emphasize again that the Universal metaphysics is not at all inconsistent with what is true in our traditions of ideas) Implications and contributionImplications and potential contributions are discussed in this and some subsequent sections 1. The ideas and transformations described above. The metaphysics is momentous in a number of ways: it stands against two hundred and fifty years of doubt; and it restores metaphysics to prime philosophy (epistemology is found to be an aspect of metaphysics.) The metaphysical achievements include resolution and illumination of all significant problems of metaphysics including the fact-nature-and kinds of being, mind-matter, and space-time-being. As an example, one of the ‘classic’ problems of metaphysics is Why there is being at all—i.e., why there is something rather than nothing? This remains a puzzle in modern thought; Heidegger called it the fundamental problem of metaphysics. Since the variety of the Universe is without limit it must enter ‘Void’ states; similarly, it cannot remain in such states and therefore whenever there is nothing there will be something (and vice-versa.) The metaphysics renders the ‘fundamental’ problem trivial 2. Clarification that philosophy, has a subject matter in the world but that this does not reject the more recent ideas of philosophy as clarification of ideas, as edification, as more about the how than the what of thinking and other ideas such as philosophy as challenging readers to think, examine their conduct and their lives (and providing immense insights without instructing in the manner of a recipe) 3. A new concept (one that subsumes the prior) of Logic 4. Light and suggestion regarding the human endeavor including the nature of religion and science and every significant division of the academic disciplines—implications for science and its nature, Logic and mathematics, the idea of method, and religion follow. Some implications for the sciences are discussed in the section Guides > Guide to the Journey in being narrative 5. A map of human possibility and actuality that shows that there are no limits to human being or to being (except Logic; and that the ‘normal’ limits are not true limits but difficult barriers) Logic, theory of objects, and mathematicsYou may have noticed that I capitalize the term Logic because I employ a different concept: Logic is what concepts must satisfy so as to have reference in the world (it is shown from the metaphysics that the definition is not circular, that it is not trivial, and that it subsumes logic as deduction, and that Logic is the one Universal law.) This concept of Logic is perhaps the ultimate and most mature It turns out that except simple cases (propositional, predicate calculi...) Logic is empirical: it is important to note that it is not simply empirical in the way of natural science whose object is the material world but it is empirical in that its object is the relation between concepts and the world (but: it is empirical after all in that it must experiment with symbolic systems and that the relation between concept and object is in the world; note also that it is shown that this subsumes traditional notions of logic and traditional and modern logics) Thus, with the exception of trivial cases, Logic is not certain but is perhaps the highest of certainties. It is important to emphasize, that this notion of Logic includes the older and does not detract from the necessity of those logics that are certain Discussion now turns to the notion of ‘object.’ The idea of object is that it is the ‘actual thing.’ Since our knowledge is not the object, the establishment of what ‘things’ are objects is not trivial. Because Heidegger's fundamental problem has been rendered trivial, I regard the question What exists? to be the fundamental problem of metaphysics. The problem is resolved non-trivially by dividing ‘objects’ into those that are perfectly known (the Universal objects above: demonstration of perfect knowledge is in the developments) and those that are adequately known (and that cannot and therefore need not be known perfectly) There is a modern problem of objects: some objects such as bricks are concrete (or particular) and others such as numbers are abstract. Objects such as number are regarded in modern thought as not ‘residing’ in space and time—i.e. as not being spatio-temporal. The problem is What is the nature of abstract Objects? Since, excepting ilLogical concepts all concepts have reference, even the abstract objects must exist in the Universe (in space and time: it is not that abstract objects are not spatio-temporal; rather their spatio-temporality is suppressed; incidentally shows that there is at root one kind of object and that there is one world—the world is not divided into a world of tangible things, a world of mental things, and an ideal world of Forms) Are there implications for mathematics? Regard mathematics as the study of possible form. Today the dominant approach to mathematics is to regard it as an abstract study expressed symbolically. First, it is obvious that no symbolic study can be guaranteed to capture all aspects of a (mathematical form.) Second, because objects and therefore forms (Forms) reside in the one Universe, even if vast tracts of our mathematics are symbolic necessities, there is no guarantee that mathematics shall ever transcend the empirical and the uncertainty of the empirical Science… and metaphysicsIn the next section, we conclude a dual concept of science as tentative-and-universal and local-and-factual (integrates the early and the recent views with support from the metaphysics.) As empirical and detailed, science can never achieve complete knowledge of the universe but achievement may be without end. The theories of science are necessarily conceptual; to be practical they must also be empirical and local; therefore, science is a beginning of truth but not the truth (truth does not imply perfection but the capture of patterns.) Perhaps the first comprehensive and systematic scientific theory was the mechanics of Isaac Newton. That theory was so successful that it came to be regarded as universal and necessarily true. It is clear that even if the nature of scientific theory has not changed since Newton, our views regarding it have changed What is the relation between science and metaphysics? It may seem that there is conflict. The older view of science in which the geometry of the Universe is seen as Euclidean, in which time flows linearly from negative to positive infinity, in which gravitation is Universal and the mechanics is Newtonian has conflict with the metaphysics. Consider, next, a positivistic view of nature in which science reveals what Objects are in the world and that Objects that are not in science are not in the world: this view has conflict with the metaphysics. However, there is no conflict between the metaphysics and the dual concept of science described above. In fact, the metaphysics requires that the local patterns revealed in physical law; and it gives support to the dual view of science Thoughts on the future of science and LogicThe discussion of science in this section is about scientific method rather than the content of some future physics, biology, or psychology; and it is a look at some reasonable possibilities rather than an attempt to predict some definite future for method Early in the history of science, some thinkers spoke hopefully of an inductive method that would derive theories from data as firmly as in deductive logic. Present (mainstream) views of scientific method emphasize the making and testing of creative and conceptually formulated hypotheses which do not receive universal confirmation but may be disconfirmed by data that does not agree with prediction Here, however, it has been revealed that if scientific theories are intended to be universal then they will almost certainly be disconfirmed—this follows from the metaphysics; on the other had if they are regarded as local then they may be true—they reveal actual local patterns even if imperfectly and this follows from simple reflection (e.g. the significant though not infinite range of application of Newton's mechanics) In the views just discussed—the early and the recent views and their synthesis—science is a conceptual system designed to conform to some part of the world It is not clear that this model fits the field of sociology: this is because of difficulties in formulation of concepts and because of the irregular behavior of social entities. I have suggested that the ‘study’ of society may overcome this problem by partially withdrawing from the idea of a removed theory and by participation of the ‘analyst’ in the field of application (which implies that objectivity will lack clear meaning) This approach has been used by ethnobotanists working with ‘native’ peoples: however it has been argued that the approach would not be applicable in our modern complex world; I have given arguments to the contrary (What is participatory democracy?) Since even the ‘mature’ sciences are likely to reach some limit at which theory may be too complex or computation to unwieldy, perhaps this model may emerge for all science (natural, social, and psychology) at some time in the future Discussion now turns to Logic. If, regarding the earlier discussion on Logic, a reader should have sensed that it is suggested that Logic is more, perhaps infinitely more, than the traditional and modern logics, that reader will be correct (the trivial cases are certain in that they do not produce new knowledge but only what is implicit in premises; and trivial does not mean insignificant because what is implicit may be hard to see or make explicit.) I do not, however, have a good notion of what this field may be beyond our actual logics and beyond the fact that it seems that there is a field and that there are suggestions that the field is infinite and labyrinthine; and there are suggestions that the division between Logic and science (between necessary truth and contingent truth) is not clear-cut—this suggestion comes from realizing that Logic has an empirical side of a certain kind though not in the way of natural science and from Logic as Universal law. It is important to emphasize that these suggestions or tentative conclusions are not the imposition of some intuition but even though seen in intuition, they also flow from the metaphysics Again, it may be emphasized that (1) Regarded as local, the laws and theories of science have truth (2) Except the trivial cases where conclusions are implicit in premises Logic is perhaps the highest of factual certainties and (3) The boundary between science and Logic is not sharp MethodThere is a tradition of thought regarding method in the modern era—the era that begins with the end of scholasticism which is perhaps the use of thought toward demonstrating and elaborating Christian Faith and Dogma. Discussion so far has included implicit considerations on method. The ideas of science, its method, and deduction and Logic have been reconceived. Science is not as uncertain as twentieth century philosophy held; Logic is not as certain as has been held from antiquity. I now encounter a question: while Logic is or includes deduction as a method, is there a method of the deduction of Logic? If there is such a method then we would be interested in the question of the origin of the second order method; and so on; so perhaps there is no method. Alternatively, if there is such method it must have empirical elements including the analysis of experimental symbolic or grammatical relations (and again we encounter the intrusion of uncertainty into Logic.) Thus Logic descends from its high place in the a priori; but perhaps it must for as relations among symbolic forms which are in the world (theory of objects) Logic is study of (a specialized) aspect of the world. We therefore find that Logic is not a priori even though it may seem to be; and we find that method and content develop together: the application and origin of Logic, science and its method There is further discussion of method in Guides > Guide to the Journey in being narrative I am also interested in a method for my journey: the journey. The metaphysics shows its necessity but at most suggests ‘how:’ the how of realization. The ideas of experiment, building on foundations, incremental process and learning, shared process and learning, developing tradition are automatic suggestions. Does being have a dynamic? Perhaps. It is an old idea in what may be a new realm. Have an idea for change; try it out; learn; be open to ideas from all sources including tradition, intuition and reflection; try again; learn from the process, not only about specific ideas but about the process itself. In the small successes I recorded earlier, I noticed and reflected on and developed the such method and its idea; again method and content are not entirely distinct; I gave this ‘method’ the label: dynamics of being ReligionThe metaphysics shows that there is an unending adventure in truth and being (because of the absence of true limits and that being can and will access every possible as actual.) This adventure does not distinguish the sacred from the mundane, the spirit from matter. The individual can undertake the adventure as a private enterprise. The enterprise can be shared in communities and cumulative learning recorded; the insights, experiences, and actions of some individuals may be especially significant. The shared adventure may be labeled ‘religion’ This religion is not dogmatic and is not defined by the practice and envelope of the traditional religions and related practices—dogma and set practice abort this religion. This religion is a conception: the experimental search through ideas and being, for all being, and by being in all its aspects and ways of being and knowing. The concept recognizes that traditional religion has significantly aborted the true (and that, such abortion is perhaps the rule.) It is not only about the ultimate but also the present. How to live now is illuminated by the ultimate. The issue of pain is addressed. The particularities of human nature and psyche are addressed. There is celebration of joy, sorrow, work and overcoming of self, love and relationship; and exploration of depth and variety of psyche, being, and morals The address is both abstract and iconic and metaphorical (so as to reach a wider audience.) The address is literal and metaphorical-symbolic (so as to reach all wo/men.) It is calm and angry. It advertises itself. In this meaning, religion may include science; the boundaries of science do not define the boundaries of religion In order to be practical, religion must include proximate knowledge which includes science but is not limited to it—e.g., morals and ethics are part of religion but these are practical and while these may be our best, it is nearly certain that they are capable of improvement and that the ethics of a much ‘higher’ phase of being might be quite different from ours perhaps even to the point of having elements that are difficult to appreciate Our proximate science and ethics will be tentative rather than dogmatic; our explorations of Universe and psyche via science and story will be similarly tentative and experimental If we expand our view of science to the one discussed above in ‘Thoughts on the future of science,’ then the scope of science may approach that of the scope of the concept of religion just presented. In this view, what happens to the meanings of science, religion, philosophy and other terms that describe our modes of knowing may be described as enlargement rather than alteration. Within the full domain there are particular activities that arise in practice and as the result of reflexive thought FaithIt is clear that I am using common words with uncommon meaning (which meaning is made necessary by the metaphysics.) This is one source of difficulty in understanding this work. Other sources of difficulty in understanding and acceptance are (a) the magnitude of the developments—not a logical concern but a reason to explore doubt (b) apparent violations of commonly accepted views of the world and (c) doubts regarding the proof of the metaphysics. It is shown that there are no violations of what is valid in the common views. In the development of the metaphysics it is demonstrated that the Void (the absence of all being including entity and law) exists; I have given a number of alternate proofs but doubt remains. The main consequence of the existence of the Void is the limitless extension, duration and variety of being—every concept that satisfies Logic has reference Here is a plausible argument: the contingent limits of our experience and intuition concern the entities of the world; however, there is no reason that they should apply to the absence of entities which, therefore, can generate any conceivable entity—provided that Logic is not violated (this is not one of the proofs.) It is essential to note that even if the proofs fail, the result regarding absence of limits results in no actual contradiction of the facts, common views of the world, science, or logic. Since the conclusions are so momentous there is a case to regard the theorem regarding limits as a hypothesis upon which to base action Then, Faith is the attitude that is productive of the greatest outcome (clearly, this is not the common meaning of faith; and different persons will interpret this attitude differently; my interpretation includes that it is of immense value to devote some energy to action under the hypothesis) InspirationJourney in Being is about ideas and transformations; it is also a narrative—it is pertinent to include an account of my inspirational sources. The impersonal style of modern technical writing has functions such as elimination of what is irrelevant to technical development. However, earlier thoughts on the future of science suggest that even in domains currently regarded as ‘technical,’ there may be a place, perhaps in the future, to also emphasize narrative as integral to process—and not merely as inspirational, biographical, historical, or anecdotal interest A first source of inspiration is the Universe itself, in all aspects that I know: especially as a source of wonder. The Universe is all being and if a creator is external to what is created there can be no god-creator of the Universe: but one part of the Universe can be creative in the process of another (even in imperfection) Even as immortal and imperfect, we are the result of creation (regarding evolution as creation) and have acquired creative powers even if they do not (yet) come close to the intrinsic power of all being... It is a mistake to think that our power, whatever its magnitude, is other than the power even though not equal to the power in magnitude: the liberal thinker who rejects the God of Christian faith continues to live in the humility that is inspired by belief in a God who is infinitely more powerful than man, who is our ruler, and who demands obedience and reverence and humility in His presence (this is of course not an argument for false pride) Any gods, mythic or real, are not absolutely remote but of a higher but accessible power. The mythic gods of Greece were not: all powerful, perfect, all graceful: they had human and superhuman powers; they lived in a dangerous world. A great God all powerful creator, a supreme fiction of dogmatic faith, supreme abortion of truth, encourages fictitious submission and acquiescence in humble love. These provide metaphor and anti-metaphor for our power: not all powerful, we partake of the power of being (source of contrast between Hellenic, Judaic and Christian worlds) Dreams have been an inspiration. A 1978 dream Earth was invaded by an alien swarm / Who left behind a deadly fallout / Humans went to live below / The surface of earth— / Shutting behind them doors of steel / I sought others—but found none… / / I lived by Mountains, Lakes / Winters, Snows and Red Sunsets / I sought for / And was able to arrive at / Some understanding of Truth / / Years later when / Survivors emerged, / I was able to communicate / What I had learned ||| The dream may have created or been the result of an impulse, an ambition; I think it was both: it was fed by and suggested a picture of the future Spring of 1989 I had a number of dreams similar to the following I am on land—a sun filled day with blue sky; a bridge leads across water: beautiful water: a cool calm blue-green: very mild swell, no waves or ruffles; I follow the bridge—in a car or on foot; the bridge sways—it is not structurally sound / There are assorted adventures; I reach an Island sometimes a stopping point, sometimes a place of comfort, friendship, security—I partake of these pleasures for a day, a night, perhaps more / A second bridge leads away; I continue on the second bridge; the bridge ends abruptly; it's broken end hangs in air or, alternatively, the bridge inclines down to deep water, to the ocean, and continues submerged / I continue; the water is calm, green, beautiful; there is a destination but I do not know what it is and I do not get to it ||| In 1989 I had finished Evolution and Design and felt a sense of accomplishment but also sensed incompleteness, a need for a new approach. The rather obvious but not necessary and not necessarily the only meaning: continue on; I do not know where I am going; it is or seems risky; but it is beautiful and safe (or the issue of safety is irrelevant or made null by the adventure Kinds of dreams I have often woken with a full poem in my mind. While not remarkable poetry, the poetry is far better than my waking poetic sense (so far.) Many nature dreams, power and powerlessness dreams, dreams of being among the stars. Repeated dreams: often in a forest—the same route in, crossing streams into mystical forest parts, being in a canopied area and in the canopy with lions below; dreams of singing or creating music with crowds in India or singing with native peoples in Africa while crossing sun-sparkled rivers—the beauty of the song is such that on waking it is as though I have just been inspired by a great concert… I think I learn: the world is beautiful, the Universe is wonderful—general encouragement on my journey—and, perhaps though of course perhaps not: I have talents that I do not know that I have (something to try) Nature has been inspiration—it inspires me every morning and during the day and the night; there is no need for a purpose beyond itself but, for me, it has one: many of my best ideas and intuitions owe to time in forests and mountains. In 1986 I conceived Evolution and Design over two weeks in the Trinity Alps of Northern California; this approach to understanding emphasized material process; later when I wanted to divest my thought of matter / process as base I thought equivalence of the Void and the Universe might provide a base (there is some support for the idea from the classical physics of matter energy fields;) in 1998, hiking in the Trinities I had an intuition, a peak and perhaps mystic experience, of oneness of myself and all things: but intuition is not proof; then, again in the mountains, in 2002 I had an intuition of how to prove the equivalence… The human tradition of ideas and transformation inspires and channels my thought—the creation of language in the remote past; the great ideas: although I conceive metaphysics, logic, faith, science... in different and enhanced form than in prior thought the root ideas are the same; these root ideas were not created in my thought; therefore, even if I have gone beyond and sometimes to the limit of thought, the process is channeled and inspired by prior thought and language Interaction with others is an inspiration: sometimes a random idea shared with me in passing provokes a productive line of thought, the fact of interaction gives me a sense of shared endeavor, other times a pointing to a source of ideas, other times criticism; even attacks have spurred me to improve my thought; but humanity is an inspiration in that my labor is, in part, for them: not for nothing I am an inspiration to myself. I do not mean that I admire myself or my accomplishments. I mean that there is some unspoken power that I feel and that cultivating this power enhances it. The power is not altogether ‘mine.’ It surprises me. How is it possible that I have even seen something of the infinite? The power is not talent or ability. I do not quite know the name of this power. It seems to be a power that in some way has tapped into the power of all being even though I do not yet fully know or understand it. I recognize two sides to it: that I accept almost no thought or position as final; and that there is some drive to ever go beyond where I am now, beyond what I may have achieved so far. I am part of all being; therefore I must partake of its power; I may abort that power but, still, I am part of it and it of me I said earlier that one of my ambitions is discovery and experience of the highest in ideas and being that is available to human being. We have seen that this is identical to the highest in being. This defines an envelope and some suggestions and process toward understanding this highest has been made. I do not know fully what is good; I have some ideas of it and am on the way; discovery is part of the unending process. The culture of my early life was that of a normal world: a world whose limits are prescribed rather as in secular thought and whose limits are often regarded as absolute; however the specific environment into which I was born—the family of my youth—was not dogmatic in such affairs and I inherited and cultivated this openness: the idea that there may be more than secular reality and vision. Arriving at the Universal metaphysics has been a journey. This metaphysics reveals a Universe without limit: infinitely larger than the ‘normal’ and secular universe. I stand in both worlds. My stance is not steadfast and I am sometimes confident of the ultimate vision; at other times I instinctively retreat to secular reality and I then remind myself of the greater real. Where do I stand on the transformational journey into the ultimate? If the ultimate is a mountain top shrouded with clouds and the normal life is in a distant valley that has no more than heard of the mountain, I have had a vision of the high point, I am at base camp, I do not know the path, I have not seen the peak through the clouds but I know it is there and I know ‘I’ will go there but I do not know when I will arrive (the metaphor is deficient in that a peak is a point while the ultimate includes all being) An open lifeI live under the idea that human and animal being and Universe are limitless; that I have no certainty regarding my knowledge of its laws and contents—that certainty regarding detail and variety is destructive of openness and abortive of experiment; and that the adventure of discovery is ever open ProofThe aim is to provide demonstration of the Universal metaphysics. It may be thought that science and common sense contradict the metaphysics or render it absurd. The first section addresses this thought. Although science is shown to not contradict or render the metaphysics absurd, it does not follow that subscription to the metaphysics is reasonable or not absurd. To render such subscription reasonable there should at least be a plausible argument for the metaphysics: a plausible argument has already been given The second section provides proof of the Universal metaphysics. Is it therefore reasonable to believe the metaphysics? If belief is mere belief or merely plausible subscription the answer is no! For proof is knowledge. If the reader accepts the proofs then the only position to maintain is I know that the Universal metaphysics is true Concerning the implications of scienceThe aim of this section is to respond, in greater detail than earlier, to the potential objection that science contradicts the Universal metaphysics It is not the purpose of this section to prove the metaphysics from science; I have not come up with such a proof and I am close to certain that such a proof is not possible (regarding science as currently understood) There are many people in the modern world who hold that the extension, duration, and variety of things in the Universe is as defined in modern cosmology (origins in a singularity sometimes called the big-bang, the state of the cosmos defined in terms of space-time-matter whose behavior is at least roughly described in Einstein’s theory of gravitation, and matter as various particles whose behavior is at least roughly described in quantum theory.) Many fundamentalists would object to this view and there are others who would doubt it. Still it is one standard view; some hold it implicitly; others—from academia and the general public—may hold it explicitly (there are of course academics including scientists who are religious fundamentalists) In his recent book The God Delusion (2006) Richard Dawkins argues that since almost everything in the known universe (matter, cosmos, life) is explained by science, it is almost certainly true that God does not exist. Undoubtedly Dawkins is thinking of God as conceived in the Bible or some similar scripture because if we thought of God as-the-power-in-all-things (a vague idea) his point would be rather irrelevant. I will therefore analyze Dawkins’ argument for a God-the-omnisiscient-omnipotent-creator-and-sustainer-of-the-universe (and for the present purpose I will forget my earlier trivial proof that if a creator is regarded as external to the creation then the Universe cannot have or have had a creator) Dawkins uses the phrase ‘almost certainly’ because his arguments do not disprove God’s existence with absolute certainty. What are the reasons to think that an argument from science almost certainly disproves God’s existence? One reason is the general principle called Ockham’s razor: simple arguments and arguments that make the least and or simplest assumptions are better. Dawkins argues reasonably that ‘God’ is an assumption (he dismantles the usual proofs of God’s existence, primarily the argument from design) and that God is a very complex assumption because in assuming God-the-creator we are assuming something more complex than what is created. A second reason that science may be held to almost certainly disprove the existence of God is that there remain gaps in scientific explanation: Why did the Universe come into being… or has it always been there? Why does our cosmos have the remarkable and seemingly immensely unlikely (e.g. life supporting) properties that it has? How did life originate? This doubt is not as significant as the first one Before discussing Dawkins’ arguments let us briefly consider some arguments for the existence of God on their own merits. First think of a time before the theory of evolution (I call it a theory even though as Ernst Mayr has pointed out in Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, 1988 that Darwin’s ‘theory’ has five major component theories.) At this time the argument from design may have seemed reasonable. This is the argument that there appears to be design but design in nature without a creator or designer seems improbable (‘if you found a watch in the desert, you would not think it had come spontaneously into existence.) What is reasonable about this argument in pre-evolutionary times? It is that it is the best explanation for a seemingly improbable phenomenon. There are problems with then concluding that there must be a designer. First, the phenomenon is only seemingly improbable; I do not know that ‘inert’ matter is as inert as it may seem. Second the phenomenon is perhaps at most improbable and not impossible. Third, the fact that it is the best explanation (if it is: even in pre-Darwin times there were evolutionary explanations that though not convincing were as good as the God explanation) does not mean that it is correct. It is not a scientific explanation: there is no ‘dialogue’ between theory and phenomena: it is a one shot explanation of a complex world in terms of a more complex God. So it is not even a good explanation: one criterion of a good explanation is that the basis of explanation should be something simple and, ideally, obvious. So: no explanation is better than the God explanation: there is no principle of understanding that explanations are necessary (tentative explanations are a good approach to good explanations provided that the tentative is not turned into dogma.) If we had to have an explanation then the ‘creator’ argument might have been a good one in, say, 1800 but even then there were competitors that, though imperfect, were perhaps better (e.g. Lamarckism: even though we do not accept Lamarckism it was a naturalistic and simple to complex explanation rather than a super-naturalistic complex to simple explanation.) I conclude, then, that the God explanation has never been a good one. If we now consider the particularities of the Bible: the particulars: creation in six days: a chosen people: a son who comes to redeem sin: a dying on a cross to save humankind: this God becomes more and more improbable. The early Christian theologians perform two kinds of intellectual sophistry: first sophisticated but unconvincing argument (the argument from design, the ontological argument) and, second, having ‘demonstrated’ an abstract God (the creator, the greatest being) the equation of the abstract to the Biblical God I worry about my own arguments: am I being merely sophisticated—or less? Do I substitute particular conclusions where what has been proved is general? I think the answer to the second question is clear: the Universal metaphysics admits unlimited variety: someone who seeks meaning in personified religion might criticize the metaphysics of being general where it might be particular (the criticism would not be logical; it might be that the metaphysics is too abstract and too general to appeal to many: but I have an answer to that: it is that, first, I have attempted to be true: and the metaphysics may provide a framework for myth or symbol: and, if anyone is to write that mythic or symbolic account, it will perhaps have to be someone other than me.) What of the concern with mere sophistication. The reader will have observed and may continue to observe that I have attempted to address points of sophistication: doubt and response: alternate proof: proof directions suggested: plausible accounts: alternate approaches—hypothesis, faith and experiment: the avoidance of the absurd—no inconsistency with science or logic or reflective common sense: years of build up intuition prior to the emergence of logic: never giving up entirely on doubt and arguing that even if the metaphysics is true, doubt remains an essential ingredient of process: that this is perhaps the order of being, of the Universe: plans to perform experiments myself: and, perhaps peripherally, the construction of a metaphysics-ontology-cosmology that sheds immense light on innumerable human and academic concerns If evolutionary theory is valid, the central argument for God, the argument from design loses what force it may seem to have. What, then, is the modern religious (fundamentalist) argument for God? A favorite ‘argument’ of creationists is to find holes in evolutionary theory. However, every ‘hole’ found by the creationists of which I am aware has been answered. Of course, evolutionists themselves should be the greatest critics of a theory of evolution for surviving criticism is one of the ingredients of a successful theory. I will indulge only two criticisms: criticisms stemming from the fossil record and criticisms stemming from complexity of organisms. One of the criticisms of the fact of evolution is the incompleteness of the fossil record. The counterargument is simple. The fossil record is not expected to be complete—typically it would be rare for the non-mineralized portions of the organism to be preserved; organisms without such parts are unlikely to be preserved at all. Even the mineral parts of the animal will be preserved only under favorable circumstances: when the animal is covered by sediment soon after death or is killed by being so covered; but even here we do not expect preservation or if preserved we do not expect a linear sequence due to geological upheaval. The rarity of fossil specimens of transitional species is a related criticism: the response was given by Darwin: the extreme imperfection of the geological record combined with the short duration and the narrow range of transitional species. Another criticism concerns what are called punctuated equilibria: the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record; this pattern simply reflects the fact that many species remain unchanged for long periods but that groups ‘trapped’ in geographical isolation lack the stabilizing mechanisms of the genetics of large populations and change rapidly under different selective forces. Punctuated equilibrium is a point of criticism: the theory of evolution appears to require gradual or incremental change but in punctuate equilibrium there is sudden change: the explanation of this apparent paradox is that even transitional species change slowly in biological time but they change rapidly in geological time. The criticism from complexity is that a complex organism such as the eye would have been useless in intermediate stages and therefore the argument that it may have gone through stages from simplicity to complexity is invalid. Evolutionists point out that there are living organisms today with all stages from a simple heat sensor to a complex eye and in fact that the eye evolved separately multiple times. It is reasonable to conclude that the creationists' counter-evolutionary arguments hold no weight However, these counter-evolutionary arguments are rather a fog screen. Instead of proving the existence of God, they attempt to disprove the alternative: and though the disproofs have been discredited, they are believed by many (creationists.) As a mere hypothesis, God is extremely unreasonable. And since the arguments for God stand discredited it cannot even be said that God is a reasoned hypothesis (one for which there are good though not conclusive reasons.) A recent ploy of creationists is to argue that (here there are some vague allusions to the special nature of Biblical revelation) terms or kinds of criticisms that apply to science should not apply to religion. There are other scholastic and recent theological arguments for God: these are interesting (because clever and sophisticated) and uninteresting (because not persuasive; if the purpose here were to debate God I should at least review these arguments; I have done so elsewhere; and the purpose here is to debate the Universal metaphysics for which I use the ‘God debate’ as—possibly interesting—approach) Let us return to Dawkins argument that it is almost certain that God does not exist. The system of scientific hypotheses is relatively simple, the God hypothesis is highly complex (it postulates an extremely complex entity) and therefore the scientific argument is vastly superior (concerning the literal rather than symbolic meaning of things.) What this means is that our best knowledge does not reveal God. Does it reveal no God? Does it reveal almost certainly no God? No, for our common tradition has two kinds of argument: science and religious (e.g. religious metaphysics.) It ignores that there could be another kind of argument (e.g. the Universal metaphysics.) Also the argument that ‘simple is right’ is practical but rather weak What then is the strength of the scientific argument? Perhaps the strength is this. Over the history of science we find that it has explained more and more. Today, the argument goes, science has made inroads into almost every sphere of being. Has it? Here is an alternative. Science reveals, if approximately but reliably, certain things that are in the Universe and a certain extent and duration to the Universe. It is commonly thought and this is common psychology that what is revealed in our tradition (science, everyday belief) that what is revealed is essentially the Universe. Is it? What is the variety of things and the extent and duration of things outside what science has revealed? While it may be common psychology to think that variety etc. to be small or even non-existent what do science and reason have to say? Essentially nothing. What lies outside science so far, could as far as science so far is concerned be rather more of the same and relatively little (it probably is not zero) or infinite. Therefore Dawkins argument that science implies that God almost certainly does not exist is absolutely incorrect (however to think that it would therefore be reasonable to believe in God is not a valid conclusion; the argument given here supports neither existence nor non-existence of God) The argument has taken an interesting detour through consideration of God. However, the same argument applies to the implication of science for the Universal metaphysics. The discussion started with the question whether science contradicted the Universal metaphysics. We may change the question to Does science almost certainly contradict the Universal metaphysics? The answer is no—not certainly, and not almost certainly There is however a difference in between the Universal metaphysics as an idea and God as an idea. God-creator-omniscient-omnipotent-supreme-Lord-object-of-reverence and so on is an immensely special idea and one for which there is little support in the world. The Universal metaphysics (being without limit) is not special: it hypothesizes no special kind of being. Is there support for it in the world? Certainly there is no extrapolation from the finite world of our experience to a world of infinite extent, duration and variety but, unless we think that the known world is the Universe, the Universal metaphysics does not contradict our common knowledge (and, as seen, supports it and makes it even necessary) The argument here has been (1) There are reasons based in common attitudes and common psychology to think that science (and common sense) may contradict or make absurd the Universal metaphysics and (2) Neither science nor reflective rather than reactive common sense contradict the metaphysics or render it absurd The argument is, of course, not intended as proof of the metaphysics. One of its functions, however, is to clear away psychological resistance to the Universal metaphysics and, perhaps, to replace it by openness. The argument has shown also that there is neither logical nor scientific disproof of the metaphysics. These functions include preparation so that attending to the proof will not suffer the detraction or distraction of a priori psychological resistance or imagined scientific or logical contradiction Concerning intuition, insight, mystic vision, speculation and proofIt hardly needs to be said not one of intuition, insight, mystic vision, or speculation (concept and hypothesis formation) constitute proof Elsewhere I use intuition as, roughly, the kind of faculty by which we know the world in common terms such as space, time, and cause but whose neural or symbolic analysis or proof is not generally part of this knowing and whose explicit epistemic foundation is not given in the intuition There may be contexts (e.g. when there is a call for immediate action) where there is no time to wait for proof and intuition etc. may suffice. One such ordinary context is ‘everyday action’ or the common living of life where we would burden ourselves by waiting for or demanding proof. Still, people have differing inclinations and one person may be inclined to want to prove where another may not be so inclined. And a given individual may synthesize such attitudes according to context and or by setting aside times to be active and times to be reflective and or as an experiment (acting when contemplating seems to be indicated…) Perhaps we could enlarge the meaning of proof to allow intuition etc. but that is not being done here. What can be said, however, is that not every situation calls for proof. Can I prove that proof is always necessary? Can I imagine proving that proof is never necessary? Can I prove that there are occasions for proof and occasions when proof may be forgone? The latter is reasonable but would I want to prove it? And if so, why and how? The possibility is opened up that ‘proof’ should have a more general meaning than simple deduction (or induction) Here, however, I am concerned with simple deduction or induction. Do speculation and mystic vision and intuition have a role in such proof? They are not a formal part of deduction. However they may be implicated, first, in suggesting what to deduce and, second, in suggesting how to deduce. We may require proof of a proposition; but when we ask what is the source of the proposition it is consistent with the idea of rigor that the source need not be a proof. The source could be speculation, intuition, mystic vision…Still, however, there is no intrinsic reason that the source of propositions to be proved cannot be some kind of proof or algorithm ProofBeing is that which is there (which exists) The following objections to the possibility and meaning of being concern, first, the idea that all is illusion and second the idea of solipsism: the idea that there is nothing in the world but experience: all is experience and the feeling that there is a world is merely part of experience. I argue a rejection of these ideas; the purpose to this form of argument is that I have found it an effective way to address the problem ‘whether anything exists’ and that it clarifies the nature of ideas and things (we have already seen that ideas are not not-things but are kinds of things) Objection 1. Perhaps all is illusion; it is not known that anything ‘is there.’ Response. If there were nothing, there would not even be illusion. Discussion. At minimum, there is ‘mere illusion;’ and, there is no apparent difference between my life in the illusory case than there is in the case that there is a real world. The Universal metaphysics could be built in the ‘illusory case.’ However, we prefer to show that there is in fact more than illusion—that, roughly speaking, the world is real (the metaphysics clarifies the sense of ‘real’) Objection 2. Perhaps then, there is nothing but illusion. Response. If there is nothing but illusion then ‘illusion’ has no meaning Objection 3. Perhaps then, there is nothing but (subjective) experience without an object. I.e. perhaps there is no external world. Response. But experience itself is ‘there,’ is a form of being Objection 4. Mere experience is being but rather insubstantial and trivial. Response. If there is nothing but experience the word ‘substantial’ has no meaning; and ‘trivial’ has no significance (for the significance of ‘triviality’ is in comparison with the alternative which is the existence of an object of experience) Objection 5. Still a world of mere experience is rather thin. Not only are there no things—no trees, no planets, no cosmos… but there are no knowers of things. Response. The conclusion is invalid. The argument was that perhaps there is nothing but experience. The conclusion is that perhaps there are no things etc. and not that there are no things—i.e., the conclusion is neutral to the existence of an external world (an external world is a phrase that does not literally mean outside something but the object of experience, existing independently of being experienced) Objection 6. That kind of argument works both ways. You do not know that the world is rich: you do not know that there is an external or real world. Response. (1) Subjective. If the world is mere experience then ‘rich’ versus ‘thin’ is a matter of experience and have and need have no objective meaning; richness of experience is richness enough. (2) Objective. Consider the apparent richness in the world. Stars, trees, forests, societies, cultures, minds, people that speak German but no English or French or Athabaskan, people that are ignorant of mathematics and others with immense mathematical intuition, encyclopedias. Consider the experience that is at least labeled my mind. This label, via experience, has two possibilities. Either (a) it does not incorporate the range of experience of which there is but some awareness though no proper and detailed knowledge or (b) it does. In case (a) the conclusion that there is nothing but experience is invalid and in this case—there is something outside experience: no mere ‘something’ but a vast ‘world,’ the entire world of which there is no detailed knowledge in my mind. But there is more to the world: it also contains what I label detailed knowledge and this includes my experience of self and experience, especially, considering the case, my (or your) solipsistic attitude (b) what is being called ‘mere experience’ is merely a re-labeling of the world and its objects—i.e. the meaning of ‘experience’ now becomes neutral and does not refer anymore to the notion of experience: there is no difference between naming the world matter or naming it experience and so on (… in case (a) the things outside experience may argued to be another experience and again experience becomes a neutral term) Therefore, There is being (roughly, in the usual sense; which conclusion may need refinement as what constitutes being) This section could go through without the foregoing consideration whose function is to give the proof a sense of robustness A law (e.g. of physics) is our reading of a pattern of behavior. A Law is the pattern. It is immanent in ‘things;’ A Law has being Objection. The idea of Law has a number of interpretations: (1) Law as immanent, (2) Law as convention, (3) Law as description, and (4) Law as imposed. How, then, may we assert that Law is immanent? Response. My source for the four interpretations and parts of the following discussion is A.N. Whitehead’s Adventures of Ideas (1933.) A source of the idea of Law as convention is that perhaps nature allows itself to be interpreted in terms of Laws—perhaps in writing a law, we have discovered nothing. This view is encouraged by discussing Law in the abstract. In truth, the Laws that deserve to be so called have predictive content; and although they may not be deduced from phenomena, they have been able to capture phenomena. Many laws can be expressed in more than one way; this lends the appearance of convention; however, in many cases, the alternate descriptions have superficial difference but deep identity; and where there is no deep identity, the name ‘law’ is undeserved. A ‘law’ which was mere convention would not be a law; the idea of law as convention is no challenge to the idea of law as immanent. The idea of Law as description is in fact the idea of Law as mere description. We observe the sun rise each day; that is all there is to it; there is no law of the rising sun even though we may think there is. This is the philosopher Hume’s argument; he was arguing that there is no logical necessity to the generalizations that science makes about nature. However, that may be seen to be precisely one of the strengths of science: science is not merely discovering what has to be true: it also discovers what could be untrue but is true. Because it could be untrue but is true means that the truth obtains only for our experience and cannot be logically generalized beyond experience even though it often happens that it does so generalize (and we would be surprised if generalizations of science never extended beyond experience so far.) That a Law is not Universal is not inconsistent with its being an immanent pattern in some domain (which includes the domain of experience so far.) The response is continued after introduction of Universe below The Universe is all being. The Universe exists and contains all Law(s) The word ‘universe’ is used in many senses. This is the sense used here. One may wonder why this sense? The answer is that this is the sense that was arrived at to develop the metaphysics. One may then wonder But what of all the other senses? The response is that all though we use the ‘same’ word they are different (but similar) concepts and there is nothing invalid in using those senses in their contexts (if we had used different words to begin with the apparent puzzle would not arise) Continuation of the objection regarding interpretations of law. The fourth interpretation was that of law as imposed. This interpretation is possible on account of somewhat careless thinking about the nature of the Universe. As long as our notion of ‘universe’ is vague, e.g. as in science where the typical and perhaps incompletely reflective attitude is that the universe is what is known so far (by the methods of science so far.) However, the Universe is all being: there is no other which can impose upon the Universe. It is true that one part of the Universe can impose order on another part but then the law, although it manifests locally is part of a pattern that is immanent in a greater whole. There is no requirement that the domain of a Law should be the entire extension or duration or variety of being in the Universe. Whitehead suggests some presuppositions of the ‘doctrine of immanence.’ I will give one example. “Finally, the doctrine of immanence is through and through a rationalistic doctrine. It is explanatory of the possibility of understanding nature.” That immanence is not rationalistic follows from the fact that law is, generally, non-universal (except perhaps Logic, we will see that there is no universal Law.) That the understanding of nature should require explanation may be based on non-mutuality of evolution of mind and nature. The latter observation leads into a theological perspective on law as imposed: God imposes law; this perspective has been negated by the earlier discussion of imposition by one part on another. The imposition of law by God is sometimes used to explain away the difficulty in the following “the doctrine of Immanent Law is untenable unless we can construct a plausible metaphysical doctrine according to which the characters of the relevant things in nature are the outcome of their interconnections, and their interconnections are the outcome of their characters. This involves some doctrine of Internal Relations.” We shall see that there is no need to construct such doctrines if construction is to involve speculation; instead, we will see that the entire metaphysics to be developed follows from the empirical given A Domain is part of the Universe (here the sense of part is that of contained by and in this sense the Universe is a domain.) The Complement of a domain is the part of the Universe that is not part of the domain (complements are typically parts of domains—or sets—but that level of generality is not needed here.) When a domain exists, the complement exists There is an apparent paradox in the meaning of ‘existence.’ What does it mean to talk of something that does not exist: if it does not exist there is no thing so what are we talking of? In general when I talk of something I must be talking of my concept of it (verbal or image.) Lions exist means: I have a concept (biological definition or recalled image from Africa or a magazine) of lions and there are things (animals in this case) that correspond to my concept. Unicorns exist means: there are no things that correspond to my concept (image from imagination or fairy tale…) that I label unicorn. Some philosophers have a problem with singulars, e.g. Goethe. They want us to define Goethe. This is not necessary. I have an image of Goethe (a particular individual called Goethe from images and biographical accounts…) Goethe exists (rather, I believe he existed because I believe there was this person.) If Sherlock Holmes is the concept or image (verbal and iconic) from the novels and stories of Arthur Conan Doyle and innumerable comics and films then ‘Sherlock Holmes did not exist’ means that that there was no individual corresponding to the concept / image (It is not confusing to talk in temporal terms ‘exists,’ ‘existed,’ or ‘will exist’ but it is inconvenient for the present purpose. In the following ‘exist’ means ‘did, does, or will exist’) Relative to a domain something is possible (a) if it does exist in that domain or (b) it does not but could exist in that domain. ‘Could’ is not a precise term. Accordingly, ‘possible’ or ‘possibility’ has several meanings. A state of affairs, A, is physically possible in the domain if it does not violate the laws of physics of the domain. A state A is practically possible for the denizens of a planet in the domain if they could effect that state of affairs (this is but one meaning of practicality.) A state of affairs is logically possible if it does not violate logic (a logically possible state could be physically impossible) What is the notion of possibility when the domain is the Universe? If a state is actual it is of course possible. If it is not actual then, since there is no other domain—that domain would have to be outside the Universe which has no outside—in which it could exist, it is not possible. Relative to the Universe, possibility and actuality are identical (relative to the Universe, ‘does exist’ and ‘can exist’ are identical.) If a state of affairs is possible, it is actual somewhere in the Universe (but not necessarily in any given domain.) Necessity has two meanings: necessary in all domains, necessary somewhere in the Universe. And, recalling the concept of Logic, a state of affairs is possible if and only if it (its conception) is Logical The concept of the Void is that it is the absence of being. Since the Universe is all being, the Void is its complement; since the Universe exists, its complement exists, i.e. the Void exists. Since Laws have being, the Void is the absence of being and contains no Laws I.e. a first form of what I have labeled the fundamental principle of metaphysics: The Void, which is the absence of being and contains no Laws, exists Any limit on the (variety, extension, and duration of the) being that emerges from Void would constitute a Law of the Void. Since the Void has no Laws, there is no limit on the (variety…) that emerges from it. But all such being must be in the Universe (which is all being.) Therefore a second version of the fundamental principle of metaphysics—There is no limit on the (extension, duration, and variety of) being in the Universe. It is also true from the foregoing that The Void and the Universe are equivalent DoubtDoubt regarding the first stated form of the fundamental principle of metaphysics. This is first the place at which doubt arises and is the occasion for the earlier discussion of faith. The doubt that rises here concerns the proof. The proof appears to concern concepts and verbal constructs; should there not be some empirical input? Yes, there should and is: the existence of the Universe. Another doubt: the Void is not truly a domain. Response: it is not a substantial domain. Doubts from the second stated form of the fundamental principle. In the first place, the magnitude of the conclusion invokes such awe (there is no limit on the variety of being) and the proof so easy that though there is no logical doubt there is psychological doubt. Response: this psychological doubt is good for it encourages attempts at logical doubt which can only result in truth: the conclusion is definitely true or not definitely true (in the latter case there is and there probably can be no disproof and therefore we are open to regarding the conclusion as a hypothesis as discussed earlier.) Perhaps some analysis of the psychological doubt is in order. ‘The magnitude of the conclusion:’ what does this mean? After all, we accept many momentous conclusions. What is pertinent about the magnitude of the conclusion is that the detail and effort of proof seem small and almost trivial. Here are two responses. In the first place, the proof effort is, after all, not so small or trivial but a significant amount of effort has gone into refining the individual concepts and system of concepts and into working out the details of proof; the proof seems trivial in retrospect (as it seemed in the beginning but that concerned the proof idea and not its working out.) The second response to the charge of ‘so much from so little’ is that the outcome is after all not ‘so much’ at least in the following sense. The conclusion is that there is no limit on the variety of being. I have earlier gone into the actualities of variety in some detail (and in greater detail in the essays concerning Journey in Being.) Consider one item: Unicorns exist. This however gives us no handle on where they exist; and, further, it may be the case that when we imagine some ‘evolutionarily non-robust creature’ the infinite number of cosmological systems in which it must appear remain an infinitesimal fraction of the absolute infinity of all being; and to give more than symbolic significance to the unlimited extension, duration and variety it will (probably) necessary to create conceptually / discover by becoming… Another source doubt from the second form of the fundamental principle: apparent conflict with science and common sense. Response: we saw in the previous section that science and reflective common sense do not contradict this conclusion and it was seen earlier that the metaphysical conclusion does not contradict valid science or valid common sense: rather, the metaphysics makes what is valid in science and common sense necessary Another source of doubt is sarcastic. I call it Alfred P. Sloan’s doubt. Sloan was the President and Chairman of General Motors who introduced the idea of planned obsolescence. The idea has application in academic ‘metaphysics:’ remaining concerned with small ideas means publishing and employment forever for professors of philosophy. And of course a rationale: the building up of the impossibility of ‘big’ ideas. I have shown where the arguments against metaphysics are made on the basis of some invalid argument or invalid historical generalization. Here are some of those arguments and responses revisited. Metaphysics is impossible because the concept is not the Object—this means that there is nothing inherent in concepts that make them faithful; it does not mean that there is no way to show faithfulness for some concepts. Metaphysics is impossible because it is not empirical—we can and do have direct metaphysical knowledge of some Universal objects as abstracted from their detailed object version; and from this we can and do have indirect knowledge of (the unlimited variety;) and this includes what Kant called special metaphysics: knowledge of special kinds of being, e.g. gods; the ‘price’ is that, from the metaphysics, I have no idea where the special gods reside or how frequent and robust their being is (this does not rule robust notions of god which may be part of some experimental non-dogmatic religion: and note that it is also dogmatic to hold the idea of what is not in today’s science or common sense is not in the Universe.) Metaphysics is impossible and detracts from our world because of the historical failure of speculative metaphysics from Hegel to Marx—the generalization is inductive and not necessary; my metaphysics shows it untrue; regarded as hypothetical many speculative metaphysics are suggestive and imaginative; they do not detract from our world: there is a direct line from the primitive metaphysics of Thales’ The world is water, through Aristotle’s substance theories and physics, to modern science; they do not detract from our world: they may illuminate our world and more: there is no real boundary between ‘this’ world and the ‘next’ or ‘beyond’ (the other world is merely the world of our ignorance) Alternate proofsThe present discussion of proof is occasion for a little awe because it is a refinement of my earlier proofs and the doubt that remains is, first, nagging and, second, that I have overlooked something (probably trivial) Therefore the interest in alternate proofs as proofs fades. However, it remains, first, as an exercise that may shed light and confidence (or the alternative of disproving the proof which is also good) One alternative proof idea is that there ‘should’ be no distinction (in some sense) between existence and non-existence of the Void Another proof idea is the plausible argument given earlier: Laws that apply to manifest being should not apply to non-being (the Void) Another proof idea is to work out alternate forms of the fundamental principle of metaphysics and to see which of these are able to address doubts of various kinds Still another proof idea is to examine whether it is inherent in the idea of existence that the Void should exist (this would be similar to the idea equivalence of existence and non-existence of the Void) Plausibility proofs are not proofs but may enhance confidence and understanding. Any quantum state has a non-zero probability of transition to any other. Could this be a source of proof or plausibility? Proof would require work and interpretation; it immediately suggests plausibility but work may strengthen plausibility (a quantum theory of quantum theoretical laws?) Another possible source of proof or plausibility: any eternally possible state will be realized: this is a form of the classic principle of plenitude which omits the word ‘eternally’ A plausibility argument from Ockham’s razor. Consider ‘What’ is not in the Universe? The simplest answer may be nothing is not in the Universe—i.e., the Universe has no limit… Forms of the fundamental principle of metaphysicsThere are other forms of the fundamental principle. I collect all forms together below. The ones not stated above are relatively simple consequences of the ones already demonstrated The Universe is all being and contains all Objects (Objects include Laws, forms, and abstract and particular Objects) The Void, which is the absence of being and contains no Objects, exists There is no limit on the (extension, duration, and variety of) being in the Universe. Therefore, The Void and the Universe are equivalent A related form: (if there are no limits to being then) Subject to Logic, every concept has an Object. This further form of the fundamental principle has been discussed in an earlier section The Universe is absolutely non-cosmomorphic—it has no universal form (tentative) There is no Universal Law. The one Universal law is that being is limited only by Logic (recall the distinction: a law is what we read, a Law is the immanent version.) A concept of Logos follows: The Logos is the Object of Logic—it is the Universe in all its variety and detail. All Law is immanent in the Logos The Universe is absolutely indeterministic—from any given state of the Universe, subsequent states are not determined: there is no preferred subsequent state. The Universe is also absolutely deterministic in an unusual sense: from any given state, all states will be accessed GuidesGuide to the Journey in being websiteThe website is primarily a collection of older and more recent essays; there is a variety of further material, some of it personal, that may be browsed but that may be more interesting to me than to others Except as noted, the essays are original works The home page is http://www.horizons-2000.org. The left column of links has information about the site and the author. The right column lists essays. The more recent essays are at the top. Essays written before I began to think in terms of the ideas of a journey and of transformation follow the heading Related essays The proliferation of material reflects that my thought is ever in process because ever in discovery. One reason has been the search for a good paradigm of understanding. The phases are (1) Primitive—no paradigm (Archive,) (2) Phase of experiment with paradigms: matter-process-evolution, idea as real, the idea of an absolute, and others (3) Phase defined by the idea of being. Under this paradigm, the nature and concept of the real are not specified in advance. Is it matter, mind, process, interaction, person, living organisms, God or gods, sentence, word, fact, proposition, property…? This is not specified. Is there any substance at all, is there one, are there two or more? This is not specified. What is the extent, duration, and variety of the Universe? This is not specified. Is the Universe deterministic or indeterministic? This is not specified. (The list can go on and become more specific. Is the word of authority final? Is law ascendant or morals or both or neither…?) Is the nature of the real to be never specified? This is not specified. In other words, the nature of things and of our understanding of them is allowed to emerge with experience, conceptual analysis, and experiment. The prejudice of mind, matter… is overcome. But a prejudice of never committing is also disallowed. It emerged that there is no substance; that the Universe is without limit… I am ever impressed by the power of the paradigm. Earlier, much of my inspiration came from received paradigm and personal energy. The new paradigm has its own force and it sometimes seems that I am its mere vehicle (worry not, my ego is still healthy: perhaps healthier) A second reason for proliferation is that once the core of the paradigm emerged (the equivalence of Void and Universe and other elements) I began to realize that the implications were immense: whole of metaphysics and other topics, some discussed above, would need revision (often in an ultimate manner.) The realization and the working out has taken eight years (during which time I worked, and engaged in the activities of a more or less normal human being) While working out these thoughts, the Journey in being narrative has gone through numerous versions. As my understanding grew, I found it easier to write afresh rather than to edit Finally, however, the conceptual and narrative structures seem to have achieved some mature stability. Readers may explore as they wish; here is an index of elements and main prior versions. The main folder or directory is The year 2010 folder and the main narrative, Journey in being, blank as of August 7, 2010, is the vehicle for a final version of the narrative Guide to the Journey in being narrativeThe outline of the narrative is as follows Introduction—I am undecided how detailed the Introduction should be. It shall contain at minimum a brief orientation to the journey and, since both content and form are unusual, inform the reader of what is unusual and what features may cause difficulty in understanding (foreknowledge is good preparation) Intuition—the word intuition is used in a sense special to philosophy. In this sense intuition refers to our abilities to understand the world in its categorial forms such as space, time, cause, body dynamic, symbol and symbolic relations (Logic.) The metaphysics has its own foundation. Via intuition I have been able to found (ground) the metaphysics in human experience and intuition. The chapter has discussions on meaning and knowledge that are important to the entire development. It introduces the a concept of abstraction via which the abstract objects of the metaphysics are capable of being known with perfection (the program is similar to that of Kant in Critique of Pure Reason; the reason that the present program succeeds where Kant’s failed lies in the simplicity of the objects of this development) Metaphysics, Objects, and Cosmology—these chapters have been discussed sufficiently to give audiences an idea of their content and significance. The material is developed systematically and in detail. Metaphysics proceeds by deriving conclusions around the concepts of Law, Universe, Void, and Logos or Logic; except Logos and Logic the others are introduced, explained and founded; Logos and Logic, though pivotal, are derived. The topics of Cosmology are Principles of general cosmology—essentially a collection of principles from the metaphysics; Variety of being and its origins—the necessity of origins, extension is derived and a variety of being is developed; Process—the necessity of process is derived and understanding of a variety of kinds of process developed; Mind—the root nature of mind is explored and developed and a number of problems from the modern philosophy of mind addressed (roughly, if matter is being-as-being, mind is relationships among being: the sign of another being in a given being;) Identity and death—continuation of identity across death is derived and explained and this founds the identity of individual and all being (an insufficiently developed being may not recognize this identity;) and Space, time and being—a number of interesting properties of space and time are developed including multiple and dominant times and non-universality of speed of propagation of interactions (light speed)… and space and time are shown to be immanent in being and therefore space and time are relative space and relative time (in a local space-time space and time may be as-if absolute.) The discussion of Cosmology and has further potential implications for physics. The behavior of the Void has similarities to and differences from quantum behavior. Since the Universal metaphysics is more general than quantum theory, the former cannot imply the latter. However, the Universal metaphysics together with appropriate assumptions my perhaps be used to derive quantum theory. That would of course shed light on quantum theory. It would also have implication for confidence in the metaphysics. Since the derivation of the metaphysics is based in derivation that starts in properties (from experience) of the most general Objects, the derivation may seem magical. If quantum theory is derivable as suggested, that would ground the metaphysics (this grounding would not be proof but it would increase confidence in the metaphysics) Worlds—study of a local cosmos: the sciences and related disciplines; at the intersection of the Universal metaphysics and traditional and modern disciplines; potential to raise the contextual (local) knowledge to intrinsic limits. Topics: A tiered approach—formal version of earlier discussion of scientific method; Local cosmology; Life and organism; Human being; Society; Civilization. Much detail and potential contribution. Discussion in the section Human being focuses on mind has thoughts on (1) The distinction of feeling-emotion and cognition—perhaps they are not separate at root (2) Their interaction where they become distinct and on constructive choices regarding cognition and emotion where such choice is possible. The importance of the chapter Worlds to the journey is the provision of an anchor or rooting in our world. A second interest in Worlds arises in connection with application in ‘this’ world. In some versions, the narrative will systematically develop concerns in the realms of the material and the natural, the social including nations and civilization, psyche including soul and mind, and the universe beyond; the systematic development, of course, recognizes no boundary between ‘this’ and ‘that’ world and therefore merges the immediate and the Universal, the immediate and the high or the good Journey—develops the approach (dynamics;) reviews traditional sources (yoga, mysticism, shamanism…) as a toolkit for development; extracts from these sources and personal experience a set of catalytic states and processes as material for the dynamics; designs a set of minimal experiments to cover ‘modes of being;’ describes personal experiments so far; elaborates plans for the future Being—I should probably change the title to something like ‘realization in the present.’ An alternative to the process-goal-enjoyment approach of Journey: realization in the present. Approaches: reading history and being-in-the-world Method—has two main topics; one is the more or less formal development of the earlier discussion of method. The second is a distillation of some essences of what I have found useful in my process and discovery as well as suggestions from others; is more about preparation for insight rather than how to be creative; a key concept is that of reflexivity which is the cross application of disciplines and approaches: perception and judgment; analogy among disciplines; criticism in creation and creation in criticism; remaining in process so that one’s process becomes something from which learning may occur and also be improved; understanding that process is conscious and unconscious: ‘mind’ and body; learning, reflection, and world; not following this process blindly but being open to when it is necessary to cut through detail; use of feeling and emotion: as a guide to what is important as well as moment to moment aids to thought (and, of course, thinking about emotion and feeling and their deployment and not thinking that feeling and emotion are fixed or primary or non-primary.) Reflexivity includes dialectic and (obviously) reflection: e.g., when one asks a question What is X? One is asking What is the meaning of X? and What does it mean to ask ‘What is X?’? And since the ‘X’s’ of the world interact (under the metaphysical umbrella) one is also asking ‘What, for every Y, is Y—generally and in relation to X and ‘What is X?’?’ Reflexivity is not merely a powerful tool in creative thought but when it admits even questioning the process of creation (this approach does not appear to be helpful: Why? What alternative or parallel thought? and so on) and when one admits the principle that allows and suggests such questioning then reflexivity includes creativity. Reflexivity may be thought of as a mode of dialectic in which the conversation is between ideas Contribution—I discuss and evaluate what I think may be contributions to the human endeavor. Although an author will or may not be accepted as the final judge of his or her work, it is important, to show in what way and how the author thinks the work is significant. The headings are (1) Criteria for significance—reasoned, judged, and historical (2) The main contributions reviewed—many of these discussed earlier; some areas are Metaphysics, Cosmology, Epistemology, Academics, Science, The human endeavor, and Religion (3) Significance for the history of ideas—the topics are The nature of philosophy and metaphysics, The problems of metaphysics, Method, and A systematization of human knowledge (which reviews and modifies recent systematizations in view of the metaphysics,) and (4) Some potential contributions which are mainly that in the interaction between the disciplines (traditional, modern) and the metaphysics / cosmology, many suggestions for development of the disciplines arise (the discussion collects and reviews a number of these.) I have had doubts about self-promotion. I now think: false humility is the basis of such doubt; false pride sees presentation as mere promotion; and now: without presentation, others will not have an opportunity to see, learn, evaluate and judge SourcesMy thought has been many named and nameless influences. Among the nameless are those who ‘invented’ language and its implicit grammar and metaphysics If this were a technical treatise, there would be a place for a survey of literature The sources for this work are not only individuals but movements and histories I list only influences that I recognize (I am sure there are omissions) Works are noted when there is direct influence on the present work. Others have indirect influence through secondary literature or through influence on my earlier thought Sources are listed by topic, then alphabetically by name (first name if there are two.) I do not distinguish between ancient and modern or minor and major influences Mostly philosophicalA. O. Lovejoy, Aristotle, Arthur Schopenhauer, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, Gottfried Leibniz, Immanuel Kant, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, John Searle, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, Parmenides, Plato, René Descartes, Sankara—of the Vedanta, Thales, Thomas Nagel, William Blake ScienceThe following mathematicians and scientists were instrumental in the construction of frameworks of thought Albert Einstein, Aristotle, Charles Darwin, Erwin Schrödinger, Euclid, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, John Bell, Max Born, Max Planck, P. A. M. Dirac, Werner Heisenberg Scientific methodAlthough Arabic thinkers—Ibn al-Haytham, Al-Bîrunî, Avicenna—and others have significant reflections on scientific method, I list only those who have influenced me through direct acquaintance with their writing Ernst Mayr, Francis Bacon, Henri Poincaré, Karl Popper, Paul Feyerabend, René Descartes, Thomas Kuhn |