Journey in being—presentation—objections and counterarguments
Anil Mitra, © 2008
Outline
Doubts about demonstration of the nature-existence of the Universe and the Void
Formal problems concerning the fundamental principle
Adjusting the fundamental principle and its consequences to realism
Objections not based in content or method
The statement from the development reads
The idea that definitions and foundations form an unending series is a fallacy
A more accurate version is as follows
That final definitions and foundations should be either (a) absent or form an unending series or (b) based in substance is a fallacy
As shown, the fact of experience whether in illusion or of things or whether as experience-in-itself is given. It might be said that this takes experience as substance. The requirements of substance are that it should be ultimately simple, of the world and deterministic in its generation of the variety of being. Simplicity is desirable but not necessary; therefore the fact that experience is not ultimately simple does not rule it out as substance. Worldliness is necessary and experience must be of the world—refer to the concept of the Universe. However, experience does not generate the world deterministically and is therefore not a valid substance. In truth not that much is being said; however, what is significant is that these thoughts are a part of the ‘clearing away of millennia of diversionary substance theory and centuries of confusion regarding the nature of the empirical and the necessary’
The problem of the nature of experience. Sense—the experience of the subject; similar to awareness, consciousness, what it is like. Also—qualia. Response. The fallacy of unending chains of definition and proof. Experience is primitive. Objection. Is there experience? Response. Experience is primitive. Objection. Personality and doubt—over and above the style of thinking that emphasizes criticism and the critical personality, there are types who constitutively minimize subjective awareness. Response. The appropriate responses are (a) reiteration and alternate formulations, (b) illustrative example, and (c) therapeutic. General doubts regarding existence of the contingent forms of experience. (1) The external world. Response—the self-contradictory nature of solipsism. (2) Identity and other objects. Response. The meaning of faithfulness, lies in (a) the necessary forms andor (b) the Kantian-adaptive form of intuition-cognition—which includes the case of immersion in the object-action
Doubt and its functions. (1) Clarification of meaning, understanding, clearing away millennia of confusion, establishing individual knowledge of the universal metaphysics and its immense consequences, establishment of powerful methods of demonstration… (2) Doubt regarding doubt
The problem of existence and its meaning—an introduction. Linguistic roots lie in the ‘existential’ meaning of the verb to be—whether local or global. The meaning may be regarded as a primitive name; or as a name for a mode of experience. Problems of the distinctions among existence and being. (1) ‘Being’ has been reserved for special kinds of being e.g. deity or specific modes, e.g. being-that-is-capable-of-asking-the-question-of-being. Response. The distinction is valid but terminology is optional; here being is reserved for the primitive mode and the special kinds or modes are named separately / treated as cases of being. (2) Being has been regarded as being-in-itself whereas existence has been regarded as being-in-relation. Response. This distinction is shown from the Universal metaphysics to be transparent. (3) Being-existence versus substance or essence. Response. In the Universal metaphysics it is shown that there are no universal substances or essences and any state of being may stand in for substance—without conceptual advantage. Certain states may have local explanatory power. The allegation that existence is trivial, that it is not a concept. Counterargument. Existence is trivial—this is the source of the fundamental character and power of the idea, e.g. foundation of the ultimate metaphysics, displacement of substance; similarly it is a concept that is trivial and powerful in its generic character. The problem of the non-existent object, e.g. what does it mean to say that unicorns do not exist, i.e. what is it that does not exist? Response. The Concept as immanent in the object. Elaboration. Unicorn and Jesus Christ as abstract objects. The first existential problem of being—whether anything exists. Resolution. Experience and its objects. The second existential problem of being—what exists. Resolution. The forms of experience… and their objects… and the theory of Objects. Objection. The forms of experience cannot be said to define objects. Counterargument. The objection and its source have been dealt with in the idea of Concept as immanent in object and in the Kantian / sufficiently faithful concept
For details regarding the Universe The second existential problem of being—what exists, above
Doubts and objections regarding the existence of the Void. First objection. Facts from concepts, i.e. contingency from necessity. Counterargument—fallacy of unending chain of definition and proof; empirical character of root concepts of experience and being. Second objection. Existence of the insubstantial complement of the Universe itself. Counterarguments—a variety of alternative proofs, especially the following—that the void exists is not intrinsically paradoxical. The existence of the void is equivalent to its non-existence; therefore the void may be taken to exist; this implies the fundamental theorem—which was the essential consequence of the existence of the void. Third objection. Intuitive doubt regarding the existence of the void. Heuristic counterarguments. (1) The zero force in physics… (2) Minimalist induction from any set of data—World as Logos makes no hypotheses—a reverse application of Hume’s critique or the principle of Ockham. Fourth objection. So much from so little. Response. ‘So much’ is in fact the clearing away of millennia of diversionary substance theory and centuries of confusion regarding the nature of the empirical and the necessary. Objections regarding the character of the void. First objection. That the void contains no object seems to follow from the Universe containing all logically possible objects. Counterargument. The proof is from the concept of the void. Second objection. The quantum vacuum is not empty. Counterargument. The quantum vacuum obeys laws and is not the void
The fundamental principle and its consequences. First and main objection. The derivation appears to have no premise. Counterargument. Earlier… The counterargument raises the issue of the nature of meaning and its empirical content; that grammar has rational-empirical content is related to and a generalization of this point. Second objection. The use of the void in the derivation seems to be artificial. The objection requires no counter argument but has a resolution. Alternative proof. There is no other world therefore every possible concept is realized; as the other world, the void is implicit in the ‘proof.’ Heuristic proof—from Ockham’s principle—as earlier. Objection regarding the abstract character of the fundamental principle and its consequent Universal metaphysics. Counterargument. Here, ‘abstract’ means what is most empirical. Objection. Since it is beyond experience metaphysics is impossible. Counterargument. The present metaphysics is profoundly empirical. The idea that an abstract metaphysics is beyond experience is based on a mistake regarding what is empirical. Objection to the Universal metaphysics from determinism. No response is necessary. The search for sophisticated determinist interpretations proves nothing but possible consistency. Here, however, determinism has been shown to be absolutely inconsistent with the logos immanent in the Logos, the world in the World, the universe in the Universe, the object in the Object. Objection. Mechanism—the problem of structure from random process. Simple response. Absolute indeterminism necessitates structure and form. Response—the nature of ‘mechanism.’ Variation, selection, and incremental formation
Objection. On account of its trivial content, the Universal metaphysics does not say anything. Response. See consequences and significance of the metaphysics in Metaphysics through Faith. Objection. Violence to common reality. Counterargument. The concept of the normal—common sense and intuition are local or normal; the Metaphysics of immanence-Universal metaphysics are universal and necessarily consistent via the fact that Empiric-Logic are built in. Analogy to progress in science—consistency with earlier science within the earlier domain of validity. Objection. So much from so little. Response. This is not a rational objection. The basic arguments appear to be ‘little’ but require immense insight, are clearings away of confusions (above) and may be seen as not quite so much when seen as thought but not realized. The program of realization remains open. Objection. Turning away from the here and now. Response. The developments find greater worth in the universal and the immediate from their interaction. Objection. Anxiety from the unmooring of foundation; the revelation of annihilation… Response. These are not objections. A certain anxiety is a necessary condition of being-in-the-real… including becoming; and, annihilation is present whether known or not—the recent concerns of an imploding universe from particle accelerators forget the universal presence of potential annihilation from the ever present elements of being… and their necessity and infinitesimal likelihood. Objection. A doubt regarding meaning—from deconstruction and post-modernism. Response. Here, meaning is empirical. And the only grand narrative is coldly logical and empirical… altogether not posited as was Hegel’s and others’… The political objection to privileged use. Response. I am happy to negotiate a non-intersecting terminology
The kinds of objections in this section are not based in errors of fact or form of argument or other fallacies of reason. Rather they are kinds that are peripheral to method-content. I consider them primarily because they may enter at a level that is less than explicitly conscious and intentional. Such objections or doubts may of course be present in the thinking of others but it is important that they may be present also and especially in the thinking of an author and may therefore have negative impact on the impeccability and strength of an author’s conclusions and arguments. I also take up such considerations so as to be ready for various kinds of attack or minimization based in person and fashion
It is inevitable that some individuals may have at least subconscious ad hominem doubts. My background is laid out at on my website http://www.horizons-2000.org. However, an essential point to the present development is its argument and I ask that readers raise any circumstantial doubts to a conscious level and ask whether the value of what they may learn is worth the effort of following the details of the arguments
In any culture there is a core of accepted belief. The present development appears to undermine both classical religion and secular humanism… and there is bound to be ‘objection’ or doubt from these perspectives. The actual position, however, is that those cultures have domains of validity and the present development agrees and must agree with them in those domains. That is because the present development is a necessary universal metaphysics. Individuals will inevitably find some archaic view apparently supported here. In all such known cases the source of this support is some combination of (a) the use of existing terms with new meaning and (b) the replacement of current world views by the universal metaphysics
Finally, I will mention the personal attack as a form of ad hominem objection. I mention this not because I want to take up the concern in any sense of argument but because of the possibility of a defense reaction, i.e. of taking an argument from logic as an ad hominem objection, and in order to prepare myself for it
A general response to the personal attack is (a) positive or self-affirmation, and (b) negative—the attacker is in no position to make such ‘arguments.’ This response is not complete in itself. First, the expression of feeling does not exclude cognitive truth. Therefore, if I set myself up defensively against all but the most calm argument I am almost inevitably missing some essential element of being-in-the-world which includes ideas relevant to the topic under discussion. Second, audiences, i.e. third parties are sensitive to feeling even when it is peripheral to the issues. In fact all parties, including the 1st and the 2nd are sensitive to the sway of elements peripheral to the issues at hand. These elements which include the ad hominem argument are not intrinsically peripheral or destructive they may also be constructive and interwoven with the ‘issues.’ There are situations where the para-argument should be used in return. A second general response is to bring the focus, including that of para-argument, back to the real issues