The present outline of the main essay of ‘Journey in being’ is as follows which leaves out much elaboration, much of what is new and contributory to human thought and almost all proof and demonstration:

What’s new or useful

This chapter is primarily to help me in using the document later

Introduction

Prologue—but will probably use the ‘variety’ based version

Journey—‘variety’ implies realization of Universal identity; sources and characteristics; wide angle view; outline

Narrative—unusual form | ultimate content… contribution

Intuition —Journey

Some useful ideas

Method

Precursor to knowledge as simple and complex fact

Being

The section Pure being is new but already absorbed to Journey in being-2009-reserve

Contribution

Some reflections on where to point out contributions

A summary of the contributions but nothing new

Introduction

Prologue

Overview of the fundamental principle, its meaning, its Logical status, its ultimate character, understanding it—it is not paradoxical… it contains and gives context to the valid parts of all human knowledge and action both traditional and modern, and its implications

The Universe

Being is that which exists or has existence in its entirety

‘Being’ may be used in a local sense—i.e., existing at some time andor location… or in a global sense—i.e., existing somewhere and somewhen

Here ‘time’ and ‘space’ are used because they are the common coordinates of ‘extension’. However, it need not and is not being assumed that they are the only such coordinates or that such coordination is or can be universal. Thus the idea of the global transcends not only particular times and locations but also duration-location itself

The Universe is all being

The various uses of Capitalization (Title Case) will be explained later. Here, it is used to indicate that ‘Universe’ does not refer to the ‘physical universe’ or ‘our cosmological system’ or any other restricted or metaphorical use of the idea of universe

Whereas each of the previous statements is primarily a definition, the next is mainly an assertion

The Universe has the greatest variety of being that is consistent with Logic

The term Logic suggests sterility; however the implication of the statement is that of the greatest richness of being—it is not said that our knowledge of variety is generated by Logic but rather that that knowledge may be generated by looking and imagining; and logic or reason are instrumental only in weeding out the perverse results. Rather, as will be seen, it is perhaps the resulting richness that is an embarrassment—to someone concerned with validity—and that requires explanation (this is done below.) Additionally, it is not suggested that contradictory thoughts may not or should not be entertained for some contradictions are at most apparent and some actual contradictions may lead to fruitful thought even when ‘correctness’ is the main concern

Although ‘Logic’ is closely related to the conventional meaning of the term logic as in Aristotelian logic or predicate logic and so on, the capitalization indicates that it is used in a specific meaning that will be made clear in the chapter Metaphysics and discussed briefly below in this chapter

The statement regarding the variety of being of the Universe, given here without demonstration or proof, is one form of what will be called the fundamental principle of metaphysics. The fundamental principle lies at the heart of the metaphysics, labeled Universal metaphysics that is an immensely powerful and ultimate understanding of the Universe. The metaphysics, the fundamental principle, their demonstration, and demonstration of the possibility and fact and ultimate character of the metaphysics are given in the chapters Intuition and Metaphysics. The immense significance, implications, elaboration, and application of the metaphysics begins in Metaphysics and is continued in the subsequent chapters

Variety

One way to explore the variety of being allowed and implied by the fundamental principle is to start with a look at our cosmological system

In a standard picture, our cosmos began in a big-bang about thirteen billion years ago. It is thirteen billion plus light years across—the reason for the ‘plus’ is that space itself may ‘expand.’ The known laws of physics do not tell us what if anything came before the ‘initial event’ or what if anything lies outside any boundaries of this cosmos. There are alternate pictures—the cosmos oscillates in some way, and supplementary pictures—the cosmos is one of many ‘bubble universes’ that are rather more of the same

Planet Earth is part of a solar system that rotates around the Sun that is a star in the Milky Way galaxy that is part of the Local Group of galaxies and is one of billions of galaxies in the observed cosmos. Earth has an atmosphere and a variety of land and aquatic forms, a variety of climates and environments that support a large variety of life forms. One form, human being, has an immense variety of social arrangements and cultural forms

In having appreciation for human being, I do not attempt to suggest that ‘improvement’ has no meaning and that there is no place for improvement either immediate or remote or in our being or actions. Still I do think that celebration is good. And this celebration is not a celebration of human life over other life. It is a simple celebration of human life that lies within a larger celebration of life itself, of cosmos, and of being

The fundamental principle implies that there are infinitely many cosmological systems that are similar to ours. Some of these will support similar life forms, some will support vastly different forms of life and others will not have life-as-we-normally-recognize it

The fundamental principle further implies that there will be other ‘cosmological systems’ with vastly different ‘physical laws.’ Some such systems will have properties and laws that are so different from ours that their interaction with ours will be infinitesimal. Some of these other systems are passing through ours at this moment. There are forms of intelligence and life on these other ‘worlds’ and their minds may be meshing with ours at this very moment in at least subtle ways—the fundamental principle implies that there is at least some very, very weak interaction

The physical laws of this cosmological system are, roughly, expressions of it and not at all absolute and—the point will be manifest in chapters Metaphysics and Cosmology—not at all necessary even in their so far observed domain of application

The large scale picture is informed by astronomy and theoretical cosmology. The small scale picture is informed by high energy physics and quantum theory. The small scale world is different in a number of ways from the picture from intuition and classical science. The laws governing behavior are wave-like but permit manifestation as particles; they are indeterministic and yet allow structure in a perhaps counterintuitive way that is not permitted by intuition and classical physics; and the continuity of space and time may break down. From the fundamental principle, each elementary particle is a ‘universe’ of infinite variety

This peek at variety has been a very small one; the fundamental principle implies that there is no limit to variety of things, arrangements and kinds—of intensions and extensions. It is this variety—not depth—that is and will emerge as the great adventure

Logic

A law is our description of a pattern of behavior. Another way of saying the same thing is that a law prescribes what states are accessible from a given state (some laws may prescribe more than that—they may prescribe when the other states will be accessed)

While a law is a description, it describes something immanent in the Universe. Whatever it is that is immanent may be called Law

The fundamental principle implies that while one Law may be immanent in one domain, it cannot be immanent in all domains. Therefore, the fundamental principle implies that

There are no universal Laws—(A)

Are there, however, any universal laws? Since descriptions are subject to logical fallacy, e.g. there is an apple that is simultaneously green and not green, laws must adhere to principles of logic. One such fundamental principle is the principle of non-contradiction, i.e. that an assertion and its contradiction cannot simultaneously be true. An apple can be green today and not green tomorrow but it cannot be entirely green at 10:00 am today and entirely not green at 10:00 am today. There are, however, logical systems that allow contradictions. Perhaps there are some things that can be simultaneously in two states X and not X. It is therefore that instead of talking of logic or logics we talk of Logic which is whatever it is that all descriptions satisfy. Various questions may arise; detailed discussion is deferred to the main narrative. We can then say

The one and only universal law is Logic—(A')

As noted earlier this is immensely rich and productive rather than sterile. Since the concept of Logic has been introduced above as a semi-definition, it could be argued that the statements (A) and (A') are empty. However, the traditional logics are approximations to Logic

If there is a universal law other than a law of Logic, there will be inaccessible states. Therefore, (A) and (A') are equivalent formulations of the fundamental principle

Paradox

The foregoing does violence to our science and our traditional common sense. Yet it follows from the fundamental principle that has been demonstrated (in Metaphysics)

In addition to the common sense objection just stated, there are various other objections and potentials for paradox. These are addressed in detail in the narrative. The next section addresses the common sense concern

The Normal

If the Universe has the greatest variety, it must have this cosmos with all its observed characteristics. Thus, far from doing only violence, the fundamental principle provides support for what is valid in common sense and science

Although the being of our cosmos is supported by the fundamental principle, an infinitely greater variety is also supported. The being and stability of our cosmos, such as it is, is supported by the fundamental principle as is a much greater variety of being. It is allowed and therefore necessary that the cosmos may annihilate at any time. Yet it has not done so in observation. Our cosmos and its observed behavior are termed Normal (the meaning of the term ‘Normal’ will be refined and clarified.) There are infinitely many ‘Normal’ systems lying in a Universe that contains both stability and chaos, determinism or deterministic-like behavior and indeterminism

This cosmos lies, for now, with its vast variety, within an infinitely larger Universe that has such infinitely greater variety that the variety of the cosmos begins to appear as if infinitesimal

Identity

What is the significance of all this for our being? Perhaps, even though the Universe is vastly greater and more varied than we may have thought, the consequences for our being and lives is rather insignificant

Knowing that the Universe is different—of greater magnitude and variety than otherwise imagined—is, however, significant

There is however actual significance. That the consequences for our being and lives are rather insignificant is Normal. Outside the Normal—which may manifest in a moment or after some vast stretch of time—we will find ourselves in other ‘worlds,’ some greater others lesser than our world, some horrible and others wonderful, some without challenge and others with excitement and adventure to be undertaken—which adventure will not be merely ‘more of the same’ but unimagined in its form

Still, it is not clear what the significance of that great but still infinitesimal variety may be. Who is the ‘we’ of the previous paragraph? If I am dead who is that other ‘I’ who may have adventure and excitement of an infinite magnitude? If I am dead, what significance may the experience of that other have to me?

The chapter Cosmology develops a theory of Identity in detail. Here, it is sufficient to say that the fundamental principle—now revealed as entailing a principle of variety—shows that the individual identities—you, I and others of this and infinitely many cosmological systems and more—will and must merge in some Universal Identity that is the Universe and whose character and trajectory through wonder and horror is developed in the narrative. Therein lies a significance of the infinite variety of being

Whether this significance is significant to you will depend the attitudes of the individual

The two focal points of the journey

The two foci are also covered in Some characteristics of the journey

The first focal point is a system of ideas—one that is vastly greater than the traditional systems but that contains and is consistent with what is valid in those systems. The system of ideas is developed in the chapters Intuition, Metaphysics, Objects, Cosmology, Worlds, Method, Being, and Contribution

The second focal point is a system of transformation and action

An essential point to transformation and action is not—so much—that ideas should be realized but that they will be realized; ideas and being are continuous and there are no ideas without being and action and transformation

In an individual journey, it was originally felt that discoveries in ideas would be the most exquisite realization of an individual. Later it was seen—and revealed by the ideas themselves—that ideas are an incomplete form of realization and that completion of realization requires action and transformation

Transformation and action are the foci of the chapters Journey and Being that develop a Dynamic of being—of transformation—whose basis lies in an intersection of the Universal metaphysics and traditional studies. Transformation is in process. Journey, therefore, recounts process so far as well as design and plans for further process in the areas of being as well as the here secondary areas of information, technology, and society

Journey

A group of friends is sitting together on a deck outside a house. It is dusk. As they gaze out across fields at the deepening blue of the evening sky they engage in occasional conversation and reflection. Whether they talk of themselves or others, or of things large and small, their reflections fall under an aspect of relations between an individual and the Universe

Talk turns to the discoveries previewed in the prologue. They realize that they are engaged in—that life is—a journey whose character includes the ultimate. Their individual journeys intertwine and the sum of all individual journeys is the Universe in its transformations that can be seen as a Journey. They remark that they have recognized and have been furthering this process. They have undertaken a Journey in being

They think that they should perhaps write of their process—they think it is of interest as a story and for the significance of its content. One individual volunteers to write. His name, they agree, shall appear on the cover of the narrative. In the narrative ‘I’ refers to any of these individuals or a fictitious person that is some composite of them; ‘they’ will refer to the group

Realization of Universal identity

The outer limit of the Journey is the realization by an individual of Universal identity. It is this that is the primary objective or purpose. The individual becomes or merges with the Universe—individual awareness becomes Universal consciousness

Further sources and characteristics of the Journey

Get sources

The level 4 headings in this section may be temporary

An individual journey

An individual journey—the individual or personal journey is a source

The idea of a journey

When significant time is spent looking for some distant goal—definite or not—the experience and learning and your changes along the way may change the goal and its nature. The process may have tributary and distributary, dead ends and fresh starts… and their connections may be explicit and strong or perhaps based on some fleeting insight. The process itself may become part of the goal, may absorb life—everything you do has potential connection to ends

The greatest realization

It may appear that Universal identity is the greatest realization. However, this is not given. Our values from this world include the significance of the immediate. Process is important. Surely ‘greatest’ refers not only to magnitude but also to what is of worth, to what is moral and to quality. Still, the sense and reference of ‘greatest’ are not given and will continue to emerge. It may be that on the way some absolute meaning will emerge; this however is not given at present. The reflection on substance below underscores these thoughts. There is further reflection on questions of value in the narrative

No minimization of lesser worlds

The immediate world is valued in itself—as being and adventure… and as grounding; there are other worlds to explore on the way; process and means are also ends

There is no intent to minimize the immediate world. This world is significant in itself, to be enjoyed, a place of adventures in ideas and exploration and becoming, to be understood for itself and as a beginning of realization. It is here that we can experience the infinite through ideas… There are other worlds to explore on the way. The process is an end; the means are also goals

Insight

Although the fundamental truths they have discovered have demonstration, the most important part of the demonstration has been finding the right way to see—what are the fundamental Objects and what is Logic

The two foci

The two foci are also covered in the Prologue

The means and modes—of the journey are ideas and transformation of identity (being.) Ideas are a mode of transformation but an incomplete one. They are completed by the transformations of identity into Identity. Still, ideas remain a fundamental instrument—the other is raw experiment—of negation and the place of appreciation of realization

The elimination of substance and substance style thinking

The elimination of substance entails an openness to being-as-being. It stands against dogmatic philosophy and a priori system; but it permits the emergence of system; it is against the a priori piece-meal-ism of the modern world but it revels in the use of the ad hoc and the piece-meal on the way; it emphasizes the use of the piece-meal and the detail and the wide-angle view

Individual and universal

There are comments on the individual, group, and universal senses of ‘journey’ and of the merging of the associate references

Application

Application is covered in the outline, in the body of the narrative, and in Contribution

Wide-angle view

The fundamental principle shows that identity becomes Identity. There is of course a sense in which the two are already identical and there is therefore a journey in seeing as well as in transformation. The journey in transformation—through identities and worlds—is perhaps the greatest adventure, infinitely greater than depth. This journey is ever in process—even at points of ultimate realization

The two main foci of the journey—and of the narrative—are the ideas and the transformations in being and identity. These are the means and modes of realization

Ideas

The ideas are a form of transformation but are an incomplete one. However the ideas are essential. As a system of knowledge or knowing and understanding they are an instrument of transformation and as experience they are appreciation of the realization

The ideas are developed in all chapters but especially in the second through sixth chapters—Intuition, Metaphysics, Objects, Cosmology, Worlds, and the eighth and ninth chapters—Method and Being. Of course even though the focus of the chapter Journey is transformation the approach includes the use of ideas

Transformation

Journey, the seventh chapter, narrates the process of realization—its historical sources, their enhancement and other learning from the ideas, the transformations so far, and vision for the future. Journey is open ended. The section Pure being of the ninth chapter, Being takes up one closure of the process in identifying be-ing with the ultimate. Journey is focused on transformation, one of the two main foci of the narrative

Since the ideas are instrumental in negotiating and appreciating realizations, Journey follows the main development of the ideas

A detailed outline of the narrative follows

Outline

The level 4 headings in this section may be temporary

Introduction

The first goal is to provide an overview of the development but without excessive attention to detail and approach

The second goal of the introduction is to illuminate the narrative itself, to identify potential audiences, and to make suggestions for reading the narrative

Intuition

In earlier versions of the narrative Metaphysics was the first main chapter. The metaphysics that is developed is called the Universal metaphysics or Metaphysics of immanence. Although the metaphysics has independent foundation and is capable of impressive elaboration and application it remains remote. The concept of experience was used to provide grounding to the metaphysics

More recently, the role of experience has been taken over by the idea of intuition. Intuition is used in a very specific sense that is developed in the narrative. In this sense—in which experience is implicit—the processes of knowing, i.e. fact and inference, are brought under intuition so that no a priori claim regarding the faithfulness of the processes is made. Clearly there must be some faithfulness or else we would not be able to negotiate the world at all. That, however, does not tell us the degree of faithfulness. By analyzing intuition it is found that certain necessary Objects—i.e. Objects that are known with perfect faithfulness—that include experience, the external world, being, the Universe or all being, difference, extension and duration, Domain and Complement, and the Void

These Objects constitute necessary, faithful, and empirical but not a priori knowledge. It is their simplicity that permits their faithful knowledge. Thus, precise metaphysical knowledge—knowledge of the Object-in-itself—is possible and given. Here is an example of the power of eliminating substance or essentialist thinking. In not insisting that all Objects should be known faithfully in order to have a metaphysics, metaphysical knowledge has been developed and identified. Although these necessary Objects provide only a skeleton, it is a skeleton of the Universe that will be developed further in Metaphysics and then filled out in Metaphysics and the remaining chapters

These Objects of Intuition ground the metaphysics

Metaphysics

The focal point of the ideas is the Metaphysics

It is here that a new and ultimate vision of the Universe is developed—the vision has been glimpsed before but the full vision, the demonstration, the elaboration and application including its use as context for all knowing are new. It is here that the fundamental principle of metaphysics is demonstrated. As mentioned in the Prologue, this principle guarantees the infinite richness of the Universe. In Metaphysics, the fundamental principle and its consequences are developed with articulation and precision into what has now takes on the aspect of an edifice but still remains fluid. An aspect of this development is the provision of an ultimate and precise concept of Logic that, because it is implicit, requires no foundation and is approximated by the extant systems of logic. In Metaphysics, Logic is added to the list of necessary and faithful Objects. The metaphysics also shows that substance is untenable as foundation of understanding but also that such foundation is possible—and developed—without substance. These results are immensely significant and contrary to the mainstream of received thought today

The metaphysics is founded independently. However, without the grounding in Intuition it would be remote—merely symbolic though not at all without content. Via Intuition, the metaphysics has intimate foundation in our knowing. In Intuition we know a skeletal version of the entire Universe that may be filled out as noted above. And it is more than a filling out for the mesh of the metaphysics with the knowledge of contexts, e.g. the sciences, provides the potential for the contextual knowledge to be raised to its intrinsic limit. These thoughts run contrary to a deep modern sentiment that metaphysics per se is impossible—that the only metaphysics is a metaphysic of experience. In effect it is shown that provided that the fundamental Objects are chosen and understood with care they are already in experience; this fact has gone unnoticed in prior thought. This leads to the thought that perhaps the metaphysics as well as Logic can be ‘seen.’ The narrative stops short of regarding the metaphysical system as an act of seeing but perhaps the question becomes ‘what is seeing?’

Objects

Metaphysics is followed by Objects which asks precisely what kinds of Objects there are. Objects begins by clarifying the nature of the Object; identifies that Objects fall primarily into two classes—particular and abstract and shows how this forms a foundation for a theory of the variety of Objects. Finally, Objects develops a unified theory of Objects whose central result is that the distinction between particular and abstract Objects is not one of kind but one of mode of study. This is a fundamental discovery that is contrary to mainstream thought on the nature of the abstract and the particular. The discovery is a consequence of the fundamental theorem of metaphysics. Consequences of the discovery include that an Object may be seen as particular or abstract according to approach or phase in the history of thought. Another consequence is that—contrary to mainstream thought—abstract objects have location in space and causal character but location and cause may be more or less ‘abstracted out’ and therefore not relevant rather than not part of the constitution of the Object

Cosmology

Cosmology develops a variety of Objects that includes process as well as the special cases of mechanism and causation. In Metaphysics it was shown that the Universe is absolutely indeterministic—that there is no limitation on the states of the Universe except Logic and that every state is accessible from every other state. Contrary to one trend in thought this necessitates structure for structured states are among the Logical states. This eliminates the potential paradox that Universal freedom violates the science of our local cosmos. It is also one foundation of the Cosmology whose topics are General cosmology, Variety and origins, Identity and death, Process, Mind, and Space-time-being. To detail the various sub-topics and results of Cosmology would take up unnecessary space and the reader is referred to the chapter for this material. Some results such as the identity of individual identity and Universal Identity have been mentioned—this implies the relative nature of death; others include that there must be infinitely many worlds of infinitely varied character and that space and time are immanent and therefore relative but that there may be domains where they are as if absolute; and that the Universe enters stages of being the Void which resolves a fundamental problem of metaphysics, i.e. why there must be phases of manifest being rather than eternal nothingness; finally a simple consequence of the concept of the Universe as all being is that it can have no first cause or creator—however there are gods but that these gods do not generally conform to the various preconceptions of the idea of ‘god’ from myth and religion

With the conclusion of Cosmology the development of the general metaphysics comes to a temporary halt

Worlds

The next chapter Worlds, is a study of the local cosmological system—the one that is the subject of modern physical cosmology. The subtopics are Local cosmology, Human being which includes a study of human mind and society, and the Human endeavor and its normal limits. All topics have intrinsic interest as the understanding of where we live and what we are. The topics are significant to the journey because understanding of where we live and what we are is significant at the journey’s outset (at least.) The final topic regarding the normal limits of the human endeavor takes up some traditional modes of human understanding of the universe and the place of human being in it. These modes include myth and religion, science and rationalism, and secular humanism. It is shown that these modes have intrinsic limits that are consequent upon the nature of their normal practice—which is to say that the limits are not essential but imposed by various factors that include conservatism and an obsessive and blinding concern with security. The reason that the discussion is separate from the section Human being is that it provides a kind of preparation for the Universal metaphysics, i.e. the nature of the limits is such that the disciplines are revealed as having domains where they do not apply. Where knowledge says nothing, nothing can be said. However, where the traditional systems say nothing there may be some other system; the Universal metaphysics is the ultimate of such systems. Precisely what is the relation between the metaphysics and the traditional systems—especially science, rationalism, and secular humanism—is taken up in the narrative

Journey

At this point the narrative takes up the transformations of being and identity in the chapter Journey described above

Method

The next chapter concerns Method. Method and content are traditionally separated; method develops slowly—witness the period of about 2000 years between the Aristotelian and modern logics; and the foundation of method appears to be obscure. However, in the development of the ideas it was seen that reflections regarding content and method were emerging together. This has already been seen in the emergence of facts that are empirical and necessary and in the dual emergence of metaphysics and Logic. Thus far—in the Introduction—of course these things have not been developed formally or demonstrated. In the narrative there is both formal development and demonstration. This material is collected together in Method. Abstraction emerges as fundamental to this development. Here, abstraction is not the replacement of a rich Object by a stick figure; that is one connotation of ‘abstraction.’ Rather, abstraction is the identification of essentials of Objects that are so simple that empirical and necessary or faithful knowledge of such Objects is given. The second aspect of Method emerges from the fundamental principle which shows that Logic is the one law of all being—of the Universe. The two ways of knowing are fact and inference and we see these as combining under Method in the development of the Universal metaphysics. This metaphysics—Intuition through Cosmology—is rich in one way but still rather barren in its immediate application. However, the metaphysics forms a framework for more immediate studies such as that in Cosmology of mind, and the studies in Worlds of Local cosmology and Human being. The principles of the application of the metaphysic are that the Universe contains all worlds; that the fundamental principle of metaphysics applies to all worlds; and that although restricted and stable worlds have Normal behaviors, those behaviors are not root behaviors and it is via root behavior that the Normal and the Universal connect. This connection is a rich source of ideas and extensions of the study of local worlds—the Local cosmology, Human being and society and so on. And it is here especially that the vast studies from the traditions of thought are so useful to the present development for they provide raw material

Method is taken up after Journey. This is because it is realization that is the completion of the ideas. The ideas alone do not constitute or show the entire way to realization. Action upon the goal of transformation is essential and there will be no ultimate guides in this ultimate adventure. Additionally, there may be doubts and objections regarding the demonstrations of the ideas; and even though these doubts and objections are addressed doubt may remain. Therefore Faith is an essential element of ‘method.’ At this point the reader may have become acclimated to the use of common words with multiple connotations in specific and sometimes ultimate meanings. Here Faith has specific meaning; it is not Faith in dogma for example which has the sometime connotation in what is or rings of the absurd. Here Faith is closer to the simple faith in regular events, to animal faith. Although such Faith is without universal logical foundation, without it the individual might be reduced to neurotic confusion. Here, therefore, Faith is that attitude that secure in the knowledge of universal realization that is maximally conducive to the contingent process of realization. This Faith encounters and allows doubt—without doubt there is no overcoming of doubt which remains neurotically suppressed; this Faith does not encourage action from universal blindness but encourages finding out about local contingencies to ferret out paths; this Faith recognizes that where we may ‘fail’ in countless manifestations, there will be realization in countless if many fewer others. This Faith is a concomitant to Method

Principles of perception, thought and action

Method also considers Principles of perception, thought and action which are distinct from method. Under the principles the main concern is the constructive or imaginative process for which there appears at outset—and this would be the consensus in the literature on this process—no method. However, some order is introduced into these ‘principles’ under the idea of reflexivity. Reflexivity is roughly the idea of self reference and cross reference among content and approach and the process of thought—and of perception and action—itself

Being

The final main chapter, Being takes up the nature of being-that-is-capable-of-feeling-significance. The two approaches to significance are History and Pure being. The concept of History developed is tailored to the task and the attitude is light and suffused with light; it is a weightless approach to History. Pure being is discussed earlier—“Pure being takes up one closure of the process in identifying be-ing with the ultimate”; it is concerned with closure of the question of realization even while being-in-a-journey

Contribution

Various developments have been tendered as contributions to thought

The original contributions

In its first section, The original contributions, the final chapter Contribution summarizes these potential contributions from the main development

The chapter develops some further ideas for contribution. These concern the nature of philosophy and metaphysics, the classification and address of the problems of traditional and recent metaphysics, and the development of a system of human knowledge. The relevant sections are Philosophy and metaphysics, Problems of metaphysics which catalogs and addresses the problems of traditional and modern metaphysics, and Human knowledge which develops and outlines a system of human knowledge in light of the intersection of the academic disciplines and the Universal metaphysics

Philosophy and metaphysics

In the modern and recent era, the scope of philosophy has retracted from its role as knowledge of the world and expanded in a role in which it illuminates the nature and limits of knowledge. Similarly, traditional metaphysics—especially system building—has been seen as misguided and speculative. The present narrative has presented and demonstrated the necessity of a Universal metaphysics that is not a speculative system in the traditional sense, i.e. the present metaphysics is demonstrated rather than speculated. Of course, imagination was necessary to provide the raw material upon which reason could operate. It is fundamental that the problem of infinite regress in foundation is manifestly addressed and resolved in the development

The question arises—Why has systematic metaphysics been largely abandoned? The answer may be twofold. First, the actual systems, e.g. of the Greeks and of eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe are indeed highly speculative and rightly deemed to be without foundation (they remain remarkable in that if they were foundational, they would also be profoundly imaginative.) The fact that those systems may have been so highly and dogmatically regarded undoubtedly contributed to their downfall—to the violence with which they have been rejected; however, from that downfall it is an unwarranted conclusion that all system is impossible. Secondly however, Kant is regarded as having shown that no metaphysics outside experience is possible and even without the weight of Kant’s thought the empirical side of modern science combined with its vast success has weighed in against the possibility and usefulness of metaphysics which came to be regarded as essential speculation. The present narrative as indicated above has shown that even though those arguments are reasonable they do not imply that the Universal metaphysics is impossible for it is empirical or that it is impossible for it has been demonstrated or that it is useless for the narrative develops an immense system of revaluation of ideas and (human) possibility; and the demonstrated Universal metaphysics is consistent with and requires what is valid in science and all reason and common sense, and although difficult to test is not untestable (the method of test is the journey in identity which is rather different than the standard scientific approach to testing)

Thus real and ultimate metaphysics is not only possible but necessary. And since the limits of philosophy are largely the limits of metaphysics, a conception of philosophy as also applying to the world is restored—and the restoration is more powerful than ever before, i.e. in paradigm or understanding that falls short of the ultimate that is here revealed

The following conceptions arise. Metaphysics is the discipline whose concern is the outer limits of being; whose method—the method of the rational or empirical-logical analysis of experience-meaning—shows how to study at those outer limits; and which is revealed as a study of being of ultimate depth and variety

Philosophy is the discipline whose limits are the outer limits of being; whose method shows how to study within those limits—the method of metaphysics; and the interactively modified methods of less general contexts whose intrinsic limit is the limit of the context

The problems of metaphysics. Human knowledge

These considerations suggest and the thoughts are developed in Contribution that the present developments enable classification and address of the problems of metaphysics and universalize any modern system of human knowledge and touch all of its major divisions

Some significant concepts

The concepts are generally non-technical and pertain to the ‘envelope’ and foci of the journey. Their significance and meaning will become clearer and fuller as the narrative progresses. The concepts will include meaning

Narrative

Unusual form

Unusual form—a travelogue and a monologue that includes a Universal metaphysics and its applications

Ultimate content

Ultimate in content—inclusive of the local

Suggestions for reading

Suggestions for reading—since the context is ultimate ordinary words acquire new meaning; since meaning is holistic, it emerges with net understanding; we therefore suggest two readings… a first linear reading with incomplete understanding tolerated and criticism acknowledged but temporarily and at least partially placed on hold… and a second not so linear reading to clarify, resolve or consolidate criticism, complete the understanding, integrate and merge with the reader’s process

Audiences

Audiences—the general and the specialist are not exclusive—the general audience is interested in the envelope and the process of the journey while the specialist andor technical is perhaps academic and interested in some specific aspect andor the underlying argument and its relation to and implication for formal thought (the development blurs the distinction of the general and the formal interest and development)

Contribution

Contribution—perhaps brief mention

Intuition

Here it is shown that the primary Objects of the Metaphysics, i.e. Being-as-that-which-exists; the External World which is the term of choice but is not really external to anything but is the object of knowing and the existence of the external world is a statement that impressions are not the only things that exist and that although there are ‘pure impressions’ the general impression refers to some existing object whose form is a dual function of world and subject; Universe; the Void; Domain and Complement; and Logic and others; are—all—known with perfect faithfulness. Generally, Objects, e.g. a sunset, are not known with perfect faithfulness but the ‘primary’ Objects are known on account of their extreme simplicity. The ‘faculty’ by which these Objects are known is ‘Intuition’ which is used in a sense that has some overlap but is otherwise quite distinct from its common modern everyday sense in which being intuitive is especially possessed by ‘intuitive’ persons. What it has in common with the everyday sense, and this is important, is that the ‘how’ of intuitive knowing is not apparent or necessarily known

The narrative develops the idea of existence. Here, I omit that development except to say that there are two technically different senses of ‘exist’ that belong to the same root meaning. The first meaning is existence at a particular time (and perhaps location.) In the second sense ‘exists’ means exists-in-the-first-sense at any time andor place. Although there is no fundamental difference between these senses, the latter introduces enormous simplification into the developments

The use of Intuition in Journey in being derives from Kant’s use in which Intuition is possessed by every individual as part of seeing the world in the characteristic ways in which it is seen. It is significant that we say that the primary or necessary Objects ‘are known’ and not merely ‘can be known.’ This development shows that the Metaphysics, which would otherwise be abstract, is not abstract but is necessary and essentially empirical (though not a priori and this is a philosophically important case of the a priori and the necessary being distinct.) It thus grounds the metaphysics and shows how we—individuals—connect to or with the Universe revealed in Metaphysics which would otherwise be abstract even though necessary

This chapter accomplishes a mature theory of knowledge that is supplemented by the later chapters and, as noted, grounds the later ‘abstract’ developments and locates our world in the—entire—Universe (which is revealed in Metaphysics, next, to be of infinite extent and variety and kind)

Although Intuition is the first main chapter it is—in its present form—close to the most recent development. While the development of the subsequent chapters involved a process—a highly non-linear and multi-stage and multi-thread process—once it was developed I began to see that the developments can be seen much as when studying some discipline the intuitive view of the discipline as a whole comes after the study of the details. The concept of Intuition is currently being used to show—and I think I am near to success—how the entire metaphysics can be ‘seen’ as an ‘act of perception’

Metaphysics

This chapter develops a picture of the Universe in which it is shown that the Universe cannot be greater than it is (there are some technical niceties regarding the meaning of ‘Universe’ and ‘cannot’ and ‘is’ which, except to say that the meaning of Universe is ‘all being’ and not just what is known or suspected or physical, I pass over in this short account.) The fundamental principle of the metaphysics, called the fundamental principle of metaphysics, is that the one and only law that applies to all being, i.e. the only Universal law is the ‘law’ of Logic which entails a definition of Logic (the reason for the capitalization) which, however, is shown to be not empty and must span all valid development in logic

Although this outline generally avoids proofs, I will provide the proof of the fundamental principle because (1) the principle is the central theorem from which flows the entire metaphysics over the Objects of intuition and it is therefore important to display it so that the objections to it may be transparent, and (2) the meaning of the principle and such terms as Logic flow from the proof which also adds to the meaning of terms ‘being,’ ‘Void,’ ‘Universe and so on. The original proof runs along the following lines. The Universe is all being. A law, e.g. of physics, is what we read in the universe or a part of it; the thing that is read may be called a Law. The Universe must contain not only all being-things but all Laws. That would be contradictory except that different Laws may obtain in different extensional (roughly space-time) epochs. Domains and complements of domains exist; the Void is defined as the complement of the Universe in itself and therefore exists—it is at this point that the proof is subject to criticism—and contains no Laws. If there were some state that could not come from the Void, that would be a Law of the Void and therefore there is no state that cannot come from the Void including annihilator states and therefore every state can come from any state. The ‘exception’ is of course that states must satisfy logic. But we know that our logic is not perfect and therefore we replace it by a perfect but implicitly defined Logic which is not trivial because the logics are approximations to it. Therefore Logic is the only law of the Universe or, alternatively, the Universe has no Laws

An alternative, more recent proof is, in skeleton form, as follows. Since the Void contains no Law, the Universe must contain all possible Laws which, however, cannot obtain in the same epoch and, therefore, the only law of the Universe, i.e. the only universal law, is the law of Logic. Alternatively, the Universe has no Law

The immediate and probably the most important objections to the fundamental principle are (a) the critical step noted above and (b) the violence that the principle seems to do to science and common sense. The first objection is treated in the essay via alternative proofs but the objection points out what is perhaps a weak link. There is perhaps an element of faith regarding the fundamental principle and justification of this faith—though not of faith in general—is addressed in Worlds and Journey. However, although identity of the Identities with Identity is given, it is as yet unsaid but now said consequence of the fundamental principle that for every world in which there is a merging of an author-of-a-Journey-in-being with Identity, there is a world in which there is no local merging; therefore, even if the fundamental principle is true is there not an occasion for faith in large things—the merging with Identity, and small things—the stability of the ground on which I walk. And even in the merging there are worlds of wonder and of horror and filth and it is perhaps the Normal truth that most worlds are a mix of these elements. Therefore there is always a role for faith but not faith as in belief but faith whose root is in animal faith

The response to the second objection is in two parts, first, that it is demonstrated and, second, that the violence to science and common sense may be apparent but is not real. While the principle is in fact demonstrated, there are niceties to the demonstration and a variety of objections that are addressed in the essay. The essential concepts in showing the non-violation of science and so on are the fundamental principle itself which implies the necessity of such worlds as ours and the concept of the Normal which shows that the contingent laws of our world (physics, common sense and so on but excluding Logic) have significant but neither Universal nor absolute purchase

It is important to understand that the terms used—as being, metaphysics, law, universe, logic, and so on—are common terms but may be used with uncommon meaning that is naturally related to their everyday andor technical meanings but is often either different or a significant extension

Among the significant implications of the metaphysics are (1) Depth of understanding regarding the ‘world’ or Universe, i.e. what is sought when foundations of understanding are sought and this includes the search for ‘substance’ which is roughly and in one of its meanings ‘the uniform and unchanging thing that manifests as all variety and change’ is achieved, that it is achieved without substance, and that it is essentially shallow (no infinite regress) and trivial though not un-profound. (2) That the variety of being in the Universe (over all space and time which is put roughly since it is not assumed in the development that space and time have purchase over all being) is infinite since its only limits are those of Logic. The challenge of search and adventure, therefore and especially for those who appreciate search and adventure without end, is limited only by the capacity of the individual and by the limiting points of birth and death. However, the fundamental principle implies that these limits are Normal but not absolute limits and therefore shows the identity as speculated in the Vedanta of individual identity and Universal Identity. The gap between individual identity and Universal Identity is revealed in consideration of common observation and the metaphysical development to be ‘immense’ but not absolute

A number of thinkers (Sankara, an author of Vedanta, Leibniz, Hume, Wittgenstein, the Mystics…) have had fragmentary visions of the truth here demonstrated but no one, as far as I know, has seen the thing in its now revealed elaboration as a picture of all being and variety and never before, so far as I know, has it been demonstrated. This is the main contribution, I think, but there are a number of others such as reconceptualization and understanding of the nature of Logic

Yet the truth of the metaphysics is implicit in every particle of Being

Objects

This chapter develops the study of the variety and kinds of Objects. There are the common objects such as trees, stars, footballs, people, and communities and so on that are studied as particular objects. Then there are things such as number, numbers, the objects of mathematics, relationships, ideas, forms, values, redness and so on that have been studied in human thought under a variety of headings including ‘Universals’ but, most recently and most generally, as abstract objects. Together, the particular or concrete objects and the abstract objects make up all objects unless one also wants to include ‘objects’ that cannot exist because they violate Logic (i.e. some principle of Logic)

This chapter develops a unified theory of particular and abstract objects that defies the conventional and it seems near universal wisdom that particular and abstract are different kinds. In Metaphysics it is shown that every concept or idea or mental concept or proposition that does not violate Logic must have reference. From this it follows that if an abstract concept, meaning the concept that defines an abstract object, does not violate Logic, there must be an object that corresponds to it. In other words ‘number’ is a concept but corresponding to ‘1’ there is an object in the Universe. Such Objects are not particular in the concrete sense of course but the distinction is a contingent distinction that is the result of the construction of the human organs of perception and conception (a rough way of putting it and there are some niceties that are here being glossed over in the interest of brevity and simplicity.) Thus the distinction between the abstract and the particular is in how they are studied / known and not in ‘what’ they are. This is nicely brought out by the history of mathematical concepts. Geometrical objects are first studied, going back to pre-historical times, empirically. Then someone notices that they can be studied abstractly and builds up a Euclidean Geometry and later builds up Non-Euclidean Geometries. Still later when the abstract approach is supplemented by computer studies there is a return to an empirical or semi-empirical approach. Whereas abstract Objects are thought to not exist in space what is shown here that they do exist in space but that the relevance of spatiality to their description, due to abstraction, is of degree that depends on the degree and kind of abstraction and includes the case of non-relevance which explains why it seems that some abstract objects do not ‘exist in space.’ The first accomplishment, therefore, of ‘Objects’ is the unification of particular and abstract Objects that stands against the historical and current streams of thought

The second accomplishment of the chapter is that it founds the theory of variety that is developed in Cosmology and that, together with the study of the human categories of knowledge developed in chapter Worlds, provides a basis for the practical study of variety

Cosmology

This is general cosmology which is the study of variety in general and not just the variety of object and law and description for our local cosmological system

The topics of Cosmology are General cosmology; Variety and origins which includes investigation of normal claims as well as those that lie on the boundary of the normal and include as very special instances the ideas of ‘miracle’ ‘resurrection’ and ‘karma;’ Identity and death; Process; Mind; and Space, time and being

Under variety it is seen that the only fictions are the Logical fictions. Different stories would be contradictory if they occupied the same ‘time and space’ but may obtain at different times andor spaces. It is shown as an immediate consequence of the fundamental principle that the actual variety in the Universe could not be greater than it is. Thus the Universe contains and must contain unicorns, infinitely many Jesus Christs, and karma. However, there can be no Universal law of Karma; but this gives no support to the existence on this earth of a historical Jesus with the Biblical characteristics. Under the topic of variety are developed some theories of mechanism and origins and evolution

It is shown in Metaphysics but is pertinent to mention here that the Universe as all being cannot have a creator but one part of the Universe may create another. Therefore there is no omnipotent God of the Bible—i.e., God, the creator of the Universe—but there are and must be local gods

Identity is discussed earlier and is crucial in showing that the metaphysics has actual significance to the being of the individual

Mind and consciousness are shown to go to the root of being but only in extended senses that make root mind remote from our experience of it

Space and time are shown to be the extensional dimensions of being but not necessarily the only ones and there is no universal space and time; there may be multiple times and space can have any dimensionality. The most important development is that space and time must be relative but may manifest as-if-absolute

Worlds

The topic is the study of Normal worlds such as our ‘universe’ meaning the universe as revealed in astronomy and physical cosmology; general motivation needs no explanation; in relation to ‘Journey in being’ the relevance is that this very local universe is the place that our journey begins (at least apparently)

The main topics are (1) Local cosmology—the physical cosmology of ‘this’ cosmos; (2) Human being—here is studied the organism but what is emphasized is mind and its human and animal aspects and results in a unified theory of cognition and emotion and covers those two topics in the general context of ‘function’ and the organization of function in categories and includes a new-ish category of ‘humor’ as adjustment to the unknown, as well as personality, integration and dynamics, and health and disorder; and (3) Human endeavor and its limits—which is a study of the paradigmatic ways of knowing such as myth, religion, science, secular humanism and so on and investigates their inherent limits—an inherent limit is one that is revealed by the reasoning of the paradigm—and external limits including limits relative to and revealed by the Universal metaphysics of Metaphysics and which shows the limitations of the paradigms under which we labor (without negating or attempting to negate their practical utility)

Journey

‘Journey’ conveys the following intended sense. End points, goals, ambitions, pathways, and sense of direction are important but are neither single nor fixed; they are allowed to evolve with the travel; they are not invariably in the foreground and when they are they may channel activity rather than govern it. The journey is an adventure. The emerging character of paths, goals, ambitions, and means is not merely the correlate of any sense of adventure or travel or of being-in-the-present; it stems from the fact that outcomes are not contained in or determined by origins. Definite goals and ambitions may of course emerge but are not held as final even if they have an aura of finality

This chapter has a number of ‘functions’

The main idea is one that has been with me for a long time in one form or other but may be formalized as follows. There are practical motives to the search for knowledge. However, one motivation for many ‘researchers’ is the idea of realization—although the individual is perhaps finite, he or she realizes ‘infinity’ in their ideas, e.g. a physical cosmology such as the field equations of general relativity are thought to be a description of the entire universe. However, I saw and began to see more clearly that these kinds of realization are external to the individual—to myself. They are not entirely external and not non-physical because they do involve some changes in the brain but these do not concern the entire being or individual even if their significance is much greater than their physical trace. Therefore I began to think of what realization might be possible and actual for the individual—for myself. And the ideas developed in Metaphysics etcetera began to reveal that what is not only possible but also necessary is much larger than commonly thought—even larger than in the speculations of Vedanta for in Vedanta it is thought that “Atman = Brahman” but the Vedantic notion of Brahman, though it is large, is nowhere near what is revealed in the Metaphysics and, further, the Vedantic speculations are not founded but the Metaphysics is demonstrated

Therefore, the first topic of this chapter, is a review of historical approaches to transformation such as yoga, mysticism, shamanism, psychoanalysis and, secondarily, science and technology and information theory, for ideas that are then integrated under the ideas of the metaphysics and labeled ‘dynamics of being.’ The second topic lists some experiments that I have done so far, their extent being limited, and, under the ideas from Worlds and Metaphysics, provides a road map for the (my) future. The general road map is supplemented by detailed plans of study and experiment. From the studies of historical approaches and of human being, I have extracted generic and founded approaches to transformation. Here I am, therefore, sixty one bleeping years old, and looking at a normally limited future but also at a conceptually infinite adventure that is enormously larger than the usual pictures (science, humanism, myth, literature, the major religions and their scriptures) and has not only foundation but, unlike the myths and religions, has method and demonstration to back it up. These ideas go far beyond injunctions to translate ideas into practice and show the integration of essential ideas with ‘being.’ In other words, ideas without being or action are empty and therefore no philosophy of action is necessary because it is already implicit in the developments in a more complete form. While the Ideas (all other chapters) are mature and near complete, the journey and the approaches are beginning

The journey began as an individual ‘adventure.’ It aimed at Universality but that was achieved only when the Universal metaphysics was achieved. The span of the journey grew from the immediate—to the infinite or ultimate, the individual—to the universal, the known—to the unknown. Journey in being sounds better than Journeys in being. However, the metaphysics and the theory of identity show that the title is not technically incorrect

The chapter also describes my personal journey (life) and while I think that the idea—the individual journey though not specifically my journey—is important I am not decided on how much of this material to retain in any final version. It is not a real problem for the luxuries of the Internet permit accounts with different levels of detail. Anything published in paper / book form can refer to the Internet

Method

We traditionally seem to think of method (how to see; how to reason—i.e., logic and so on) as distinct from subject matter. How to see is distinct from what is seen; the ‘laws’ of reason are distinct from the laws of physics. ‘Method’ is deployed in the proof of content but we do not seem to prove method; we receive method; method is—at least as if—a priori. However, when developing the metaphysics and other topics I began to see that I was not just thinking about the world but also thinking about how to think

The latter had two parts that are of course well known—a heuristic part that is part of what makes creative thought creative and is rather variable from thinker to thinker and regarding which we normally think that there is no formalization; and there is a formal part i.e. the necessity of faithful perception for some objects and the emerging necessity of Logic… and that although these developments have triviality, they are also profound in their consequences and Logic and so on

The formal side will be discussed next, under Intuition and formal method; aids to creativity are discussed in Reflexivity

Intuition and formal method

The present development—in Journey in being—reigns in under Intuition the two traditional divisions of knowing ‘perception’ and ‘thought including inferring’ (their completeness is demonstrated in chapters Cosmology and Worlds) and regards them at outset as perhaps imperfect and having empirical content (even logic and this is backed up by modern developments.) More precisely, there is no a priori commitment to perfection or imperfection; it is allowed that some knowing may be perfect, while other knowing may be adequate and still other knowing very imperfect… The power of this is that it allows that there will be some elements that must be discovered that are perfect. The radical critic who says ‘we know nothing’ thinks he or she is in a stronger position than the optimist who thinks he or she does have valid knowledge. However, the agnostic position advocated here is perhaps the strongest of attitudes to knowing. And it is important that it is a priori agnosticism without any commitment that we shall or shall not remain agnostic

The approach avoids the habit of substance thinking in relation to method

What has emerged are the necessary Objects and Logic. By themselves these would be jewels but remote and limited in range. However, in the development their perfection in interaction with the necessarily studies of our world (most of the subjects taught in universities and so on) have the potential to be raised to the limit inherent in our capability and the discipline itself. This development that I label ‘Applied Metaphysics’ is immense

What we see, then, is method emerging alongside content (to which method is normally applied.) And we see where method is necessary and where merely practical. In reigning in method from the height of the a priori necessary we have in fact shown where it even exceeds a priori necessity to demonstrated necessity. Although we eschew the habit of substance thought, we allow substance—metaphorically speaking—to emerge where it will. There is an apparent circularity here for we are seemingly demonstrating demonstration but this is resolved in the development and an example of it is the ‘seeing’ of the simple necessary Objects that requires no demonstration and thus cutting short the potential infinite regress in proving how to prove. This is also immensely important because one of the objections to the fundamental principle of the metaphysics concerned this kind of circularity and using Logic without apparent premise to as proof and here, then, is the resolution of that objection

This chapter collects together and formalizes what has emerged regarding method. Regarding variety and ‘journey’ and ‘transformation’ there is no ultimate method and therefore I think it is better to place method after rather than before Journey. It is, depending on your attitude of course, a pleasant thing that it is demonstrated that there is no ultimate method for the alternative would mean that—perhaps after a finite period of discovery— the Universe has the potential to be ultimately and eternally boring

Reflexivity

There is a variety of ‘aids’ to constructive or creative thought. Let’s start with examples and proceed to a method. Some examples are visualization or visual imagination, selectivity or implicit criticism—the sub or pre-conscious elimination of absurd ideas as well as when necessary being aware of such selectivity and placing it on temporary hold, incubation, and cross-fertilization. The critical thinker will conclude from criticism itself that criticism may be limited and must occasionally be suspended for new ideas to emerge and then be subject to criticism. The imaginative thinker will recognize that free-creation alone lacks sufficient structure and must be balanced with critical structure. Here, especially in creativity, can be seen the interaction of imagination and criticism and the withholding of imagination and of criticism

A critical theory is said to be reflexive when it satisfies its own criteria. It is not always necessary for a theory to be reflexive because the theory itself need not lie within its domain of reference or, alternatively, the theory may allow certain kinds of exception. More generally, reflexivity is the cross-interaction of any and all elements of discovery. There is reflexivity of subject matter—one discipline may serve as analogy for another. There is free imagination which is of course not fully free but conditioned by experience which entails implicit criticism; however there will be elements of freedom. The reflex process will have some natural structure for included in the reflex elements will be meta-reflection, i.e. clarifying what it is that the thinker is trying to do. And the thinker’s personal resources may enter into the reflex scheme—what he or she knows and maybe willing to study, time, personal aids and inspiration for reflection. Perhaps all elements of creative and constructive thought can fall under reflexivity. There is a traditional separation of imagination and reason that is encapsulated in the well known phrases ‘context of discovery’ and ‘context of justification.’ This separation corresponds to the simple idea that valid solutions to problems do not typically present at once in their final form. Rather, imagination is dominant in the discovery of ideas which are then subject to proof. However, the separation is not complete. Upon subjecting an idea to rigorous examination deficiencies may be revealed which require further imagination and so on. Generally, there is no algorithmic reflex method even though there may be some general ideas regarding the process of discovery. Reflexive discovery remains significantly contextual and personal

Being

New material in this section has been absorbed to the original documents

And on into being… The nature of being has been addressed in Intuition and Metaphysics. The topic of this chapter is the meaning of being, i.e., what is it that is the source of any sense of significance we have about our lives and person

In this chapter, therefore, the focus is not on being-as-being or being-as-such but on being that has the ability to have and create meaning-in-the-sense-of-significance… even though the distinction is contingent

Just as mind goes to the root of being, so does being with meaning but that requires an extension of the lexical meaning of meaning-as-significance that is rather remote from human experience of it

This chapter was called ‘History’ until last night. It talked of the nature of history and vaguely of history as a source of meaning. I was unhappy about the chapter, its dependence on history, its location (at the end,) its lack of completeness… and I had been casting around for alternatives, complements, and improvements

The improvement occurred last night under the influence of the claret even though I did not enjoy it as much as I had hoped and even though I did not have the specific thought to think about this chapter and even though the thought to use this particular occasion as ‘brain lubricant’ was only vague

However, as I was sipping claret and as the alcohol began to influence my mood, there was despite the flush, some pleasantness and loosening up, and as I was watching a movie ‘Wisegal’ with Alyssa Milano (cute as hell) and James Caan (I’ve liked James Caan since the movie Godfather where he was the Godfather’s oldest son and died in a hail of bullets) somehow the thought entered from somewhere ‘Being;’ and it wasn’t entirely natural to think that since being is already addressed in Intuition and Metaphysics and the idea of significance is already implicit in the narrative. But having had the thought—it is perhaps more accurate that what immediately follows was implicit in the thought, it was immediate that it would concern the kind of being that has the capacity for significance and I immediately realized that the thought was natural and would resolve my misgivings about labeling the final chapter ‘History.’ I had a few vague thoughts on restructuring and complementing ‘History’ and where to send some of the parts that would not fit under ‘Being’ (e.g. the contributions which were awkwardly thought of under ‘contribution to the history of human thought.’) I thought out the details today, after sleeping on the claret. I began this email with the thought to describe only the claret episode but it grew into its present form and I hope that if you have read it all it has not been excessively laborious in proportion to revelation

Now, this chapter will have two main sections, History which will be roughly what it was before and Pure being, where the individual will be seen to have the potential to derive significance from living and acting in a Universe that he or she may and will become but that becoming will be far from guaranteed in any direct sense and it is the negotiation of the ideational and transformational parts that will provide the greatest significance and adventure

In History where a concept of history is—and meaning derives from—knowledge of and action in history—i.e., historical action. It will be emphasized that action should not overreach scope for maximal meaning In Pure being, meaning will derive from commitment, acting, and knowing in light of the relations among identities and Identity and Identity as Universe. Again identity should not temporally exceed potential; however, the boundary of potential is necessarily elastic or porous and finally infinitely so which implies that contingent boundaries should be respected but not absolutely respected… this has also implications for the historical sections. This section is not a-historical or anti-historical but has both historical and a-historical elements. Meaning cannot be derived from outside Being or Universe but the meaning of or for an individual can be derived outside identity and systems that absolutely proscribe that whether in this life or generally are in error

History

See this version for details

What is history?

Being and history

Vision

Transformation

History in the light of being

Pure being

The idea

The idea is a world unmediated by substance. If we cannot avoid slant and substance, we will not insist on our known slants and substances even when and if we live with them. However, that also means that we cannot insist that slant is always—inevitably—present and always and inevitably unavoidable

As in the case of faith—what do we do if we eradicate all doubt—there is the problem: what shall we do in the presence of pure being?

A problem

A problem with the idea of pure being is the suggestion of crystal purity forever. The idea of avoidance of the world. The idea that we can avoid death

These things are not suggested

However, we may pause a moment. If we have not experienced crystal purity can we know what it is like? We cannot avoid the world—we can only try and fail and consequently perhaps live a lesser this life; and every acceptance of a lesser this life is the perpetuation of a lesser recurrence… or is that so? And regardless of whether we can avoid death, realism is no easy out… for no one without recourse to necessary knowledge knows… common sense and science suggest that death is final and there, there is an out—or two outs. The first out is the suicidal out but the suicidal does not know that it is final. Then there is the existential out, the great liberation of facing death truly which is a struggle of meaning and fact… but after the existentially oriented individual has faced and conquered death or met it in some alien field there is still the necessary contingent nag that what has been conquered is a chimera

Attraction and repulsion

Psychoanalytic writers, existentialists, novelists and other writers write of eros and death, of the relation and mutual illumination. Some particularize to sex and excrement and their proximity

What is the problem? Is it not animal to have some revulsion to excrement and attraction to genitalia? Well we’re human and therefore there’s the potential for all kinds of mix ups

We don’t want to get too mixed up in the theoretical so that we can’t see the practical; eros and excrement are perhaps symbols for attraction and repulsion even if they are also the most important cases. We can therefore forgive anyone who mistakes the symbol for the mere case—the case is important but the symbol is more so because it is more inclusive. At the same time, it’s important to not ignore the important particulars as we are encouraged to do by prudery that parades as morality. It’s not that simple and it’s obvious that some fine line exists—no one except the insane runs around nude or having sex in public. If the line is crossed in one direction we’re licentious; in the other direction we’re repressing healthy behavior. The difficulty arises because we’re complex and each of us is complex in different ways

The scholar sometimes makes things difficult when erudition is used in either excess but the scholar is still human and not exempt from the problems of being human; additionally the scholar may be attempting to address personal issues while being scholarly. We’ve seen such confusions in rather different areas, for example scientists who parade their atheism and their facing of the apparent but not at all necessary emptiness—in the sense of objectivity of significance—of the universe

Perhaps the main mix up is this. In fetish avoidance we avoid by hanging on to what is negative—by being-retentive of the negative andor by being-avoidant of the positive. In fetish attraction we hang on to what is positive—by being-retentive of the positive or by being-expulsive of the negative. In either case, we do not see the rest of the world—at all or for what it is… and we do not see the thing for what it is either in good or evil (it is perhaps a case of too much of a good thing or too little of a bad one)

In either case our being is diminished. And it’s vaguely parallel to hanging on to life and hanging on to death. Freud invokes the death drive—not an instinct, for Freud an instinct is necessary for life—to explain why people do not always follow the ‘pleasure principle.’ Well surely, human affairs are complex enough that regardless of the happiness the way there is unhappy or at least not obviously happy… or having chosen a neutral way, we find unforeseen unhappiness on the way. That doesn’t prove of course that there isn’t a death drive—which Freud invokes to explain post trauma stress and reliving, child’s repetitive play, and the at least putative destructive tendency of (Western) Civilization—but only that it isn’t necessary to explain the exceptions to the pleasure principle

Pure being

… Therefore is not crystalline; and it is not writing it though it may lie in sharing; and it is out there rather like the period at the end of this paragraph

Contribution

Significance of the ideas of the narrative for thought and its history

The decision to place significance and contribution in Method has been reversed; it will be left in its earlier place in chapter Being that used to be called History

I’m not sure where the best place to gather together all the contributions that I think I have made but I don’t want to place them in a separate chapter, I don’t want to place it at the beginning because claim without proof is empty-ish, and it’s not enough to point out each item as it is written because the whole stands out as a system in interaction. Therefore, this is currently where they sit—even though I don’t want a separate chapter. Some potential contributions are mentioned in the body of this email. One that is alluded to is the problem of substance. Substance theory, as it is called, is the idea that there are one or a few substances that are uniform and unchanging and that manifest in determined ways as the variety and change that we have in the entire Universe. Since the Universe would be explainable in terms of something simple, the appeal has been enormous throughout the history of Western thought since the Greeks. There are, however, a few problems with substance theory. First, what is the substance behind the substance or substances? If the question is answered it leads to infinite regress; if not, the unexplained substance is arbitrary and therefore not ultimately simple. Further, how does the variety and the change manifest? I.e., what is the mechanism? This is not implicit in the notion of ‘substance.’ It is apparent that a deterministic mechanism will not do but an indeterministic one further violates simplicity. Despite the problems, the alternative of infinite regress is worse… and it is thought that that is the only alternative. The present approach starts with no assumptions of this kind and finds that, (a) there are no ultimate substances, (b) that the Universe is an must be absolutely indeterministic, (c) although it is commonly thought that indeterminism (randomness) cannot lead to structure this is obviously false for absolute indeterminism means that from any state, every state consistent with Logic will be accessed and that includes states with structure, and (d) that ultimate explanation without substance and infinite regress is possible and has been found (above)

The essay has a catalog of problems resolved and the topics and disciplines founded andor touched. The range of metaphysics is broadened to the ultimate in two senses—the Universe is revealed as ultimate in variety and the revelation is via the metaphysics; and this permits the reconceptualization of philosophy. An entire range of foundational ‘problems of metaphysics’ receives resolution… and this includes the possibility of metaphysics and what has been called its fundamental problem, i.e. why is there being or why is there something rather than nothing. Also, every major discipline within philosophy—metaphysics and Logic in Metaphysics, epistemology in Intuition, and ethics and axiology in Worlds—is founded. Further, every broad academic discipline is touched by and, in turn, illustrates the Universal metaphysics: Science and the sciences—Physical, Biological and Psychological; the study of Society, Culture, Institutions, Language, Religion, Faith, Secular Humanism, Ethics and Value, Economics, Politics, Civilization, and History and its design which is the participation of being in its being—becoming—and includes as a particular case the discipline known to us as ‘Policy Study’ and that has common analytic elements with all planning and design disciplines. Additionally, the metaphysics provides ultimate foundation for: Metaphysics, Mind, Substance, the idea of God, Determinism and Indeterminism, Abstract and Particular Objects, Evolution, Mechanism, Space, Time, Causation, Consciousness, and Free Will