The journey weaves through the immediate world and the entire Universe—all being, i.e. whatever ultimates may be found—and relations between the immediate and the ultimate. The immediate illustrates the ultimate and the ultimate illuminates the immediate

The developments draw inspiration from experience of the world. It is natural and perhaps necessary that they also draw inspiration and learning from the history of thought and transformation. The narrative is has gone beyond the traditions through modern times in certain directions to ultimates in ideas and transformation

Skepticism encourages doubt about even ordinary knowledge. How then can ultimates be known? It will emerge that the ultimate is immediate rather than remote—more precisely, the foundation of the ultimate does not distinguish immediate from remote. An essential task will be the discovery of how to see andor reason such ultimates and how to weave what might otherwise be trivial into a system of understanding that has ultimates in faithfulness, range, and power

The essence of the response will be, first, to look at the world as it presents and not in terms of something else that explains the world and its being and nature. This look will not emphasize detail; it will not emphasize scientific explanation or common sense understanding; however, these modes of understanding cannot be said to be alien to presentation and therefore will not be deemphasized; instead the a priori attitude to them will be neutral—that we will learn from them what we may, incorporate of them whatever survives examination. The second aspect of the response will be to see whether there are any Objects—or system(s) of Objects—that have the characteristics that (1) Knowledge of these Objects is or can be perfectly faithful, (2) The Objects capture some aspect of the entire world—the One Universe—that enable framing of an understanding of the entire Universe. We do not expect to know the Universe in all its details even if that were possible and we doubt that it is (and later will see proof that such knowledge is Logically impossible.) Therefore the framing will be the framing of what understanding we have with a proviso that knowledge of the Universe under the framework will be at least conceptually enhanced and may progress (it will be seen later that the limit of the faithfulness of such knowledge will be the inherent limit of the Objects thus ‘known’)

The ‘prescription’ of the previous paragraph is a rough description a part of the approach here to the discoveries in ideas. Were it truly a pre-script-ion, there would or might be a violation of the intent to look at the world as it presents. In fact the description has not been a pre-script-ion but has arisen in the (of course learning, halting, pausing, reviewing, retracing) process of looking at the world as it presents—in which process it has been natural to learn from the received traditions of seeing, inferring and reasoning but, simultaneously, to not take any content of those traditions as a priori to investigation… to not take them as standing apart from or above or even below investigation… for the instruments of knowledge—especially any essential and true instruments, too, are of the world

These ultimates are in depth or foundation as well as in breadth or range of ideas and variety of being (the meanings of ‘ultimate,’ ‘depth,’ and ‘breadth’ are developed later)

The focus of transformation is in being and identity—in the way to realization of ultimates. A secondary focus is in action, especially ‘action in the world.’ Action and ideas are modes of transformation but as transformation they are essentially incomplete. However, the ideas are, first, the place of appreciation of transformations and realizations and, second, a framework that shows the necessity of ultimates in transformation while also constituting a partial instrument of negotiation of the world in the realizing

The contents of the narrative are presented as a contribution to the history of ideas and action

Ultimate character of the ideas and transformations

The journey is ultimate in ideas and transformation

The story that emerges is ultimate in ideas and in transformation of being. The transformations, in process, are described in chapter Journey. The ideas, close to final in form and partial basis of the transformation, occupy the entire essay

How the ideas are ultimate

That the ideas are ultimate has the following parts. (1) The system of ideas of the narrative is ultimate in their understanding of the Universe—an ultimate metaphysics… the Universal metaphysics. Consider any common human or animal paradigmatic system of understanding, e.g. philosophy or science or literary or other myth or animal familiarity with its territorial domain and innate comfort with its own being; such systems will be valid over some domain or range; the domain of validity will lie inside a larger range outside which the paradigmatic system will have no application. The ideas must agree with the paradigms in their domains of validity and have valid application where the paradigms do not. What sacrifice, e.g. of detail, the ideas must make in order to achieve some ultimate will emerge in the narrative. Still, it will also emerge that the powers of the ideas do not sacrifice infinity in all directions. The power will include but be infinitely far from being limited to agreement with the paradigmatic forms in their regions of validity. (2) The story must be self-contained, i.e. the completeness must be demonstrated without foundation on or in something else

How the ideas are ultimate: inclusion of the range of human thought

The Metaphysics is developed as an articulated system and the topics of Intuition, Logic, Objects, Cosmology, (Normal) Worlds, Method, and Being (that has the capacity for the experience and loss of significance) are built up in interaction with and around it. These topics are enhanced by the ultimate character of the metaphysics; and the limit of the enhancement is the inherent limit of the topic. For Intuition, Objects, Cosmology and Method the achievement is close to the inherent limit that becomes visible under the light of the metaphysics and the Logic. Along the way a number of topics are touched by the ultimate aspect of the general ideas; these include Logic itself, Mind, Substance, the idea of God—traditional thought in theology and philosophy essentially treat God as a substance but real discussion cannot even begin until all particular characteristics of the idea of God are relinquished, Determinism and Indeterminism, Abstract and Particular Objects, Evolution, Mechanism, Space, Time, Causation, Consciousness, and Free Will. The foregoing topics may be treated from a Universal aspect; they stand as magnificent edifices of Universal thought, apparently remote from our world

However, they are not remote; our world is one of necessarily infinitely many harbored in the womb of the Universe. The Logic of our world, necessarily particular, is a particle of the Logic of the Universe. We experience a boundary—sometimes known as opportunity, sometimes as challenge, and sometimes as ignorance—between our world and the background Universe. The boundary is Normal rather than absolute. Knowledge of our world has limits that are inherent in the nature of its particularity. This knowledge has, in interaction with or illuminated by the Universal metaphysics, the potential to be raised to its inherent limits. Thus the following disciplines are touched by and, in turn, illustrate 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

Consequences and ‘covering’ of the range of human knowledge is shown in the section Human knowledge of chapter Being

Significance for ideas and transformation of the ultimate character of the ideas in Identity

Finally, the metaphysics is ultimate in what is revealed of identity. Personal identity, which includes the sense of self of the individual—your sense of self and my sense of my self, is regarded in secular thought as finite in its span of awareness of being and limited in duration by death and birth. The same thinking knows no Universal identity—in secular thought, matter pervades the universe and mind is strictly finite. Rather, minds are strictly finite. The metaphysics reveals a Universal Identity that is identical to the Universe that is all being; and it reveals phases of personal identity that range from zero to its extent recognized in secular thought—the range that we commonly recognize in the humdrum of the day-to-day—and through cycles and hyper-cycles of identity to identity with Universal Identity. That the gaps between the phases will be transcended over and over is given. How they may be transcended is allowed in myriad ways that include aeons of evolution and infinities and infinite and unending varieties of personal challenge and adventure and experiences of paradises and horrors. This exquisite but implicit infinite richness is required by Logic that is otherwise cold and stark and barren in its appearance. Occasionally, though, infinity will emerge from zero without any intermediate or prescience

Ultimate character of the transformations

The meaning of the term ultimate and the nature of the ultimates conceived and experienced are part of the narrative. How can an individual experience any ultimates? It must include that individual identity expands in scope to the ultimate. The narrative includes a record of intense encounters—processes more than isolated events—with ultimates in ideas and transformation of being and identity

The discussion above shows (1) That the transformations must be ultimate, (2) That the realizations will be the realizations of identity, (3) That the transformations are infinitely rich in pleasures and pains—successes and failures. That (1) and (3) are not inconsistent is the result of a feature of the metaphysics—its ultimate character is explicit in depth but implicit in variety

The narrative

The essay is novel and ultimate in content... and unusual in form

It follows from the discussion so far that the narrative of the journey must be novel—ultimate in certain directions—in content. In its inclusion of ideas and transformation and of the individual or personal and the universal the narrative is unusual in form

A need for an introduction to the content and form of the essay

There is, correspondingly, a need for an overview of the content and form of this essay, i.e. to the journey and to the form of the narrative. The content is introduced in the section Journey, and the form in The narrative. These sections introduce some ideas and arguments but the entire story and its foundation is narrated in the body of the essay that begins with the chapter Intuition

A book titled Metaphysics and its Applications

The ideas might be written as a book titled Metaphysics and its Applications and presented as a contribution to thought. The ideas are presented as contribution to thought. In this essay, however, the ideas are presented in the context of a Journey—a journey that has an individual aspect that is a phase of its Universality. The culmination of the individual journey is a system of experiments in the transformation of being whose limits are shown in the metaphysics to be the limit of Universal identity. What is achieved is known; the adventure is lies in that the particular and infinitely manifold ways to the achievement are not known. Further, there is no mere one-time crux; the Journey goes from crux to crucible and again, while ever crossing familiar and unfamiliar terrain beyond metaphorical cold streams to beyond northern mountains and arid deserts to southern oases and familiar and unfamiliar wonders and horrors and occasions of ennui and hope and fear and calm, to crux. As process, the journey is also ultimate and as such is presented as contribution to the history of action and transformation. The actual journey—its ways and means, its accomplishments, plans and vision of a future are a part of the story told in the chapter Journey

The Introduction

The content and the form are introduced in sections Journey and Narrative, respectively. These sections introduce the main ideas and some reasonable arguments but the entire story and its foundation is narrated in the body of the essay

The first section Journey is an orientation to the journey; it provides an outline of the essay and explains the choice and sequence of topics—why the essay begins with Intuition, what is the meaning of ‘Normal worlds’ in chapter Worlds and why is this chapter placed after Cosmology… why does the chapter Journey follow the ideas and precede Method? Attention is paid to the main concepts and reasons for their choice. The chapters Metaphysics and Journey are central—the first to the ideas and the latter to the transformations and ways of transformation; method and content arise together for, since mental process and reason are parts of the world, method is a form of content; therefore, the chapter on Method follows the development. Finally, the section Journey briefly points to the place of the Journey in and its contribution to the history of thought and action

The second section of the introduction, Narrative, describes the nature of the essay: while it develops a system of ideas it is also a travelogue of sorts. That is, the essay includes some narration of the processes of discovery in ideas and transformation of being. Narrative points to the influence from the history of thought and action and the contribution of this narrative to that history. Narrative is a good place to point out potential difficulties of understanding the essay and make suggestions that may guide the reader through the essay

Outline of the essay

The chapter Journey focuses on transformation—the history of approaches to transformation and realization, discoveries in approaches to transformation based in the ideas and in experiments, the transformations so far as well as an assessment and designs for further experiments in realization. The development of the ideas occupies the remainder of the narrative. The following sections provide and explain a detailed outline

Journey

Themes—Journey in being: Ideas and transformation… and Realization

Theme—Journey in being—Ideas and transformation. Incompleteness of ideas as instrument and realization; knowledge-as-knowledge, knowledge-as-guide and knowledge-as-realization are unsatisfying and finally incomplete… Incompleteness of mere intellect relative to ‘ideas’—therefore ideas grounded in being: the individual, body, world (‘spirit’ and so on could be added to ‘body’ and ‘world’ but the distinction body/spirit…, is a distinction of understanding and not of object,) society… and traditional and experimental approaches to such grounding; and incompleteness of mere action—therefore transformation of being or form and identity; why Journey and not, e.g., Metaphysics. We continue to live in ‘this’ world and journey emphasizes neither transience nor permanence but their interweaving; it emphasizes metaphysics-cosmology and saltation interwoven with this normal world described according to physics-cosmology-organism-human being-culture-myth… and incrementalism. Also see the theme An individual journey in chapter Journey

Theme—Journey in being—Realization. The journey or way begins as indefinite hope and action spurred by implicit vision of wonder; it is originally incremental and, being indefinite and appetite driven rather than systematic and goal driven, it is originally plural and omnivorous in its action… My journey originally emphasized ambition, then ideas. Original emphases grew to include explicit vision and definite goals—defined by the metaphysics, the possibility of saltation; the idea was recognized as limited as realization even though a place and instrument of realization and therefore the way and goals grew to include transformation of being. The original ‘way’ was supplemented more than replaced. The way to realization emphasized the way itself and not only ends; it was a Journey

Pivotal idea—Commitment

Pivotal idea—Commitment—includes persistence, passion and its contrary of letting go in the service of commitment for Being is not a concrete thing; if love is above all then it must include love of persons, people, adventure, intimate and remote places, and stars and the spaces in between

This discussion introduces the idea and nature of the journey. The Ideas are discussed in chapters Intuition through Worlds and in Being; Transformations are taken up in Journey. Approach—logic or method or way—is developed in the individual chapters and formalized in Method

Brief history of the journey

Origin: in the beginning...

In the beginning, I was looking for discovery, perhaps adventure—guided by the thought of others and by a shared spirit of adventure I might reach some forefront of human endeavor. Even though the idea of the ultimate may have been an implicit part of what I sought, the ultimate—even its meaning, it seemed—must lie beyond some distant horizon of thought

Clarity of goals and vision, understanding the ultimate and its relation to the immediate were products of a process… that does not of course eliminate diffused goals or vision

Arrival at the ultimate

Therefore, I sometimes reflect with amazement that the narrative finds through ideas a way to see clearly into the meaning of the ultimate and there to see and begin a journey

Nature of the transition

The transition has been from the lack of clarity to clarity, from the limited to the ultimate. A sense of adventure has been ever present. It is not that there have been no trials or that excitement has not waned and waxed. The outcome has not always been clear—trials are accepted as the probable or possible way to an end

From ideas to transformation

In beginning, explicit focus was on ideas. Ideas were the way to what ultimate there may have been. Through ideas, the ultimate was seen. Somewhere in that transition, ideas were seen to be incomplete. In any realization of the ultimate, it was seen that ideas and transformation—of individual and identity—are essential

Transition from ideas to transformation

Today, the journey is in transition from the phase of ideas to the phase of transformation of being

Where the Ideas and Transformations are treated

The chapter Journey narrates a program of transformation and what has been achieved so far. The remaining chapters focus on the development of the Ideas

The idea of a journey

The relevant connotations of ‘journey’

Of the feelings that ‘journey’ may evoke the following are among those relevant to this essay. 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. Even when there is a main direction of travel or investigation, side travels are enjoyed in themselves—not only for what they may contribute. Not all such incidental travel contributes to ends but the net contribution is essential; and in the here-now side of a journey there is no periphery: its every aspect is the center. Enjoyment of the moment—of process, of experience—is significant. The journey is experience but not mere experience—it transforms the traveler

A non-linear process. Process as end

The process of discovery and transformation has not been linear; goals and paths have evolved; many avenues explored, many abandoned, some taken up again. The point at which we arrive is a selective sum of experience; this is similar to the insight of Gautama Buddha—we are the sum of all that we have thought. Linearity of process, schedules of development even when attempted could not be forced. While ends are relevant, the process—being in the present—is itself an ‘end’

The span of the journey: immediate—infinite or ultimate, individual—universal, known—unknown

The ‘journey’ came to be concerned with singular—the individual, the immediate and the here and now, the ultimate or universal, and the relation between the immediate and the ultimate. Ideas have been important as means and ends (realization.) However, a search for the ultimate is a search into the unknown and faces—must face—the question What is the nature of things in the ultimate realm? There may be intuitions or intimations of the ultimate but the first answer must be that The realm of the ultimate is unknown. Since doubting means that even doubt is doubted it must be admitted that perhaps something of the ultimate is known—as the narrative unfolds we will find that there are some elements of the ultimate that are already known in intuition and that can be named. At outset, however, it is efficient to say, not merely that we do not know, but that we do not know what we do or do not know as far as ultimates are concerned

The Journey spans the individual and the universal, the immediate and the infinite or ultimate, the known and the unknown

The concern with the individual and the Universe illustrates a characteristic of the narrative—it is not exclusively esoteric or exclusively immediate. It is a journey in the immediate and the infinite and, as it shall emerge, in their separation and union

Immersion in the immediate is a way to the infinite

Immersion in the immediate is one way to the infinite

Two meanings of journey

That the journey spans the individual and the universal makes for two meanings

The individual-communal... and the universal

Two meanings of ‘Journey.’ In the first meaning, the journey is that of an individual or community (cooperative community intelligence may be greater than individual intelligence and cooperative community action greater than the sum of individual actions.) There is a second sense of journey in which the transformations of the Universe—all being—are seen as a journey… as a shared journey of individuals… as the journey.. The meanings of these senses is further developed in the narrative. The two ‘journeys’ will be seen to merge as a Journey in being

Dual means and modes—discovery in Ideas and transformation of Identity

The means and modes—and ends—of the journey are discovery in ideas and transformation in being and identity; these are also the modes in which there is merging of being or identity. The ideas and transformations are individual and communal or cultural

Its means include the rational but on account of the various limits of reason—which include that ideas are but a mode of being—must also be holistic with regard to mind, i.e. inclusive of intuition and feeling and experimental

Realization as transformation; incompleteness of the ideas

As realization, ideas are incomplete—except, of course, on some superfluous meaning that equates ideas and being. Still, ideas are the place and an instrument of negotiation in the fullest realization of being

Full realization requires transformation

Early, it was implicit that ultimates in ideas would be ultimate realization. Ideas are an instrument and the place of appreciation of realization; however ideas as commonly understood are shadows of actual transformation of being and identity. Therefore, the journey undertakes the experiments and transformations described in chapter Journey

This is a journey, then, of discovery in ideas, and transformation of being and identity. Discovery and action-as-external-transformation are forms of transformation but fall short of full realization. Knowing that a continent exists may be a source of wonder but is not the same as travel to the continent. Similarly, knowledge of possibilities revealed as ideas is less than realization of the possible. It is realization or transformation of identity that is full. Still, ideas are instrumental in realization and its appreciation

The direct exploration—experiment, transformation—is narrated in the chapter Journey; which further discusses the nature of the journey, its foundation, and the travel so far. The remainder of the essay develops the ideas

Significance and meaning of translation of ideas into action

There is a sentiment—with which not all persons have sympathy—that ideas should be translated into action. The present view is that even in the purest of ideas some implicit concern with action is present as a logical necessity if not as a practical or personal concern. I believe that we often sing excessively the praises of the practical and of the pure; there is a place for both; if someone has rare talent for the higher relations between numbers the freedom to follow the talent may produce results with practical importance even though the primary motive may be ‘pure’

Ideas and action are already connected

But the idea that the praises of the practical and the pure are excessive means, simply, that such praise has tended to be mistaken in thinking that ideas and action are not already connected

Connection between ideas and action in my life and thought

In my thought, in its abstract as well as its immediate aspects, there is always some background concern with and motivation from, perhaps—at least—in an unconscious realm, the connection of ideas to the world; and the aspect that is emphasized is determined by the occasion, my mood, as well as explicit and—probably—unconscious factors. In the ‘marketplace’ of ideas persons may be concerned with any combination of ideas, action and their interaction. This market is enriched by the different kinds of interest that are reflected in a distribution of kinds of individual orientation. This would be a market in which the choices of individual emphasis have degrees of distribution that are modulated by concepts, practical concerns and political choice. The present view emphasizes the thought that transformation goes beyond ideas and mere action and recognizes that both ideas and action lie within the boundaries of transformation

Being and the focus on Being

What is being?

Briefly, to have being is to exist—being is that which exists or, alternately but equivalently, the quality of all things or Objects that exist. Explanation of the various terms and justification of this choice of terms over others is taken up in the body of the narrative

The meaning and foundation of this assertion—prerequisites to understanding and acceptance—are developed in chapters Intuition and Metaphysics

However, the thought is sufficient to a brief address of the question ‘Why being?’

Primary reasons for selection of ‘being’

Neutrality of the term ‘being’ with regard to a priori prejudice

The term is neutral with regard to hypothetical categories such a mind, matter, process, relationship, fact, description and so on. Therefore, use of the term allows the nature of the world to emerge from investigation rather than prejudice it. The materialist, the process metaphysician, and the idealist may object; however, they should not for if their favorite ‘metaphysics’ is indeed valid, it may emerge from investigation; and whatever so emerges will be vastly strengthened. What emerges will of course depend on the meanings of ‘matter,’ ‘mind’ and so on; the limited meanings are rejected as ultimate substance—so much debate is futile on account of use of mind, matter and so on in terms that are vague in sense and non-specific in reference

A result of the neutrality of ‘being’ is that there is no a priori omission of any aspect of the world

The choice of the neutral term ‘being’ suggests that no essential part of the individual or world is or can be a priori omitted from a journey in being

Neutrality as a source of power

It will be found that this neutrality, the fact that being encourages seeing the immediate and focusing on the immediate is a power of the idea of being… whether the focus of desire is the immediate or the remote or the whole

The elimination of substance metaphysics

The elimination of substance metaphysics. What falls out of investigation is that, if substance is used in the its classic sense of founding or explaining the actual, the complex, in terms of the ultimately simple then there is no substance… however substance may have explanatory power and reign in limited domains of the Universe

Eliminating the abuses of the habit of substance thinking

Eliminating the abuses of the habit of substance thought. In metaphysics, substance thinking is a priori commitment to a kind or essence—or kinds or essences. The approach adopted here is that the issue of substance should be allowed to fall out of analysis—i.e., there is no a priori commitment to the issue of substance—Are there substances?—or particular substances. It turns out, not unexpectedly, that this permits an immense freedom; the outcome that there results an ultimate metaphysics is perhaps less expected

There is a tradition of metaphysical use of the idea of ‘being’ that is useful and suggestive for the developments of the narrative which does not, however, draw from more specialized, e.g. theological, uses. The habit of substance thought is the adoption or import of a priori commitment or pre-judice… of the assumption of a priori category… of taking diffuse and implicit and interrelated and overlapping kinds to be specific, explicit, atomic, and distinct

What is to be eliminated is the abuse... and not the practical occasional use of substance style thinking

It is of course natural for such commitment to color everyday thought for to reject kinds altogether would be a neurotic elimination of natural faith. However, the reverse is true when it comes to pushing the boundary of understanding into new contexts or in the careful analysis of ideas in existing contexts. The careful ferreting out of substance thought—which is often insidious—and its revaluation leads to enormous clarification of the nature and application of many areas of thought. This theme threads through and is variously illustrated in the narrative

Why being rather than substance or form as basis of the metaphysics or world view?

Alternatives such as substance, essence, ideal form are explanations in terms of something else and so lead to infinite regress

One meaning of the question ‘why being?’ that is pertinent to the narrative is ‘why being rather than substance or form as the basis of a metaphysics or world view?’ Substance and form have, among other notions, long been thought fundamental to metaphysics. What emerges in the narrative is that an explanation in terms of substance or form is an explanation in terms of something else which then begs explanation in another something else—something perhaps even more removed—and so on. A foundation in terms of being finds the understanding of being in being, i.e., not in terms of something else

Some examples of the problem of ever explaining in terms of something else

The problem of address in terms of something else arises in the question of the origin of life… and of the Universe. The origin of life in the Universe is sought, in science—in evolutionary biology, in the stuff and agencies of the Universe. An explanation in terms of creation by another agency, e.g. God, is an explanation in terms of something else. Since evolution does not invoke something else it is the conceptually simpler explanation even though the actual explanation has its complexities because of the need to bring into articulation significant ranges of data that are not always superficially consistent and to develop the terms of articulation, i.e. a theory to explain the facts. ‘Creationism’ is factually simpler but conceptually more complex. Explanation in terms of evolution requires work or effort; creationism does not require effort—in fact the thrust of the creationists appears to be the disproof of ‘evolution’ and avoidance of proof of creationism. Put another way—if explanation is that which makes what is explained transparent, i.e. if explanation is showing that what is not obvious can be understood in terms of what is simple enough to be obvious—evolution provides explanation whereas creationism does not

Explanation in terms of ‘being’—i.e., what is there—the world itself, not something else, may seem trivial but turns out to have immense and ultimate power

That there is great power to be had in this near trivial thought is shown in the narrative—especially in chapters Intuition and Metaphysics

It is characteristic that being does not distinguish the here and now, the finite from the ultimate and the infinite. It does not distinguish mind from matter. It will be seen to be an ideal concept to bridge distinctions, to let what real distinctions there may be to emerge from rather than be forced upon analysis

Thus ‘Being’ is used to refer to what is there in the Universe without reference to whether it is known or unknown. The meaning of being—it is not complex and it is its simplicity that makes for any difficulty—will be introduced later. Here, at the outset of the story, it is signal to point out that a fundamental use of ‘being’ is that its unspecified character enables talk of the unknown and therefore the ultimate without commitment rather in the way that the use of a symbol for unknowns in algebra is enormously efficient

Given the unknown character of the ultimate—i.e. of the Universe, of being—what is to be realized is unknown and the means of realization are unknown or vaguely known. It is the reflexive unknown—perhaps we have an intuition but we do not really even know at outset how much we know. And even if we are convinced that we know something, the position or strategy that we do not may lead to greater realization and discovery

Use of neutral terms eliminates the confusion of substance but does not guarantee success in foundation

However, use of being does not guarantee any understanding at all let alone ultimate metaphysics

Perhaps, however, no further metaphysics is needed other than no explanation

Perhaps, however, no further metaphysics is needed other than no explanation. For that may be the way of the world—to be in it

The way to ultimate metaphysics shall be to find what is so simple that experience is faithful to the ‘thing’

The ‘simple’ objects turn out to be, roughly, ‘all,’ ‘some,’ ‘nothing,’ and others

That this should lead to ultimate metaphysics may be regarded as fortuitous

Alternatively, it is, simply, noticing what is already there

Thus ultimate metaphysics, it will be seen, is not other than metaphysics of experience

The ultimate metaphysics will frame our being in the world and, so, shall not destroy adventure and wonder

The ultimate metaphysics will be explicitly ultimate with regard to depth; in this shall lie the framing of the understanding of the world

The ultimate metaphysics will be explicitly ultimate with regard to variety of being—i.e. all being shall be harbored in its range but the metaphysics shall give no way of explicitly generating the variety of being—conceptually or mechanically… and it is here that lies adventure and wonder

In the end we shall say We have not lost… but in seeing the elements of what is there we have gained infinite wonder and adventure

It is implicit in the use of 'being' that the journey shall not be restricted to ideas or fixed form

Since the ends and means of realization are unknown at outset, the process may lead ‘anywhere.’ It will not be restricted to ideas; it may involve travel and changes in form; therefore it may be anticipated that it will be a ‘journey;’ since the path and the outcome lie in being, it will be a Journey in being

Explanation in terms of being also derives power from the history of thought

This first significance to the use of ‘being’ derives some power from the history of thought—from the use of ‘being’ from Aristotle to Heidegger. ‘Being’ has a variety of connotations including reference to the one Being. It is characteristic of and necessary to the present use that special meanings or uses of ‘being’ are neither included nor excluded at outset but their inclusion in or exclusion may emerge from the analysis

The significant characteristics of being

Some characteristics of being that are significant for this narrative are as follows

Being is what is there

First, simply, being is what is there

Therefore in talking of world as being there are no a priori distinctions… of substance versus non-substance or substances, of reality, of known versus unknown

It is not said that what is there is matter or not matter, idea or not idea, fact or not fact, reality or appearance…

It may seem absurd to suggest that what is there may be ‘not fact’ or ‘mere appearance;’ however, it is possible to think that appearances constitute the real (we shall find otherwise)

It is therefore allowed that being may be what is most immediate—most superficial—or what underlies the immediate, the appearance

Therefore, being straddles the known and the unknown

This allows any essence or substance or lack of essence or substance—in fact andor as explanation—to emerge rather than be the result of a priori commitment

Even if there are substances, the approach from being allows these to emerge and is not a substance theory

Use, therefore, stands against substance theory as a priori commitment, i.e. that being has this or that nature as a priori commitment. I.e., we may discover that the Universe is substance… or not (in fact we discover that it is not but that local use of substance may be practical)

There is commitment that as far as is reasonable, being shall emerge as what is fundamental. There is however no a priori commitment to something fundamental or foundational

The tradition of being, its potential utility, and a caution

There is a tradition of the study of being in roughly these senses in Western and Eastern Philosophies. Provided that care is taken to not reintroduce mistakes or misleading emphases of the past, the tradition will be useful

Use of being in the title of the narrative

A second issue concerning the use being is its appearance in the title of the narrative. Of course it need not be said that ‘Journey in the material,’ ‘Journey in substance,’ or ‘Journey in form,’ would be uninspiring and flat; that ‘Journey in discovery’ or ‘Discoveries in ideas’ would be incomplete. ‘Journey in being’ suggests a journey in all being—in what is known and what is unknown—a journey from the known to the unknown, it suggests bringing what has been unknown and unrealized into the realm of the known and the realized

The ultimate and its meaning

Introduction to the ultimate aspects of the narrative—especially of the metaphysics

The narrative will develop an ultimate view

If the narrative succeeds in doing what is suggested above, it will develop a new and ultimate picture of the individual—and our world—and the Universe… the narrative is indeed able to do so and this is elaborated in the section Journey below and developed in the narrative

An ultimate picture

If, as it will so emerge, I have succeeded in doing what has been suggested above, the narrative will have developed a new and ultimate picture of the individual—and our world—and the Universe

Meaning and character of the ultimate

The meaning of the ultimate is that the actual Universe could not be greater if all limits except the skeletal limits of necessity or Logic are lifted. Even the limits of conventional logic may be too restrictive for the concept of this ‘greatest’ universe is implicated in the very conception of Logic. It will be shown that the freedom that results is consistent with the universe-as-we-see-it in the valid parts of experimental and conceptual science and everyday sense and, further, that the freedom is not so permissive as to lift all meaning and challenge. In fact, what is revealed is a Universe of infinite opportunity but also one in which realization is an extreme challenge that is not alien from horror or pain or ennui or detail or being-here-now along ‘the way’ (in our modern civilization pictures of the future are often painted in scientific and technological colors or, alternatively, in terms of stories of eternity or heaven and hell; we will find, though, that immersion in the soil is, at least, one challenge to these modern ways… and is one robust way to transformation, to the realization of Identity via identity.) These thoughts necessitate and are occasion for reconceptualization of Identity in which individual identity is an element of Universal identity. The picture that is developing clearly has a number of facets that should, for their integrity, be developed coherently, consistently, and Logically as part of an overall or net picture… the development occupies a significant part of the body of the essay starting at chapter Intuition

A universe of infinite variety, challenge, and opportunity

Is this picture dull as a result of being too permissive? No, for the limits—the old limits—of science and other common paradigmatic pictures of necessity are not eliminated but placed in context. The local cosmos is shown to be a dot in the infinity of being—of the Universe. The laws of that cosmos are shown to be local. That does not lift those laws from this cosmos but shows their context—their reign and their limits. The sense of necessity surrounding the laws is replaced by that of a significant but not infinite barrier. There is a realism within their significant constraint; however, there is also a way beyond. Our task is to find that way. The picture—the metaphysics—to be developed suggests some ways…

Showing or developing the view requires a narrative so that the many aspects of the view, their meaning, their demonstration, how they relate to one another and to the history of ideas and our common views of the world can emerge and be built up into a picture. It will take all that and more to build up the picture and to reveal the dimensions and characteristics of the journey. Therefore, the characteristics just presented should be regarded as preliminary in their sense and completeness

The narrative does develop and demonstrate an ultimate picture of the Universe and of the necessity of the trajectory of identity to Universal Identity. This picture is demonstrated to be infinitely greater than current science-technology based pictures that focus on projections of current knowledge and ignore the thought that the way to infinity may be as much by Identity sinking back into the soil of being as much as or more than by technological ‘solutions,’ and, third, in lacking both the logic and the variety that is the result of the Universal metaphysics. Science and technology are, however, not avoided and may—at least—be part the initial phase of a journey to the ultimate. Other elements, already noted, include immersion in the immediate—the Tantra or Chöd of immersion in the immediate as a way to the infinite via connection between the immediate and the infinite, experiment in light of the picture of the Universe—the metaphysics—to be developed and the significant further enhancements of chapter Journey

The ultimate character of the picture—the metaphysics—enables showing that the journey in transformation must itself be ultimate. The metaphysical framework itself does not directly show the way. The framework shows, for example, the limits of imagination and therefore, indirectly, points to some ways. First, these ways include pure imagination. Then they include imagination as constrained and as encouraged first by the metaphysics itself and then by our culture(s) whose content is discussed in a number of places in the narrative, especially in chapter New worlds and used to fashion paths in chapter Journey

The ultimate: what it means

Searching for a meaning of the ultimate

If our Universe is the greatest possible ‘universe’ what would it be like—how might we define it? It would be a universe that had no limits. In building a picture of such a world there would of course be limits because whereas the Universe cannot harbor the impossible we can imagine the impossible

The ultimate would of course be subject to the requirements of logic

There would, of course, be ‘limits’ such as ‘there cannot be an apple that is green and not green.’ In other worlds, imagination regarding such a world could not violate consistency or logical requirements

The ultimate must contain the actual

Included among the logical requirements are that our Universe, greatest or not, must contain its actual known variety—it must contain all known natural objects e.g. stars, mountains, species and all known artifacts including automobiles, the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, and the Empire State Building in New York

The laws of this cosmos are among the natural Objects

Similarly, regarding the physical Laws of this cosmos as natural objects they, too, would be in the Universe. However, they would not ‘reign’ over the entire greatest Universe—i.e. our Universe as the greatest Universe, because that would be infinitely limiting. It may seem paradoxical that the Laws of this would apply and not apply but there is no paradox—they would apply in some domains, e.g. this cosmos, but not in others. It would be only under the mistaken view that this cosmos is the Universe that there would be such paradox. There would be no contingent, i.e. not logically necessary, law that applied in all domains of the Universe

That the only law is Logic, i.e. that there is no Law

The only law that could apply in the entire greatest Universe, generalizing from the requirement that the impossible is disallowed, is the law of Logic. If a Law is what obtains and a law is our expression of that law, then Logic is the law of the greatest Universe but the Universe has no universal Law

Objections—perhaps the requirement of logic is too restrictive

A number of objections might arise. First, perhaps we are being too restrictive in requiring the application of logic; perhaps there could be an apple that is both green and not green in the idea of the greatest Universe, i.e. if the Universe could, indeed, not be greater than it is. Perhaps indeed. That is why ‘Logic’ is capitalized in this use. In the lower case sense, logic is our best rendering of Logic whose definition remains implicit. If there is some way around this requirement of logic—the principle of non-contradiction—that something cannot at the same time and in the same sense have propetties A and not A, that would be a deficit in logic which is our understanding of Logic but it would not be in fact a problem regarding Logic itself… and the same reflection arises regarding other principles of logic, e.g. the principles of identity and of the excluded middle in all their formulations

Objections—perhaps Logic is too austere

A second objection concerns Logic itself—Is not Logic too austere to be the law of the Universe, too empty to be generative of even the variety of the known part of the Universe let alone the infinitely greater Universe? The brief answer is ‘No!’ It is ‘No’ for it is not Logic that generates the variety of being; rather Logic is the only limit on variety regardless of ‘how’ it is generated—in actuality or in imagination. Therefore, Logic as law is the richest possible law, it is the law of the greatest Universe

If the Universe is the greatest possible, it will include in it all valid objects that correspond to all traditional world views—views associated with science, with religion, with myth, with the modern paradigm of secular humanism… with all paradigmatic views from the history of thought, subject only to the requirement of Logic. Included therefore, is the identity of the individual and the Universe and Universal Identity; included therefore, that the journey in transformation has no limits except the limits of Logic

Regarding the containing of the valid elements of the paradigms and elements of imaginations, it would be more precise to say that the system of the ‘universe of Logic’ contains Objects that correspond to such elements

Objections—perhaps Logic is too permissive

A third objection is that, now, Logic as law appears to be too permissive—too permissive to be true and too permissive to be interesting. Logic as law would in fact be too permissive to be true if it implied that all the ways of our world, the constraints on our lives and physical being were null. However, that is not the implication. Rather, it is being said, simply, that the constraints are most real in our lives but they are not ultimate… and opportunity, then, is to explore feasible ways beyond contingent limits just as science has shown what might have been regarded as impossible a few centuries ago to be actual. Is Logic as law too permissive to be interesting? Even if it is that would not affect the truth of the idea. However, since real constraints remain real and, simultaneously, Logic as law shows the Universe as infinitely greater than otherwise imagined, the permissive character makes the Universe infinitely more interesting than otherwise thought—it infinitely increases limit and actuality of experience, wonder and horror

The meaning of the term ultimate—a summary and a look forward

What is the point to considering the nature of the ultimate, of this Universe being the greatest possible Universe? In the body of the essay, the ultimate emerges, roughly, as it did in discovery. Here, we look forward to what is already established. Attention now turns to a preview of the demonstration, meaning and significance of the fact of the ultimate nature of the Ideas—the metaphysics—and the Universe

The ultimate: significance

What is the significance of these ultimates?

Existential significance of ultimate knowing

Knowledge of ultimates may provide a sense of significance but also of insignificance. Is there a ‘way out’ of any dilemma of insignificance? The way is, perhaps, to know what is true. If I am strictly finite and I know that I am strictly finite, there is no rational reason to lament the fact. The source of lament is perhaps that I might have thought otherwise regarding my finiteness—it is perhaps my will to survive that fuels dreams of infinitude. The response, then, is to adjust my emotions to the truth which may, of course, be difficult because it may require that I adjust will and reality. It would be a dual resolution involving a trajectory over a life-time. There is perhaps no ultimate resolution for I might not succeed and there may also be unexpected accidents such as brain injury which rob me of my ability to adjust. As long, however, as I have not had that brain injury, I can train my attitude in the direction of equanimity…

While this is all true, it does not follow that it is the entire truth. What basis do I have for knowledge of my finitude? It is contingent knowledge; and the essential nature of contingent knowledge is that it is not absolute even if it has much power over—my—being

Actual significance—limits meet infinity

The system of ideas developed in the narrative show that (1) there is force to common conceptions of death and birth as limits, (2) however, such limits are not ultimate. The very meaning of ‘limits are not ultimate’ must be that the ultimate is realizable or else there would be limits. All this will be demonstrated. Still, what is the relevance for the individual who experiences neither realization nor hope nor desire for any ultimate or approach to it? The relevance, as shown, is this: individual identity must merge with Universal Identity. Loss of meaning typically results from the following extremes (a) there is no hope, and (b) hopes are realized easily and trivially. What is shown is that there is reason for hope but that realization of hope itself, as well as conceiving and realizing objects or goals of hope are all intensely engaging

Demonstration

The metaphysical picture is demonstrated as is the method which is part of the picture; and this termination of regress requires demonstration as well... how is it possible?

It is characteristic of the development that its claims are demonstrated

The metaphysics and other elements of the net picture are not speculation without foundation; they are demonstrated

There is demonstration of the way of demonstration

Logically, demonstration of claims is incomplete without demonstration of the means of demonstration

Along the way, the nature of demonstration is understood and implemented in improved terms—method and content are coeval—that are ultimate in some directions; the reconceptualization of Logic is an element of this development; what is learned about method and Logic is collected together and formalized in the chapter Method

But is not demonstration of demonstration ultimately incomplete?

That is of course the standard view of demonstration that is implicit in the similarly standard view that a non-relativist philosophy must have foundation in substance. One of the cruxes of the development is that the metaphysics is non-relativist yet requires no substance… and, correspondingly, demonstration of demonstration is possible in the realm of pure metaphysics and logic though, of course, its extension into the contingent must be granular

Modes of ultimacy; ultimacy; co-existence with ever-freshness; fresh meaning of Logic and Demonstration

The characterization ‘ultimate’ refers not only to the places the journey traverses—in ideas or in identity. It applies also to the means of travel. The means, too, is ultimate. What does that mean? Of course we do not pre-view the entire trajectory of the journey. There is as will be seen always ever-freshness and that is one aspect of what is ultimate. However, we know that there is ever-freshness. That is known from the metaphysics which shows much more than just that even though the ever-freshness or infinite variety of the Universe is perhaps the most profound consequence of the metaphysics for being alive to the wonder of the world. The ever-freshness follows from or in the metaphysics and the metaphysics is in turn demonstrated and not merely speculated or given ‘good reasons’

What is more the very notions of Logic and Demonstration are given fresh meaning and greater—ultimate—power. This enhancement of the ideas of Logic and Demonstration are developed in the body of the essay—in chapters Intuition through Cosmology and summarized in Method

Are there no limits, then, we may ask?

Limits

There are of course limits

Contingent limits

There are contingent limits that may be overcome and whose overcoming is an exercise in being in the world, i.e. in the use of ability and in being in and entering into wonder

Logical ‘limits’

Then there are Logical ‘limits’ which are in fact not limits but are the way the world is… the way we are and were and will be… Such limits are not limits in any real sense and if there is to be any feeling about them it should of course be celebration rather than regret. Such limits are in fact quite sparse and, of course, may be occasions for regret but they occur only when we have misunderstood the nature of the Universe and the ‘limits’ are not, e.g., physical limits but the fact that there are impossibilities that we may have mistaken for possibilities. The essential character of the impossibilities are that they are Logical but not the superficial type that ‘I will be something and not that thing at the same time’ but deeper due to not having seen, e.g., contradictions that would be superficial if we had the ability or perseverance to see

Ideas

Introduction: Intuition and Metaphysics

Human beings have a desire to know the world. Therefore they build pictures of the world—in myth, in science, and in metaphysics. In the tradition of philosophy, metaphysics is the discipline in which reason and experience come together in an attempt to build a picture of the entire Universe

The conception of metaphysics in this narrative, its justification and some relations to the traditional conceptions are discussed later

The desire to know entails that the knowledge should be faithful. This is a source of the motivation to the branch of philosophy called epistemology—the theory of knowledge—that asks, What is knowledge? What is known? How is knowledge acquired? How do we know what we know—what is the justification of knowledge?

It is clear that metaphysics and epistemology overlap. We want to count metaphysics as knowledge, therefore epistemology is important to it. Knowing is part of the world, therefore epistemology may be seen as a branch of metaphysics. The epistemological question ‘What is known?’ includes any valid subject matter of metaphysics

Socrates’ concern was largely epistemological, Plato’s thought emphasized metaphysics. Of course there is hardly any point to ‘doing’ metaphysics without some concern for validity, i.e. for epistemology. Since the ascent of science, the time of the British Empiricists—especially Locke and Hume—and the time of Kant until recently, epistemological concerns have occupied center stage. At times, metaphysics has shared that stage and at other times, e.g. in twentieth century positivism and revolt against idealism, metaphysics has been shunned as ‘impossible.’ In recent philosophy, metaphysics has become respectable again but it is a ‘different’ kind of metaphysics that has emphasized such topics as (1) The nature of Objects, i.e. What is the nature of the ‘things’ that we know? This topic includes a concern with the nature and distinction of particular and abstract objects. (2) Metaphysics of experience, i.e., not of the Universe itself but of the world-as-we-experience-it. These two lines of thought owe much to Kant who emphasized that while we can think Objects outside experience we cannot know them. (3) Theory of Objects which is a study of the logic of systems of objects

The present metaphysics will weave together some of these recent concerns in metaphysics together with a concern with original metaphysics and cosmology, i.e. the nature and knowledge of being and of the Universe. It is essential and natural that epistemological concerns will be integral to the enterprise; adequate concern with the validity of metaphysical claims is necessary to justify labeling those claims metaphysics

It might be expected be expected from the discussion above, that metaphysics and its justification—epistemology—must interact for metaphysics to have validity and for epistemology to have significance (epistemology can of course derive significance from denying metaphysics and asserting the claims of other kinds of knowledge such as science.) In chapter Metaphysics, the Logical structure of a metaphysics—the Universal metaphysics—is developed. Although it is surprising, the epistemology of this metaphysics is primarily Logical. In consequence, it is not surprising that the metaphysics thus developed is not grounded in human knowing except insofar as its primitive terms may be empirical; and it is not surprising that the location of our world in the Universe revealed in the metaphysics is not revealed except that it does have a location. The grounding of the metaphysics and the nature of the embedding of this world in the Universe are among the tasks of the chapter Intuition that now precedes Metaphysics. It is interesting that although the development has had concern for grounding since the ‘beginning,’ its development came after the development of the metaphysics

The role of Intuition

What Intuition is: preliminary

Intuition is used to refer to inherent abilities of an organism to know the world in certain characteristic ways but without any necessary reference to external justification

Immense significance of Intuition

The immense significance is that we may allow at outset that the range and validity of Intuitive knowing is not given. It allows that Intuition may cover all knowing and that, since validity is not given, at least some Intuitive knowing may be perfectly faithful and that at least to some degree of detail knowledge of all being may be possible

Ideas, Intuition, and Identity

Role of ideas in the journey

The roles of ideas already noted or implied include (1) The idea is a mode of being. (2) Therefore discoveries in ideas—science, philosophy and other descriptive endeavors—and expression in terms of ideas—literature, art, myth and so on—are modes of transformation and realization. (3) As being the idea, at least in its ordinary meaning, is incomplete. Therefore, ideas are incomplete as transformation and realization. (4) Still, ideas are an instrument of negotiation and the place of appreciation of being and its realizations

Faithfulness of ideas, skepticism, traditional responses

Questions about faithfulness of ideas—Is the portrayal or representation of the world faithful?—may and should lead to skepticism. Still, we feel that there must be some faithfulness—Surely the feeling that we know something cannot be nothing but illusion? An instrumental andor atomic approach may be used to reasonably argue some faithfulness

This narrative has an alternative approach

However, the present narrative argues an alternative though not to the logical exclusion of other approaches

The narrative begins with what amounts to a transcendental argument regarding Intuition

The argument begins with the observation that since we have some success in living in the world there must be some at least implicit faithfulness that, relative to the organism, comes before any measure of faithfulness. Those faculties that have such purchase—a priori in relation to the organism—on the world may be labeled Intuition

Although wholesale skepticism is ultimately misplaced, there are modes and degrees of skepticism that are maximally productive of knowing what is known

The first point is that the Intuition must have some faithfulness (and therefore wholesale skepticism is misplaced.) However, thoughtful skepticism is entirely appropriate and even necessary to understanding what we know that we know and with what degrees of faithfulness

Approach to and range of Intuition in this narrative

The approach is to make no a priori commitments to the faithfulness of Intuition. To be maximally useful, whereas in other philosophical uses Intuition referred only to some faculties, e.g. perception, we bring the entire range of human knowing under intuition. Since knowing involves facts and inferences from facts—the necessity of the decomposition and its completeness is taken up later—that means that both perception and reason must be brought under Intuition. It is then possible to ask what aspects of this Intuition have what degrees of faithfulness

It is important that the degree of faithfulness is a priori granular and may range from perfect to practical faithfulness to perfect unfaithfulness

It is important that the answer, elaborated in other parts of the Introduction and taken up primarily in chapters Intuition and Metaphysics, is granular—i.e., it is allowed, a priori, that there may be ‘Objects’ that we do not know and others that we know with some degree of perhaps only implicit faithfulness, and that there may be some Objects that we know with perfect and explicit faithfulness

This point regarding faithfulness is a crux of the source of the metaphysics that is ultimate

This point is a crux of the source of the metaphysics that is ultimate in providing some faithful knowing and, since one of the objects known faithfully is the Universe without reference to its granularity, also ultimate in knowing the entire range of being in some sense (that receives some degree of justified elaboration)

Although the metaphysics has independent foundation, Intuition provides a foundation and, more importantly, grounding of the metaphysics in our being—location of our being in the Universe

This ultimate metaphysics was developed before Intuition was introduced in this context. The role of the analysis of Intuition includes (1) A formalization and more careful understanding of the source and nature of the metaphysics. (2) A founding andor grounding of the metaphysics—which would otherwise be abstract in the sense of remote and mere token representation; and a placement of human being and our world in the Universe—without which the metaphysics would reveal us to be floating somehow in the Universe but without any feeling or knowing of connection

Personal Identity as the crux of being

Personal Identity includes the sense of continuity of the individual—the sense, especially the sense of the individual her or his self, through time and accumulated and forgotten experience that this is the same individual… that the now eighty two year old woman is the same person despite all the change and passing of time and loss of memory is the same person that was the eight year old girl. Identity is crucial for what is the significance of realization and transformation if the transformed Object is someone that is altogether other? The significance in, e.g. secular humanism, is held to be that we contributed to a New World—the New World will be molded by my ideas or my children and my children’s children and others that I have influenced. It is an implicit continuation of My Identity; it is my implicit eternal being; and if I do not think that my influence is entirely eternal, I may then turn to stories that make it so—stories of heaven and hell and so on. (Why hell? Perhaps because the story is multifunctional—in addition to addressing concerns or fears of finitude it has also a moral function)

The apparent limits of personal identity seem to show essential limits on being even in view of the absence of limits in the Universe revealed by the metaphysics

If that was all there was—just ideas of immortal influence, just stories—I would then have a choice between (a) accepting my absolute finitude and (b) laboring and story telling under a myth of immortality

However, Individual Identity merges with the Universal

In this narrative, however, Individual and Universal Identity are demonstrated to merge in the body of the Universe

The range of Intuition

Perception and reason are brought under Intuition

In this narrative, as already noted, perception and reason are brought under Intuition

Affect may be non-traditionally included under cognition; then perception and conception cover the entire range of mental content

Perception and reason—thought—constitute the entire range of knowing

However, do they cover the entire range of mental content? Perception and thought appear to exclude affect. The phase ‘external world’ may mean ‘outside the body’ or, alternatively, the object or objects of knowing. In the latter sense perception includes feelings and perceptions that relate to the body including affective and kinesthetic awareness

Consequently the entire range of mental content may be brought under Intuition

Used in this way, the entire range of mental content may be brought under Intuition. It is found effective and coherent to do so

Therefore, in its broadest sense, all of conception is brought under Intuition

In what is perhaps its more common sense, concepts are coherent elements of knowing and understanding and include the symbolic as well as the perceptual concept. In another, broader meaning whose extension includes that of the more specific meaning, a concept is any mental content and, hence all conception is brought under Intuition

Cognition and affect as the range of Intuition

Cognition is perception and conception-as-thought-and-reason; affect is emotion and feeling. In these senses, it is reasonable that cognition and affect may cover all of mental content but that appears to be merely contingent and has no foundation in the essential nature of mind and knowing

Consider, however, that mental content may be divided into free and bound, inner and outer. Bound content is content that is bound to an Object (in ‘pathology’ what is normally bound may be free, e.g. as in hallucination or what is free may be bound as in the thinking of a severely depressed person.) The distinction inner and outer do not refer to subjective and objective but, instead, to body-private versus world-public

From the free / bound and inner / outer distinctions, conceptions of cognition and affect may be given that show that they cover all mental content

Remarks on the essential integration of cognition and affect, i.e., of the mental functions

Introduction

This suggests, of course and though it is not at all the only source of the idea, that cognition and affect have degrees of binding

Mode of demonstration

Cognition and affect are shown to cover the range of mental content—the demonstration is a result of the careful conception of the terms in relation to the Logic of the metaphysics and is not, therefore, a contingent demonstration. Such implicit demonstration that is to be later filled out with contingent details is one of the characteristic ‘methods’ of the narrative that, since it is based in prior thought, not empty but may be rich in implication. Various aspects of the integration—and separation—are taken up in the narrative

Significance to the Journey, i.e. to the transformations

The significance of the integration noted here is that the integration is fundamental to entry into a journey in transformation

Degree, levels, meaning, and general significance of the Integration of cognition and affect

The practical inseparability of cognition and emotion has been emphasized in recent thought. The inseparability is practical in that separation is possible but results individuals who are severely limited—the isolation of affect is perhaps more severe than the isolation of reason. We tend perhaps to be blind to the universal presence of affect and of its universal functional necessity perhaps precisely because of that universal if background presence and its being noticed primarily when it comes to foreground. In the narrative it will be shown that feeling and cognition have a common root and that they are bound together by necessity (whose meaning allows functional degrees of separation that remain in functional degrees of communication that emanate from a root identity)

Emotion as cognition

Emotion or affect could be regarded as an aspect of cognition or, in its most general meaning as mental content, as an aspect of conception

As a first approximation, emotion is inner or body-conception (where cognition or conception in a certain sense is world-conception)

Due to integration and diffusion, that is of course a first approximation

It could be asked, Why emotion as cognition rather than cognition as emotion? Emotion is commonly regarded as not having an Object. Here, the point is that emotion does have an Object which immensely enhances the understanding of emotion. An objection might be that this debases feeling which lies at the core of being into something that is merely objective. The response is that the kind of Object is vastly different in the cases of paradigmatic-emotion and paradigmatic-external-object and therefore there is no essential conflation or debasement that results from a higher level identification. The objection that surely emotion needs no object has the response that such ‘need,’ which is not of emotion but of our projection on to it has nothing to do with it; but that the thought that emotion has no need for an object is based in the emerging fact that the object of paradigmatic-emotion is indistinct in comparison to the paradigmatic-acuity of paradigmatic-cognition; and even that is not quite on the mark for the apparently indistinct character of the emotional object results from influence of the cognitive slant… i.e., the emotional concept may have significant acuity in relation to the emotional object which is ‘somewhere in’ but is not the cognitive map of the organs of the body. There is also the objection that even if emotion can have an object, surely there is free standing feeling. The response is that just as pure expression is cognition whose object is potential rather than actual, so free standing feeling has a potential object. It is of course allowed that the proportions of free standing mental content may be quite different for emotion and cognition

Since the objects of emotion and cognition are in the world, it is important to remember their actual and potential integration

The system of ideas

The development of the system of ideas occupies the chapters Intuition through Worlds and the chapter on Method. At the center of this system stands the Universal metaphysics of Metaphysics—the second chapter after the Introduction

What is metaphysics? That there can be at most one metaphysics

A metaphysics is a conception of all being—of the Universe. While there are and may be many tentative metaphysics, there can be only one actual or complete and valid but not superfluous metaphysics—which may of course have many forms; this full metaphysics—if it can be found—will be real and ultimate

That is—there is either one metaphysics or no metaphysics at all; in Metaphysics it is shown that there is one metaphysics by constructing it

Skepticism

It is commonly thought that since knowledge of the object is not the object there is an essential gap between knowledge and known

The problem of faithfulness

The percept—more generally the concept—of the object is not the object. What then is the object? It is generally the joint product of mind and world and therefore the meaning of faithfulness is not clear at outset. Philosophers, notably Kant, have attempted to provide an account of perception that renders it faithful. Kant’s scheme will be shown to be immensely insightful but unsuccessful in its attempt to show perfect faithfulness

An excessive concern with the faithfulness of knowledge

There is in the history of thought an immense concern with the idea of faithfulness of knowledge. The concern is perhaps excessive to the point where we might prefer inaction to action under uncertainty even when the latter can be shown to be preferable. As long as there is no estimate of the realm and degree of faithfulness it is perhaps inevitable that it should be a central concern. The present narrative addresses this gap in the estimate of degrees and realms of faithfulness. Essential lacks in faithfulness may be seen as positive rather than occasion for lament and inaction—where faithfulness cannot be perfect there may be openness and adventure

Instrumental knowledge includes but is not limited to the obviously representational

Knowledge is instrumental—good knowledge permits negotiating and fashioning the world which includes nature, society, self and mind and culture, and beyond this world… the universe and the so far unknown. The extent of this fashioning will emerge—let it emerge; do not be quick to judge based on what you know so far regarding what is known so far. Knowledge also fosters appreciation of the world; art, too, fosters appreciation; therefore art may be seen as a kind of knowing but not necessarily of the obviously representational kind

The ways of knowing are perception and reason; both fall under conception in the sense of mental content

Knowledge of the world comes in two packages—perception-data-facts and reason-judgment-conceptual knowledge; later we will use a more general notion of concept that includes fact and reason as well as affect

Reason

Reason falls under deduction and induction. Deduction is generally thought to be necessary, i.e.—if the premise is given the consequence does and must follow. However, modern studies in logic suggest—generally—an empirical and less than necessary character to ‘deduction.’ Induction is probable or ‘so far so good’ but, though there have been attempts to put it on a secure foundation, is generally regarded as open to revision. Thus the situation with regard to faithfulness—its meaning as well as its attainment—is complex. The concern is one of the major issues of the narrative regarding the ideas. The approach is to reign in thoughts of faithfulness regarding perception and judgment and to take the initial position that they may—or may not—have meaningful faithfulness or attainment of faithfulness. This allows that some ‘things’ may be known faithfully and of course if there are such things that will imply that there is in their case a meaning to ‘faithfulness.’ The outcome is a set of necessary Objects including perceptual Objects and—a new conception of—Logic that specify a realm of perfect faithfulness, an Ultimate metaphysics, that forms a framework for knowledge in the realm where faithfulness is instrumental rather than measured directly… or adaptive rather than measured at all. The metaphysical system frames knowledge in a way that is ultimate with regard to faithfulness—absolutely faithful where this is possible and an understanding of the limits of faithfulness where not; this is and must be an ultimate address of the problem of appearance and reality

There is precise or perfectly faithful knowing; i.e., there is metaphysics

It will be shown that while these assertions have truth they are too general to be altogether true and that there are certain objects that will be called necessary objects regarding which there is precise knowledge. The form of the statement there is precise knowledge is important; it means, and its truth will be shown, the precise knowing is already present in the fact of knowing even though knowing is not universally precise. These ideas are among the basis of a form of a full metaphysics that is developed and demonstrated here

The metaphysics frames all knowing

The metaphysics frames instrumental knowledge; it potentially raises instrumental knowing to its inherent limits; the metaphysics illuminates all knowing; knowing in turn illustrates the metaphysics

The ultimate character of the demonstrated metaphysics

The metaphysics that is demonstrated—it is not merely posited or hypothesized—is ultimate with regard to depth, breadth or variety and the question of the origin of being

The demonstrated metaphysics must be ultimate if it is metaphysics at all. However, the ultimate character is demonstrated explicitly

The core of the system of ideas—The metaphysics

What is metaphysics?

The term Metaphysics is used to refer to a system of understanding of the Universe as it is. Since what is seen is not the thing-itself but is the product of mind and the thing, metaphysics in this meaning has been thought to be logically impossible because of the categorial gap between the thing or Object and knowledge of the thing. However, this modern thought regarding the impossibility of metaphysics discounts the fact that there may be Objects that are so simple that despite the categorial gap there must be faithfulness. The metaphysics that is developed will exploit this possibility, i.e. the possibility that faithfulness is, at least for some Objects, a logical relation and not merely an empirical relation

Metaphysics versus science

Metaphysics is taken to be understanding of the Universe as it is. In this it is unlike scientific understanding which may be seen as a process in which newer theories have broader domains of application but agree with older ones in their valid domains. Newer theories, as we know well from an acquaintance with the trajectory of science since the time of Newton, may introduce radically new conceptions of the categories of nature which we might otherwise have been wont to think of as given

Unlike science, metaphysics has no room for error and correction

Metaphysics, on the other hand is knowledge of the Universe as it is. This is of course the primary source of doubt regarding the possibility of metaphysics. Unlike science, metaphysics has no room for error and correction

There may be room for error on the way to metaphysics

That may be put another way. While metaphysics has no room for error, there may be error and correction on the way to metaphysics. These ‘tentative metaphysics’ could be called ‘pre-metaphysics.’ In fact they are often labeled ‘metaphysics.’ These are the various systems of metaphysics from the traditions. However those candidates for the term ‘metaphysics’ are, generally, not metaphysics

The historical phases of the metaphysics of the narrative constitute an effective system of tentative metaphysics

It is not given that either science or traditional candidates for metaphysics will be the best system of tentative metaphysics

The historical phases—part of the individual phase of the journey—of the metaphysics of the narrative constitute an effective system of tentative metaphysics

There is at most one metaphysics

Is there a metaphysics? This question is considered and answered affirmatively, with reasons, in the next sections (demonstration is deferred to chapters Intuition and Metaphysics)

However, since metaphysics is knowledge of the Universe as it is and is not one of many possible approximations, we can assert that if there is a metaphysics there is one metaphysics that of course may have more than one form and may be developed in greater or lesser detail

Metaphysics versus paradigms of understanding

In a broad sense all proximate paradigms of understanding fall under science. There are more restrictive uses of the term ‘science’ under which science is one paradigm of understanding characterized, e.g. by being testable and correctible

The narrative will later take up the proximate paradigms of understanding or world views

It can be seen already, however, that any metaphysics may include but will be neither merely proximate nor merely paradigmatic. That it will not be merely proximate lies already in the notion of metaphysics. Why will it not be paradigmatic? It will not be paradigmatic in that it is not set out as a model or exemplar of understanding. Metaphysics is not an example; it is the understanding (as far as it goes.) Metaphysics is not held together by bits of reasoning and practice bound together in a common culture; metaphysics stands inherently in and of itself

The foregoing is of course contingent on there being metaphysics… to which issue we will shortly turn

Is metaphysics science?

The question that concerns us is not whether the enterprise of metaphysics is scientific but whether metaphysics as understanding of the universe—should it be found—is science

We are revisiting issues addressed above

The question of metaphysics and science is confused at outset by the fact that the term ‘science’ is used as a license. If a discipline is science then it is licensed as valid. And a discipline is science or it is not. This ‘science,’ therefore, is exclusive

However, the practice of science is not like that. As always there are two sides to meaning and use—sense and reference—that remain in interaction over time and in a variety of contexts. At some core ‘ideal,’ science is numerical, repeatable, laboratory testable. But there are layers of sense, layers of practice

Science cannot violate logic. That is, there can be no internal inconsistency among the propositions of a science; and science cannot violate any known facts. That is necessary and essential. The process of science may allow temporary contradiction of course but the final analysis cannot allow it. If the requirements regarding science stop there, then the Universal metaphysics to be developed will be seen to be a science for it is by definition Logical and consistent with all valid facts and science and, further, requires all these to be true

A mainstream twentieth century requirement for a scientific theory was that it should be testable. That is one should be able to do an experiment whose outcome would be consistent with predictions of the theory if it lay within a certain range of values but would otherwise be inconsistent with the science and so be seen as invalidating the theory. Perhaps practical essence of testability is applicability. Science may speculate but it is not mere speculation

According to the testability criterion, the Universal metaphysics may seem to not be science. This of course does not make the metaphysics invalid or untrue. A demonstration is given for its truth. Therefore, as far as reason goes and without recourse to prejudice or habit or opinion, the metaphysics would not be science

However, further reflection shows that it is untrue that the Universal metaphysics is not testable, not applicable. What is true is that the usual types of experiment and testing are perhaps unavailable. The chapter Journey is the development of one mode of ‘test’ or application. The outcome of Journey may be that the Universal metaphysics is applicable. It is unlikely that the outcome will be that it is inapplicable but it may be that applicability is so far undetermined

Therefore the question of whether the Universal metaphysics is an applicable science has no immediate answer but defines a program whose outcomes would appear to be either yes it is a science or its character as an applicable science is not yet determined

That is no detriment to the metaphysics itself; abandonment of the metaphysics however would be a detriment to man

Metaphysics must be ultimate

It follows from the definition of metaphysics that if there is a metaphysics it must be ultimate in that there is not going to be a replacement for it although there may be extensions of it and, of course, alternative formulations

Therefore when we talk, in later sections and chapters of the narrative, of the metaphysics, the one metaphysics, or the ultimate metaphysics, the italicized terms are used for emphasis but are not logically necessary

The one metaphysics

The concern with faithfulness does not imply that there is no faithfulness at all

However, while the practical and categorial concerns regarding faithfulness of idea to thing are real, it does not follow that faithfulness is impossible for all things or objects

Where no faithfulness is possible there is no occasion for lament

If a ‘thing’—the quotes indicate that idea of thing-in-itself does not have meaning for all our impressions or ideas of things—has an intrinsic limit of knowability, precise knowledge cannot be desirable and its lack is not—to be—lamented. The limit of knowability becomes the goal of interest and even that may not be of practical interest

There are necessary or faithfully known Objects that form a framework for the best understanding of all knowing. The metaphysical framework is the Universal metaphysics; what is framed and so illuminated may be called Applied Metaphysics but this stretches the meaning of ‘metaphysics’

In chapters Intuition and Metaphysics certain necessary Objects are identified that are precisely known and while the common objects of the world are not precisely ‘knowable’ the necessary Objects and their understanding form a framework within which the knowledge of objects may be raised in principle to their intrinsic limit of knowability

The metaphysics turns out to be ultimate

Since metaphysics is knowledge of things as they are, if there is metaphysics it must be ultimate regarding the things known. If there is metaphysics, then as far as it goes it must be ultimate in depth. What this will require is the demonstration of the faithfulness regarding the necessary Objects

Some aspects of this ultimate character—depth and breadth

However, to be worthy of the name ‘metaphysics’ as standing in the tradition of metaphysics, the system of necessary Objects should have some universality. That this is the case can be seen in the assertion to be demonstrated that among the necessary Objects lie the Universe, the Void, the concepts of Domain and Complement, and Logic

To be of practical use, the metaphysics should frame the valid components of ‘everyday knowledge.’ The metaphysics goes beyond this minimum requirement in two ways. First, in founding the metaphysics in intuition the metaphysics is grounded and, further, the individual or actual being is located in the Universe. Secondly, the metaphysics is the foundation of a theory of variety of being that shows that it is contra-Logical for the Universe to have greater variety than it does

The range of the metaphysics

The metaphysics is extended to the topics of Logic, Objects, Cosmology, and Mind; the ultimate character of the metaphysics is brought to these topics which are elevated to their ultimate character. The metaphysics is applied in chapter Worlds to the study of Normal or practical Objects such as this—our—cosmological system and human being; these topics are brought—in principle—to their intrinsic limit of faithfulness

Clarification of issues regarding the ultimate character of the metaphysics

The claim regarding the ultimate character of the system of ideas must address a number of concerns. What does it mean to be ultimate? Is such ultimate understanding or knowledge objective? If objective knowledge is knowledge of the object as it is, there is an immediate question of its possibility that arises, first, from philosophy where an object of perception is the dual product of mind and world and, second, from science where perception disturbs or conditions the object. What is the relation of the ‘ultimate’ system to the common paradigms of understanding such as science, reason, analytic thought, secular humanism and so on? The issues fall into two classes—What are the claims? and What is their justification?

The developments will require simultaneous treatment of content and demonstration

In addressing these concerns it will the nature of demonstration or proof will require attention and some deep reflections and modifications of the idea of method will emerge. It will emerge that adequate address requires simultaneous consideration of the issues; this address of the issues is part of the substance of the narrative

Relations to common paradigms of understanding and knowledge

The ideas transcend but do not negate the valid elements of the common paradigms of understanding, e.g. science, secular humanism, religion, and myth. It is held that these paradigms have valid elements—literal andor figurative. These early statements will be given greater precision in the narrative where the nature of the terms science and so on as well as the meaning of terms such as literal, figurative, and metaphorical will receive clarification

The development will require a revision of the concept of demonstration

Since the notion of demonstration has been questioned above and an answer not yet given, it follows that the demonstration of the metaphysics will require some revised conception of demonstration or proof. The notion of demonstration will be allowed to emerge along with the ‘first order’ study and will be taken up again as a topic in the chapter Method where it is shown that the distinction of content and method is logically artificial even if practical and psychologically natural

The fundamental principle of metaphysics is the assertion that Logic is the law of the Universe

The central principle or theorem of the metaphysics—called the fundamental principle of metaphysics—is that the only limitations on being are Logical. Here Logic is capitalized because the assertion amounts to a conception of logic

Even though this introduces a conception of Logic, that concept is immensely rich

However, as is shown, the Logic must subsume significant portions of developed logics

Simultaneously the Object of the metaphysics, roughly the variety of being, is also immensely rich

Therefore the metaphysics is—immensely—rich in content: the only fictions are Logical fictions

Although Logic suggests austerity, the metaphysics could not be further from austerity than it is

Any austerity associated with the term ‘logic’ is merely apparent: logic is of course minimal but, according to the fundamental principle, it is the only restriction. The restriction on variety is therefore minimal. The Universe according to the fundamental principle could not be more varied or richer

The valid parts of the traditional paradigms of understanding fall under metaphysics

The traditional paradigms—science, religion, secular humanism and so on—have context within the larger picture of the metaphysics. These paradigms—our practical metaphysics—are our approximations to possibilities and limits; and the limits are real but not absolute. The Universal metaphysics invites us and frames the way to overcome the real but finite limits of the traditional paradigms

In merging limited identities with Identity, the metaphysics is ultimately real

The metaphysics show a way to understand Identity that shows the merging of individual identity with Universal Identity; it resolves paradoxes or apparent absurdities associated with the idea; it requires merging of the identities; and via this merging makes identity immortal; yet temporal limits and challenges remain; the infinite is a challenge beyond the finite challenges; there is no guarantee of any utopian vision; the merging of identities requires the experience of adventure, awe, wonder, excite, as well as infinite horror, fear, emptiness…

The truth of all this

How can this all be true? It can be, and according to the logical principle, will be true by realization in different phases of the Universe, i.e. in different worlds. The price of infinite wonder is twofold. First, while there is a logical guarantee of its occurrence it may be most worthwhile when it is achieved by effort and difficulty… and it may be most likely achieved by industry (‘may be’ is not ‘will be’ and the narrative addresses this concern)

Occasion for celebration or lament?

Second, the logical necessity of wonder is matched by the logical necessity of infinite pain. Should I celebrate or lament? Need I worry too much about what is not now? Now, while I can I might as well, celebrate; I can celebrate wonder; I can, if I am optimistic in attitude, celebrate, morning at the end of night—calm after pain; and I can celebrate—and you may celebrate after absorbing the narrative—that I know and face the wonder and the horror of the truth

Occasion for balance

However, there will be pessimism. There are over-comings and immersions. Where we have choice, we may overdo celebration and lament. Our attitude is one of learning; however, there is no need, in so far as there is intent rather than acceptance, to have symmetry between lament and celebration. Becoming is not symmetric with respect to being and non-being

The metaphysics resolves the essential traditional and modern problems of metaphysics

That the metaphysics provides resolution for the essential ‘problems of metaphysics’—and this is shown—underscores its fundamental and ultimate nature

Breadth

With regard to variety or breadth, the metaphysics is implicitly ultimate. While an immense variety is demonstrated it is also shown that the actual variety is even immensely greater and can be prescribed only in principle. However, if the idea of endless vistas of discovery is good, this ‘limit’ is also good to know and ‘accept’—it is not a real limit but is the discovery that what we may have thought possible is not possible after all (in a good way)

Introduction and use of intuition

Among the system of ideas presented, the discussion and use of intuition is the most recently developed. Some aspects of this discussion were already present in the concept of experience. that had earlier attempted to occupy the place in the development that intuition has now come to occupy. It recently became possible to develop a foundation for metaphysics in the intuitive aspects—human—experience and its forms. It may be noted that the metaphysics does not require this foundation for its validity; however, the grounding is significant and the foundation useful in the following way: it shows, as will be seen, that formal systems are not other than the states and processes of mind but are a subset of those states and processes (of course the external symbolic notation has the utilities of permanence—which relieves the burden of memory—and suitability for communication—especially over distance and time which results in the ‘intelligence’ of the cultural system vastly exceeding the intelligence of any single individual)

The use of intuition is not psychologism

The foregoing comments may seem to be a form of psychologism. Psychologism is the explanation or grounding of a non-psychological fact or law in psychological facts. Here, however, the formal systems are not grounded in psychological facts but are, as will be shown, a subset of or net within psychological states and processes. Therefore, there is no claim of psychologism in its usual sense

The present use of ‘intuition’

The present sense of intuition starts, roughly, with of Kant but whereas Kant reserved the term for the abilities of perception that are native, the term is here extended to include processing, e.g. reason. Further while Kant was concerned with the perception of space, time and cause what is important here is a more basic level of perception—the perception of being, of all being, of part of being and the conception of the absence of being

The role of intuition in the development

For the present purpose the most important aspect of intuition is that it lacks external foundation—which, ultimately, must be a characteristic of our knowledge as a whole. The fact that an external foundation is lacking suggests—requires—that any foundation must somehow be intrinsic to knowing and this is the source of the foundation that is found in chapters Intuition and Metaphysics. It should be noted that only certain necessary aspects of knowing are founded but these form a framework for the powerful system of ideas that is developed

The present narrative is not founded in science, special intuition, or any claim to occult knowledge

Some works that have some affinity of purpose with the present one base their argument in science, some works appeal to the occult, some appeal to a meaning of intuition that is distinct from the one used here, i.e., the appeal is to intuition as a special sense. Except perhaps the occult—i.e., explanation in terms of what is hidden or essentially hidden—these approaches are not rejected but they are not the primary approach or inspiration of this work

Relation to the special disciplines

The metaphysics contains at least implicitly what is valid in any special discipline. The special disciplines may be considered to be among the ‘atoms’ or ‘elements’ of the metaphysics. The metaphysics illuminates and founds the disciplines—frequently in showing their intrinsic limits; the disciplines illustrate the metaphysics

Some distinguishing features of this narrative

A primary foundation of the system of ideas is in the immediate—sometimes in the form of experience rather than only in its object. Thus the primary argument will not depend on what is remote, esoteric, special or complex. It refers for basis to what is immediate, available and present to all individuals—common, and simple. One distinguishing feature of this work is the care exercised in elucidating this base and using it in the fashioning of an ultimate and grounded system of thought

Direct rather than remote truth

While the truth of the system ideas may be difficult to see, the discussion of intuition goes toward seeing that truth as an act of perception

While the truth of the system ideas may be difficult to see at once, it is founded in what is immediately available to every individual. While there is positive interaction between the present system and science—the metaphysics shows the potential to provide some foundation for the basic aspects of the modern sciences of matter and life and energy, science is not necessary to the understanding of the system and is—was—not necessary to its development even though science has had significant suggestive power in the development

The truth of the thoughts recorded is ultimately transparent and not dependent on any special science or sense

Doubt

It is natural that various doubts—and kinds of doubt—will arise regarding a system that is claimed to be demonstrated to be true and ultimate. A first source of doubt is that ‘so much comes from so little.’ A second source of doubt concerns the methods of proof. Doubt is not suppressed. The two general doubts just mentioned are addressed extensively—and intensively. Specific objections are sought and entertained; counterarguments are given; the counterarguments are designed to address logical and psychological doubt. Suppression of doubt would stand against an attempt to see the truth of the system of ideas as an act of perception. Importantly acknowledging doubt, searching for objections and counterarguments is a source of powerful development. The search for doubt is active. Many clarifications, innovations and developments—here as well as in the history of thought—have been the result of the process and habit of doubt in balance of course with the process and impetus to discovery. The doubt regarding so much from so little fuels the second source of doubt; it also suggests that we seek where the ‘so much’ comes from and it then appears that it comes especially from what is put into the journey so that the ‘so little’ is not so little; and finally the doubt suggests that a journey in being should be in transformation as well as in ideas. The powerful developments in method detailed in chapter Method owe to the ongoing critique of method

Method and content arise together and in interaction; method is a form of content

Since method and content arise together—knowing is in the world, therefore method is a form of content—the narrative will make comment as method unfolds. Since it is an unfolding, the comments may not be the final position of this essay. Since it is an unfolding there may not be any finality; the chapter on Method shall be the designated final commentary on method. It may be observed that except any a posteriori finality that arises in thought, here andor its history, appearances of finality may be due to illusions of necessity. Such illusions may arise on account of the crisp and tautological nature of symbolic formulations. The stance here is to avoid what will be later described as the ‘habit of substance thinking’ in relation to precision of perception, acuity of reason, and the necessity of logic; therefore, the stance shall be open to—seeking but not insistent upon—finality of method as it may arise

It is not claimed that all doubt has been eliminated. This is good for it requires a transition from ideas to journey in transformation of being and identity. If doubt is essential to ideas, the journey is essential to being

The chapters Objects and Cosmology refine and elaborate the aspects of depth (foundation) and breadth (variety and origins) respectively. The chapter on Objects develops an approach to classification of objects and a novel and satisfying treatment of both particular and abstract objects: it is a definitive and unifying treatment that reveals a practical but not an essential or categorial or objective distinction (the reality or Object status of abstract Objects is problematic in recent philosophy (The distinction between the abstract and the particular is not ancient: Abstract Objects: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. However, if the distinction is problematic the status of even particular Objects must be problematic. The treatment in this narrative resolves these problems and the resolution is made possible by the Universal metaphysics.) Cosmology considers general variety and then takes up implications for time and space, local cosmology, physical theory, and evolutionary systems

Applications of the metaphysics

An application of the metaphysics results from the intersection—and interaction—of metaphysics and a special discipline; it illustrates the metaphysics and raises understanding, foundation and variety of the discipline to a level whose intrinsic limits are the ones inherent to the discipline itself. Applications illuminate both the metaphysics and the discipline. Applications are distributed throughout the text but are the particular focus of chapter Worlds. The emphases in Worlds are local cosmology and the human world. Regarding the human world, the particular focus is on mind—its variety, its unity and foundation, its functions and categories, personality, and health and disorder—and society

Local cosmological systems; consistency of their stability with the Universal metaphysics; the concept of the Normal

If the only limits on being are those of Logic, what maintains the stability of particular or local worlds? The key and important idea is that of the Normal. This concept is explained in the narrative. It is sufficient for the present to say that Logic cannot require a local world such as our world to be other than it is; in fact Logic must require this world to be as it is. Although the observation may seem trivial when stated it is significant in the counterarguments to some objections

What is Normal has some dependence on our state of knowledge. For example, some aspects of the world revealed in science would have been earlier regarded as belonging to magic or fantasy. Negotiating the region between the normal and the ultimate is taken up in chapter Journey

The power and incompleteness of ideas

The idea of understanding that is not in terms of ‘something else’ is one of developments in which a seemingly trivial idea is a source of powerful understanding and knowledge. This may seem surprising at first but it is finally unsurprising though not without wonder

A number of processes may be entailed in seeking what is essential in some context. One is inclusion—looking for the most general system that includes the one under study. The second is abstraction—what is essential in the original andor the general system. It is significant that the in its present use, ‘abstract’ does not mean remote or lifeless; instead, abstraction emphasizes removing detail from what is empirical—and therefore remains empirical—in such a way that what remains is, on account of its trivial character, known with perfect faithfulness. The concepts of Universe and Void as used here are examples of such concepts; and they are profoundly trivial. It is a result of their triviality that there may be perfect knowledge of the corresponding objects; simultaneously their trivial character is also fundamental in that it permits the development of a framework metaphysics—that is empirical and abstract and universal—that shows the necessity of certain particular ideas and permits improved development of particular disciplines, e.g., the sciences. A third process is the search for foundational ideas that, as in the case of Universe and Void are not so much found but emerge from dim to bright significance

The processes are interactive. It is essential to not fix on any early result. Early in the process of discovery behind the narrative, the Void emerged as significant. Slowly, the importance of the ideas of the Universe—all being—and difference and Domain or part emerged. Being originally had a tinge of the mysterious; mystery in the sense of the unknown became replaced by clarity while its deeper sense of mystery, that of wonder, is retained. Experience was even recently pivotal but, now, though it remains fundamental, experience is subsumed under intuition… It is significant to now be more, now less general; to now try this abstraction and then another; to try out the fundamental notions of mind, of matter and substance, of form, of process, of relation, of fact and so on, and then perhaps of being. Substance has been considered and rejected as fundamental; while form is fundamental it is subsumed under the even more basic concept of the Object. In such a process it is perhaps not guaranteed that there will be any positive outcome. However, when an outcome results it may then be possible to look back at it and demonstrate its truth. The remarkable outcome of the present process is perhaps fortuitous

The present structure of the narrative has emerged as the result of one to five writings a year—eleven writings of the entire essay and numerous writings of parts and chapters over the past seven years. However, the origin of the ideas is much earlier and is recorded in personal narratives written over a period of greater than twenty years

This concludes a rough description of the present path of discovery

We may of course look back and think that it is all rather necessary and obvious—that it is trivial. But are not illumination, understanding, explanation, and knowing inclusive of the reduction of the non-trivial to the trivial?

In retrospect it is evident that there is immense power in simple—even trivial—ideas. However, the discovery and application of the simple ideas occurs in interaction with detailed systems of understanding

The next section takes up the incompleteness of ideas and its completion in terms of transformation

Doubt

Doubt was mentioned earlier. It is important to have doubts about arguments and conclusions. Doubts and responses are raised at a number of places in the narrative. Such doubts include those regarding the intrinsic merit of the arguments, the magnitude of the implications, and apparent conflict with common world views including the views of secular humanism, science, and common sense. The doubts are intrinsic as well as those that occur regarding the relation of the ideas to the world and other systems of ideas

Here we briefly mention other kinds of objection—those based in appeal to emotions such as fear and prejudice and those that criticize the person and his or her background rather than the arguments

These ‘objections’ are important because they may arise explicitly and therefore preparation is useful… and because they may be subconsciously held by others and even an author and should be brought to surface—for without explicit recognition they cannot be addressed

The first counter to the emotional appeal is to make the ‘objection’ explicit. It is not being argued that appeal to emotion has no place at all in argument. The actual place of emotion is subtle and has received some address in the narrative. However, there are clear cases where the appeal to emotion is an attempt to divert attention away from the net merit of an argument or a position even where some feeling may be relevant. There is no generic argument against ‘illicit’ appeals to emotion or person but to be aware of them, to point them out and to reveal the nature of the specific appeal

Establishment of a viewpoint is addressed by careful analysis, application, showing significance, making plausibility arguments to supplement the formal, and by repetition and perseverance and the attempt to reach a wide audience

Regarding my background, although I am presently somewhat outside mainstream academia, I have spent over twenty five years in academic (university) environments—as student, and as faculty engaged in teaching and research. My background in the pertinent disciplines is broad and deep—likely broader than that of most academic scholars and thinkers. My abilities may be assessed from the resume and articles on the website Journey in being—http://www.horizons-2000.org. It may be argued—and I believe that—that being peripherally rather than totally or not at all immersed in academia and having broad experience within academia and outside it is the best preparation for this endeavor as the present one

Demonstrating and seeing

Branches of mathematics and conceptual science have conceptual structures that have some correspondence to the objects being studied. In the first development or encounter, such structures may appear complex and perhaps artificial. As a result of improved development and familiarity the structures that first appeared complex may then appear to be transparent and intuitive. Development is enhanced via combination of such intuition and analysis

The Universal metaphysics was originally developed as a result of a search for an understanding of ‘the Universe.’ The original phase drew on inspiration from physical cosmology and the ideas of ‘Universe’ and ‘the Void.’ Initial focus was on the idea of ‘Universe.’ The insight to enquire into the concept—and properties—of the Void led to the possibility of an analytic-logical foundation and from there to the develop the entire metaphysics of the narrative, i.e. starting with the chapter Intuition. The development originally started with the content of chapter Metaphysics

The contents of chapter Intuition originated with the attempt to place human mind—awareness, feeling, conception, consciousness, thought and so on—in the metaphysics. It recently became evident that the fundamental concepts of the metaphysics that included Universe, Void, Domain and others were already known precisely in intuition—as defined in chapter Intuition

That is, in addition to being conceived analytically, those fundamental concepts are seen—they are percepts

It then became possible to demonstrate analytically that Logic is the one law of being which required, simultaneously in logical space though later in actual development, analytic reconceptualization of Logic

The question arose whether these analytic developments could also be ‘seen.’ In other words can the entire foundational framework of the Universal metaphysics be known as an act of perception or intuition in the sense of chapter Intuition? This would go significantly toward giving the metaphysics immediate meaning and allaying doubts associated with any feeling of remoteness (that might remain even after it is shown that the fundamental objects of the metaphysics—universe, void and so on—are known directly and empirically

The present feeling is that the narrative is on the cusp of such vision. There is a rough intuition of the apex but there is so far a gap between this intuition and precise perception regarding the perception of Logic itself

Theme—Seeing

Theme—Seeing. The journey is one of discovery in ideas and transformation of being. We travel the paths of others and beyond. It is natural that there is some emphasis on the ways emphasized in the cultures—India, the West—and sub-cultures—science and reason… intuition and its cultivation on the other… secular humanism… myth… and the lesser influences that include being a spectator rather than a participant in the recognized religions—in which I have lived and therefore that, early, the trajectory follows the particular successes and omissions or errors of those cultures relative to truth. It is also natural to seek inspiration in other cultures, in nature, and, essentially, in the exercise of my own—our own—vision, thought, and being and in the cultivation and development of the related faculties. The trajectory and the truth are among the contents of the narrative. In the end some truth is seen. It is then discovered that, at least to some extent, the truth can be seen directly rather than requiring discovery. The ego becomes attached to the means of discovery—which are of course not without significance; however, the healthy ego, the one which might not live forever in what is already accomplished, would let go of the path if it sees that the path was but scaffolding (naturally in resuming a path we may again need to construct scaffolding but the insight gained may assist us occasionally seeing where we would have otherwise thought and otherwise being able to proceed with minimal scaffolding… and also naturally we do not expect to get rid of labor and thought altogether and in any case that would not be the aim which might instead—as far as there is identity of perception and reason—to see identity of seeing-at-once and thinking-through.) The focus might then be on seeing. Vision is cultivated. We ask, how much of what is true can we see directly. This is one of the themes of the narrative. We come to the point, or at least very close, where we can see not only certain fundamental necessary objects that were arrived at via reason but also Logic itself: we will see the structure of Logic. Another way of putting that is to say that we will see Logic as a necessary object. Note that this theme is partially repeated in the later theme, Seeing the metaphysics

Transformation

Introduction

Since the system of ideas form a partial foundation for the transformations in identity of being, these transformations are taken up in the chapter Journey that follows the ideas—chapters Intuition through Worlds. The metaphysics forms a framework for the journey in transformation and its possibilities while the study of the human world forms a practical base that is suggestive of—initial—approaches to transformation rooted in what we may know of human being. The transformations are underway and their state of development relative to the demonstrated potential—and possibility—is ‘ongoing.’ The chapter Journey develops a framework for transformation, suggests approaches, describes the transformations so far, and details plans

Here are some approaches, detailed in chapter Journey, to the transformations. It is combining the approaches that is most effective

Received paradigms transformation

Ultimate transformation depends on ultimate knowledge: as in the Dynamics of being developed in chapter Journey

In the early stages of transformation, the received paradigms will be useful. They will of course be reviewed for content that may be integrated with the Dynamics

Paradigms centered in ideas

Considered and infinitely enhanced above

Paradigms centered in the being of the individual

These are ‘paradigms’ such as shamanism, mysticism, psychoanalysis, science of organism and mind—i.e., biology and psychology including philosophy of mind, and yogas. Chapter Journey, takes these up further for their conceptual bases, evaluation and use and integration into the Dynamics

Paradigms centered in technology and science

Science and technology based transformations are physiological extensions and enhancements of the organism and include physical and information technology aspects

These transformations, of secondary interest in this narrative, are taken up in chapter Journey.

These transformations are considered secondary because they are not directly concerned with the identity or self of the individual which is the place of significant transformation. Still, the divide between the external and the internal transformations is not absolute

A recent collection of essays, Year Million: Science at the Far Edge of Knowledge, 2008, Ed. Damien Broderick, paints a primarily natural and information science based picture of what the world and human being—should we survive—might be like a million years from now

The essays acknowledge our destructive tendency but are generally optimistic. The essays derive realism from their acknowledgement of the limits implied by current science and inspiration from allowing imagination to roam within and at the boundaries of those limits

The metaphysics of the present narrative reveals the immense limits of current science and technology and therefore external technology is not primary in this essay. However, the realism of the present metaphysics includes that it recognizes the proximate significance of technology which is at the base of a mode that is here secondary

The final transformations will most likely be an integration of the primary-ultimate and secondary-proximate modes

Paradigms based in social and communal action

Also taken up in chapter Journey, these include transformation of society and, significantly, the immense communal enhancement of intelligence

Dynamics

The dynamics of being is a general approach based in the metaphysics to be developed

Local cosmology, anthropology, psychology

These topics are developed in chapter Worlds. Their span covers the human culture from the hunter-gatherer to the early agriculturalists to the modern

The local studies provide an understanding of this world and therefore a basis for the early phases of transformation

The local and the universal complement and enhance one another. The universal provides context for the local; sets final limits; provides an envelope for final understanding. The local then provides example for the universal. The trajectory of transformation begins in the local and proceeds to the universal

Bio-psychology

Bio-psychological approaches lie at the intersection of organism and mind, nature and spirit

Travel in nature, immersion in culture condition the organism, condition mind into ways of seeing

Physiological exercises and exposures alter mental states and preparedness…

Tradition

Traditional ways—shamanism, yoga, Tantra, mysticism, hypnosis, depth psychology and so on—provide example and paradigm

Method

In the developments some powerful ideas regarding method emerge. Included are the method of abstraction and its empirical character—in its present sense, the incomplete separability of content and method and therefore the experimental nature of method, and the importance of reflexivity in creative and critical thought. In creative thinking reflexivity may be roughly equated to cross fertilization among ideas—but it is more and includes, for example, reflection on the process of reflection (and therefore also on method.) What is reflexivity in criticism? It includes being critical of criticism—that a critical philosophy may be the result of a paradigm of knowledge or verification or criticism and may therefore be significant but not necessary, that many critical systems that bar certain modes of thought are not necessities but are, instead, extrapolations from failures that may themselves have been over-generalizations and lacking in critical content. Since method is not fully separable from content, it is not unexpected that the ideas regarding the transformations may have implications for method. Therefore a chapter on Method follows the chapter Journey

Being and history

Being follows Method. Although followed by Contribution, Being is the final chapter of the journey. It discusses the nature of Being-that-is-capable-of-significance-and-absence-of-significance… and the nature, meanings and sources of significance. The chapter is concerned with the reality of significance or meaning-in-the-sense-of-significance. Two sources of significance are History and Pure being

Contributions of the narrative to the history of thought and action

The final chapter Contributions, summarizes the main contributions of the narrative. Although this chapter is not part of the main development, the contributions to thought and action are submitted as immensely significant

This final chapter discusses some significant implications of the developments for the history of thought and action in which the nature of philosophy and metaphysics take center stage. The recent understanding of the nature of these subjects and their limits is subject to critical scrutiny; a new and analytically ultimate nature is revealed; old and putative limits are found to be severely exaggerated. Here proof and demonstration reign over mere opinion

The first section, The original contributions, points to the main contributions developed throughout the narrative and that are a part of the main development

The next section Significance of the ideas of the narrative for thought and its history introduces developments that are not part of the main development

The sections Philosophy and metaphysics and Problems of metaphysics are thought to be immensely significant to the nature of philosophy and metaphysics and over a number of divisions of philosophy and metaphysics and an entire catalog of problems of metaphysics… and over applications that result from the interaction of the metaphysics with special disciplines and issues

The section Method points to chapter of the same name that discussed the novel and in some ways ultimate contributions to method are detailed in chapter Method

The final section Human knowledge presents an outline of an encyclopedic system of human knowledge. The purpose of the section is to illuminate the consequence of the Universal metaphysics that each major discipline assumes a form that has an ultimate aspect and the limits of the discipline are—potentially—its intrinsic limits

While these thoughts are argued, it is necessarily acknowledged that the thinking must be subject to the scrutiny of scholarship that is but one element of the process of history that is rather dispassionate even to argument

Narrative

Introduction

An essay with ultimate content and unusual form

This essay has novel—ultimate—content and unusual form. Except Journey the chapters develop a system of ideas at whose core lies understanding the Universe as it is—whose possibility and development is the topic of chapter Metaphysics. The ideas concern the foundation, development, and application of a new and ultimate metaphysics. The phase ‘a new metaphysics’ refers to the explicit formulation; however as pointed out it is and must be the metaphysics—there is one and only one metaphysics; and, further, since the metaphysics already exists as a net within mental states and processes, it is only its explicit symbolic formulation that is new

Outline of the narrative

The foundation and primary content are developed in chapters Intuition, Metaphysics and Method. Refinement and further development occupy Objects and Cosmology. The metaphysics is applied in Worlds and Journey. Journey may be seen as an extension of the ideas into the realm of transformation of being and Identity; however, it is the transformations that are the ultimate mode of realization and include the ideas as a phase. While the general system of ideas—Intuition through Cosmology—is a framework for ideas and transformations, grounding of a journey in our world provide a practical realism that is the content of Worlds whose topics include the local physical cosmology and the study of human and animal being—organism, mind, society, culture, and civilization

The metaphysics

The idea of a metaphysics—presented as a form that evolves into a system—that merges into transformation and action is perhaps unusual. What is unusual is that the merging is not merely ‘application’ but that ‘application’ and idea are bound inseparably. And there is a way in which this atypical form is essential—it is possible not because of the development of metaphysics as some metaphysics but because of the specific metaphysics that is ultimate—is demonstrated to be ultimate—and is therefore the metaphysics. In showing the ultimate character of the metaphysics, the boundary of ideas is also revealed and this boundary is not a limit in any usual sense but simply the place where the form of being of idea merges or is continuous with the general form of being

On the ultimate character of the metaphysics

The term ‘ultimate’ metaphysics is misleading only in that as it is shown there can be only one true metaphysics that may however have more than one ‘representation.’ The history of metaphysics appears to present us with a plurality of metaphysics. These ‘different’ metaphysics however are approximations to or partial developments of the metaphysics; they may be slants, i.e. the ‘isms,’—the result of attachment to a cherished viewpoint or of some arrest in development. Early in the development of the ideas I held it implicitly that ideas would constitute the greatest realization of my ambitions. Later, as a joint result of the magnitude possibilities revealed by the ideas and a growing feeling that becoming is a greater realization than mere knowing, I undertook a system of experiments in the transformation of being and identity. This system is currently underway. The chapter Journey describes this system of experiments together with practical, theoretical and historical foundation

Some objections and responses

The reader may have questions and objections such as ‘What is metaphysics?’ ‘Is it possible to know the Universe as it is at all and if so to what extent is such knowledge possible?’ ‘Is it not the lesson of philosophy since Kant that metaphysics is impossible?’ ‘What is the conceptual and practical value to such knowledge?’ These questions are addressed in the development where (1) the idea of metaphysics starts with its traditional conception but the development of the metaphysics itself allows novel conceptions of metaphysics and philosophy to emerge—the conception of metaphysics is the one it must be as revealed earlier if there is to be metaphysics at all—especially in Metaphysics, Objects, and Being; (2) metaphysics is shown to be possible but this possibility is a result of identification of a system of objects whose simplicity is such that it permits precise knowledge of them; and (3) it emerges that although the system of metaphysical objects just mentioned is so simple as to beg the question of applicability, their conceptual applications in ‘general metaphysics’ and practical applications to the academic disciplines and to the human interest are—partly by design, partly by serendipity—profound and immense

…

The ideas and their development. The essay is not a compendium but the narrative of an ultimate journey. The system of ideas and transformations are presented as a contribution to human thought and action

As far as the ideas are concerned, the narrative is one of discovery. The narrative necessarily draws from the thought of previous writers—from the history of thought. When significant, such thought is reviewed and acknowledged. However, this essay is neither textbook nor review nor collection of the ideas from the history of thought. The narrative presents a novel and ultimate system of thought and action—and of the relations between thought and action. The work is presented as an original contribution in ideas and, in chapter Journey, as an attempt at ultimate experiments in being that have some basis in the ideas—a system of proximate experiments has already yielded some success. Readers who expect to travel—or think they are traveling—familiar ground may soon lose bearing. Knowledge that the narrative covers new territory may help maintain a better sense of orientation

The ideas are new and ultimate

Many of the results of presented here are ultimate—andor new. For example, it is demonstrated and asserted that there can be no greater view of the Universe than the one presented in the chapters Metaphysics and Cosmology. And while there have been glimpses of some aspects of the result, the actual result, its demonstration, the articulation of a system centered on the results, the development of consequences, and the elaboration of its significance are new

Unanticipated and apparently paradoxical character of the development

While the view has some familiar aspects, its application to metaphysics and resulting conclusions are likely to be surprising in their depth and variety. The results may be experienced as strange and paradoxical. The introduction of what is essentially novel and the resolution of apparent paradox is accomplished in the chapters Intuition through Objects

Later developments depend on earlier ones

There is novelty in the later chapters but this novelty is largely the result of the earlier developments. It is therefore important for understanding to pay some attention to sequence while reading the narrative. The reader who takes up one of the later chapters without absorbing the earlier ones is cautioned that he or she may find the concepts and results difficult to comprehend and, therefore, to accept

Results are demonstrated. The concept and critical nature of demonstration emerge as part of the results

Except when otherwise noted, all results are demonstrated or, when the kind of proof has already been established in other—perhaps more important—cases, a direction of proof indicated. As noted, there is ‘demonstration of demonstration’ and this is terminating and non-paradoxical. It is not expected that there will be no dispute regarding results and proofs—critical response is encouraged. However, the content of this narrative is not presented as opinion or speculation

Criticism. Suggestions regarding attitude toward criticism

While criticism is important it is it is suggested that the reader place criticism on—at least partial—hold while attempting to absorb the ideas of the narrative. Even though the suggestion may occur naturally to readers, it is worthwhile making it explicit because subscription to the idea of holding rather than immediately deferring to criticism does not entail subscription in practice. Actual holding of criticism is often experienced as difficult—as disorienting, as a source of anxiety. An early warning may assist some readers in navigating the absence of immediate mooring that is likely the accompaniment of the encounter of the new system of ideas presented here. Readers who have time and inclination may choose to defer criticism and other concerns to a second, perhaps nonlinear and selective, study

The concepts—familiar names with novel and ultimate meanings

Most concepts of the essay have familiar names. It is typical for such concept-words have more than one established meaning or connotation. Additionally, since the developments are new, many of the words in this narrative have—are given or emerge with—new meanings. Anyone who would understand the developments will attend to the meanings explained and used in the narrative. It is suggested that other meanings be held in reserve while absorbing the system of thought. Later, however, the introduction of other meanings and ideas—established or new—may add to the content and significance of the narrative and the reader’s own experience

The value of the ideas

Readers may be concerned about the value of the abstract ideas. The issue is addressed in the following ways. First, the primary meaning of ‘abstraction’ introduced in what follows is that of focus on a subset of features of the object; thus the abstract is most present, most empirical and not remote, or distorted, or alienating. Second, there is value to knowing the way the Universe is even when there is no immediate application. Finally, the applications are immense; and of these, some are immediate, others not so immediate. There is also an immense potential for practical application. The ability to temporarily hold criticism aids in the ability to see and develop the value

The transformations: their in-process and ultimate character

The chapter Journey narrates experiments in the transformation of identity and is—and will remain—in flux as the experiments unfold. These experiments, which have partial foundation in the ideas, have not achieved the precision or maturity of the ideas—it is of course not given that such precision is possible or desirable. What is hoped for includes adventure, some brush with the immediate and the real, some experience of ultimate things

Suggestions for understanding

Suggestions for understanding mentioned or implicit above include being aware of the nature of the narrative—especially that the content is new and ultimate… and that although of course we begin with traditional notions of logic and method and demonstration these topics are also part of the ultimate development… and that the form of the narrative includes a union of treatise and travelogue; being aware that both ideas and transformation of being and identity are emphasized and that the modes of approach include the analytic, the imaginative and the experimental; knowing that familiar terms are used in unfamiliar ways that are specified in the development and made possible and necessary by the net development; being aware of potential objections and knowing that objections are anticipated and addressed; being aware of but holding criticism and other concerns in a first roughly sequential reading and perhaps returning to them in later selective but detailed study; being aware of the values of the ideas

More on understanding: significance of the interconnections among the ideas and between ideas and transformation

It is important that the ideas of the narrative constitute an articulated system. This provides further reason to practice the art of holding criticism in mind, letting it occasionally direct but not necessarily impede construction for it is the system that is the final object of criticism

The systematic character of the ideas provides further occasion for flux of meaning for there is some total meaning that is non-uniquely, somewhat flexibly, divided among the different concepts. It is especially the case that when—as in this narrative—reflections are at the boundaries of knowing, the individual meanings and net meaning should have flux—at least as long as systems of ideas have not yet emerged to carry with them and intrinsic to them—not forced upon them—their own irrefutable proof of validity

In understanding there is no substitute for process

Though suggestions may assist understanding, there is no substitute for broad reading and experience, for struggling with problems and ideas as well as with their significance for human endeavor and their place in the history of thought, for seeing the numerous issues in relation and at various levels of integration… Therefore the suggestions are guides to assist the reader in his or her own effort; they cannot be a substitute for excitement, passion, effort and diligence

The best understanding emerges perhaps when the individual undertakes to develop his or her own system of thought and experience

On learning and discovery as a process

In science fact-science fiction accounts of group mind and group intelligence there is the occasional suggestion that ideas may be imported from one individual mind to another. While it is recognized that human culture already has some aspects of group mind—even though it does not appear to have its own consciousness—it is not clear that understanding can be ‘imported’ except by the traditional educational means addressed by thinkers from Plato to modern times

The development of ‘universal understanding’ may proceed along the following lines. In the learning phase the ‘student’ is perceptive rather than judgment forming—judgment is necessary as stepping stones and education in the formation of judgment but the education should show that most judgments in understanding are temporary

Education is not merely formal or the learning of subject matter. The learner acquires a store of personal experience in a variety of paths in the world; he or she learns and absorbs a variety of disciplines of human knowledge and perhaps one or two practices. The absorption is understanding and ability to see implications, to use, and to connect to other disciplines rather than mere absorption of a symbolic form

Along the way, the learner attempts to integrate what he or she learns into a net system of understanding—one that has a vertical span over a number of levels from the concrete to the abstract and a horizontal span over a comprehensive-representative network of disciplines and practices—realizing of course that such systems may be implicit and that explicit symbolic articulation is not forced. The learner attempts to apply his or her learning to a variety of issues of society

Along the way, the acquisition of a broader understanding and the attempt at articulation reveals earlier understanding as inadequate; parts of the earlier net understanding are therefore revised and the total articulation may require reworking

It becomes clear that the not at all direct path to understanding is extended—it is perhaps a lifetime and active commitment and reward may be an integrated and dynamic system, simultaneously intuitive and symbolic, that is part of the individual’s gaze out onto the world—part of the processing that continually adapts itself to the world and is continually in a process of mutual adaptation of world and culture

There is perhaps no substitute for the process of understanding as a lifetime pursuit and passion whose result, rather than standing outside the world, is immersion and connection and for which the idea of external reward has no meaning

On the necessity of passion and enjoyment

These thoughts begin to take on a serious aspect that is not intended. It is critical to the nature of the present development that it is enjoyed (which is not to say that there will not be difficulty; rather enjoyment and meaning fuel undergoing any necessary difficulty.) If the individual does not enjoy the process then success is less likely or, at least, less likely. it is not likely to succeed. Enjoyment is not forced. The process that is passionate is its own fuel. The process will not be without labor but the reward of labor is that it fits in to the net pattern of enjoyment. Philosophy that is the result of drudgery fueled by external reward is unlikely philosophy

A similar thought occurs regarding application. The development of ideas is not given in advance. There can therefore no requirement that the development must be guided by immediate practical application. Practice lies in the present; new understanding lies in the future. A contrast to the requirement of immediate application is the mere working with words and signs without regard to meaning—without regard to sense and reference. Ideas have meaning when sense has reference—the theme is defined and elaborated in the narrative. Since ideas come into being there can of course be no immediate demand for strict reference. However, there is an ongoing play of ideas in which sense refers playfully to ‘things’ until the requirements of articulation and reference—of conceptual and empirical integrity—are achieved. Thus playful concern with sense and reference rather than rigid concern with lexical meaning constitutes essential concern with application; this is an essential sense in which there is no idea without application

Perhaps the best understanding will from the commitment to projects of discovery and transformation

These thoughts regarding the emergence of understanding may encourage the reader on his or her own path alongside which the developments of this narrative may perhaps provide example and inspiration

The influence of the history of thought

An acknowledgement of sources—The ideas owe a debt to the history of thought and major influences on my thought are noted throughout the essay. ‘Philosophy’ may be practiced as an exercise in pure ideas. Some thinkers cherish the idea that their thought has no application. The appeal of living in a world of pure ideas is understandable. The present response to ‘purism’ understands and transforms its motive. No matter how esoteric the ideas become, there are origins in real concerns and the address of these concerns continues to be of interest—the capacity for ideas did not arise in isolation from the world and the sense of wonder and adventure in ideas is likely an adaptation. I have discovered—or rediscovered—that a sustained concern with the real concerns with ideas has a number of fundamental virtues. Sustained concern is important because what is really fundamental reveals itself—has revealed itself—incrementally and only when certain prerequisite reflection has occurred. Reading philosophy is heady and may be exciting; yet it may take time, realization and reflection to see which of the historical ideas may be fashioned, furthered and integrated into real understanding… and it is perhaps then that the thinker is prepared to take the ideas to a further plane—into a larger, universal realm that remains connected to our world, our interest. It will be found that the purest—the most abstract—of ideas may be the most empirical. Abstraction, of course, does not indicate contact with the world; what is required—and developed in the essay—is reflective and incremental selection of the ideas and, simultaneously, an appropriate conceptualization of ‘abstraction’ as what is essential rather than what is removed

It is thus that I have been able—and perhaps fortunate—to see into the heart of metaphysics, to realize that there is and can be but one metaphysics—it may come in different forms—and to see some elements of that metaphysics which is and must be of ultimate depth and breadth. I have been further able, and perhaps further fortunate, to elaborate that metaphysics into fundamental and problematic areas of human thought—the nature of the Object including the role of the observer, the question of the possibility of Objectivity and the answer that it is certain Universal Objects that can be known with precision, the nature and root of Mind and Logic, the study of Ultimate Cosmological variety and the place of the variety of our world; and the deployment of these ideas in my life, the life of the individual and our cultures and societies… What has been revealed includes that there is no other world of pure ideas or of perfect universal forms; ideas and forms are real but they are of this world… of the One Universe. Ideas are seen to be the essential place of appreciation and instrument of negotiation of the Universe and, particularly, of this world… the ideas have a dual and inseparable intrinsic and connected—pure and applied—interest

Contribution

A contribution to thought and action—it is thus that the ideas may be tendered as a contribution to human thought and action

Additionally the ideas are partial foundation for the transformations which I hope to submit for consideration as a contribution to the human journey—to the Journey of being into its highest though not final realization

Careful treatment

Even if such motives to rigor were not present the ideas would be developed rigorously for the final significance of an idea must be some actual or potential correspondence to the real. It is sometimes thought that rigor and richness of content are incompatible; however, can be no richness without realism of some nature; and without richness, ‘realism’ would be empty. Additionally, the inclusion of some history of and context to the individual side of the journey provides flesh to what might otherwise be experienced as skeletal

For all audiences

The general reader may be interested in what is shown rather than how it is shown

General readers may be interested in the experiments in transformation, what their outcome may be, and the ways of transformation. They may be interested in the main ideas and their significant implications stated perhaps in non-formal terms. They may be interested in what is shown rather than how it is shown

The fundamental principle of metaphysics and its consequences

What is shown includes, first, the system of ideas that center on the fundamental principle of metaphysics. This principle says, approximately, that anything that is logically sound is not merely possible but is actual somewhere and somewhen. That means that if something violates the laws of physics or common sense but not canonical logic it is possible and actual. An interesting consequence is that, therefore, the Universe is one of the greatest possible variety; and that that variety includes not only varieties of facts but also varieties of laws and varieties of general and individual experience

Individual experience and identity will equal Universal Experience and Identity

The fundamental principle implies that if there is any way and sense in which individual experience can, without a violation of logic, equal or be universal then there is a ‘time’ when individual and universal experience will be identical. That individual experience could not be greater over time implies that in time the individual will go through transformations that give access to all experience including the experience of the Universe as an ultimate Identity. The implications of the fundamental principle include that the greatest adventure is the adventure in the variety of being and that the individual will experience this variety; however there is no suggestion that inertness is a satisfying or efficient approach to this variety; the fundamental principle includes that in certain manifestations the individual will have the ambition to undertake this journey and in certain of those manifestations will have the will to succeed and in certain of those manifestations will succeed. The praise of ‘letting things be as they are’ is paradoxical for as things are includes human and animal dynamism. Things as they are include both stability and change; and our outlook is naturally a balance between stasis and flux observed intelligently and perhaps incrementally

The observation that the violation of common sense by the fundamental principle is only apparent

Naturally, objections arise. ‘Anything is possible’ appears to violate common sense and science—it appears to violate the sense of limits attached to our living in this world. However, there is no true violation of our common knowledge. In fact the fundamental principle implies that there must be realms such as our realm—a realm with limits and so on; but it further implies that such realms will be embedded in larger realms and that what we consider to be, e.g., physical impossibilities or violations of the laws of physics are in fact very large physical improbabilities within a certain physical realm or Normal context… and that the physical certainties are large Normal probabilities

The fundamental principle entails suffering and that there is no point to obsessive avoidance

The cautious might object ‘you present a nice picture of universal realization but if anything at all is possible will we not also experience all pain and suffering?’ This is of course not an objection whose basis is in reason. It is of the form that suggests ‘what is undesirable is not true’ or, perhaps, ‘what is undesirable may have truth but should not be spoken’ … and perhaps because ‘naming the undesirable will cause it to manifest.’ One could reply with arguments also not based in reason ‘your fear and avoidance serve only to shield yourself from what you fear’ and so on and this sort of reply may be true but does not disprove the objection; rather it suggests a possible motive to the objection. Also, if the fundamental principle is true then naming will sometimes ‘cause’ manifestation. However, it is also true that not naming will not avoid manifestation. It is true that the fundamental principle does imply that we will experience suffering as well as pleasure, equanimity and discomposure and perhaps even unnamed and immense positives and negatives. There is no occasion for too much hope or for too much avoidance

The present metaphysics is ultimate and contains valid elements of prior metaphysical systems

There is an interesting analogy between these developments and scientific revolutions. In the ‘revolutions’ of the twentieth century, those of relativity and quantum theory, previous science was not shown to be entirely false but approximate—that there was a domain in which the older science was an excellent approximation. Inside that domain the newer and the older science had excellent agreement. Outside that domain only the newer science was adequate and it revealed not only new facts and phenomena but also that the nature of the world—the nature of matter, force, space, time, cause and so on—was different according to the new science than it was according to the old. This suggests but does not require a view of current science as the best knowledge available but still as subject to change or revolution as a result of future findings. The Universal metaphysics developed here agrees with the valid parts of our understanding of this world in their domain of application; those valid parts include the valid parts of common experience and the sciences, e.g., relativity, quantum theory and evolutionary biology. However, the metaphysics reveals that there are ‘worlds’ beyond our world and those worlds include worlds in which the laws of ‘physics’ are vastly different from our laws… The Universal metaphysics requires the view of science—if science is to be universally applicable—to be ever revolutionary into the future

The metaphysics is immense in its implication. It is demonstrated. Still there will be doubt and criticism

The assertions of the metaphysics revealed so far are immense in content and implication. All readers will be interested in their validity. It is immensely relevant that the results of the narrative are not mere speculations—they are demonstrated. While they are demonstrated, it is not expected that doubts not will arise; it is probable that most readers and certain that some readers will doubt a number of demonstrations, results, and implications of the narrative. It is natural for doubts to arise just as they have arisen for the author. Doubt is important and is not suppressed. Security and doubt—confidence and humility; imagination and criticism—are both essential; each provides antidote to the excesses of the other. Doubts and objections as well as counterarguments and alternative viewpoints thread through the narrative. This orientation for the general reader now turns to the question of demonstration and proof

Here, ultimate content and ultimate method arise as the two faces of a coin

What is shown in this essay includes more than a new view of the Universe. We are accustomed in science and reasoning to thinking of the methods of those endeavors as received—the scientific method of inductive hypothesis and deductive prediction and the purely deductive reasoning of logic. At least, if not entirely received, the methods are commonly thought to stand at a higher level of practice. However, in this narrative method emerges together with practice in an essential way. Method is not divorced from content; the two emerge together. Method is discussed in detail in the essay, especially in the chapters Intuition, Objects, Journey, and Method. In the first three of those chapters, Method emerges naturally and not too self-consciously; in Method, implicit ideas are made explicit and the explicit ideas are collected, articulated, minimized to essentials, and related to received thought regarding Method. Regarding the non-separation and perhaps inseparability of content and method, we can say simply if somewhat superficially, that since our knowing is in the world the ways of knowing, i.e. methods and approaches, are in the world and, therefore, method is and must be part of content. It may be added that just as the content of the metaphysics is not distinct from the content of prior knowing, so the method is not distinct from but subsumes what is valid in the methods of science and deduction. It may be further noted that there is a sense in which the new method and content go below rather than merely beyond the old; and the new includes what is valid in the old

This is of interest to the general reader in his or her own development and in showing that the essentials of the developments are not beyond common understanding. In this there is similarity with and difference from science

Why may this be of interest? I will mention two reasons that may appeal to the general reader

The first appeal may be that the reader who is undertaking his or her own journey may be interested in the how of an individual (individual-universal) journey. If so, the formal method and the informal aspects of the present metaphysics-journey may be of interest

The second appeal is that, as revealed in the chapters Intuition and Method, the essentials of the Universal metaphysics are not beyond common knowledge

The esoteric aspects of science, especially of theoretical physics—e.g. relativity and quantum theory—often seem to be beyond common readers. That is not entirely the case; science may be seen as extended common sense. Of course common sense may be in error but common sense allows for error and its correction; of course, science requires experiment and conceptual frameworks but good common sense certainly incorporates revision of understanding in light of new experience and reflection. It is true that science may require uncommon insight and skill—experimental, conceptual-theoretical, and mathematical skill

However, regarding the metaphysics the situation is a little different. As noted, the Universal metaphysics is not beyond common knowledge. Instead, its framework is a subset of ‘Intuition.’ Readers will of course have questions of the meaning and validity of that statement; for clarification readers may peruse the following chapters. The significance is that the reader is already in possession of metaphysical knowledge and what is required is, in a sense, a chiseling away of detail that is superfluous to the metaphysical framework—though not invariably to being—and symbolic expression of the framework

The approach of the metaphysics may be described as recognizing what is already known

The fundamental approach of the metaphysics may be described as recognizing what is already known, i.e. recognizing explicitly what is known implicitly. The valid content of science and common sense lies within metaphysical knowledge—at least as approximation since ‘valid’ includes ‘adequate approximation.’ Therefore, science and common sense and the other disciplines, may be empirical points for the metaphysics but superficial disagreement disconfirms neither the metaphysics nor the disciplines—the metaphysics allows and requires Normal worlds, e.g. this world, which, if they were the only world, would disconfirm the metaphysics. Metaphysics and the disciplines are mutually enriching. Additionally, the disciplines and their methods are metaphorically and analogically suggestive in the development of the metaphysics. It is likely that the metaphysics would be discovered without science but, on account of the suggestive power of science, the route to discovery would have been different and the recognized implications might not have been quite as rich in variety as they are

The metaphysics depends on reason but not on the specific theories of science. However, what is valid in science must be at least implicit in the metaphysics. And science may be a source of ideas and inspiration for metaphysics

An acquaintance was reading a book whose subject matter might be described as ‘implications of spiritualist and quantum theoretical thought for human nature and human possibility.’ She said ‘your thinking is like that.’ There are of course similarities; however, immersed as I am in my own ideas, I see the differences as greater than the similarities. As far as method is concerned, I may use science for its suggestive power, but the method emphasizes, first, recognizing explicitly what is known implicitly combined with logical deduction and secondarily the mutual implications of the metaphysics and the various academic and practical disciplines including science. ‘Method’ includes that I may not contradict what is valid in science; however, the metaphysics includes an evaluation of the context of the validity of the results of science and finds them to have validity but only in a very local context. Additionally, my thought has recognized that the mutual emergence of content and method including logic and therefore reasoning is not external to the system—it emerges together with the system; it is not received. The greater and more immediate method goes hand in hand with a greater and more immediate general content—i.e. the Universe is recognized in my thought as immediate and infinitely greater than the worlds of science and common sense. Finally, this greater recognition shows also the possibility and necessity of a journey of realization—which journey may use the traditional systems of transformation either literally or suggestively; however, it is already clear, in the developments of chapter Journey, that the approach to transformation will and must go beyond the traditional approaches

Therefore even the general reader may have some interest in the how of the demonstration. Such readers may find the informal discussion that is parallel to the formal to be useful

I began this discussion by noting that the general reader may be interested in what is shown rather than how it is shown. However, we now see that ‘how’ is part of ‘what’—and that it is an essential part. For the reader who would undertake a journey of the kind narrated here, some immersion in the formal aspects may prove invaluable. Since that reader is already in intuitive possession of what is ‘formal,’ even though diligence may be required in seeing the essentials, they are, in a very real sense, not formal after all. The original purpose to introduction of the formal includes being clear about what is of concern and the excision of what is extraneous—there are other reasons to formal expression and those include simplicity, e.g. of an algebraic kind, that is able to represent where intuition is inadequate and that introduces notational and computational efficacy. To the objection that the formal may omit some of what is essential, I respond that that is why formal systems and developments are—generally though not universally—not regarded as final even when they seem final and when they are presented as if final

So, instead of recommending what to read, I suggest that general readers glance at the index and the contents and turn pages to glean what may be of interest to them. To further assist readers, paragraphs labeled ‘Concepts’ identify the main ideas; similarly, key themes and ideas are labeled ‘Theme’ and ‘Pivotal idea,’ respectively. Read sequentially the themes and pivotal ideas summarize the essentials of the narrative. The reader may also find paragraphs labeled ‘Objection’ to be useful in criticism and the sharpening of critical thought

While it is inevitable that the narrative will not appeal to everyone, I hope that some readers will get caught up in the passion and spirit of the journey and will want to explore deeper and further, heading out, perhaps, on another journey. Even if another journey covers the same ground it may be because it is true realization shall often involve ‘reinvention’

The specialist audience

Topics, disciplines and range of knowledge touched upon or covered

I shall not detail the classes of academic and other specialist reader that may be interested in the developments. A look at the contents and index and a glance through the text will reveal that there is material of interest to every broad discipline from the sciences and the humanities. The broad scientific disciplines are the physical and the life sciences and the sciences of mind and society; the humanities and symbolic sciences are, especially, philosophy, logic and mathematics. The main topics correspond to the chapter titles Intuition, Metaphysics, theory of Objects, Cosmology, Worlds, Method, and Being. Although Logic is immensely important, it does not occupy a separate chapter—Logic it is developed in the chapters Intuition through Objects. Worlds focuses on ‘our’ cosmological system and human and animal being. The chapter Journey includes an interest in action and the realization of ideas in being

The core of the system of ideas emerges in Metaphysics. It is shown that metaphysics is possible—the empirical character of the metaphysics emerges in Intuition. It is shown that there is one metaphysics, the Universal metaphysics or Metaphysics of immanence that is developed in chapter Metaphysics, and that this metaphysics is ultimate in a number of ways. The development must and does use a specific conception of metaphysics that emerges in the development. The general use in philosophy of terms such as Intuition, Metaphysics, Object and so on is a rough and initial guide to their emerging use in the narrative. However, it is crucial to recognize that, under the aegis of the emergent conceptual system, every such term and many others have specific and often ultimate uses in this narrative

The following were noted earlier. Disciplines that are touched by and, in turn, illustrate the Universal metaphysics include Science and the sciences; 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. Topics include Topics noted earlier include, Mind , the idea of God, Substance, Determinism and Indeterminism, Abstract and Particular Objects, Evolution, Mechanism, Space, Time, Causation, Consciousness, and Free Will

The range of human knowledge

Consequences and ‘covering’ of the range of human knowledge is shown in the section Human knowledge of chapter Being

Further discussion of the significance of the narrative for thought and action

There is further discussion of significance in the sections Significance of the ideas of the narrative for thought and its history and Human knowledge. Some potential for contribution is pointed out in Background study, research, experiment: in the modes and means of transformation

…

What I say here about the formal side of the work shall be very brief

Some cautions to the expert and the specialist

I should perhaps begin with a warning that the reader steeped in philosophy andor science is likely to be unprepared for the development of the ideas, their breadth and depth, the degree of demonstration and the immense panorama, and the interactive emergence of method and content—the discovery of a metaphysics that is simultaneously necessary and empirical but not a priori… the discovery of a metaphysics that is the metaphysics. Readers and practitioners of the analytic, Continental, and Eastern philosophical persuasions will encounter ideas that have contact with their thought. These readers may expect to see both sympathy and disagreement with their points of view; and they may expect to see familiar ideas and words used in unfamiliar ways

A new, articulated, whole, and demonstrated metaphysics and cosmology

All readers should be aware that the system of ideas and transformation presented here is significantly new and should be prepared to encounter a vision that they have likely not seen before—especially in its demonstration, in its breadth and depth of development, and in the variety of its elaboration and application (the history of recorded thought reveals partial but undeveloped fragments and visions without development, completion, or demonstration—passing thoughts that are more hopes than ideas)

Suggestions regarding criticism and an approach to reading the narrative

It is suggested that the reader hold in temporary abeyance any preconceptions regarding content, method, meanings, possibility of metaphysics, and necessities of being and becomings. It is not suggested that the reader avoid criticism but rather that criticism be at least partially withheld until the framework of ideas, demonstration, and meaning has been absorbed. I am interested in criticism and other reactions. Criticisms and objections will no doubt occur while reading but I suggest reading through to see whether they are addressed later in the narrative. I suggest a cursory reading and perusal followed, if the reader has the inclination, by reading through at a sufficient level of detail that permits a grasp of the entire and multi-layered structure of the narrative

Intuition

Theme—Idea and intuition—The meaning of intuition in this narrative begins with that of Kant—the ability, itself outside immediate knowing, to perceive the world in categorial terms, e.g. those of space, time and cause. Intuition is extended to all mental content and may therefore be called conception in its wider sense, i.e. to include cognition—perception and thought, both iconic and symbolic—and emotion; the role of intuition in the narrative includes the removing of all knowledge including the assignment of the a priori from the a priori—and therefore the granular possibility of necessary, i.e. necessarily perfect, knowledge alongside imperfect and contingent knowledge. I.e. some objects are allowed whose concept is necessarily and precisely faithful and empirical; in hindsight these will be the ones for which as much particular detail is abstracted out so as to permit the remaining concept to be perfectly and empirically faithful—necessary and synthetic but not a priori. The necessary include experience, being, all being, absence of being, and domain; from which follows Logic. This intuition frames the disciplines. Therefore, while all paradigms are patchwork, the resulting paradigm here has, at least, a precise frame whose filling may have degrees of patchwork… still, the system enables the raising of the patches or disciplines to their inherent limit of faithfulness

The fundamental principle of metaphysics, demonstrated in chapter Metaphysics, is the focal point of the metaphysics. According to fundamental principle—or theorem—of metaphysics demonstrated in the chapter Metaphysics, Logic is the one law of the Universe

The principle and its consequences are found to be momentous. The principle implies that the Universe is far more varied that we typically think in common sense and scientific terms that within reason the actual Universe is richer and more varied than any imagined world; it implies that there is infinitely more freedom than allowed by science—that the laws of physics, for example, are extremely local laws; that the entire system of literature—non-fictional and fictional in intent—is realized provided that no violation of Logic is entailed. The violation of common sense, however, appears to be so severe that the first reaction to the principle should be incredulity. However, common sense is not violated and this is shown in chapter Metaphysics via the concept of the Normal

Originally, the principle was developed from the concept of the Void which was taken to exist. Later, the existence of the Void was demonstrated from the concepts of Universe and Domain

The question arose whether some foundation of these concepts is possible

More recently the concepts of being, Universe, Domain and Void were founded in Intuition—i.e., these concepts have definite objects to which they may be shown to correspond faithfully

‘Intuition’ has a variety of meanings. The meaning used here, the development of its nature, and the use of intuition to found the developments of chapter Metaphysics are the content of the present chapter

Not only do the developments of this chapter found the metaphysics of this narrative, they also show that, despite its apparently abstract character, the metaphysics is not at all abstract in the sense of being bare or remote or some token substitute for what is real. Instead, the metaphysics is revealed as empirically immediate and founded in the empirically immediate. In other words, even though—if—we do not realize it, the metaphysics—the developments from Metaphysics through Cosmology—are, in a sense, already in Intuition

Introducing intuition

Here we introduce a conception of intuition that will be instrumental in founding the Universal metaphysics (of chapter Metaphysics.) The metaphysics was developed earlier and does not formally require the foundation in intuition. However, intuition provides foundation and, more significantly, grounding of the metaphysics in revealing it to be an element of and continuous with being—and therefore with action-becoming or intentional process. In founding the metaphysics in—human—intuition, human being is grounded or placed in the metaphysics and therefore in the Universe

It is important to be clear about the conception of intuition employed. The philosophical use of intuition is distinct from other uses. In its development as a philosophical idea intuition began as aspect of perception that enables the perception of world in terms of what we call its natural categories or, rather, some of its natural categories—e.g., space, time and cause. This intuition is ‘intuitive’ in that it is built in and does not depend on some external foundation or symbolic justification or explanation. Since external foundation is ultimately problematic—What founds the external foundation?—the use of intuition provides a novel approach to foundation without foundation. The development of that thought is of course not given; it is one of the topics of the development

This notion of intuition was employed by Kant who sought external foundation for it as described below. Here we go ‘below and beyond’ Kant as also described below. Starting with philosophical intuition as the perceptual intuition of natural categories, we go ‘below’ in finding Objects more basic than space, time and cause—Objects that are so basic that external foundation is unnecessary. We then go beyond by bringing reason or logic into the realm of intuition. How this is done in a way that gives perception and reason foundation without external foundation is part of the development. However, since perception and reason—fact and deduction—are the two components of necessary knowing, the result will be to found such knowing. For reason we substituted the term deduction rather than the general term inference. Thus not all knowing is brought into the realm of the necessary. For those who prefer perfect never changing perfect knowing in all realms, this might be a lament; still, it will be found that (1) The realm of necessary knowing—we will call it general metaphysics—is Universal in its range, and (2) The necessary knowledge will form a framework for all knowing. This approach to contingent knowledge—knowing that is not necessary—may be called Applied Metaphysics and is immense in its significance and its enhancement of the contingent. If you are not for frozen perfection, you may find that these thoughts—that reveal endless vistas of discovery and endless realms of realization—signal unending adventure and challenge

Briefly, the way ‘below and beyond’ is as follows. All knowing is brought within the range of intuition and thus there is no appeal to the a priori. Whereas Kant sought to explain and justify the perceptual categories of space and time and cause and so on, the categories sought here are chosen so as to not require justification. How that may be and how it is developed is part of the ensuing narrative. What foundation there may be without external foundation—and such foundation emerges and it is far from trivial in its consequences—may be fortuitous; however the fortuitous character may be assigned to the prior absence of looking at the right place… at looking at history of logic, mathematics and science instead of looking for and at what is most simple. The simple elements that we find are ‘below’ those of Kant and as a result of their simplicity they allow a going beyond—one that requires no external foundation and is yet ultimate in ways to be described and demonstrated

Since we take the conception of intuition beyond what may be regarded as a reasonable extension of its meaning—but is reasonable after all in view of the lack of final external or referred foundation—we may equate intuition with ‘conception’ in one of its senses, i.e. the sense in which a concept is any mental content and therefore includes perception, affect, reason, and conception in its higher, e.g. Aristotelian, senses

Intuition

The role of intuition in this essay—bringing all knowing and acting into the realm of absence of a priori foundation… which emerges as a strategy—is that whatever foundation there may be should emerge and such emergence may lie in intuition since intuition does not refer outside itself for foundation and that where there is no foundation, none can be needed, and this is good if the attitude that it opens up a way to discovery and adventure is good. The retreat from strident a priori claims of universal knowledge permits the discovery of domains of knowing with varying degrees of faithfulness, including absolute faithfulness, and productive interaction among these domains

The foundation of the metaphysics in human cognition… and emotion. A statement such as this is likely to receive the critical appellation of ‘psychologism.’ However, it is no psychologism for what it says is not that logic and reason and so on are founded in human conception—mental content—but that there is a net within conception that corresponds or, at least aspires to correspond, to any symbolic and ideal Logic and Reason. And while the ideal may be presently beyond grasp it is conceivable and the conception and its use will be found to be powerful

Human beings and other animals perceive the world in terms that include space, time, and cause. The perception may be conscious but the processing that results in the perception lies outside consciousness and is not under our control. Although I may seek a particular perception, the perception itself presents in consciousness without significant conscious input into either the presentation or its form. Perception is not constructed from symbols held consciously; its roots are remote from consciousness; and though it occurs within us we are not privy to the constructive power of the brain in forming the percept. We have some success in negotiating the physical environment and therefore we may conclude that there is some faithfulness involved in its perception. However much negotiation is done without explicit concern with faithfulness. Further, we do not know that the perception is precisely faithful. Since what happens in the body (brain) lies behind the perception—since the background processing is opaque to us—the faculty of such perception has been labeled ‘intuition.’ Although the word intuition has a number of uses, this use is at the root of its primary use in modern philosophy since the time of Kant

Intuition in the history of metaphysics

Kant made significant use of the term intuition in the sense of being the ability to perceive in certain categorial terms such as space, time and cause. He was responding, in part, to Hume’s critique that the success of such perceptual categories does not imply that they are nature’s categories. From the immense success of Euclidean Geometry and Newtonian Mechanics which presented a view of space, time and cause Kant concluded that the picture of space, time and cause as revealed in those sciences is necessarily true even though it is empirical. Therefore, Kant argued, even though the intuition of space, time and cause may not be precise it does indeed capture the essence of the physical world

Reason (logic) is the instrument that is used to develop a world view (including application) from geometry and mechanics. Kant presumed that the deductive logic of his time, primarily the Aristotelian logic, was necessary (in fact even today it is common to hold that while science progresses, logic is fixed and absolute.) Therefore, Kant concluded that Newtonian science was the necessary description of the world

The unfounded character of all knowing

We now know that Newtonian science does not capture the essence of the structure of the universe even though it is an excellent local approximation. Newtonian mechanics has been replaced by the relativistic theories of space, time and gravitation and the quantum theory but even these are not held to be final or necessary in nature. This much is commonplace. What is not universally recognized is that there are limits even to logic. There is in fact a realm of logic that is necessary but it is never clear precisely what its application is. Other more recent developments in logic are known to have an empirical aspect. It is perhaps the necessity that is built (tautologically) into the relations among symbols that gives logics their necessary feel. Generally, however, there is no proof of a logic for what would prove it? If it is the logic itself then the argument is circular; if it lies in another logic then there is or appears to be infinite regress. Logicians generally regard their discipline as containing elements of experiment

For Kant and Schopenhauer, intuition referred to perception, primarily of space, time and cause. Here—since there appears to be no final external foundation, it is empowering to bring all knowing into the realm of intuition

In Kant reason, too, was absolute. Kant builds up a system by deducing via Aristotelian reason that is founded on the real nature of the world revealed in intuitive perception. Here, even reason and logic are brought, for a priori purposes, into the realm of intuition—i.e. of knowing that has no complete foundation—for there can be no final foundation of logic. We go below Kant’s framework to go beyond it. Is it fortuitous that it has been possible, as will be seen, to not merely go beyond but to achieve an ultimate? Any fortuitousness is that the achievement may have been the result of the labor and thought of this or that individual in this or that era. However going below enables encompassing more; and if the depth is primitive then what is encompassed may be ultimate. The glimpse of depth may be fortuitous but once glimpsed it is not merely fortuitous that this depth should have been pursued with concentration, focus and insight… It may be worth mentioning that factors of the depth of the present development are mentioned in Kant. The concepts of ‘all,’ ‘some,’ and ‘none, are among the logical categories that have been recognized from ancient times through Kant and modern logic. However, their present use as developed in this narrative is apparently unforeseen and unforetold

Although Kant’s program was unsuccessful in its method of demonstration and the result regarding the categories of the world, the insight that intuition is key is immense. He used what was essentially an argument from adaptation—what can we learn about experience from the fact of experience. Today, in light of the theory of evolution we can be more explicit about adaptation even though an argument from adaptation need not refer to evolutionary selection: that we can negotiate the world shows the necessity of some adaptation

Objection. But Kant’s original categories included ‘unity’ ‘plurality’ and ‘totality’ corresponding to the judgments ‘universal’ ‘particular’ and ‘singular’… In its totality the Universe is incompletely and ‘approximately’ known—i.e., the Objects are, generally, of world and mind; it is in its unity that the Universe is a necessary Object; therefore Kant anticipated what has been done here. Counterargument. Kant did not do what has been done here; he did not conceive the necessary Objects and, in particular, he did not conceive experience, being, Universe or the Void as necessary; and he did conceive the Void that exists and contains no Law or even glimpse the immense metaphysical use of that idea in the present development—as noted elsewhere in this narrative Leibniz, Hume, and Wittgenstein did glimpse the significance of the idea if obliquely

Theme—The forms of understanding (his theme functions as reference for the future.) Kant, as is noted elsewhere in this narrative, showed a foundation of knowledge via reasoning upon the data of the senses. The senses provided data via intuition-in-Kant’s-meaning; knowledge was the result of reasoning or understanding applied to the data. For the modes of reason Kant appealed to Aristotle’s twelve forms of judgment and wrought them into a system of twelve categories of understanding—it is not presently necessary to detail the categories in this essay. Subsequently, Schopenhauer reduced the categories to three—space, time and cause. The categories are justified by Kant as prerequisite for the intelligibility of experience which is taken as given. Kant found his categories of nature and categories of judgment to be necessary. We see in the present narrative that to achieve necessity in both perception and judgment—which roughly correspond to the bound and the free—may be brought under intuition which then permits what is necessary and what is local or contingent or probable or Normal to fall out of investigation

However, instead of suggesting in advance whether there are fundamental objects, percepts and reasons, we seek them. Perhaps some such objects will fall out of analysis—this is our approach. In fact the actual approach was not at all as nearly linear as just suggested but it emerged without explicit seeking and after its emergence it was able to look back, to recognize emerging contours and then to cultivate them—to refine them and see them with precision

Thus, a priori, all knowledge is touched by intuition and the lack a priori foundation (though, perhaps also, the absence of a final need for such foundation.) Perhaps, however, such use exceeds what is reasonable to assign to intuition. We may then seek another term, conception, that will be introduced below; this use of conception will also incorporate ‘affect.’ In the end however we find that the present use of intuition is appropriate

By bringing all of cognition and feeling under conception or intuition we find a unitary character to rationality that does not exclude feeling

An adventure in the interaction of foundation and infinite variety

An essential conclusion, regardless of terminology, that we hint at here, shall be that, at outset, all knowing is brought under the umbrella of lacking final foundation. We shall find that this is empowering in at least two ways. First, although there may be no external foundation we may, perhaps, find that there are some aspects of knowing for which we can find an internal foundation. We will find that there are certain necessary objects regarding which knowledge is precise. This may be surprising but when the extreme simplicity and triviality of these objects is revealed it will become clear that there is no paradox in the thought that they are known precisely. What is perhaps surprising is that the identification of these objects and their properties will enable the development of an ultimate metaphysics that will frame all knowing and enable foundation of all core disciplines of philosophy, have deep implication for the meaning of (our) being as well as every fundamental academic discipline. This exercise shall be one preoccupation of the remainder of the present chapter and chapters Metaphysics through Cosmology and the chapter on Method

The second empowerment that stems from the lack of final foundation is the empowerment that results from the true knowledge of our ‘condition.’ To whatever extent there is no final foundation this is good to know. We shall find that there is a ‘never ending’ variety to the world and the exploration of this variety may be an adventure without end. However, as noted above, there are directions in which final and necessary knowledge is possible and is developed below. The lack of final foundation does not rob us of foundation altogether. It is further remarkable that the foundation that we do find shall frame the adventure into variety

Conception and knowing

Perception and reason lie in cognition. Cognition and feeling (emotion) make up all mental content (this will be shown later.) We need a term for this. We choose ‘conception.’ Conception has multiple senses; one is the ‘higher idea;’ more recently, in philosophy, the term ‘concept’ has been used to refer to any mental content. This use of ‘concept’ is appropriate for the use regarding all mental content, i.e., cognition and feeling

Thus conception is not other than perception—conception includes perception. Conception includes all of cognition and affective feeling or emotion; earlier versions of the essay may have used the term ‘cognition-affect’ which is now seen as unnecessary

Conception covers the entire range of mental content. When is conception faithful to objects? Although we know that there must be some net implicit faithfulness, there is no concept for which it is a priori given that it is faithful to ‘its’ object. In general conception does not get outside itself and therefore what is said of intuition—no final external foundation—is also said of conception. This is good in two ways (1) insofar as it is the case it is good to know for there need be no wanting what is impossible and (2) the a priori position that the evaluation of all concepts for faithfulness opens up the possibility that some concepts are perfectly faithful and this will fall out of investigation. It will be seen that there is immense power in this approach

The next section introduces and explains—and defines—a conception of intuition as a kind of knowledge or knowing. The ideas of conception and of knowing could take on the role of intuition in this narrative; however, intuition is useful in grounding the metaphysics that is developed later

As noted, a primary characteristic of intuition for this narrative is that it is knowledge that is held without proof—which is not the same as saying that there is no proof. If proof of the validity of conception or knowing always depends on something else, there is infinite regress and therefore no ultimate proof of it. It will be of immense advantage to bring all conception and knowing under intuition so that there is no a priori commitment to validity. This will allow it to emerge that some conception and knowing will be perfectly faithful… and that of course can be known only on demonstration or taken on faith. The demonstration will have to be intrinsic for it cannot depend on something else. How that may be demonstrated will emerge

It will also emerge that faithfulness is granular, i.e. it is not the case that knowledge is either perfectly faithful or perfectly unfaithful but that faithfulness lies on some kind of continuum. When knowledge is not perfectly faithful there are occasions for doubt as well as faith and the nature of the ‘faith’ will be taken up after all evaluations of faithfulness rather than at outset

Intuition, concept, Object, and reference

Theme—Meaning—Concept and Object—The immense significance of the understanding of concept, reference and object. (1) Generally, the object is function of world and mind; generally faithfulness of representation has no meaning even though from adaptation there must be partial and perhaps only implicit faithfulness; however, this allows for cases of necessary, Logical and practical faithfulness. (2) Practically it is useful in a stable environment to conflate concept and object; in changing contexts, e.g. discovery, it is necessary in analysis to distinguish word and concept—mental content including feeling—and Object to avoid the confusion of variant meaning, family meaning, novel meaning and use, and system meaning; words also contribute to this confusion—therefore distinguish word and symbol, e.g. allow for one word, many symbols. The conflation leads to many a fundamental error whose treatment often involves an unnecessarily complex ‘work around.’ More fundamentally, the analysis of the basic ideas of metaphysics is enormously simplified and broadened—often to their ultimate potential—by distinguishing word, concept and object. (3) Use is the reference side of meaning, in parallel with but in no way replacing sense—the experience side; use stabilizes meaning in stable contexts but also requires changing meaning in changing or varying contexts. (4) In the discovery of metaphysics there are occasions for substance and non-substance metaphysics, fixity and fluidity of meaning; however there can be no final a priori commitment to substance or meaning and the final case, if one emerges, shall be what emerges—and we shall then be able to evaluate the foundation regardless of whether there is a substance in which to have foundation. It is commonly thought that substance is necessary but then what founds substance? This is analogous to the concern that design requires creation—what created the creator? The simplest and most complete explanation, should we be able to find one, is metaphysics without substance and Universe without—external—creation. (5) It is crucial in this narrative to attend to the defined meanings but, until the system is final, to not be too attached to these meanings

Intuition and conception—knowing—never stand outside their ground; this brings into question not just the fact but the meaning of faithfulness—the nature of the object and what it means to make reference to an object… and the meaning of meaning

The concept refers to the Object. Related terms are defined by the following pairs: concept-Object, sense-reference, intension-extension, and connotation-denotation. The idea that meaning is specified by sense and reference is usually attributed to Frege

If something is known, the knowledge must be intrinsic or inferred from the intrinsic. One form of intrinsic knowledge is intuition—knowing by inherent ability. For example, when we ordinarily experience the world in terms of space, time and cause the experience is in intuition—e.g. in the structure of the organs of perception and the brain. We know from adaptation that there must be some truth to such intuition else we would not be able to negotiate the environment. However, this intuition does not carry with it its own explicit proof

‘Intuition’ refers to an ability to know and act that does not come with proof of validity; this does not of course mean that no proof is possible

However, in conventional proof—proof based on something else—there must be unfounded items of ‘knowledge.’ At least at outset intuition lacks conventional or external foundation. From the present perspective this will be found to be good for (1) when there is no proof, there can be no need for it and (2) it allows that an intrinsic foundation may be found

What will be found is that certain aspects of intuition are capable of intrinsic foundation. It will be seen that this follows from their simple, even trivial, character rather than from an external foundation. However, the result will not be trivial for the trivial elements of intuition will be capable of profound elaboration and the provision of a profound framework for all knowing

The trivial elements will be labeled ‘necessary objects’

Experience and grounding

Pivotal idea—Experience—Experience is the subject side of the Object that may be seen as relation; experience is the binding and grounding—and as will be seen the freedom—in and to being

Experience—here—is the ‘subjective’ side of knowing—of intuition. Experience is our intimate anchor or ground in the world. As referring to objects, experience is subjective; however, that there is experience is objective. Experience may be its own most immediate object—the first case of a necessary object., i.e. an object regarding which our conception is perfectly faithful. It is perhaps the only thing that is capable of being its own object

Initially, conception and experience may be seen as overlapping; later, the world, experience, and conception will be seen to be identical in domain

Experience is the mark of our being-immersed-in the world. Experience ‘is’ our being-in-the-world

Experience is not outside the world

The term ‘external world’ is misleading for it suggests that experience is not part of it. However, experience is capable of being its own object

Experience will be considered again below in section The necessary objects where the existence of experience will be established—it is useful to ‘establish’ this existence even though the proof is trivial or near trivial

Faithfulness and adaptation

Although doubt has been asserted regarding the meaning and possibility of faithfulness of knowledge—to what is putatively known, to the putative object—it follows from adaptation—from the fact that we have some success in negotiating the world—that there must be some net and implicit faithfulness. In fact there are, it appears, vast practical domains of knowledge—e.g., common perception and science

In common perception the nature of the object lies in the ‘thing’ as well as the perceiving organism. The comparison of prediction and measurement suggests some objectivity to the ‘objects’ of science; however doubt can be cast on the ultimate nature of this objectivity. However no universal claim to the non-objectivity of—human—knowing for it is shown below that there are objects of which knowledge is perfectly faithful

Faithfulness is not the only reason to study knowing even though it is it is vastly important. Understanding and explanation are significant as well…

Intuition is made of perception and reason. These include feeling-emotion. Because of the ultimate character of embedding neither perception nor reason nor logic have a priori or posited claims to perfect precision—can we make these rational—in any way or sense?

Feeling and cognition will be seen to be essentially bound at the root level. Without feeling, cognition cannot attach to what is relevant. Without cognition, feeling lacks direction

Later experience and feeling are given deeper meaning

Although, as noted above, there are vast practical domains of knowledge it is pertinent to ask—Is there any perfect and explicit faithfulness?

In view of the domains of practical knowledge, the question regarding perfect faithfulness, if entertained ‘practically,’ might be neurotic but its critical consequences will be ultimate—a metaphysics of ultimate depth and breadth and this entails not only method but also content which are coeval—certainly not entirely separable

Abstraction

Theme—Abstraction—Abstraction is the process of conceptually stripping away certain elements of perception or intuitive knowing so that what remains is necessary; we do not know a priori that there is any necessary knowledge; it turns out however that there are necessary Objects that include experience and Logic defined as the one law of—the conception of—the Universe…; this abstraction is polar to token abstraction—that replaces things by ‘stick figure’ concepts—and results in knowing that is simultaneously perfect, empirical and necessary; thus, from the immediately following, even Logic is empirical

Theme—The truth is already known, e.g. metaphysics is already contained in intuition… even if difficult to see—In a sense, as we will see, metaphysics is already contained in—is a net within—intuition whose Object is the Universe though not all of its detail; and this is brought out by abstraction; precisely, there is a net within intuition that is precisely and explicitly faithful to the necessary objects and will be extended to the Universal metaphysics

We know this via abstraction whose meaning here is the omission of detail from experience so as to result in what is precisely faithful. The present meaning of abstraction is distinct from another meaning of abstraction in which the object is replaced by an abstract token. In the token sense, to abstract is to go outside. In the present meaning to abstract is to remain empirical and within—this meaning may therefore avoid the problem of faithfulness

William Blake objected to Newton’s Mechanics on account of its abstract character in the token sense

In the meaning used here, Abstraction is the omission of detail from what is most intimately known

What will emerge is that (1) what is abstract is neither removed nor remote but is known most intimately and therefore empirically, (2) in abstraction it is possible to know certain ‘things,’ the necessary objects, precisely and faithfully even though this is not possible for those things in their detail, (3) the necessary objects are trivial but form the basis of a immensely powerful metaphysics, and (4) this metaphysics is ideally useful because truth illuminates, philosophically useful in elevating essentially all central concepts of philosophy to an ultimate level, and practically useful because the intersection with the practical disciplines permits their development—in principle—to a level that is limited only by the nature of the discipline itself

The necessary objects

Pivotal idea—The necessary and Logical Objects

Theme. Seeing the necessary Objects

Concepts—perception, reason, all being, abstract, abstraction, Universe, creator, Object, necessary Object (Form, Law, Pattern,) Possibility, Actuality, Logic

Note that Form, Law, and Pattern are—will be shown to be—kinds of Object

Here are established existence and some properties of certain necessary objects by abstraction of perception and reason—we first present a listing of the necessary objects

The following two paragraphs contain an OLE link to DETAILS_LISTS_ETC\NECESSARY OBJECTS.DOC

The necessary Objects are: Experience—a name for the subject side of things that is more immediate than the closest element of the external world: so close that it is often missed or rejected; External world or Object—including necessary or faithful Objects and the fact—being—of the practical or sufficiently faithful Objects, i.e. Objects of adaptation that include practical forms, patterns, and laws; Being or existence—what is there—which includes Pattern and Law and Form; all being or Universe—which necessarily exists and contains all Law and Pattern and Form; part or Domain and Complement—which exists when the Domain exists, space-like Extension, and time-like extension or Duration with their degrees of freedom—e.g. our space is as if three-dimensional, and perhaps other unrecognized generalized coordinates of extension; perhaps the Mass or Extensive—increasing with amount, and Intensive—quality, independent of amount—attributes of Objects; the absence of Being or Void—which, from the existence of complements, must exist and which from the properties of the Universe, contains no Law or Pattern or Form and whose properties imply that there is no state that is inaccessible from any other state except states whose conception would entail violation Logic; and therefore Logos which is the Object of Logic—i.e. which is (identical to) the Universe or all being in all its magnitude and variety

‘Later’ in Objects we see that Being is the intensive quality common to every Object. It is pertinent that in Objects we see that the ontical distinction between quality and entity is erased

The idea of the External world

The external world is not something that is ‘outside’ anything; specifically it is not outside the body, or the brain or even mind. Instead, the external world is the portion of the world whose existence is not dependent on its being experienced even though it may be known in experience. That there is pure experience without an actual object is common sense; however, this common sense observation will later receive significant modification. That there is an external world is shown below. The body is in the external world. Experience is capable of being its own object. In this way, even though there are e.g. materialists who have serious doubts regarding the being of experience, experience is the primal necessary object. Action is an object; similarly, all mental content is both notion and object

Thus there may appear to be a sense in which the ‘objects of experience’ whose quality is a dual function of the thing and the subject may be thought of as not being in the external world. However, (1) the concept is external and (2) if the concept refers, its reference is external. Thus the world is the external world

Instead of necessary object it would be more accurate to use the term necessary concept except that in this case there is perfect faithfulness of concept to object

Similarly, it is not necessary to use the term ‘practical concept’ since the concern in this case is with practical faithfulness

Nature and existence of the necessary objects

It is necessary only to provide definition and proof for a sample…

Experience… and Intuition

Concepts—experience, capacity for experience, pure experience, attitude, action, concept, intuition, concept, forms of experience, faithfulness, reference, ~~demonstration~~

The nature of experience

Experience is the generic name for the subjective feeling… of warmth from a fire, the color of a rose, the awareness of having a thought or a feeling, pain… Experience is of course not limited to these simple forms for there is a vast array of ‘forms of experience,’ perhaps infinitely many—the term forms of experience had extensive use in previous versions of the narrative but is now subsumed under the concept of the ‘Object,’ i.e. under Intuition

The word ‘experience’ has uses that are more or less related to the present use but these uses are excluded, except casually, from this narrative…

Experience is presence—grounding in the world—the most intimate and immediate part of being; it requires no proof… it is our connection to the world—even if there is only experience, we want the experience of connection

There is perhaps no further fundamental concept of its own kind—and at its own human or animal level—in terms of which experience can be defined; therefore experience may be explained via example—ostensively, by pointing—but a definition in other terms is not forthcoming

That there is experience

‘Experience’ is a name for what is perhaps fundamental to ‘inner life;’ that it can be named is due to the fact that one has experience of experience; experience is a necessary Object; there are probably organisms that have experience but no experience of experience; we are like that much of the time; however there is often or typically some low level awareness of the field of experience; and we occasionally stand back and reflect on experience. Perhaps some other fundamental term may be found but in context of description there must be some undefined terms or else there would be infinite regress. Later, the meaning—its extension or range of reference—of ‘experience’ will be broadened

How do we know that there is experience? Here lies a distinction between experience and other—potential—objects: experience can be its own object. Experience is subject and object—precisely it is subject but capable of being an Object

Being… and Existence

Being is that which exists. Being is a name for what is there. Therefore being necessarily exists; that is trivial. The idea of being is elaborated below where the scholastic distinction of existing as an object of conception and existing-of-an-object-in-itself (‘being’—e.g., the ‘external world’) is taken up and seen to dissolve

Being exists—is what is there—is a near tautology; it is, however, profound in consequence. What is obvious and is therefore often not mentioned because it seems trivial may be profound. It is therefore, especially in exploratory analysis, a virtue to risk the appearance of stating the obvious and the simple. One of the goals—criteria perhaps—of understanding and explanation is to bring the esoteric under the umbrella of the obvious and the commonplace

In this definition of the concept of Being, ‘exists’ is used in the global sense—i.e. existed, exists or will exist. The global senses of ‘exists,’ ‘is’ and so on are elaborated in the section Difference and domain below

The grammar of ‘being’—‘is’; being as quality vs. noun; being-in-itself versus being-in-relation is an interesting topic as is the variety of uses of the word ‘is’ and other forms of the verb to be. ‘Is’ may be used to indicate a property as in Wittgenstein’s example ‘water is wet’ or being ‘water is H₂O’ or pure being ‘water is.’ The distinction appears to be a priori important. Here we use the existential sense of ‘is.’ Later, in light of the metaphysics to be developed, the distinctions will blur

Theme—Being and, below, Substance. The significance of the idea of being includes (a) that ‘what is’ is not referred for its understanding to something a priori and in fact is not referred at all—or not referred but the fact and Object of reference is allowed to emerge and, so, ultimately, (b) explanation is not required to go beyond and therefore there is no commitment—explicit or implicit—to either substance or infinite chains of reference which allows for the possibility of foundation without substance, i.e. non-relativist metaphysics and philosophy

Concepts—existence, name, being, Necessary Object, local description, global description, Law, Form

The nature of being

We search for whatever is most ‘metaphysically’ quotes because the term is not yet defined’ fundamental in nature—that which is the root of all things. Is there such a ‘thing?’ And why should our first concern be with the metaphysical? What of what is most significant—perhaps relation, perhaps ‘spirit’ or essence? Perhaps what is most fundamental in any sense is not what is behind, what is the root but—when properly understood—what is most immediate. That this should turn out to be true is not given in advance

Being—that which is—which exists—has existence in its entirety. Even if we do not know what exists we know that there is existence for without existence there would not even be an illusion of a world. Being is the name for that existence. There is being

Observation. The phrase ‘in its entirety’ is not necessary. Its function lies in the fact that concept and Object are often conflated and it is then a reminder that the every part of the concept should have reference. These words may seem to contradict the earlier assertion that all experience has an object; however, the present concern is practical and includes the case that discourse may be limited to a context

Objection. The verb ‘to be,’ e.g. ‘is,’ has not been analyzed. Response. There is more than one meaning of ‘is.’ However, use as the verb ‘to be’ is standard and has received implicit analysis in the analysis of experience

Objection. Various special uses of ‘being.’ Response. The special uses are not part of the sense of the present basic, fundamental use of ‘being’ but may lie in its range of reference. It would be a mistake, however, to think that these contingent references specify its sense. Audiences are reminded that understanding of the present development and appreciation of its power requires focus on its meanings even though related meanings and uses may be suggestive

Objection. The classical distinction between existence as being-in-relation and being as being-in-itself. Response. The fundamental principle of the Universal metaphysics, below, dissolves this distinction

That there is being is without doubt. I may doubt the object of experience. However, doubting and experience are being. Experience is the name for an object that includes my presence to the world. Being is a name for what is there including my doubt, my experience…

Here, as emerges, lies the power of the concept of being. We doubt things because we may doubt that experience has an object. We may doubt things when, for example, we doubt their material—or ideal or other substantial—character. However there is no doubting being for doubt itself lies in being and we can say this because we have not specified the character of being

I used to write that the role of being is like the unknown ‘x’ of algebra. If ten apples cost two dollars how much do six apples cost? We begin by calling the cost of an apple ‘x’ where ‘x’ is referred to as an unknown. But ‘x’ is not altogether unknown; we know that it will be some number of dollars per apple and therefore it has known and unknown components. The example, though computationally trivial is conceptually non-trivial and, further, it illustrates the case of being. In the abstract case being is entirely known—being is that which characterizes all things. However, when we come to ask what has being, i.e., to what concepts do there correspond objects the response must be that it is here that we encounter the unknown. The doubt is not practical but conceptual; and it is important for as is emerging it leads not only to immense clarification but positive results of immense value

The proof of being is unconventional—it terminates in itself, not in something else and this terminating proof will be seen to be powerful

What exists? That is the—or a—fundamental question… not whether something exists

Paradoxes and problems regarding existence and its concept

Objection—Quantum disturbance of the Object negates the possibility of necessary Objects! Response. Quantum theory is not universal; the Universal metaphysics and the necessary Objects go below the quantum level

Objection—the allegation that existence is trivial, that it is not a concept… or that it applies to ‘everything.’ Counterargument. Existence is trivial—this is the source of the fundamental character and power of the idea, e.g. foundation of the Universal 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. Consider the mythic unicorn. There are, of course, no unicorns. Of course, someone may choose to debate the existence of unicorns but that is not the present concern—we intend to use the idea of the unicorn to discuss the concept of existence. For the purpose of this discussion we take it that there are no unicorns… If there are no unicorns and I say ‘there are no unicorns,’ i.e. ‘unicorns do not exist’ what can I possibly mean? Am I not referring to unicorns in order to say that there are none? This has been regarded as a paradox of the concept of existence. Response to the paradox of the non-existent object. The paradox is already resolved in the notion of concept and object. I will say that the unicorn does not exist if I have a concept or mental picture that does not correspond to some actual thing or being or object. It is common to conflate concept and object and say, simply, ‘there are no unicorns.’ Elaboration. This shows that the paradox is already harbored in the positive use of the term to exist. For, if when I say ‘elephants exist’ what could I possibly mean if the only token of the kind elephant is some existing elephant or collection of elephants? For ‘elephants exist’ to have meaning, I must have a concept of the elephant. Further elaboration. The unicorn may be regarded as an abstract object (see the later discussion of objects;) Jesus Christ may be regarded as an actual and as a—naturally different—abstract object

The first existential problem of being—whether anything exists. Resolution. Experience and its generic object—the external world. The existence of experience has been shown above. The Existence of the external world is taken up in the immediately following section

The second existential problem of being—what exists? Response. The problem of what exists—which of our concepts define objects and for what objects we have concepts is immensely important and is the subject of the theory of variety is mentioned in the Introduction, and addressed in chapters Metaphysics, Objects, Cosmology, and Worlds. It is seen that the theory of variety is perhaps the most important problem of discovery—that it takes precedence in the thinking of this narrative over the problems of depth or foundation and the problems of knowledge or epistemology

Existence of the external world

By ‘external world’ we do not mean outside mind or outside the organism. Rather we mean a world whose existence does not depend on being perceived. It may—and will—turn out that every part of the world is necessarily perceivable but this will be the result of its being and not definitive of the fact of its being (that every part of the world shall be found to be necessarily perceivable will depend on an extended but necessary meaning of perception)

Assume the contrary, i.e. that all that exists is pure experience (A)—Then

Either

The experience is of a limited capacity—it knows that there is more than it knows

The experience is unlimited

In the first case, (A) entails a logical contradiction. In the second case, (A) is merely one of many equivalent labelings—it is one in which the Universe ‘is’ experience. This proves the existence of an external world

Note that (I) solipsism (the position that subjectivism and realism are indistinguishable) is disproved—if Solipsism and Realism are truly lack differentiation then Solipsism has no significance, (II) the second case above is equivalent to the observation that there is no distinction between sufficiently generic idealisms and materialisms, and (III) the proof shows the power of abstraction, in this case the abstraction lies in the term ‘The experience of a limited capacity,’ that makes no reference to specific structure and is not clumsy in the way of proofs regarding the existence of the external world in earlier versions of the narrative

Universe

Concepts—all being, Universe, Law, creator, Possibility, Actuality, Logic

Pivotal idea—Universe—From the concept of all being or Universe it follows that the Universe has and can have no creator or cause—there can be no God that created and sustains the whole Universe; and that the possible and the actual are identical—for the actual is of course possible but the idea of the possible that is not actual depends on another universe could exist but given that the Universe is all being there is no other such universe; the idea of a Universal space-time-causation is so far logically admissible—from the necessary idea and modes of difference—though not necessary and it is necessary that such space-time would be immanent in being and derivative of its elements and extensions; we read laws in being—we conceive laws, in the Universe, but law corresponds to something immanent in being, in the Universe and that is Law; all Laws—and, as seen later in a different sense, all laws—lie in the Universe

The Universe is all being—all that exists

In this definition of the concept of Universe, ‘exists’ is used in the global sense—i.e. existed, exists or will exist. The global senses of ‘exists,’ ‘is’ and so on are elaborated in the section Difference and domain below

The concept of all being from which all distinction is omitted defines an Object—we name this object the Universe. If ‘all being’ refers to ‘everything’ in all its details, it is not empirically known. However, if ‘all being’ abstracts all distinction, it is empirical and, trivially, precisely known

Therefore, all being—in the non-discriminatory sense—is a necessary Object

Other senses of ‘Universe’

The word ‘universe’ is sometimes used to refer to everything that physically exists. At other times it refers to the known physical universe. While it may be easy to conflate the extensions of the two foregoing senses, the concepts are obviously different

Here, the sense of ‘universe’ is everything that exists; we distinguish this by capitalizing the first letter—Universe. When the distinction between physical and general existence may be a little vague—What is the nature of something that exists with the same grade of existence as the physical but is not physical?—the distinction between Universe and physical universe may be correspondingly vague. Materialists or physicalists—and perhaps most scientists and secularists—might maintain that the physical universe is the universe

The a priori position here is uncommitted to there being a distinction between the Universe and the physical universe. The committed materialist might object but the position is that there is no actual contradiction between his or her position and the present position. That there is no a priori commitment means that the materialist position might fall out of the analysis—empirical and conceptual—and if it does so that could only strengthen the materialist case. However, it is here allowed that materialism might not fall out of the analysis. The present position is certain to be correct

While it is guaranteed to be correct it might be criticized on grounds of being uncommitted. The a priori response is that unnecessary hypotheses need not—perhaps should not—be made. For the unnecessary hypothesis—materialism and so on—might turn out to be untrue; a greater truth may be revealed; and if the committed materialist wishes to maintain materialism as a useful—rather than absolute—hypothesis or commitment then he or she is free to do so

It will turn out—and the chain of analysis is neither long nor complex nor tenuous but may require flexibility of attitude to see its truth—that there is a greater truth and that the truth is ultimate in nature. This ultimate character follows from the rigor of abstraction as described earlier and the uncommitted character of the approach. This outcome is perhaps the most important example in this narrative of the rejection of the habit of substance-style thinking

Here, the Universe is ‘all that exists’ where ‘exists’ is used in the atemporal sense used earlier or, alternatively, in the not so clear and therefore less satisfactory sense of ‘existed, exists or will exist.’ There is a related conception of the universe as ‘all that exits and all that does not exist.’ The ‘Object’ of this concept is potentially ‘larger’ than in the present use. However, unless logically contradictory Objects—Objects that correspond to concepts or descriptions that contain contradiction—are allowed then ‘there is nothing that does not exist.’ This would be the case if the Universe is the Object of Logic—which requires of course clarification of the meaning of ‘Logic’; this is in fact what will emerge. Therefore, in addition to being the most a priori appropriate conception of ‘universe’ the present conception will turn out to be the actually or a posteriori most appropriate conception; and the actual Universe will be seen to be the ‘largest’ possible

Johannes Scotus Eriugena (c. 815–877) used ‘Universe’ to refer to all that exists and all that does not. This use is potentially broader than the present and potentially useful in that it might be conceptually more complete. However, it will turn out that the reference of Eriugena’s use and the present one are identical. Further, when Logic has the ultimate meaning to be introduced here, the senses are identical as well

Law

An essential property concerns ‘law.’ We read laws; what is read is Law. All Law lies in being. Later a sense will be seen in which all law lies in being; this sense will be displace and be more robust than the idea that laws have artificiality and may lie outside being

The concept of Law—while ‘law’ refers to reading or concept of some pattern and so on in the world, ‘Law’ is whatever is immanent that we read and call law

The Universe and its nature

There is nothing outside the Universe; therefore the Universe contains—must contain—all Law

I.e.—The Universe exists and contains no laws

Pivotal idea—The Universe—The Universe which is all being exists and contains all Laws

Objection—Law as immanent is but one interpretation of the idea, even in the sense of ‘what is read;’ other interpretations are Law as imposed, Law as mere description, and Law as convention. Response. Consider, first, Law as convention. The sources of this include the following. (1) Free speculation enters the formulation of laws. However, it may be responded that such speculation is subject to the requirement of applicability; not just any free speculation becomes law. (2) That a number of theoretical developments have alternative formulations. The response is that there are often such alternatives but that they are usually equivalent or, when not, in so much as they apply, there is superfluous conceptual elaboration and still an irreducible element of application for the system to be lawful. Now consider the idea of ‘Law as mere description.’ The phrase ‘mere description’ does not mean ‘arbitrary’ but, rather, ‘not capable of generalization to a larger domain.’ An appropriate response, then, is that some laws do turn out to be capable of generalization. However, since they are not arbitrary, even those that do not refer to some pattern that is immanent—or perhaps imposed—on the domain in question. Finally, the idea of law as imposed may be eliminated because the Universe is all being. Therefore, for any Law that is imposed there is another Law that contains the first and is immanent

Difference and domain

Pivotal idea—Difference and Domain—The idea of difference leads to that of Domain and Complement. Although the Universe is neither created nor caused it is possible for one domain to create or affect—have cause—or participate in creating andor affecting another domain—the idea of local gods that at least partially create, sustain, destroy and rule local cosmological systems is not logically inadmissible; patches of space-time-cause are logically admissible so far; it is logically admissible that there are Laws and laws of domains or local cosmological systems that do not lie in those systems

Difference

There is Difference since without it there would be no experience of difference. Therefore there are Domains and Complements of domains

Dimension

The idea of dimension refers to mode of difference, e.g. duration or temporal and extension or spatial. It is not given that these are the only modes even if it is difficult to imagine other modes and even though there is an argument that they are the only modes that runs ‘creation defines the mode of duration and what is created has extension’… which argument though not necessary will be seen to have greater force than now after the developments of chapter Metaphysics. Even if duration and extension are the only ‘dimensions’ and even if it seems that the dimensionality of duration is ‘one,’ this is not necessarily the case. Of course, the dimensionality of extension is not necessarily limited to three

Global and local modes description

Some concepts—space, time,…, patch

The history of the universe may be viewed as a trajectory through time or as a trajectory over time. In the first view, the history is seen as a ‘motion;’ in the second view it is seen as an object. Spatial description is implicit in the term trajectory—the trajectory is that of a spatial distribution. It is convenient to switch among the coordinate or spatio-temporal description and the non-coordinate or ‘object’ description. An immediate concern is that it is that—as will be seen—spatio-temporal description is not possible for every part of the universe; and it is not clear that space and time are the only possible coordinates of ‘extension.’ From the coordinate point of view, the universe could be seen as different patches each regarded kinematically. From the non-coordinate view, the universe would be the collection of patches conceived as a static object. In view of the indeterminacy and incompleteness of space-time description, ‘coordinate’ and, e.g., ‘supra-coordinate’ may be replaced by the terms local and global, respectively. The global mode allows for objects or domains that, perhaps, cannot be coordinated in terms of other objects

The freedom to talk in both local and global terms introduces a great efficiency into the discussion

The words ‘is,’ ‘exist,’ and ‘being’ may be used globally andor locally. In the global sense being includes becoming

Domain

The idea of domain is that of part. Domains are necessary Objects. Domain and difference are related

Since complement is defined in terms of domain, complement is necessary

Concepts—difference, dimension, extension, duration, space, time. Universal space, Universal time, domain, complement

Note that introduction of ‘universal’ space and time does not indicate a Newtonian absolute and everywhere pervasive space and time but simply what space and time—the concepts and the objects—there may be Dimension is mode of difference which includes but is not necessarily limited to extension and duration

Void

Concepts—Void, absence of being, absence of Law, absence of idea, existence of the Void

Pivotal idea—The Void—The void is the absence of being and contains no law; that the Void is there is tautological; however the existence of the Void also follows from the limit case of the ‘zero’ domain; the existence of the Void is still however subject to doubt on grounds of intuitive and logical doubt that is enhanced by the immensity of the conclusions that will follow from its existence; therefore, the existence of the Void is the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism and counterargument; in the end a principle of most effective action over multiple modes of action may be invoked; the Void contains and can contain no law

Objection. The proof of existence of the Void may be criticized (1) on the account that it is purely logical and (2) that in case the Universe is the domain in question there is doubt that its complement exists. Responses. The first objection is dealt with adequately in the discussions of method. The second objection may be dealt with by providing alternate proofs. A number of rational as well as heuristic (plausible) proofs have been given in the detailed accounts. Perhaps the best alternate proof is as follows—There is no distinction between existence and non-existence of the Void. Therefore the Void may be taken to exist. The fundamental principle now follows. This implies the existence of the Void. There is also a doubt from the nature of the quantum vacuum that is the ‘zero’ state of quantum mechanics but is far from absence. The counterargument is that the fundamental principle shows that quantum theory cannot be the fundamental theory of the Universe. The metaphysics developed here harbors the theories of science within it as local andor approximate

The Void is—defined as—the absence of being

A characterization of the Void—The Void exists and contains no Law

Proof—Since the Universe contains all being, the Void is the complement of the Universe relative to itself. Therefore the Void exists. Since the Universe or all being contains all Law, the Void contains no Law

This characterization of the Void will turn out to be immensely profound in its consequences—it will be instrumental in founding the entire and ultimate metaphysics that will be developed. It is therefore essential to subject it to criticism. Criticism and objections are addressed in subsequent chapters

The objections are varied in nature, some are Logical while others are the result of the doubt that arises on encountering the immense consequences of a proof such as that immediately above that seems so trivial—it will turn out that the proof is trivial and it is this triviality, the obviousness once pointed out and connected to the system of metaphysical concepts, that is a source of its power

Later, when objects have been defined we will find that the most general form of the above characterization is ‘The Void exists and contains no Object’

Preview of the metaphysics

The necessary Objects may be called metaphysical Objects. This is because—intuitive—knowledge of those Objects is perfectly faithful: recall that this perfect knowing is not the result of acuity of perception but of the simplicity of the Objects

The fundamental theorem of metaphysics

The fundamental theorem of metaphysics proved in the next chapter is The one law of the Universe is Logic

The meaning of the statement is that the only restriction on the states of the Universe is that of Logic. The fundamental theorem is thus immensely permissive—the Universe is rich without restriction. There are various problems associated with the fundamental principle—the known issues are formulated and addressed in Metaphysics and later chapters

Since Aristotle until the modern revolution of logic that started in the nineteenth century, the truth of logic was generally regarded as necessary… its truth was regarded as analytic, as a priori to synthetic or empirical knowledge

Since the modern revolution, it has emerged—even though it is not widely recognized—that logic has empirical elements

This is perhaps good news in that it suggests that the fundamental theorem is empirical. However, as will be seen, the fundamental theorem is already possessed of empirical content since it derives from the properties of the Void (including its existence)

However, it is also bad news in that is suggests that at least some elements of logic are revisable. How, then, can logic be the basis of an ultimate metaphysics?

The original thought regarding logic and law originated from the properties of the Void: since the Void contains no law, it must generate any state (see chapter Metaphysics for details.) Except, of course, the Void cannot generate any state whose definition contains a contradiction such as ‘an apple that is green and not green’ or, more generally, any state whose definition violates some logical principle

Of all logical principles, the principle of non-contradiction, e.g. an apple cannot be green and not-green at the same time, is perhaps most basic. However, any logical principle can be subject to critique. Further, what does it mean to talk of the Universe as the entire system of states that do not violate the laws of logic?

Therefore, instead of appealing to logic as it has been conceived and developed so far, the insight that results from the properties of the Void is turned into a definition of logic that is now labeled Logic. The definition is not at all empty. Rather, since all logics are potentially part of Logic, it is immensely rich… but the nature and variety of logics are subject to revision

Seeing the metaphysics

The elementary—necessary—Objects of the metaphysics, i.e. the Universe and the Void and so on are seen faithfully in intuition. I.e., the facts of the metaphysics are seen as acts of perception

The fundamental principle that generates the metaphysics by reason from the facts of the metaphysics: The one law of the Universe is Logic—means that The Universe has no (immanent) Laws

Is it possible to see the universal reign of Logic? If so, since—as for all knowing—the metaphysics is its facts and its reasons, the entire metaphysics may be seen in an act of perception. This is important because of doubts regarding the fundamental principle that originate in logical concerns as well as the remoteness of the principle from common or even scientific sense (intuition in one of its common meanings)

The statement of the fundamental principle appears to have absurd consequences—anything is possible and actual except of course for violations of logic. In the entire Universe, there are realms with entirely different ‘physical laws,’ I will experience all identities and so on. Science and common sense appear to be violated

However, science and common sense are not necessary even though may be habituated to thinking in those terms. The idea that, even if reasonable, they are not necessary goes back at least to Hume—no contingent law is logically verifiable by any number of past observations. I.e., even though the contingencies of physical law and common sense may have practical reign in our corner of the Universe, there is no necessary extrapolation of them to the entire Universe. Of course, if we wish to make actual predictions beyond the immediate we may have no basis except what we know; therefore, if action and prediction are to be based on knowing we may have no choice but to base them on science and reasonable common sense and observation

That, however, does not make the extrapolation of science necessary; in fact, the laws of physics harbor within them signs of their own limits—e.g., the energies associated with an initial singularity or big bang is such that the known laws break down

Once we get over such apparent absurdity of Logic as the one law, we can begin to see it. We can see it as a minimal principle. Regarding our cosmological system we have known laws; there is no logical reason at all to extrapolate these to the entire Universe; a minimal principle—e.g. Ockham’s Razor, i.e. make no unnecessary hypotheses—regarding the entire Universe is no hypotheses or Laws at all or, in other words, the only law is Logic. Another approach to seeing the fundamental theorem is to look at the history of scientific thought. In Western thought, Earth used to be regarded as the center of the universe. Copernicus changed that view—the Sun is the center of the solar system. In modern physics, no point in the universe stands out as privileged. The progression is away from our special vantage point to a perspective that is independent of any particular vantage point. Our laws, our common sense, our paradigms of seeing constitute our vantage point. In the limit we may expect to shed all our laws, all common sense, all paradigms, not in their realms of application but as Universal laws and paradigms

The argument regarding the history of thought is not quite as strong at the argument from minimalism. However, neither argument is necessary. They are heuristic rather than necessary arguments regarding seeing the metaphysics as an act of perception

Perhaps, however, we can see the being of the Void as the complement of any part of the Universe in itself. We can see Laws as immanent rather than as read from the patterns of being, i.e. the Laws are seen as part of the world as much as are concrete Objects, i.e. Laws are Objects (of a kind and this is clarified in the chapter Objects.) Then we see that since the Void has no Law, it has infinite freedom and must generate every state except for those ruled out by Logic. That is at least very close to seeing the universal reign of Logic and the fundamental principle and therefore the Universal metaphysics as an act of necessary perception

Metaphysics

Theme—Metaphysics. There is exactly one metaphysics; this metaphysics may have many forms and be developed in greater or lesser detail. The following metaphysics is, by demonstration, the true metaphysics that is simultaneously empirical and rational in Method (the distinction between the empirical and the rational is dissolved)… Pure and general metaphysics are a net within intuition… Metaphysics is identical to Logic… The only fictions are Logical fictions… The Universe has the greatest (Logically) possible variety… The system of concepts lying under Logic has reference… The Object is the ultimate concept of the metaphysics… Abstract and particular objects are identical in nature… Mind is implicit in the discussion of intuition, concept and experience; understanding of mind begins as animal including human mind but expands via metaphysics and reason to encompass all being, i.e. mind and being are coeval and colocal

Theme—The possibility of metaphysics. The metaphysics is empirical and Logical and therefore necessary and not merely possible; the error of prior thought in thinking metaphysics to be impossible is that it placed all objects on the same level and therefore assigned the same epistemic status to the necessary objects as to the merely practical; the error of prior thought in thinking that metaphysics should be a metaphysic of experience is the error of thinking that experience—intuition—can never have precise faithfulness or that faithfulness never has meaning and again the error here is in not allowing sufficient granularity in knowing

Introduction

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the study of things as they are—including study of the Universe as it is

This is of course a rough and initial notion. It is not obvious at outset that metaphysics according to this notion has any significant content. A list of standard notions of metaphysics is not emphasized here; nor do we list the standard metaphysical systems. Although lists have uses, they suggest that metaphysics is destined to remain premature and ill defined. While it is certainly interesting and useful to review the historical notions and systems of metaphysics, it is hoped that after reading the present chapter the reader will agree that the standard Sisyphean academic recounting of the history of metaphysics and its systems without conclusion is tiresome. Here, metaphysics will emerge and as it emerges its nature will become clear. Instead of asserting in advance that ‘in metaphysics we will be able to do this and not do that…’ we will begin a study and at the end—or middle—look back and say ‘this we have done, that we have not…’

Despite what has just been said a brief detour regarding standard approaches to metaphysics may be useful—following is the opening quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Metaphysics, September 2007

“It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change.” It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, and for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Secondly, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things; the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.” A response now follows

Of course it is not easy for the author of the essay to say what metaphysics is; he has not pinned it down; further, he is not in any position to pin it down. This is not a criticism of the particular author; his general position more or less coincident with the standard position of modern analytic philosophy. Here, however, we will see that there is one metaphysics, that what it is depends on its possibility, and its formulation, and its extension; i.e., what metaphysics is comes after discovering doing metaphysics—perhaps somewhere in the middle of it but certainly not before. It is not guaranteed to come after an attempt at doing; it may come only after a successful doing and even that was not guaranteed but turned out—perhaps contingently—to have been possible… of course I am making this assertion at outset in anticipation of what is to come: it is not a mere proclamation

In retrospect ‘the study of being as such’ is rather close to what we have specifically found—given the general notion such as ‘first causes’ ‘the study of the world as a whole’ ‘an enquiry into what exists’—metaphysics must be (and we will find that the general notions lie more or less within metaphysics.) A philosopher could of course deny the existence of the traditional subject matter of metaphysics and that would be a metaphysical assertion—it would be a ‘meta-metaphysical assertion’ but meta-metaphysics lies within metaphysics—but, as will be shown here, that philosopher and his or her ilk would be so wrong. Were he or she right the philosopher would be faced with the problem of ‘what is meta-metaphysics even if there is no metaphysics’ and the answer would be something like ‘meta-metaphysics’ is the analysis of the possibilities of language or ‘meta-metaphysics’ reveals that the only metaphysics is a metaphysic of experience… Incidentally, the metaphysics—it is the metaphysics… the one and only metaphysics—that is to be developed shows that there are no things (understood appropriately) that do not change

That there are metaphysical problems that are not related to first causes or unchanging things is unproblematic for the present notion, as noted, rules out things that do not change; it also rules out first causes unless the meaning of ‘first cause’ and ‘cause’ is understood much more inclusively than it is standard to do. It is standard today to think that we cannot encounter or study being as such, we cannot know the Universe as it is. What will be revealed is that while many the Objecthood of many Objects derives from both knower and known, there is a class of necessary Objects whose concept is precisely faithful to a definite Object; that there are many practical Objects—Objects whose concept is sufficiently faithful for a range of circumstances and that some of these Objects are known with great though not perfect precision; and, finally, every consistent concept has an Object (the meaning of this latter assertion will be clarified in the clarification of the meaning of Logic.) Briefly, then, there is a study of being as such that, as we will see, provides a framework for many disciplinary studies. This framed disciplinary study may be called Applied Metaphysics (even though it is not metaphysics as such in its entire extent.) However, problems of the freedom of the will and of the physical and the mental lie squarely in within pure or general metaphysics. Therefore, the intent behind the original conceptions of metaphysics is more than adequate to frame and define metaphysics even though this outcome may be quite surprising

There cannot be more than one valid metaphysics—this is clear from the fact that there is only one Universe. We have begun, in chapter Intuition, to see the development of a metaphysics which must be the metaphysics and whose development is continued in this chapter

The metaphysics may of course have more than one form and be developed in greater or lesser detail

There may of course be many attempts at developing metaphysics, many approximations to it—many tentative varieties of it even if the appropriate appellations ‘attempt,’ ‘approximation,’ and ‘tentative variety’ are not acknowledged. However, here is developed the metaphysics and proof—demonstration according to new standards of demonstration—that this metaphysics is a metaphysics. It will then immediately follow that it is the metaphysics

The character of the metaphysics will emerge and this relegates the historical conceptions of metaphysics to historical rather than conceptual interest

In this aspect the metaphysics will be unlike the sciences where we cannot choose the simplest objects for study. It is possible in science to arrive at simpler formulations by trial and error. However, these simpler formulations are to some extent possible because of the special characteristics of our local cosmos. Still however the simpler formulations are generally approximations. In metaphysics our goal is to find those simple aspects of the Universe that are capable of being known precisely. More precisely, this was at outset a hope that was not clearly specified but, later, when the hope was realized it became a goal to sharpen the emerging system and to elaborate its application

In the present development, ‘method’ emerges in parallel with ‘content.’ It is found that this is necessary in that method and content are fundamentally related. It is consistent with this finding to allow the precise sense and subject matter of metaphysics to emerge rather than attempt to make specifications at outset. We are used to thinking of method standing outside and under content. Therefore, where no method is absolute the notion of method may be abandoned. What emerges here is that there is no absolute method that separates from content; simultaneously, however, the method that does emerge is found to be more powerful than ‘method’ that is pre-specified and independent of its application. We will later recognize the transition to this new awareness regarding ‘method’ to be the giving up of an entrenched habit of thought that parallels the giving up of substance thinking that is forced upon us by the discovery that substance is not viable

The study of metaphysics will be divided into pure, general and applied metaphysics—these are introduced and defined below. The ‘general’ metaphysics is a Logical elaboration or development of the ‘pure’ and thus both pure and general metaphysics are metaphysics. However, the ‘applied metaphysics’ will involve the interaction between metaphysics and approximately known objects and will be metaphysics only if we admit approximation into study; but may we undertake such studies because of their utility. It will be an interesting consequence of the metaphysics that even if some piece of practical knowledge approximates its object it will have a precise object—often an infinity of precise objects—somewhere in the Universe provided that Logic is not violated

Since Kant, metaphysics as such has been taken to be impossible. The fact of metaphysics demonstrated here shows that metaphysics is possible. It is not said that knowledge of all things as they are is possible—it is not clear that that idea has meaning. However, there is knowledge of the necessary objects and that is immensely significant—in itself and as framework

The metaphysics that is developed, the Universal metaphysics or Metaphysics of immanence is demonstrated below to be ultimate in depth and breadth

The senses of ‘depth’ and ‘breadth’ will emerge as part of the development

Applied metaphysics is not true metaphysics. However, the term ‘metaphysics’ is retained because the ‘application’ of metaphysics to the knowledge of special objects (e.g. the disciplines) results in significant improvement of the knowledge of the objects—knowledge whose limits may be only what is intrinsic in the nature of the object (which may include in some cases the inseparability of the object from the knowing organism)

Pure metaphysics

Pure metaphysics is the portion of intuition or conception that is perfectly faithful to its objects. We have already seen that it is not empty—experience is an object even though we have not yet established that it has an object

Pure metaphysics establishes the existence and some properties of certain necessary objects by abstraction of perception and reason

This task has been completed in the section The necessary objects of chapter Intuition

General metaphysics

General metaphysics is the development of the concepts of the pure metaphysics, of drawing out a variety of general consequences—by demonstration and without further specialization

General metaphysics includes the development of its equivalent forms that will be seen to include the following five forms whose truth is evident in this narrative through the end of the section Universal metaphysics

The void that is the absence of being exists and contains no Objects—specifically no Law or Form

The Object Universe that is all being contains all Objects—specifically all Law and Form. A part of establishing this involves clarification of the meaning of ‘Object’ and the nature of Objects

The Object Universe has no universal Law; the one law of the concept Universe is Logic; this is equivalent to a definition of Logic which is equivalently the theory of the possible and of the actual

The Universe is absolutely indeterministic; this means that there are no not-accessed states except those states whose concept would lie outside Logic—from the metaphysics does not exist and cannot exist have the same meaning (where exist is used in the global sense over the Universe.) Note that in this meaning, absolute indeterminism is equivalent to an absolute determinism that is different than determinism in its more common temporal meaning; this absolute determinism signifies that all states are accessed

The Universe is one of maximum freedom or variety—its variety is at least as much as that of any conceivable universe; this has been called the principle of plenitude

There is one metaphysics that may have more than one representation or formulation. This metaphysics, the Universal metaphysics, is the metaphysics. The equivalence of this form to the others follows from what has been seen to be necessary in Intuition

The Universal metaphysics achieves absolute non-cosmomorphism: the only characteristics of this—our—cosmological system that generalize to the Universe are the Logically necessary characteristics; i.e., in their foundation, the metaphysics and cosmology eliminate all reference to the particular form of this or any particular cosmos… Note that ‘cosmomorphism’ is analogous to ‘anthropomorphism;’ whereas anthropomorphism is the view of being as defined in terms of man’s image, cosmomorphism is the view of being as defined in terms of this—our—cosmos

The Universal metaphysics

The Universal metaphysics developed in this section is also called The metaphysics of immanence

Note that if the system of conclusions of previous versions appears to be more detailed than the present system it is because some conclusions are combined and stated in simpler fashion while others, also stated more simply, have been placed elsewhere

Concepts—fundamental principle, Logic, principle of reference, fiction, essential unity of the Universe, the Normal, substance, determinism, absolute indeterminism, explanation, ultimate depth of the Universal metaphysics, ultimate implicit breadth, limits

Theme—Requirements for any new paradigm of understanding—It should (a) contain the old in their valid domains; (b) extend—the old so as to be testable and applicable; (c) unify older paradigms which are shown to be partial—e.g. particular and abstract and, generally, the kinds are unified under Object

Theme—An ultimate system of understanding—E.g. the Universal metaphysics is explicitly ultimate with regard to depth and implicitly ultimate with regard to breadth

Now turn to development of a metaphysics that will be shown to be the metaphysics and therefore shall be called the Universal metaphysics. The metaphysics will neither posit nor derive uniform and unchanging substances—instead it will be shown that there can be no universal substance or substances that are the stuff or source of all being. Yet the metaphysics will be shown to have foundation that terminates in a finite number of steps and is thus a non-relativist metaphysics; this contradicts the strong tradition of thought that only a substance metaphysics can have a foundation, i.e. a terminating system of explanation. The metaphysics will enable a theory of form; however, in this system a form is an object and therefore resides in the Universe and not some other world—it is also shown that there is no ‘other’ world. Since all objects are immanent in being Metaphysics of immanence is also used to describe the metaphysics

We may of course talk of other worlds but such talk shall be either metaphorical or simple reference to other domains. That there are no other worlds does not mean that there are no spiritual objects. Whatever objects there are of a divine, spiritual, mental, or material nature—and so on—reside in the one Universe. When we think of matter, ideas, forms, spirit as belonging to entirely different kinds it is the result of our incomplete understanding. All this is demonstrated and given meaning

Outline

In outline the Universal metaphysics is developed from the symbolic-empirical concepts of Universe, Domain, and Void

The first two subsections Characteristics of the Universe and Possibility and Actuality—Introduction to Logic develop their content from the concept of the Universe

In the next subsection the properties of Domains and Complements are the basis of some general conclusions regarding Cause and creation

In the subsection The fundamental principle of metaphysics, the heart of the metaphysics is developed from the nature of the Void—with support from other earlier conclusions. The fundamental principle concerns the equivalence of Logic—the capitalization is explained below—and law: it says that the only universal law is Logic. Regarding Law as immanent, i.e. from the object side, this is equivalent to the statement that the Universe has no universal Law. From the concept side, the single universal law is Logic. The fundamental principle… develops the implications of fundamental principle in broad strokes. The apparent absurdity of the infinite freedom of Logic as law—every Logical proposition has reference in the Universe—is resolved via the concept of the Normal

The remaining subsections develop the metaphysics. Doubt is crucial in view of questions of proof of the fundamental principle and the magnitude of the consequences. Therefore doubts are taken up and addressed; the discussion is part of the thread of doubt or objection and counterargument weaves through the narrative—doubt and criticism are powerful tools not only of refinement but, as is seen, for positive development. The twin concepts of substance and determinism are found to be untenable as foundation for the metaphysics—and it is remarkable therefore remarkable that the metaphysics is ‘non-relativist’ i.e. has a non-terminating foundation. The nature of the foundation has affinities with the idea of form but the useful concept of form is found to be unnecessary. Further, forms or ideas do not reside in another world—there are no other worlds in any literal sense… there is but the one Universe. The metaphysics is found to be implicitly ultimate with regard to variety or breadth and explicitly ultimate with regard to depth or foundation. Since the foundation is already explicit, the search for variety is the greater adventure. The discussion then asserts and proves the possibility of metaphysics and this is important because since Kant the only metaphysics generally thought to be possible is a metaphysic of experience. An interpretation of the possibility of metaphysics is that there is a non-trivial overlap between metaphysics of objects and metaphysics of experience and the foundation for this assertion lies in abstraction of the content of intuition. While the developments from Intuition through Cosmology may be seen as metaphysics, this ends the present core development of the Universal metaphysics. A final discussion looks back and (1) finds that a method has emerged in interaction with content, (2) characterizes the method and shows the necessity and nature of the dual emergence of content and method

Characteristics of the Universe

Some concepts—creator, manifest Universe, one Universe

The Universe contains all form, all objects, all Law

This is a trivial consequence of the definition of Universe and has been seen above

Since the Universe is all being there is exactly one Universe

The assertion is Logical even as it is factual and empirical

The section, Possibility and Actuality—Introduction to Logic, contains an explanation of the capitalization in ‘Logical’

Although the assertion is Logical the unity of the Universe will be later be seen to be far more than a merely Logical unity

There are other uses of the word ‘universe’ as in the phrases another universe, parallel universes and as in the identification of this cosmological system with the universe. There are also not invalid metaphorical uses of ‘universe’ as in a universe of ideas or a universe of angels… However, it is crucial that the literal use of Universe in this development shall be the one stated above

Although the above statement is trivial, its neglect leads to profound errors that are easily corrected. It may be convenient to talk of a world of concepts, a world of matter, and a world of ideal forms. However the assignment of reality status to such worlds is and will be seen to be based on incomplete understandings of the concepts of ‘concept,’ ‘matter,’ and ‘form.’ In fact there is only one Universe and the corresponding understanding of form and concept is a much improved understanding

The Universe contains all actual ‘kinds.’ If there is mind then all mind is in the Universe. If there is matter, all matter is in the Universe

From the given character of experience, mind exists and is fundamental; the concept of mind starts with experience and not somewhere else. Some textbook examples study questions ‘what is mind’ beginning with a list of characteristics that appear to be ‘of mind.’ While that approach is not entirely useless, it is not especially useful. It is perhaps less than useful if the initial list is regarded uncritically. This narrative is not a textbook and the audience is not treated as caricature schoolchildren… Later, it is seen that all being may be associated with Mind—Mind is universal even though mind is not

The being of matter is a theoretical concern. This does not imply that matter does not exist but that precision is required regarding the term ‘matter.’ For example is there an Object of the concept of matter from modern physics? In the present cosmological system, that concept of matter defines an Intuitive object with great local precision. It does not follow that this precision extends to the Universe and we will see that it does not

There are no separate universes of matter, of mind or mental Objects, of Forms

We may talk as though there are separate worlds of actuality or matter, Form and Mind. However, there is exactly one world

The Universe can have no creator

A creator is understood as something distinct from what is created. However, there is nothing that is outside or distinct from the Universe

A God that created the Universe would make no actual or explanatory sense

It will be seen later that the manifest Universe requires no creator. It will also be seen that while an incremental mechanism of origins involving indeterministic changes and selection of stable or adapted forms is heuristically reasonable but not necessary

Space and time

Universal space and time are coeval and relative (meaning is later given to ‘origin of space and time’)

Relative: immanent in rather than—absolute—framework for

It will be seen below that local space-times may be as if absolute even when fundamentally—i.e. in relation to the Universe—relative

‘Universal space and time’ refers to what spatiality and temporality there are in the Universe and the reference is not intended to suggest that this space and time is Universal—in the large or in the small—in ‘extent’ or absolute in nature

Possibility and Actuality—Introduction to Logic

Some concepts—possibility, actuality, necessity

Commonly what is actual is possible but what is merely possible is not necessarily actual

The rough idea of the possible is as follows. The meaning of ‘something is possible even if not actual’ is that if conditions were different what is thought possible would be actual

Relative to the Universe, however, there are no different conditions. The Universe contains all conditions. Since there is no ‘outside’ the Universe there is no measure of the possible other than the actual (talking in the global sense of being)

Therefore the Possible and the Actual are identical

It is important to recognize that ‘Possible’ as used here is different from ‘possible’ in the common use. The common use is that of contextual possibility. A context has facts and characteristics that are constitutive of the context; a fact is possible even if not actual provided that the fact does not violate the constitutive characteristics. Similarly something is contextually actual if it is a fact in that context; something is Universally Actual if it is actual in the Universal context

The identity of the Possible and the Actual follows from the conception of the Universe as all being. This conception permits the distinction of the Possible from the possible and the Actual from the actual

The distinctions are among the errors that a neglect of the fact of the conception and actuality of the Universe as all being

Note that Logic begins to be seen as immanent in the—idea of the—Universe. The reason for the capitalization in ‘Logic’ will become clear later where Logic is seen to be a concept and the common logics will be seen to be—perhaps approximate—realizations of Logic

Domain

There are domains. See the earlier section introducing the concept of the Domain

Cause and creation. Infusion

Domains may create other domains

Creation, Form and Law may be imposed by one domain on another. Mind and matter may be infused from one domain to another

Only if the meaning of cause is interpreted very broadly may we say that the Void causes or creates manifest phases of the Universe

Limited gods

A limited and local god may make actual and explanatory sense—which sense will be significantly enhanced in the section on the Fundamental principle below. This argument gives no support to a literal god of imagination or dogma for this cosmological system except perhaps to remove some sense of absurdity to such a god

Thinking metaphorically yet still concretely there is no reason to not think of the sun or the creation of the cosmos as god; and there is a legion of somewhat reasonable metaphorical interpretations of ‘god.’ It may be interesting though not a new idea to seek the essential psychological meaning of ‘god.’ However, the present development, especially that of the next section—The fundamental principle… may give this line of thought a fresh slate

Local space and time

Local space-time may be absolute in relation to its region of immanence—in consequence from support from an external domain

The Void and the fundamental principle of metaphysics

Theme—The fundamental principle and some consequences—If there is a consistent concept of a state is inaccessible from the Void, that is a Law of the Void; therefore there is no such inaccessible state; which is labeled the fundamental principle of the Universal metaphysics; therefore there is no fiction except logical fiction—the entire literature subject to logic is a concept of the actual; this however is a somewhat unstable conception that is rendered stable by labeling Logic as the only law of conception of the Universe; which is a second formulation of the fundamental principle; which is far from empty because of the realizations of the logical systems as, at least, empirical approximations to Logic; therefore the Universe could not have greater variety than it does; which appears to violate reasonable common sense and science; which is the occasion for the concept of the Normal—systems or which an example is our local cosmos in which there is the appearance of the necessity of its stability, its laws, its space-time-cause that are however Normal, perhaps immensely though only locally probable and not at all of necessary and Universal reach but which however from the fundamental principle are necessary; experience must go to the root although its elaborate, human, animal, focal and conscious modes do not and cannot—experience, therefore is what is referred to by the label ‘mind’ which is not something else for which a search needs to be undertaken; attitude and action are correlates of experience and not other dimensions of mind and there is a thing ‘pure experience’ that is experience in idle that is not actual but may be potential attitude-action

Theme—Relation between triviality or simplicity… and depth and breadth and empirical-logical character of the metaphysics—this is found retrospectively and is not turned into a prescription

Theme—Equivalent forms of the metaphysics. (1) The Object Universe that is all being contains all Objects. (2) The Object Universe has no universal Law; the one law of the concept Universe is Logic. (3) The void that is the absence of being exists and contains no Objects—specifically no Law. (4) The Universe is absolutely indeterministic. (5) The Universe is one of maximum freedom; it could not have greater variety. (6) The Universal metaphysics is the one metaphysics. (7) The metaphysics achieves absolute non-cosmomorphism

There is further detail in General metaphysics above

Theme—Seeing the metaphysics. Through abstraction we ‘see’ the necessary objects—experience, being, all being, difference, domain and void are primary. Can we see Logic as necessary? That requires simply that we see the Void as necessary rather than derive it from domain and complement. This is how the Void can be seen: when we see an Object we see the Void as well since the Void makes no difference to the Object (the Void can make a contingent difference but the point is that it makes no necessary difference)

Theme—The a priori. In the development of the metaphysics there is no a priori, not even logic. All knowing is brought into the realm of the contingent—or, better, the possibly contingent. I.e., not only are we not committed to any a priori, we are not committed to the absence of it, i.e., we allow that some knowledge may be found that may be regarded as perfect and a priori

Theme—Literalism. Whatever can be expressed—especially what is worth expressing—can be expressed literally

Theme—Being continued. Substance—Absolute Indeterminism and Determinism—Every state of being is accessible from every other state, in particular the Void; this is true though not Normally true; the Universe is absolutely indeterministic in that no state is inaccessible from any given state but is absolutely deterministic in that every state is accessible from every given state—this use of determinism is of course different than the usual one; thus there is no substance nor is there explanatory need for such; the Void could be regarded as substance as could any other state; this would fall short, however, of the twin requirements of ultimate simplicity and determinism for substance; therefore the Void is not a proper substance; this is, however, not an injunction against elements that behave as if local substances—which are necessary from the fundamental principle; therefore there will be as if cases of ‘zeroism,’ monism, and dualism even though there is no Universal substance (‘zeroism’)

Theme—Against substance. The impossibility of substance as foundation of the one metaphysics. Against substance of ethics—i.e., ethics as standing apart or above; against substance as a habit of thought and the habit of substance in thought… This is not an injunction against the practical uses of substance or substance thinking

The heart of the metaphysics now follows. The developments of this and subsequent subsections follow from the fundamental principle of the Universal metaphysics or Metaphysics of immanence. The principle is demonstrated below. The proof follows from the existence and properties of the Void

A first formulation and proof of the fundamental principle

If there is a state into which the Void never transforms that would constitute a Law of the Void. Since there is no Law of the Void the Void transforms into every state

The meaning of the assertion that the Void transforms into every state is not explicit or fully clear. We distinguish states from their concepts. Then, from the Void must be realized the state corresponding to every concept

Although the formulation is now clear it cannot be valid as it stands because although there are self-contradictory concepts those concepts have no corresponding states

The corrected version of the statement is that every consistent concept specifies an actual state—subject of course to the requirement that the entire consistent system of concepts shall not harbor a contradiction. We temporarily call this assertion that we have just proved the principle of freedom

This formulation is unclear on two accounts. First, ‘consistency’ is a logical concept. Is it sufficient to talk of consistency or should other principles of logic come into play? Second, the idea ‘entire consistent—logical—system of concepts’ is not clear. These concerns are addressed in the section The fundamental principle—an improved formulation and proof below

Infinite freedom

Before correcting for the two sources of non-clarity of the previous paragraph it will be useful to reflect on what is entailed by the considerations so far. One example of what is entailed is that there are domains other than our cosmos where laws of physics other than our laws obtain. There are infinitely many such domains. It might seem contradictory for our laws and laws other than ours to both obtain but the fact that they obtain in different domains means that contradiction is not entailed. The laws of physics may therefore be viewed as facts. Another entailment is that there are similar domains with different facts; regardless of the historical status of Jesus Christ on Earth there is another cosmological system with another Earth on which there is a Jesus Christ—minus any contradictory aspects of the story of Jesus. In terms that are developed in chapter Objects, ‘Jesus Christ’ and ‘Earth’ may refer to particular and to abstract objects. Since an annihilator system for any given cosmos or domain entails no contradiction the Void ‘generates’ such systems; therefore any cosmos of the infinitely many is subject at any time to annihilation. Therefore the Void is realized from every state; and, on account of the two way realization, the Void and every state are equivalent; and, then, every state is equivalent to every other state. Enough has been said to suggest the immense significance of the generative power of the Void for now; the topic is taken up in greater detail in Objects and Cosmology

Return to limits—the Normal

One problem with the discussion of the previous paragraph is the suggestion that our common sense and scientific view of the world is immensely violated by the enormous freedom that follows from the existence and Law-less property of the Void. In fact there is no violation for all we need to recognize is that while there may be infinite freedom over all time and space, the likelihood of violation of the Normal behavior of a Normal system over Normal extensions of time and space is immensely small; this introduces the concept of ‘the Normal’ that is taken up later. The problem started with an apparent paradox—the violation of common sense and science but can now see that the consistency principle introduced requires such Normal systems. If we take an ‘operational view’ i.e. one that requires only that our concept of the world is not inconsistent with what we observe and not a ‘realist view’ i.e. one that requires that our concept of the world is patterned after what we observe then the immense freedom revealed makes sense. However it is emphasized that the discussion of the operational versus a realist view is heuristic and reason itself has revealed the freedom that is implied by the existence and Lawless property of the Void

The limits discussed in this section are Normal or contingent limits. Although we experience Normal limits as ‘real’ they are not absolute. Normal limits are a function of knowledge—e.g., what is now feasible as a result of developments in science would have been infeasible before the developments. One of the goals of chapter Worlds is to study those boundaries of the feasible that may provide some foundation for the transformations of being and identity taken up in chapter Journey

Adjusting the fundamental principle and its consequences to realism

Objection. The fundamental principle is at odds with realism. This objection has already been encountered and addressed. However, it is useful to address it in inclusive terms. Response. This adjustment is formally accomplished by the fundamental principle itself which requires ‘realism’ and therefore places realism on stronger footing than common sense ‘realism’ and even science. The problem of living in a ‘world’ that is simultaneously limited and unlimited (except for Logic) is resolved by the concept of the Normal

Absolute limits

Normal laws that are not Logical are ‘contingent’ or at most very probable in some contexts. Similarly the contingently or Normally impossible is at most very improbable or infeasible in certain contexts

The only limits are Logical limits. The Logically impossible is the only true impossibility and, in the Universe, the only non-Actuality

Our ‘common reality’ including science and even logic may be experienced as necessary; this, however, is a Normal necessity; i.e., it is very probable. The necessity of Logic, however, is absolute

…

Now return to the lack of clarity of the formulation. This lack of clarity can be cleared up by restating the principle of freedom as in the following section

The fundamental principle—an improved formulation and proof

The fundamental principle is the central and pivotal principle of the metaphysics and the entire system of ideas. Its proof is empirical-conceptual. As a result of the principle the possibility of metaphysics follows not as an abstract necessity but by the constructive demonstration of a metaphysics—i.e., of the metaphysics

The one law of the Universe is Logic—we shall call this the fundamental principle of metaphysics

The two lacks of clarity are eliminated by this version of the principle of freedom. Even though there may be debate as to which ‘laws of logic’ should count as logical laws we avoid the debate by introducing the fundamental principle as a definition of Logic. This is why Logic is capitalized. The second lack of clarity is eliminated by subsuming implicitly under Logic—the idea of—‘the’ explicit set of consistent concepts

Another potential problem now surfaces—if the fundamental principle is a definition of Logic it should lack content. The resolution is that it is a semi-definition. The purpose of introducing the discussion of variety—infinitely many domains, annihilation, the Normal and so on—is to show that the principle has content. Even though we may doubt the final formulation of actual systems of logic they are all subsumed under Logic as approximations to it or phases of it. Under Logic, therefore, there may be harbored freedoms that we do not suspect or imagine so far and that we may fail to imagine in this essay or even in the sum of human thought and literature. At the same time there may also be restrictions that are unimagined…

The edge of the Normal

What is this cosmological system? What lies at the edge of its putative spatial boundary, at the edge of time, at the threshold of its very small? There is a scientific positivism that answers ‘Nothing!’ However, the putative edges are the edges of our contingent or Normal sciences and even those sciences admit some warp in validity—some warp in space, and time and magnitude—that is a window beyond the putative boundary… which of course—and much more—is required by the fundamental principle. The Universal metaphysics does not invalidate positivism; it rewrites it—infinite variety and so on are not merely consistent with the metaphysics but are positively required by it

The principle of reference

The principle of reference is a restatement of the fundamental principle—every proposition within Logic has reference in the Universe

Logic and law

The source of Logic as law is the absence of Law in the Void. There is no Law in the Void; equivalently, description or conception of the Void is limited only by Logic—Logic is the only law of the Void… and it then follows that the Universe has no Law that is manifest in it as a whole, i.e. the only law of the entire Universe is Logic

What is the significance of Logic as law? Logic as law suggests an austere view of the world. In fact the view is austere. However the austerity concerns limits—it is an austere view of the limits on the being and behavior of the world. On the other hand the variety required—and not merely permitted—is vast; it is richer, more varied than any Normal or imagined world or cosmological system

In simple terms, the fundamental principle says that excepting contradiction ‘anything is possible.’ As we have seen above the potential absurdities—e.g. violations of science and common sense that are not logical contradictions—are resolved via the concept of the Normal. This concept is further developed and used in the narrative

Logic as law is not at all a violation of science or reasonable common sense; instead our science and our reasonable common sense are required by Logic as Law to hold in some domains

From the vantage point of our cosmos, there is an infinite variety awaiting discovery. The fundamental principle requires that the discovery will occur but, of course, it does not say how it will occur. It does say that infinity will meet with (our) identity; but it does not specify how. Some thoughts on the contours and beginnings of such a journey are the content of the chapter Journey

The fundamental principle: doubts and criticisms

Essential objection. The fundamental principle derives from the following—The Void exists and contains no Law. The essential objection to the fundamental principle, then, is the objection to the claim regarding the existence and nature of the Void. Counterargument or response. The question of the existence and the nature of the Void—the Void exists and contains no law—has been addressed in the objections concerning the necessary Objects including the Void

Objection. There is also the fundamental intuitive concern that so much is derived from so little. Response. One response to this concern is that ‘so much’ is the sweeping away of preconception e.g. substance and what is perhaps false humility

Metaphysics and animal faith

Residual doubt. Residual doubt will remain. I have this doubt. The components of the doubt, as just noted, are not merely logical—although there is a logical component to it: doubts regarding the logic of the necessary Objects—but is also ‘existential,’ i.e. that so much comes from so little and this doubt is not entirely removed by the sweeping away of preconception or the acknowledgement of false humility that is perhaps the twin of false pride and confidence. Response to doubt. There is no final argument against this but to act and enter the journey. This is essential in any case because ideas are not complete realization. It is important to enter ‘animal faith’ in which it is recognized—in the human realization of animal faith—that if there is no final foundation for ideas then there need be no such final foundation, that we may and perhaps must act in their absence but also in light of ideas that are reasonable even if they lack foundation… and that may be supported by any intuition that we possess. It may be reflected that animal faith will be essential even if there is no doubt—a condition of being, and of the adventure in variety; that animal faith is implicit but suppressed along with doubt even in the most rational of human endeavor. The ‘earthly’ counterpart to this human form of animal faith is living on earth as if it were both ‘heaven and hell’ in this lifetime and not in anticipation of some future paradise or future hell regardless of whether those states of being remain to be experienced in some manifestation of our being

There is a fine distinction between essential and neurotic or destructive doubt. There is a continuum of reasonable responses to doubt—including the analytic or philosophical responses that attempt to resolve doubt. Beyond that point, however, doubt may become neurotic—a mere living in doubt. The response may then to be to live and act with or despite doubt rather than to merely live in doubt or to prematurely celebrate doubt which is the common style of the positivist scientist and the post-modern thinker

Token proof

The purpose of this section is to note that since the proofs are generic and trivial it is unnecessary to repeat a proof of the existence of Objects from the fundamental principle for every instance of proof

The one law of the Universe is Logic—this is the fundamental principle of metaphysics demonstrated earlier

Therefore, any concept that does not violate Logic has an Object… or every ‘consistent Object’ exists

It is not necessary to repeat the—trivial—proof for every instance of its application

What may be necessary in certain instances is to show the significance of the instance andor to make sure that there is in fact no violation of Logic

A doubt

The result is so immense and the input so small that doubt must follow. This resolution of the plot of the nature of metaphysics presents as if a ‘deus ex machina.’ The plot deals with the doubt. However there is an immediate counter-doubt. It is that perhaps after all the plot of being is simple and all the complexities of life and understanding lie within that simple perimeter…

Being and existing

There is a distinction from scholastic philosophy between being-in-itself and being-in-relation. For a necessary Object its being-in-relation defines a—its—being-in-itself. For an Object other than the necessary, the concept is of the subject and the Object is a joint product of mind and world. The product is of course a necessary Object. The Object has no absolute being but has being for some purposes and effects

Some properties of the Void

The Void exists and contains no Law

Simplicity—the Void is ultimately simple; its simplicity is one of its concept but not of fact

The Void is absolutely indeterministic—no state is inaccessible from it; and absolutely deterministic in the following non-temporal sense—every state is accessible from it

We may talk of there being one void or many voids; the distinction has no actual significance. Every ‘particle’ of manifest being may be regarded as having its own private void attached to it

The Void is equivalent to every state and element of being

The Void may be regarded as the creator and annihilator of every element and state of being; such annihilation and creation is not causal in any common sense

The Void is not a substance in the classical sense—it does not deterministically stand under the world in any temporal unfolding; however it has some substance-like function and some causal-like function in that given the Universe in a Void state, there will result—all—manifest phases of the Universe

From a manifest state, the Universe must enter the Void state; from the Void state, a manifest state must emerge; this emergence is not causal in any common sense

There is no reason that there must ‘eternally’ be something rather than nothing—there must occasionally be nothing, i.e. the Void; and there must occasionally be something

On the assumption that the quantum vacuum obeys some physical law or laws, the Void is not the quantum vacuum but underlies it in fundamental character. The Void may give rise to the quantum vacuum. The Void has similarities to the quantum vacuum, e.g. the equivalence to immense reserves of energy; the Void has no base state that parallels the non-zero energy ground state of a quantum system

The Void may be regarded as being outside extension and before duration. ‘A time before time’ seems, on account of the meaning of time to have no reference; i.e. it seems as though there can be no time before time. However, it is seen in chapter Cosmology that ‘time before time’ has meaning for there can be strongly correlated and weakly correlated times

The variety of being

There is no object whose true concept can violate any Law of Logic. Therefore every object allowed by the fundamental principle is actual. At the same time the fundamental principle can be used to conceive a variety of actual objects whose number is a high order of infinity. A symbolic listing cannot explicitly exhaust such an infinity

We may therefore say that the Universal metaphysics is implicitly ultimate with regard to breadth

A brief and preliminary discussion of variety is in the earlier section Infinite freedom. However, the systematic discussion of this concern is left to Cosmology. In fact we are not yet in a position to fully understand what ‘variety’ entails and this development is left to Objects as preliminary to development of the variety in Cosmology

Logic: criticism and austerity versus permissiveness and imagination

The invocation of Logic suggests austerity. There is in fact no actual austerity since Logic does not generate the variety but merely restricts it to exclude whatever is essentially absurd. The definition of Logic even allows that what we think to be absurd even by our strictest standards may be in fact Logical

Therefore, what is being done—infinite breadth—may be too permissive. However, there is no actual permissiveness. Old limits, e.g. of science, are placed in context rather than negated; and the new limits embrace the realism of variety. Therefore, the reference to Logic is maximally but not excessively permissive, i.e. its permissiveness is maximal and critical—it implicitly contains the entire variety without stepping into the actual absurd

What conceptual approach is there to the generation of variety? Not Logic itself of course. The first elements to conceptual generation of variety are imagination and experience—where ‘experience’ is used in the sense of variety of things and contexts experienced and remembered

These elements include individual imagination and experience. Also included is cultural imagination and experience—the entire literature that includes what is typically thought of as literary, e.g. the novel, poem, biography and travelogue. However, it may also include works of art and music in so far as these are representational and, seen in the section Human world of chapter Worlds, such works may be representational via the representation that is present in emotion even though the Object is not in form that is ‘recognized’ by the senses that perceive the external world. All of science and mathematics is included. Finally, the literature includes history and other record, scripture and other writing of religion, myth, and oral tradition

Substance and determinism

Here the nature of the philosophical or metaphysical concept substance is clarified—including its essential though often ignored relation to determinism; there are brief comments on the history of substance metaphysics; finally the discussion emphasizes the untenability of substance metaphysics, the misplaced search for fundamentals in substance, the explicit and insidious habits of substance thinking and essentialism whose eradication leads to enormous clarification of many areas of philosophy including metaphysics, logic, ethics, philosophy of history, meaning, and method

Substance as grounding all being

This is a first philosophical meaning of substance

The idea of substance arises in the search for explanation—explanation of the complex in terms of the simple. The pertinent meaning of substance is that of substratum of the world or Universe

From simplicity, substance in this sense, must be simple—uniform and unchanging; and its manifestation as the world must be deterministic—else there is no explanation; finally, substance must be of the world—else it is mysterious rather than simple

Perhaps of course such extreme simplicity is not to be had; in that case we seek the simplest substance. It will turn out that what obtains is even simpler than this ‘extreme’ simplicity

From simplicity, we prefer one substance to two or more—i.e., we prefer monism. Perhaps such simplicity is not to be had. Hence the dualist philosophies or metaphysics. It will turn out that what obtains is even simpler than monism

The fundamental principle shows the untenability of substance as understanding or foundation of the complex in terms of the simple, of the varied and changing in the uniform and unchanging. Instead the foundation of being is in being—and not in something else—as suggested by the introduction method of abstraction. In other words the philosophy that emerges is a non relativist philosophy without substance, i.e. without infinite regress and this is a result—usually thought to be impossible—of the highest magnitude

Although stuff is a paradigm and perhaps the original philosophical substance, the idea of substance is not at all limited to stuff. Substance may be substance-like e.g. mind, matter, spirit, will, idea, atom; or substance related e.g. process and relation; or idealist or epistemic, e.g. sense data, experience, concept, fact…

Determinism is the hidden twin of substance and is also shown untenable and unnecessary—as universal. Substance and determinism are explanatory duals. The Universe is absolutely indeterministic which means that no state is inaccessible from any state. In particular all manifest states are accessible from the Void

The Universe is of course not deterministic in the usual temporal sense of future being contained in the present—in chapter Cosmology it will be seen that temporal indeterminism is essential to the emergence of novelty or essential newness. However, the Universe is absolutely deterministic in the atypical sense that every state is accessible from any state

This resolves what has been called the fundamental problem of metaphysics—the problem of why there is anything at all

The Void—or, from the fundamental principle, any state—fills the ‘void’ created by the denial of substance. However, on account of indeterminism, the Void is not substance (in the classical sense above.) Yet, it is shown below that the Universal metaphysics is ultimate in depth and breadth or variety

Heidegger’s critique of substance metaphysics stopped short at critique of determinism

The habit of substance thinking

The habit of determinist and substance thinking is important to eradicate at the fundamental level; it is hard; Heidegger did not complete the task; we attempt a sustained eradication of such thinking; we will find surprise in the various ways it enters as method as content and as psychology

The habit of substance thinking arises in many ways—large and small, e.g., (1) a priori commitments in metaphysics or science, (2) a priori commitments in ethics—and to ethics as though ethics can stand above all else including economics, (3) a priori commitment to the nature of economics as though for example economics were not about the real limits of the world, (4) thinking that we know the solution to a problem at outset, (5) any a priori monovalent or single factor approach to any issue, (6) taking metaphorical solutions or explanations too seriously, i.e. reification of metaphor, (7) taking the present injunction against substance thinking too seriously, i.e. from the common errors of substance thinking that no a posteriori commitments at all—at whatever level of detail or abstraction—may emerge

The sortal—a second meaning of substance

When we speak of a second meaning of substance we may, be led into thinking ‘Which of these meanings is the meaning?’ Although of course when we use the word ‘substance’ we have an intuitive notion of what we mean, we should not expect that there is one word therefore one meaning (one symbol.) ‘Substance’ could be two symbols. Therefore it is not necessarily the case that one or other meaning is the meaning. The first meaning, however, is perhaps closer to the heart of the metaphysical search and the second meaning, the sortal, arises out of the apparent failure of the first (and other considerations.) The second meaning, that of the sortal, is Aristotle’s meaning and it arises in his search for explanation

Nor, however, should we be led by the idea that Plato and Aristotle or any other philosopher ancient or modern ‘is a giant’ into thinking that their meanings encompass the possibilities and that somewhere in ‘their great thoughts’ lies the essence

As we have seen the very idea of substance is both impossible and unnecessary and that other unexpected foundations—at once deeper and more transparent—are to be found

A second meaning of substance is that of sortal—of the foundation, being, and nature of the various kinds. This is unnecessary and ad hoc. Here the Platonic concept of form is superior except that, from the one Universe idea, such forms do not exist in another world—there is no other world (except metaphorically.) How they can exist in this world is left to Objects. That the res-or matter-like things, the concept- or mind-like things, and the ideal forms are all in this world—in so far as they are real and the nature of that reality—is elaborated in Objects

Form

Form is immanent in being and requires no explanation—there is, however, explanation of Form in Mechanism, below

Depth of being

The ultimate depth is the non relativist philosophy or metaphysics without substance. It is an explicit depth

Possibility of metaphysics

As the study of the real and given the ever embedding of intuition, doubt must arise regarding the possibility of metaphysics

This doubt will ever remain as long as the approach to study is one that fails to abstract in the present sense or emphasizes abstraction in the other sense

The present method of abstraction brings together precision and being empirical. It is here that the possibility and necessity of metaphysics arises… and as we have seen this is an ultimate metaphysics

Here is another result of highest magnitude

To go against this is to be disenfranchised of being. Undoubtedly this contains epistemic and political elements. Here is a true meaning of the smashing of all icons

The equivalent forms of the metaphysics

The Universal metaphysics has a number forms stated in the section General metaphysics. The equivalence of these forms is now evident

Method

By bringing all of cognition under intuition, i.e. by relinquishing a priori commitment to perfect faithfulness in perception and reason, it has been possible via abstraction to find what aspects of cognition are capable of perfect faithfulness

Thus method and content arise together

In chapter Worlds we consider the extension of ‘method’ (1) to the inclusion of emotive feeling alongside cognition and (2) to study of contingent truth—i.e. to the special disciplines of study

The outcome is systematized in chapter Method

Applied metaphysics

Applied metaphysics is the working out of consequences, not necessarily precise, of the intersection of the general metaphysics and the disciplines

Except for the following and other occasional brief discussions, the development of the applications is left to discussions of chapter Worlds

Pivotal idea—Applied metaphysics—Framing intimate and practical knowledge by the pure metaphysics: What has gone before is pure metaphysics and (general) cosmology; applied metaphysics lies at the intersection of the pure metaphysics and the particular applied and approximate disciplines; this has the potential to raise the local and applied disciplines to their intrinsic limit; the applied disciplines include the study of local and physical cosmology, the human world and its institutions—the individual and society and the particular institutions

The Normal

The fundamental principle immediately suggests paradox—the only fictions are Logical, i.e., every work of fiction is realized subject to Logic

In the first place how shall we bring all thought, all literature all formal and technical treatises… into coherence. This concern motivates the definition—Logic. The issues stated are assumed by Logic

Secondly, what is the significance for our—and other—worlds… worlds of apparently definite behavior and patterns and laws that are not merely logical?

The resolution of this second concern is in the concept of the Normal

The fundamental principle requires Normal worlds—e.g. ours—of patterned, regular-like, law-like, stable-like, symmetry-like behavior. Mechanism is not required for the existence of such worlds even though the vast majority of such worlds may be the result of mechanism making mechanism immensely probable

It is implicit here that there is a precise side even to applied metaphysics that is a consequence of the fundamental principle and is brought out further in Objects and in Cosmology

Discussion of Normal worlds is continued in the chapter Worlds

Science

Any discussion of science is bound to be difficult on account of a number of factors. First, of course is the fact that both concept and object—e.g. the idea and practice of science—are ‘in process.’ Second is the fact that the practice of science varies somewhat from field to field; even if the differences are not essential they are there and much has been made of the differences by some philosophers of science—e.g., the immensely influential evolutionary biologist and philosopher of biology Ernst Mayr has argued that the nature of theoretical biology is different from theoretical physics in that while laws are fundamental in physics it is concepts that are fundamental in biology… that while essentialism may be adequate to the fundamental entities of physics, population thinking is essential in biology. Regardless of the validity attached to such views, they are bound to effect the reception of any reflection on the nature of science. Third, there is a variety of flavors of views regarding what science says of the world. There is (1) positivism according to which even if science is not ‘true’ it is the only purchase on the world and therefore all other thought regarding the world is, e.g., ‘metaphysics’ meaning mere metaphysical speculation, (2) reduction that asserts that the objects of science are the only reals and that all other kinds are reducible to the objects of science, and (3) science provides but one window on the world and since it insists on objectivity there are complementary views, e.g. the participatory views in which reality is the construct of the mind (the Kantian view is a refinement of this for it says that Objects are simultaneously of mind and world)

What is to be made of the foregoing, especially in view of the Universal metaphysics that shows that there are necessary Objects that are independent of mind that may be used to frame discussion of ‘contingent’ objects including the objects of science that may have immense but local degrees of faithfulness… that may have immense practical but local utility?

A view of science in light of the Universal metaphysics and history of science

Consider the transition from Newtonian mechanics to general relativity. The former remains immensely accurate in a large spatio-temporal domain; the latter has excellent agreement with the former in that domain but is in agreement with and predicts phenomena in a much larger—inclusive—domain (relativity also profoundly changes our conception of space and time.) The transition to quantum theory is similar; regarding quantum theory the domain in which the concern of precision arises includes not so much spatial extent but size, i.e. quantum effects typically though not universally manifest at microscopic dimensions

We can therefore say that the theories of science are approximate as universal or that they are precise with regard to some object (the latter follows from the fundamental principle)

Regarding the question of the universal purchase of science, some reflections are possible. What does science say about the participation of mind in the real? There is a conventional wisdom that according to quantum theory the observer participates in the construction of reality. However, another way of viewing the situation—one that has been formally and successfully developed—is that the quantum view of reality is different, for example, than the Newtonian picture. Newtonian objects are not quantum objects; there are quantum objects that are compound of observer-observed, i.e. these objects are systems. In the quantum view, the Newtonian picture is approximate and breaks down for cases that though typically small in dimension are not universally so. I.e., even though the system of explanation is not entirely developed, there are phases of science that have the potential, at least, to transcend what is seen in classical science as ‘material’ and ‘objective’ and lacking in spirit or even affect—where ‘spirit’ is not regarded as something outside the realm of science but only outside the realm of some in process science regarded as final

Return to two thoughts. First, the Universal metaphysics infinitely transcends the science of this cosmological system and, second, that the question of what constitute scientific objects remains in process and that question necessarily includes questions of method. From these thoughts it follows that (1) if present science is objectified and ‘finalized’ with regard to content and method, there is bound to be conflict between the real and the ‘scientific view’ of the real; (2) however, if we remain open to the object and method of science then in the transformations of science that are to come there is no final and necessary conflict between science and the real

What is said elsewhere in this narrative may be said again—While metaphor may be useful while we remain in process, the Universal metaphysics reveals a realm in which the literal displaces the metaphorical without displacing the functions of the metaphorical… and, further, in view of the foregoing discussion of science, it is entirely plausible that some science of the future may approach this infinite literal realm without displacing the spirit and occasion of the metaphorical

What is science?

What is the nature of the question ‘What is science?’? That has a familiar ring—the concern with meaning! How shall we make conclusions regarding what science is?

We go back to the now familiar theme of ‘concept and object.’ There is the thing that we think science to be and there is the thing that science ‘is’ andor has come to be. The two, concept and Object are not given but interact. And neither is one concrete simple thing. There is the practice and institution of science—what scientists do; but not every scientist or group of scientists do the same thing… and not everyone, the professionals included, has the same conception of science. Of course science is empirical and conceptual and a scientific theory or law must be open to correction… But what of the claims of some marginal disciplines to science? And concerning other disciplines, even disciplines concerning fact, that are not regarded as scientific—what is their relation to science? Even if one has what one believes to be simple answers the issues are not entirely simple. Therefore many people are content to practice or use science but to not be particularly concerned about the nature of science

Based on the development of the metaphysics and the—currently unconventional—thought that science lies within metaphysics, I suggest the following: regarding statements of fact that are true—even the truth is subjective or limited to a context: for any such true statement there is a reasonable extension of the meaning of ‘science’ that renders the true statement scientific…

Miracles

Let us suppose that miracles are exceptions to the Normal. Then, of course, miracles are not only possible but necessary and actual; and their occurrence will be surprising

Should we therefore believe in miracles? This depends on what that means. The necessity of miracles gives no support to the miracles claimed in scriptures except perhaps to remove the sense of absurdity—but not improbability—that may surround them. Should we depend on miracles? Maximizing the expected outcome suggests a devoting most of our efforts to Normal outcomes and a small amount of effort to the miraculous. Are there individuals with special powers—powers beyond magic tricks? Certainly, there are individuals with enhanced talent or who may develop talents to an enhanced degree but are these developments normal or miraculous

The boundary between the normal and the real is partly a function of knowledge and experience. When the miraculous becomes dependable it is no longer miraculous even though it may remain a source of wonder

Developments in Applied Metaphysics

The main developments in applied metaphysics are among the contents of chapter Worlds

Objects

Concepts—principle of reference, particular Object, abstract Object

Theme—Subsumption of kinds under the Object. E.g., particular and abstract, process (in this Normal world, entities are revealed as process-state-interaction,) relation (as defined by more than the related entities e.g. space as ‘relative’)

Pivotal idea—A unified theory of Objects, especially of the ‘concrete’ and the non-concrete and the particular and the abstract—The fundamental principle shows the unity of all kinds of objects—the particular objects both concrete (entity) and non-concrete (process, relation, quality—intensive and extensive) and the abstract objects both actual and potential in a temporal framework; the distinction of abstract and particular is based in human psychology and is not Universal and is, practically one of mode of study—empirical for the particular and symbolic-iconic for the abstract; some objects straddle the abstract-particular ‘divide’ while others change camps according to phase of history and the corresponding emphasis according to fashion or to what is presently found most expedient; the Object is the fundamental concept of the metaphysics-cosmology; the distinction between the particular, therefore, has arbitrariness but is not entirely arbitrary… it has a conventional character but is not entirely conventional; the general Object is simultaneously abstract and particular; and the Object is the fundamental concept of the metaphysics

Concept and object

One tendency in the history of thought is the oscillation between certainty and doubt. In times of doubt every bit of knowledge tends to be regarded with suspicion; at other times thought is marked by security. The situation tends to an either / or character. Perhaps, though, the actual case is not uniform—perhaps some aspects of knowing are entirely while others are not. We will be fortunate to the extent that we can ascertain what degree of certainty obtains for what knowledge. In that case there is no lament in the areas of uncertainty—indeed the certain knowledge of uncertainty may be seen as a positive aspect of being

We never get ‘outside’ the concept. Given a concept, reason and perhaps empirical means may show its faithfulness; however that reason is, again, a concept

Still, it has been seen that there are degrees or kinds of faithfulness to the kinds of objects

Necessary objects—formed by abstraction from cognition and therefore both Logical and empirical—includes the perceptual objects being, Universe, Domain, and Void and the objective abstract of reason i.e. Logic that is almost perceptual reason (a delayed percept?)

Logical objects—from the Universal metaphysics every Logical concept or proposition has an object; these may be but are not necessarily available in perception. The Necessary objects of perception are Logical but not all Logical objects are available in Normal perception

Practical objects—these are known from adaptation to have some degree of implicit faithfulness and may also have some degree of independent verification or, at least, testing without failure as yet—these are the day-to-day objects of intuition, reasonable common knowledge, and science; these may contain error at a given time but are not finally erroneous in a process sense. Of course, the necessary and the Logical objects are also practical

Object binding and object constancy—the experience of an object may be thought of as being built from various elements such as shape, size, color and so on. It is an interesting question how these are integrated or bound—neurologically—to result in the experience of a single object. A related question is that of object constancy: how does it occur that an object viewed from varying perspectives and distances appear to not change in size and shape. From a psychological or neurological point of view these are interesting features of perception whose actual explanation is not simple. From the point of view of adaptation, however, no explanation besides adaptation itself is needed for the origin and evolution of perception occurs in the presence of both complex and simple objects and, within limits, no act of integration or constancy is required of the perceiving individual

Practical versus Normal objects—There is a distinction between the practical and the normal despite the similarity and overlap. We think of Normal objects as those that owe their the conception of their particular being to the stability of a normal world… and practical objects are defined by immediate concepts who owe their faithfulness of reference to adaptation, also a stability within a Normal world. We may say that the practical objects are those of Normal sentience, i.e. of a Normal world within a Normal world

A first purpose of this chapter is study kinds of objects. This study has implications for the theory of variety begun earlier, formalized in this chapter, and completed in chapters Cosmology and Worlds. An aspect of this variety mentioned informally in earlier chapters is the distinction between particular and abstract objects. The standard position in the philosophical literature is that there is a sharp divide between the particular and the abstract. Here, the abstract and the particular are found to be of the same kind and the distinction has to do, initially, with the sense of intuition regarding, e.g. the tangible and the intangible but, finally, with the mode of study, i.e. empirical versus symbolic. Many objects considered to be abstract began as empirical and then entered into a formal or abstract stage of study; and some may return to an empirical or mixed phase of study. This is a significant unification and contribution (objections and counterarguments will be considered below.) Those philosophers who celebrate only distinction and not similarity or sameness will not have sympathy with this result but they should also not have sympathy with the terms ‘set’ or ‘being’ or ‘animal’ or ‘number’ or a host of descriptors that can refer to more than one thing

The standard objections to a unified theory of the abstract and the particular are that abstract objects lack causal efficiency—and therefore tangibility—and location in space and time. The present argument will show that the abstract objects do not, for example, lack location in time but that, as a result of abstraction, they are temporal constants. In other words their temporality is abstracted out rather than inherent in a way that is very roughly analogous to the way in which molecular fluctuations average out to result in constant macroscopic properties of matter. Can abstract objects have causal efficacy? This depends on the meaning of cause and whatever that meaning we shall see that whether an object—abstract or particular—has causality is to be determined separately for the specific object or class of object

A second purpose is to develop a classification and a theory of variety for objects. This sets up some aspects of the developments of chapters Cosmology and Journey

Particular and abstract objects

Theory of particular objects

A model of the particular object is the entity. Of the Logical and Practical kinds the being of the Logical objects is given. The Practical object—entity—is determined first in intuition and then, in some cases, by independent test. It is too much to ask for explicit and absolute faithfulness across board. We are happy with the best that we have. Sometimes the fact that the best is not perfect is positive—it indicates ever freshness and adventure even if it does not meet desires for security; even when greater faithfulness is possible it is not always more economical; if we know that it is not possible the desire for it then becomes neurotic. Some practical objects are known with great faithfulness as in visual perception and in science—provided it is understood that the object is not the thing-in-itself but is the joint product of external world and conception

Concrete versus non-concrete objects

Are processes, relationships, and patterns—complex relationships—particular objects? There is no reason to not consider them to be objects except perhaps that they need not have spatial and temporal location or causal efficacy. Therefore we may think of them as ‘non-concrete’

However, we know from two sources that what we think of as non-concrete may be concrete after all. First, it may be our framework of perception that makes the ‘non-concrete’ seem so. Second, physics has many examples of formal interactions or connections that mediate between concrete particular objects turning out to be objects, e.g. the photon. Therefore concreteness, i.e. spatiotemporality and causality, are not assigned according to concreteness but shall be worked out according to object or class of object

An example: universals as non-concrete particulars

A universal is what particular things have in common

Examples of universals are kinds, properties and relationships

A relationship is a universal because, e.g., a is as tall as b is a particular relationship but there is an as tall as relation between any two persons

However as tall as abstract Object if abstracted from all pairs

Variety of particular objects

Actual variety is considered in chapter Cosmology. The concrete is the first paradigm for the particular object. However non-concrete Objects such as Law and Form may also be regarded as particular. Similarly, relation, process, property may be regarded as particular; here we see of course the dissolution of an absolute divide between the particular and the abstract

Theory of abstract objects

The concept of the abstract object

The principle of reference—an immediate consequence of the fundamental principle—shows that all propositions implicit in Logic have reference. This extends object-hood to the abstract objects and shows the breakdown of the real or metaphysical distinction between the abstract and the particular objects

There is a potential paradox in the assertion that all propositions implicit in Logic have reference. Consider ‘The solar system has one sun’ and ‘The solar system has two suns.’ This pair of propositions is an example of the potential paradox. It is not paradoxical if we allow ‘The solar system’ to have different reference in each proposition. This resolution of the paradox also indicates the sense in which all propositions implicit in Logic have reference

Abstract versus particular objects

The abstract versus particular distinction is one the most convenient mode of study—symbolic versus empirical—it is epistemic (perhaps) rather than metaphysical. In fact, all objects have an empirical and a symbolic side; the question is one of convenience, power and emphasis; the example of number and its history from empirical to abstract to semi-empirical (computational) again

This is a result of immense magnitude

The distinction is (1) according to convenience of study, (2) therefore dependent on state of knowledge and what features of the object are currently emphasized

There is a gap between the abstract and the particular; it is—roughly—the gap between the Universal and the Normal; it is a real gap and not a limit on the present theory

This can vary over time

An object may be seen as having both particular and abstract features

An example that straddles the particular-abstract continuum: universals as abstract objects

I.e. as non-concrete things

Sources of abstract character. Mathematical Objects are those whose form is simple enough to be capable of symbolic study and sufficiently universal to be usefully applicable. It is sometimes thought that mathematical proficiency is a fortuitous result of other proficiencies that are adaptive. It is not clear that this is altogether true, first, because, as the principle of reference reveals, mathematical and physical intuition are not disjoint and, second, especially though hypothetically in that even though mathematical ability is not universal it may have been selected for in cultural adaptation. Universals have an abstract character in that they are generalizations of aspects of particulars; in fact, universals now appear to be a cross of particular and abstract aspects. Values are abstract in that they are not present actual Objects but preferred potential Objects whose preference is determined by some combination of adaptation, adapted-ness, and intuition-symbolic process

Objection. Standard objections to a unified theory of the abstract and the particular would be that, in contrast to the particular, abstract objects lack causal efficiency—and therefore tangibility—and location in space and time. Counterargument. The present argument will show that the abstract objects do not, for example, lack location in time but that, as a result of abstraction, they are temporal constants. In other words their temporality is abstracted out rather than inherent in a way that is very roughly analogous to the way in which molecular fluctuations average out to result in constant macroscopic properties of matter. Can abstract objects have causal efficacy? This depends on the meaning of cause and whatever that meaning we shall see that whether an object—abstract or particular—has causality is to be determined separately for the specific object or class of object

Further distinctions

The distinction of partial versus entire Object may be considered. The entire Object is the thing-in-itself; which, in general, is not definite. The concept of the Universe as all being without regard to distinction defines a definite Object but not an entire one. The partial Object is an Object. Similarly Domain is partial; the Void may be regarded as a full Object—but the ‘fullness’ is due to its being absence of being. The distinction partial versus full is not particularly interesting after all; most Objects of ‘our world’ are partial. The distinction is noted because it was once thought to be significant (in earlier versions of the narrative) and its relegation to relative insignificance provides insight into the nature of Objects

The theory of variety

This is an appropriate place to study—or mention in those cases that the study is done elsewhere in the essay—form, value, Logic, mathematical object e.g. number, truth… as objects and the concepts of mathematics as defining abstract objects

Pivotal idea—Theory of variety—The study of Objects enables the most complete theory of variety; since processes and relations are Objects, obviously origins, evolution, ends, laws… lie under particular object but, since the divide between particular and abstract is not definite, not exclusively so; the most complete theory of variety is achieved via the study of the categories of knowing, i.e. of particular or perceptual and abstract or symbolic-iconic concept—which are elaborated via the modalities, dimensions of modality, and integrations of these kinds and which include, in particular, the direct knowing of states of the organism that include primitive feeling, aspects of emotion, kinesthetic perception, and reflexive perception of mental states; it is pertinent that in the study of the elements of mind it is seen that direct—e.g. not through facial expression or other external manifestation—perception of the mental states of others, i.e. ‘mind-reading,’ though difficult, is not logically impossible as it is conventionally thought to be

From the fundamental principle, the actual variety of Objects in the Universe is the greatest possible variety—since Logic is the one law of the Universe there is no fiction except Logical fiction. This is the foundation of the ‘theory of variety;’ it forms the basis for the beginning of the description of never ending variety

The potential paradox or contradiction—e.g., Mt. Everest exists and Mt. Everest does not exist—is resolved in the recognition that the contradictory statements refer to different domains or ‘worlds’ in the Universe

Perceiving and imagining which includes reason and Logic have been seen to cover the range of mental process; they are therefore the greatest tools in describing a comprehensive variety

Why are perceiving and imagining complete? It is because mental content which includes process may be classed comprehensively—in the sense that every mental content must fall under one of the classes as bound—e.g., perception—and free—e.g., thought; here it is necessary that the free and the bound refer not only to perception of the external environment but also to the inner and therefore contain the body and the ‘world of feeling and emotion’… i.e. to the entire Universe

The categories of intuition

It follows that the categories of intuition most generally conceived—the categories of perception and the categories of iconic and symbolic thought—provide a comprehensive approach to enumeration and classification of Objects

These categories are detailed in section Human world of chapter Worlds

The classification, abstract versus particular corresponds approximately to the distinction perceptual versus conceptual (i.e. higher conception or of the imagination)

Objects are called particular in the empirical-perceptual mode of study; studied higher-conceptually, they are called abstract. From the fundamental principle, there is no fundamental distinction—the same Object can be considered under both particular and abstract modes

What we have typically called abstract are characterized by having an apparently lesser reality status in some way. However, the abstract objects are no less real than the particular even though they may appear to be so from common perspectives

The abstract are not atemporal but may be more or less varying and in the extreme may be temporal constants; the abstract are not constitutionally a-causal but have more or less causality abstracted out and may therefore refer to aspects of particulars not implicated in causation

Particular objects

The variety of particular objects from the categories of perceptual intuition—developed in chapter Worlds

They are most conveniently classified according to the perceptual categories of cause, space, time and property

Examples of particular objects—entity, process, relation, stable versus transient object, manifest versus potential object, spatio-temporal object, causal object, objects of science, pattern, form, universal, self, identity, action, institution

Although entities may be regarded as concrete and process and relation as non-concrete, the distinction is not fundamental

A non-concrete particular—relationship

A universal as a particular object—regarded as an interaction a property (universal) may be regarded as particular

Affect

Although a simple emotion may be seen as referring to the body, its Object may be regarded as an action or the outcome of action. An emotion may be experienced as vague; however, if the outcome is a simple polar continuum such as move closer or further away, then the emotional Object may be regarded as capable of precision. Whether this line of thought is interesting is left for development. More interesting and even profound is interaction between cognition and low intensity ever-present emotional-feeling in which cognition without feeling is empty even if present and emotion is a function also of cognition

‘Affective objects’ are not essentially different from cognitive objects; in emotion, cognition and affect intersect

Abstract objects

The variety of abstract objects from the categories of ‘higher’ conceptual intuition—symbolic andor iconic—these include value from binding and truth from freedom

Examples of actual abstract objects—from the categories: ‘partial’ object, form, universal—property, value—ethics, aesthetics, Logic or Logical object, truth, mathematical objects—number

Every particular object defines an abstract object: it is the class of objects identical to the particular that are required by the fundamental principle of the metaphysics to exist

Examples of potential objects—Value, Truth; value is ‘bound’ and truth ‘free’ but this is a first approximation

Note that ethics and aesthetics were placed under the actual while Value is placed under the potential. Is this a contradiction? No, for under the actual ‘value’ refers to a part of a mental state; under the potential Value refers to a state of the world (which may also refer to a desired or target mental state)

It is consistent with the discussion of the abstract and the particular that ‘entity’ and other particular objects may also be seen abstractly

Similarly the universal and other abstract objects may be seen as particular

A universal as an abstract object—redness regarded as what is common to all red objects. Since the fundamental principle guarantees reference even abstract objects—e.g., redness—have reference

These thoughts generalize to form of which the universal may be seen as a case

The Logical status of Objects

According to Logical status, objects are Necessary, Logical or Practical

All necessary objects are Logical and all Logical objects are practical

A system of objects

The classification of the previous section may be used to begin a categorization and cataloging of objects

The Object as the fundamental concept of the metaphysics

The Object emerges as the fundamental concept…

The Object is the fundamental concept of the metaphysics in that it subsumes all other modes of knowing-being, i.e. concept-object

The foregoing thoughts show the immense and profound depth of the fundamental principle

Logic, grammar and meaning

Logic defines the form of concepts or descriptions that is necessary for them to be capable of valid reference. Given that the Universe is all actual being and that there is no distinction between the actual and possible, Logic defines the form of concepts or descriptions that have reference. In talking of a limited context as though it were the Universe, it would be necessary reintroduce the first italicized form above

Thus the thought due to Wittgenstein that Logic is Grammar

Meaning involves concept and Object or sense and reference; this was perhaps first pointed out by Frege and taken up by Wittgenstein. Therefore, Logic or Grammar are aspects of meaning; and, further, a full Meaning determines Metaphysics… and a full Metaphysics determines Meaning

Since Logic has reference, Logic has meaning

Cosmology

In this chapter the focus is on general cosmology. Local or normal cosmologies are taken up in the next chapter Worlds

Pivotal idea—Cosmology—Cosmology is the study of variety which we have seen to include process; and the method of study is based in the fundamental principle and the theory of variety established in Objects. This chapter develops the a variety based on the theory of variety developed in the chapter Objects in combination with knowledge of this—our—cosmos

General cosmology

This section develops the concept of general cosmology; subsequent sections develop its general subject matter and some significant applications

Concepts—variety, process, origins, ends, being, mind

General cosmology is the study the variety of being. These principles, based in the Universal metaphysics, are laid out in section The theory of variety of chapter Objects. The variety includes particular objects, roughly characterized as empirical; and abstract objects whose study is conceptual in the ‘higher’ sense—iconic or symbolic. The categories of perceptual and of higher conceptual intuition are pertinent to the particular and abstract objects respectively

Variety includes particular entities which includes thing, relationship, process, origins and ends of manifest being; and abstract objects including the mathematical and logical objects as well as the ethical such as value and justice. Truth straddles the ethical and the actual

Therefore general cosmology includes the study of the arrangements of the Universe, and of beginnings and ends

Variety and origins

Variety includes process and therefore dynamics and origins

Concepts—fundamental principle, the Normal, fiction, cosmological system, individual, Identity, Karma, Jesus Christ, recurrence, annihilation

Pivotal idea—A cosmological variety—A study of variety reveals the following elements (a) a variety of Objects revealed by the fundamental principle in the form that any entire system of consistent fiction has an Object—the formal difficulties of the assertion are eliminate by replace explicit assertions by the implicit notion of Logic—and revealing the truth but not Normal truth of all art, science, literature, music, and scripture… (b) process and its varieties including origins, sustaining, ends; evolution—saltation versus the Normal variation and selection; that the Universe is simultaneously absolutely indeterministic and absolutely deterministic; mechanism, cause and their non-pervasion in their Normal senses but universal pervasion in enhanced senses… (c) the nature and extension of mind to the root and the continuity of bright focal consciousness with relations among the elements of being… (d) the nature of space-time as derivative of extension; possibility of other dimensions of extension—and plausible arguments for completeness of space-time but not of the (3,1) dimensionality; relative and patchy but occasionally as-if absolute and universal character of all space-time; possibility of relative and absolute character of local space-times; nature and non-universal character of signal speeds but possibility and therefore occasional necessity of locally ‘universal’ signal speeds; non-universal character of physical-local laws though occasionally of occasional as-if universal manifestation…

Possible impact of cosmology on future ideational form

Approach to study

Sections Theory of variety of chapter Objects and Principles of perception, thought and action of chapter Method provide some foundation to the study of the variety of objects and their ‘kinds’

The approach is critical and imaginative. The critical side has been addressed in chapters Intuition, Metaphysics and Objects

The imaginative side is of highest importance and is not fully reducible to algorithm. Principles of perception, thought and action, chapter Method, has thoughts on taking imagination to its possible height

Although the development of variety is not logically dependent on the history of ideas including religion, science, literature… the following variety could hardly have developed without knowledge of that history. The present contribution includes enhancement of the imagination, the concept and development of the fundamental logic, and conceptual and existential (transformation) implementation

The variety and origins…

A principle of reference—a logic is a system or grammar that ensures that all sentences of the system have reference (or, in a context, be capable of reference)

The definition of the concept of Logic is implicit; it is the principle of reference that permits its realization as logic or logics. The principle of reference will be the measure of the principles of logic which include, for example, the principle of non-contradiction

Cosmology begins in Logic—there are no fictions except Logical fictions

Subject to Logic, every fiction, every story, every myth, every scripture, every legend, every novel, every science, every imagination, every truth implicit in an affect or in a work of art, architecture or music is real

What is actual is necessary. This—our—cosmological system is necessary. Every individual is necessary; and their identities are necessary. The non-fictions include infinite recurrence of every limited domain; every part of the Universe may interact with every other part—stronger version of the unity of the Universe; Karma; ‘Jesus Christ rising from the dead’ occurs in countless cosmological systems—this does not at all imply its occurrence in this cosmos although it may remove some of the sense of absurdity surrounding the rising from the dead; the manifest Universe may be subject to annihilation at any time; the identities merge in Identity

From the fundamental principle it is not necessary to develop a theory of Identity; the fundamental principle guarantees—review the section Token proof of section The Universal metaphysics of chapter Metaphysics—the one universal Identity and that the identities will merge in this Identity. What may be useful is to relate the Identity and the merging to this Normal world—to our actual and future experience

Limited gods are necessary. This gives no support to the idea of a god of this cosmological system except that it shows that that idea is not absurd

The Universe must pass through both Void and manifest states—this explains why there is—must be—something rather than nothing which has been called (e.g. by Heidegger) the fundamental problem. As will be seen, this implies that the fundamental problem of metaphysics is ‘What exists?’

There is no limit to the extent of the Universe

Objection. It should be equally true that there is a limit. Counterargument. The presence of a limit is a law; the absence of this limit is not—in the absence of the limit there may be times of finiteness and of infiniteness

Identity and death

Concepts—individual, death, identity, Identity

Pivotal idea—Identity—analysis of identity by the fundamental principle reveals the individual identity with all being

As a result of the scientific world view and the advent of secular humanism one dominant modern Normal view of death is that it is absolute: individual consciousness begins with birth and ends with death

The Metaphysics shows, however, the merging of individual identities in Identity. Thus the Normal view of death is a relative one

In life, this world is, roughly, finite; in life, the Universe may be experienced as infinite

In death, therefore, it is as if the infinity of the Universes collapses to the individual; alternatively, in death the ‘finite’ individual becomes the infinity of the Universe

...which from the theory developed for Identity—ultimately from the fundamental principle—has literal truth

A goal of the journey is to attempt to realize this truth regarding death in this life

Process

Concepts—process, determinism, indeterminism, evolution, adaptation, mechanism, variation, selection, incremental, saltation, causation, dynamics

Mechanism

Origin of non-ephemeral or quasi-stable system whose stability is a function of ‘near’ symmetry by incremental variation and selection is a reasonable ‘mechanism’

Incremental process may occur, as in life on this earth, by selection in already quasi-stable populations. It may also occur as in a hypothetical cosmological case as the occasional near stable cosmos from among ephemeral ones. In this case the increment is over states rather than populations

Local dynamics may emerge in the same processes

By the fundamental principle incremental variation and selection it is a necessary mechanism in that it must occur in some cases

By the fundamental principle, ‘saltation’ or single step origins must also occur

The incremental variation and selection described above is at most Normal (or highly) probable

This is the prototypical but not generic origin of ‘Normal’ form

The fundamental principle requires the formation of every form including Normal form as saltation and via increment

In general, origins may include saltation as well as incremental emergence or origin

It is often thought that indeterminism cannot result in structure. However, absolute indeterminism must result in structure—this is contained in the concept of absolute indeterminism (no inaccessible states as required by the fundamental principle.) The ‘mechanisms’ of emergence are as above—incremental andor saltational

Evolution

The story of life on earth can be divided into two phases, origins and evolution

The fundamental principle requires origins from the material elements. The essential problem is explanation of origins from the physical properties of matter including the chemical

The story of evolution requires explanation of macroevolution—the origin of the major lines, especially speciation… and microevolution—changing populations within a species

The first question of evolution concerns the fact of evolution. The proofs of the fact are not entirely simple but evolution is by most biologists; there are objections from a minority as well as from outside academia e.g. the ‘religious right’

Perhaps the most serious objections are the gaps in the fossil record and the emergence of complex organs. The presence of gaps is explained by the fact that it is expected since, first, invertebrates are not expected to leave much in the way of fossil data and, second, discontinuous geologic events will may render discontinuous the fossil record of continuous evolution. The fossil record is one of some ten classes of evidence and the preponderance of evidence is thought to favor the fact of evolution. The emergence of complex organisms is explained by intermediate function

Another objection to the fact of evolution is non-gradualism. Some evolutionary changes, e.g. speciation and macroevolution in general, appear to be sudden. However, what is sudden in geological time may be speeded up but still incremental in biological terms: it is a fact that there are long periods of little change interspersed with periods of still slow but relatively rapid change

There is a variety of lesser objections and there are books devoted to the objections and counterarguments. It seems to the author that many of the modern objections are ideologically motivated and therefore not as interesting as they might otherwise be; nonetheless the arguments against the objections are overwhelming

The accepted theory of evolution is that of variation of the factors of inheritance or genes and selection according to adaptedness. The factors of inheritance—gene stuff or DNA—are generally random and show no preference for adaptation—perhaps most variations are deleterious. However, adaptation favors the favorable variations. The process is thought to be gradual. The factors of inheritance are not affected by the body, i.e. evolution is thought to be non-Lamarckian—the situation may not be quite that clear cut but random variation of genetic material or mutation is thought to be the source of novelty while recombination is a source of change though not of essential novelty

While Darwin’s 1859 Origin of the Species convinced most biologists that evolution had occurred, it was less successful in promoting natural selection and indeed remained open to Lamarckism or inheritance of acquired characters. Darwin left open the nature of inheritance, and the hard inheritance of Mendelian appeared to contradict gradualism

The suggestion of August Weisman in 1893 that genetic material affected the body but that the body did not affect the genetic material was influential in eliminating alternatives to natural selection but it took years for the translation of his work into English and then for its influence to be felt. It remained for the New Evolutionary Synthesis, 1936-1947, the work of a group of biologists, Julian Huxley, R. A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, E.B. Ford, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, Sergei Chetverikov, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins, to demonstrate, primarily via population genetics, the consistency of gradualism and hard Mendelian inheritance

The discovery of the factors of inheritance—DNA—culminated in the 1953 work of Francis Crick and James Watson. That discovery did not however locate the factors; it showed that they lie on the DNA molecule but not precisely where the effect—specific or distributed—of each physiological factor or that each such factor is hard

Clearly, the story of the acceptance of evolution is complex; and it is not clear that the story is complete—and of course there are still ‘iconoclasts’ within the academic ranks. I do not regard this as essential disagreement even though it has been taken to be so

Still, it would be unreasonable to think that the story is over or that there are no surprises in store. However, the fact and modern theory of evolution are or appear to be, at least for now, the best Normal explanation available and alternatives such as intelligent design are not explanations at all in the sense of reducing the complex to the simple and the plain for they postulate a Creator who is far more complex than the creation and what is more the main work of the proponents of intelligent design is criticism of evolution rather than any argument of merit, i.e. they do not apply to their own ideas the critical criteria they apply to evolutionism but often insist that since religion refers to a ‘different realm,’ different kinds of criteria and argument must apply (e.g. that scriptural truth is truth by revelation)

Perhaps the main argument for intelligent design is the argument for design. ‘Imagine a watch found in the desert,’ the argument goes, ‘you know it did not originate spontaneously, you know there is a watchmaker.’ ‘Well, life is much more complex, so there must be a creator.’ The argument is incorrect for the fact that some things have external creators does not mean that everything has an external creator. In fact, the Universe or all being, cannot have an external anything because there is no outside the Universe. What is more, creation by God is not an explanation, since the question of God’s origin puts the issue of creation back another step

Still, evolutionism does need to address the question of the origin of structure by processes whose source of change is random; and an explanation of the origin of the manifest Universe, if it is to be explained, should explain ‘something from nothing.’ Both explanations have been provided—necessitated—by the Universal metaphysics; further, while explanations of the origin of novel structure are improbable in classical deterministic physics they are not at all so in the indeterministic quantum theories. Although this appears to be paradoxical it is not so for bound quantum systems exhibit strong structure and evolution of structure may well be the result of variation of such states from one stable configuration to another

The foregoing explanations apply within the realm of the Normal; outside the Normal we may expect much ‘strangeness’ and, specifically, spontaneous origins and saltation even if improbable

Evolutionary systems

Evolutionary systems theory is a theory that abstracts features from particular evolutionary fields, especially the evolution of life and its theories, and forms an abstract theoretical structure that may be applied in whole or part to general evolutionary systems

The pertinent ideas, if useful, may be reviewed and used in future versions of this essay. See, for example, John Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, 1975 or visit the Wikipedia websites John Henry Holland and Genetic algorithm

Causation

Causation is an aspect of dynamics and therefore not universal—unless, of course, causation is given an interpretation other than the one in which the caused is a strong function of the cause. In such an alternative interpretation, it may be said that the Void ‘causes’ the manifest universe

Mind

Even if the word ‘mind’ has not been invoked the idea of mind is present in talking of intuition, concepts, experience and so on. In developing the concepts of Intuition, Metaphysics, and Objects a foundation has been laid to develop the concept of mind and place it on a secure basis or foundation

The approach to the analysis of mind

A rough sequence may be laid out as follows

1. Review and establish the nature of explanation and its use in the understanding of particular concepts. It is particularly important to note that possession of a ‘concept’ does not guarantee a corresponding definite object. It is therefore expected that in the case of a fundamental kind, e.g. mind, the best of explanations may be in process. The question of the terms of explanation is also important. Will the explanation of mind—for example—be in material terms such as the physical andor neurobiological elements or in terms of elementary mental terms such as feeling and sensation? And will the explanation be causal, correlative or constitutive? I.e. if the explanation is to be in neurobiological terms, does the neurobiology cause or constitute mind… or is mind a—dualist—correlate of the neurobiology? It is of course not necessary to insist that the explanation should be either in material or in mental terms. Both modes of explanation may be valuable… the discussion of mode of explanation will be taken up further below

2. Review and establish the nature of the concept of mind. It will be significant to establish that while material foundation may be considered and neurobiological explanations are useful and important, it is also essential to explain mind in its own terms. The elementary terms of explanation may be the one—or more—used in establishing the nature of mind. It may then be useful to found the mental mode of explanation in the biological or to correlate the two modes of explanation. Since it has been established in the metaphysics and since, as will be further shown, mind goes to the root of being—i.e., the elements of mind and of being may be regarded as coeval and coincident, it follows that explanation of mind in its own terms is fundamental. The elements will be seen, from fundamental considerations, to be primitive experience or feeling and its elaborations or modes

3. Review and establish a set of phenomena to be explained—and elaborate the elements consistently with the phenomena to provide adequate explanations for the phenomena. Here it is crucial that the phenomena should not be a fixed set; they will be open to two kinds of review, (1) observation and experiment that may reveal further phenomena and (2) conceptual analysis that may establish that certain putative phenomena of mind are or are not actual phenomena or that certain putative explanations deployed in the understanding of mind are or are not valid explanations. This step will be executed in parallel with the next two:

4. Choose the elementary terms of explanation. As noted it is not necessary to make a choice; multiple modes of elementary terms—neurobiological, mental—may of course be used. If the world or Universe is truly material then we would of course like a material-neurobiological explanation; even in this case, however, the mental explanation would be illuminative and useful—first as a predictive and explanatory mode of explanation and second as a way to connect the material and the mental for the explanation in material terms would be required only to cover the primitive mental terms. However, it is shown here that there is no true and ultimate substance; that mind may be regarded as going to the root of being and therefore explanation of mind in its own terms is fundamental while neurobiological explanation remains of course immensely interesting and useful… and although the modern consensus scientific and philosophical position may be material in nature even if this were universally held—it is not and there is a coherent ongoing debate—this would not prove the material case even in absence of the metaphysics of this narrative

5. Explain the phenomena. The process is laterally dual in that it reviews both elements and phenomena; and it is vertically dual in its simultaneous attention to actual explanation and method or mode of explanation. Since systems and understanding of elements and phenomena may have both inherent and cultural overlay, the analysis of mind will merge with that of the social world which is, in any case, an otherwise natural and conventional next step

Plan for the discussion of mind

The discussion is divided into the present section, Mind, devoted to conceptual and general considerations and a discussion of human—and animal—mind in section Human being of chapter Worlds. Therefore the first two items above—concerning explanation and the concept and nature of mind—are the first focus of this section; the section then provides an Outline of phenomena to be explained and, finally, in this section, there is an explanation of those more general phenomena that illuminate the concept of mind and may be universal. These ‘phenomena’—quotes are used to suggest that the items are not mere phenomena but approach the status of characteristic—are Consciousness and awareness, Free will, and A preliminary psychological account of Objects

The later discussion of human mind is more concerned with the elements and facts or phenomena of human mind than it is of the general and conceptual considerations; that section provides a more detailed but more specific list of phenomena and explanations. Whereas the later section is concerned with facts and phenomena and may be described as having a scientific inclination, the present section emphasizes concepts and philosophy. There is of course hesitation in using labels such as ‘philosophy’ and ‘science’ in this connection because the terms may invoke unintended connotations andor restrictions; in any case it should be emphasized that the label ‘conceptual’ does not exclude empirical concerns and the label ‘scientific’ necessarily includes the conceptual side of and cloak to the facts and phenomena

The nature of explanation and its use in understanding of mind

The nature of explanation—concept and Object

Although there may be a primitive intuition of an Object that intuition does not define the Universal form of the Object

The question arises ‘What is, what defines that Universal form?’

We often think that given the intuition of a some particular Object or kind of object, e.g. a tree, that the intuition specifies the Object for all contexts and times and that the objective of definition is to ‘get it right.’ This is problematic even for simple Objects; in biological classification there are many plant forms that are definitely trees but there are borderline cases that are not clearly trees or not trees. We may think—surely with a little more diligence the problem should be resolved. The implicit assumption may be that, yes all plants fall under the classes defined by ‘is a tree’ or ‘is not a tree.’ The borderline cases reveal that while ‘tree-hood’ is a definite concept-object for practical purposes—the common plants—its definiteness is not universal. As more and more plants are studied in biology, definition becomes more subtle and known plants may receive classification but there may always be undiscovered or imaginable cases that will challenge the latest definition

Therefore, Object is not something that is in fact given even if not yet not precisely known and remains only to be discovered; rather it is an Object whose metaphysical—not merely epistemic—nature is one of creative-critical thought and discovery

We encounter trees in this world; whether there is some Universal concept of ‘tree’ that will emerge for the entire Universe is not clear. Even if there should be no Universal meaning of ‘tree’ it does not follow that there are no concepts capable of Universal meaning. We have seen a number of Universal concepts, e.g. being, all being, absence of being and so on. Already, since it predicates all actual things, the intuitive notion of being would seem to be Universal; this is confirmed by ‘analysis’ that is an exercise in how to see more than it is an exercise in sophisticated thought

The Objects of more specialized disciplines are less likely to be found Universal; and it is also natural that there would be less interest in such finding (even if a logical case for Universality could be made)

What degree of universality may we find for an intuitive notion of mind that begins with mind-as-we-know-it?

Explanation of mind

Thus far use of the word ‘mind’ has been casual and has not at all focused on the question ‘What is mind?’

However, the idea of mind has been explicit. The idea of mind begins with experience which is the subject side of the concept

The discussion of mind now follows

The concept of mind

Mind begins as the name for the subject or experience side of intuition, i.e. the primitive-concept

In an isolated world, i.e. of necessity a temporarily isolated world, if there is practical substance, i.e. it is a Normal isolated world (1) substances do not interact and (2) therefore mind goes to the root—the elements of mind are coextensive—coeval, collocated—with the elements of all substance, e.g. matter

There may be Normal unknowables; however there is for practical purposes of the sentient organisms of the world but one Normal substance

Consider a Normal but not isolated world; suppose there is more than one substance; interactions between the substances are not Normal; therefore there cannot effectively be more than one substance

While variations and improvements of the discussion of mind in chapter Worlds are possible, the following is true

In general, i.e. relative to the Universe, there is no substance and mind goes or may go to the root

The earlier arguments from adaptation show that mind must have bound elements—i.e., elements that are ‘bound’ to or faithful to the Object. Since the emergence of ‘higher organisms’ involves the development of elements not explicit or implicit, emergence must involve indeterministic elements and as has been seen and will be further elaborated, this is sufficient and necessary for novel structure. Construction of new concepts by the organism, i.e. concepts that are not contained in what came before, must, similarly, require indeterministic or ‘free’ elements. The free, against the background of bound elements, provide novel thought that is guided by the context of the organism. This combination of bound and free elements will be discussed in further detail under Human being

Generally, then, the elements of mind go to the root. This usage of ‘mind’ generalizes but includes the use in which ‘mind’ began as the subject or experience side… However, just as the initial side began as, e.g., animal feeling, the generalized use begins as primitive feeling. If we were to refer to animal feeling simply as feeling, then the use of feeling to refer to primitive feeling would be an inclusive generalization

Outline of phenomena to be explained; mode of explanation

1. Mind and its nature—the previous section that founds the discussion of the place of mind, relation to body and external world that is continued in subsequent sections

2. The elements of mind—element, state, modality and quality, Object, experience and consciousness

3. Modes of organization—elaboration, integration

4. The categories—the following categories will be justified and elaborated: natural, the psychosocial, and the existential

5. Timelines and origin of the higher elements of mind

Mode of explanation

The present version of the narrative emphasizes explanation of mind in elementary mental terms for reasons given earlier. The precise terms to use is a matter of exploration; at present ‘elementary feeling’ as described below is seen to be metaphysically sound as well as explanatorily effective. There may be occasional reference to neurobiology; however any systematic treatment of this mode of explanation is left to future versions

Consciousness and awareness

Consciousness is feeling—in the immediate meaning of feeling as our subject side of the concept. Our experience of consciousness is feeling of feeling that enables reference to feeling and consciousness and the naming of feeling and consciousness; that manifest consciousness is feeling of feeling also explains its apparent on-off character—even if feeling were a spectrum from zero to ‘on,’ the feeling of feeling would occur only as feeling entered awareness and this would depend not only on a threshold but also on mode, quality and occasion

There is no fundamental distinction between consciousness and feeling; consciousness lies on the feeling spectrum; a primitive feeling state that is below some threshold and is therefore not associated with feeling of the feeling is not fundamentally distinct from a conscious state—therefore we could extend the meaning of consciousness to include such states; in fact one may extend the meaning of consciousness so for conceptual purposes but retain the human or animal centered meaning for practical purposes

This explains the experimental cases of awareness of objects that are not present in (bright) consciousness; it also explains the unnecessary introduction by some recent philosophers of mind of the term ‘a-consciousness’ which is simply, feeling or the extended conceptual meaning of consciousness and ‘p-consciousness’ or phenomenal consciousness which is consciousness in its present practical meaning. Insofar as the intent behind ‘a-consciousness’ is to suggest that there are states of consciousness, i.e. there is a meaning of consciousness, that do not involve feeling, the use is altogether invalid

Animal consciousness is characterized by center-periphery-background, a dim-bright continuum, ability to focus consciousness—i.e. a volitional element of consciousness, and, depending on the case, awareness of awareness or feeling of feeling and the resultant developed / adapted ability to train or control free iconic and symbolic thought

Human consciousness has the characteristics of animal consciousness; it definitely has awareness of awareness or feeling of feeling and the resultant developed / adapted ability to train or control free iconic and symbolic thought. Human consciousness is further enhanced by language and culture that cultivate consciousness as an institution

Free will

Without an element of indeterminism, there can be no essential novelty—for essential novelty is that which is not contained in what came before. Therefore, insofar as there are new ideas and new actions, there must be freedom of will; and note, that choice between two alternatives may also involve freedom of choice and clearly does so when the choice could go either way from the same state

There are many motives to argue against freedom of will—the sway of determination by God, the sway of centuries of determinist science (before quantum theory,) the appeal of the clockwork universe, and the unconscious elements of the controlling and the insecure personalities

The psychoanalyst Freud argued against freedom of will; however, his arguments seem to be based on the common difficulty of exercise of freedom and ignore, perhaps because these are not generally the cases that present to a therapist, the cases in which the difficulty is overcome (perhaps differentially and incrementally)

Albert Einstein argued against freedom of will. His arguments were based on his supreme trust, based in his own intuition and discoveries regarding the universe, that the universe is deterministic. This was the origin of his distrust of quantum mechanics as a final and fundamental theory (contrary to popular belief however he understood quantum theory well and contributed to its early development and, further, his arguments against the fundamental character of quantum theory spurred the development of quantum mechanics, its interpretation, and its implications) Scientific arguments for and against freedom of will can be made. It is important that the arguments made here do not appeal to science—the present arguments proceed by logic from what is clear

Objection—the problem of Free Will. However, the logical arguments against freedom of will in thought and action are (1) the universe is deterministic and, in any case, structure cannot come from indeterminism and (2) even if the universe is or were to be indeterministic, our actions are bound and, obviously, we cannot choose to do whatever we want to do or be whatever we want to be

Counterargument. We have already seen that (1) is false—we have shown that the universe is indeterministic and, further, since every state must be visited under it, absolute indeterminism requires structure, i.e. the falsity is logical. In fact, indeterminism provides a better explanation of structure than does determinism. Under determinism novel structure cannot arise; structure cannot arise out of absence of structure—only given structure can exist but determinism cannot explain its given-ness. However, as we have seen, indeterminism explains—logically necessitates—novel structure and origin of structure where there is no structure at all. This is exemplified in quantum theory where the structure of atoms—and the stability of the world—arise out of elements that are probabilistic in nature even when such stability would not obtain under classical laws. (2) As we have seen, our actions and choices are not bound else there would be no novelty of thought or choice or action—a simple example serves to prove novelty of thought and therefore disprove determinism of human choice and action: a thought that has never been had before… if there were no such thoughts there would be no thoughts at all since, five billion years ago there were no thoughts at all on earth. While it is true that ‘we cannot choose to do whatever we want to do or be whatever we want to be,’ the error of the implied argument is that the claim regarding freedom of will does not assert that we can choose to do whatever we want to do or be whatever we want to be. There are thinkers, especially some of the humanist persuasion, that seem to hold that exercise of choice regarding actions and life’s options is a simple matter of easy exercise of choice; this is not at all the present claim regarding freedom. Here it is simply claimed that there is some freedom (the Normal case.) It is allowed that there may be two difficulties regarding exercise of freedom—first in the recognition and second in the execution of new choices; and the recognition and exercise are not, generally, single step exercises but may be incremental and interactive over a lifetime; they may require insight, perseverance and the overcoming of difficulty… and the outcome may be small; yet even a small amount of exercise of freedom is freedom. It may be argued that even though significant exercise of freedom is rare and perhaps the prerogative of exceptional individuals it exists and, when manifest, is significant and transformational

Regarding the arguments for and against freedom of the will, there appears to be a tendency to a kind of ‘purism’—there is no freedom at all or freedom is absolute; the actual case, as has been seen, is one of a balance between determinism and freedom and, more, it is one in which determinism—the present structure or context—provides some guide to or constraint for freedom

A preliminary psychological account of Objects

Detailed discussion of Objects and their elements—the elements of mind—is deferred to the section Human world of chapter Worlds

However, it is pertinent here to provide some account of the nature and the possibility of—the cognition of—Objects

In fact such an account has already been provided. There may be difficulty in providing a neurobiological account of how the various brain processes result in the concept or even the image of a tree. A functional explanation of how the different visual elements combine to provide a visual whole, of how the different sensory elements—sight, sound, and so on—and conceptual elements—e.g. from biology—provide a concept of ‘tree’ as a whole. However, it remains true that we evolved in an environment that has trees—and many other things that generally present as whole rather than fragments—in it. The explanation from adaptation, given earlier, is that cognition is adapted to things that present in the environment and not the elements of our analysis as such. That is the explanation from adaptation and no further explanation is necessary at that level

Of course other explanations such as the functional and the neurobiological are useful and may be pursued. However this does not negate validity of the explanation from adaptation even though the explanation is rather trivial once it is appreciated. What is true is that we might like to pursue all modes of explanation and that perhaps these explanations may be complementary in building up understanding

We therefore conclude that perception of objects: phenomena as object binding—how and why the shape, color and so on of an entity are perceived as one, object constancy—how an entity appears to be the same entity from different angles and distances and under some different lighting, and the more general unity of consciousness are explanatory problems from the point of view of neurobiology and the idea that the perceptual object is the sum of the perceptual parts. However, entities come first in a sense and the entities or objects of our world are those in terms of which we adapt. Therefore, unity of consciousness and so on require no explanation; such ‘phenomena’ have an intuitively primary character

At the same time analysis is also natural. The ‘natural’ Objects do present also as fragments—both in fact and in adapted perception; and in imagination which may be partial source of the useful analytical ability

Space, time and being

Pivotal idea—Space-time—Therefore space-time and other dimensions of extension must be patchy in the global description even though they may be ‘universal’ in some phases of manifestation; the ‘universal’ manifestations of space-time-cause may be as if absolute and necessary but this is only contingent; in general space-time is necessarily relative and cause contingent

Pivotal idea—Normal worlds: method of study—The method of local study includes the approaches from the history of ideas: the ‘methods’ of the sciences—physics, biology, psychology, sociology, and the approaches of other disciplines including the arts and literature. This method is enhanced by reflexivity. In physics I plan to continue along lines that emphasize both intuition, e.g. the approach of Einstein in the early phase of his career, and the formal, e.g. the approach of the later Einstein and the approaches Heisenberg and Dirac in the development of quantum theory. In biology we seek the elements of organism in the relation between the microscopic and the macroscopic and in evolutionary theory we seek an abstract conception of evolutionary process as conceived in Cosmology and perhaps as formalized by the Santa Fe school to give conceptual context to the fabric of actual biological—and other—evolution. In psychology we derive from the metaphysical considerations regarding mind the element of mind—the feeling—and seek to build up a picture of ‘higher’ mind by the reflexive interaction of the feeling, its varieties, and the phenomena—which has two aspects worthy of mention: first, it takes the study of mind out of the realm of the ad hoc without bringing in the a priori and, second, it is not merely a study of given phenomena known intuitively but of discoveries in phenomena and correction of the input intuitive knowledge. Use of reflexivity—The approach of reflex is used at a higher level in the interactive study of the general theory—Intuition through Cosmology—and the particular disciplines of which examples are given in the previous paragraph. The establishment of the Logical and the Practical Objects of chapter Objects frames this study whose intrinsic limits are the limits of the disciplines

Even though we seem to intuit only space and time, there may perhaps be non-intuitive modes of displacement other than space and time. Could there be intuitive modes of which we are not aware?

It appears intuitively that being is not further analyzable with regard to displacement. Further we have found no necessity of further modes thus far. This suggests that there are no further modes of displacement. Alternatively, it reveals the limits of our intuition / variety of our cosmological system

Manifest being appears to be characterized by extension and duration. However, the measures of extension and duration may be patchy and (as in quantum gravitation) ‘foamy’

There appears to be no logical preference for any dimensionality of space. However, non-logical considerations, e.g., of complexity, stability, and emergence of sentience may select for certain dimensionalities

In this cosmos, time appears to be locally ‘universal.’ This is perhaps the result of selection. More generally, in a weakly correlated system there may be more than one time. Multiple times could be localized or strongly correlated within a weak correlation. Dimensionality of time appears be to fundamentally different than dimensionality of space

The foregoing suggests an explanation for the meaning and possibility of origins of time and space—i.e., of more or less coherent space-times

As noted earlier, any universal time and space are immanent and therefore relative. There is nothing that excludes this logically relative character to occasionally manifest as absolute. Further, there may be absolute space and time in limited domains

Worlds

The focus in this chapter is the Normal world

Theme—Normal worlds—Under Normal worlds we study localized worlds with normal stability, space-time, causation, sentience and so on; the limit of faithfulness is that of the specific discipline as enhanced by interaction with the metaphysics; the specific studies are local cosmology—evolution; physics and physical cosmology—general cosmology as partial foundation for / analogy to the branches of theoretical physics; biology, and human being; under Human being we study human being; mind; society; society; human endeavor, modes, and proximate-contingent limits; ideational form—usually labeled paradigm and including science, myth, religion—and its future; these studies are selected for application in the journey of discovery and transformation—over and above their intrinsic interest. The interest in chapter Worlds—The general interest in the study of Normal worlds is, of course, our interest in this world. The interest of understanding the world is enhanced by the side by side and interactive study of metaphysics, the study of the Universe—as far as possible as it is and the study of this world; entailed in both studies is the study of understanding itself—of the nature of the study of metaphysics, the study of the local world—see a system of human knowledge, and the nature of the interactive study—see method. My immediate specific interest is immersion in this world. From the point of view of the journey, the interest is in the various paths from ‘this world’ to the Universe…

Introduction

While the topic of this chapter concerns the Normal worlds of sentient beings, the vehicle for discussion is our cosmos, the human world and human endeavor

Local cosmology

An alternate title to this section might be Normal cosmology. The physical cosmology of this—our—cosmos and biosocial evolution are examples of local cosmologies

Concepts—variety, process, space, time, local cosmological system, physical cosmology

There are clear mutual implications among the Universal metaphysics and the study of the physics of the local cosmological system including the study of the fundamental forces, force—gravitation-matter-space-time, and the quantum vacuum and quantum theory

Such studies have not yet been taken up but may be an aspect of the ‘experiments’

The present development has considered implications for the extent of the Universe, the origin of the laws of this cosmos and their non-universal character, the non-origination and non-ending of the Universe, recurrence, annihilation, the relative character of any space-time for the entire Universe, the necessity of both relative and absolute space-times for local systems, the possibility but general improbability of entirely saltational origins of local cosmological systems, an incomplete loss of information in transitions through the Void state, universal interaction, the origins—and possibility and meaning of origins—of Laws and of space-time, and the non-universal character of the speed of propagation of the fundamental forces

When light is regarded as an isolated phenomenon the fundamental character of its speed in this cosmos may seem puzzling. However the ‘speed of light’ is the speed of propagation of all fundamental forces of this cosmos and is therefore bound into the very constitution of the elements of this cosmos

Evolution and evolutionary theory

The topic has been discussed in the chapter Cosmology

Physics and physical cosmology

The goal of this section is to briefly show relations between the Universal physics and physics and physical cosmology. The two subsections below briefly take up the major fundamental divisions of modern theoretical physics

The chapter Cosmology has a general discussion of Space, time and being

There are brief discussions of the nature of science in a number of locations of the narrative

Large scale theory of the physical universe

The Universal metaphysics supports the necessity of modern physical theory as having application somewhere

As seen in chapter Cosmology, the metaphysics also supports the interwoven character of extension, duration, and matter-energy as an instance of looking behind substance, i.e. not seeing space, time and so on as given—as substance

Physics at small scales: quantum theory

As noted the metaphysics supports quantum theory

The evident analogies between quantum theory, especially the quantum vacuum, and the nature of the Void as a support for being suggests that the Universal metaphysics may provide some foundation for quantum theory… and perhaps, from the previous section, for some joint—unified—theory of the very small and the very large, i.e. of the quantum and of physical cosmology

These developments are left for possible future research

Biology

There is brief discussion of biology in Human world below; evolution has been discussed in chapter Cosmology

Human world

Goals. The nature of human being. Toward foundation for the journey

Concepts for Human world and Human endeavor and its normal limits—feeling, higher feeling, consciousness, language, freedom, charisma, society, culture, institution, science, technology, civilization, identity, faith, common endeavor, experimental endeavor, category, Object-category, Humor-Category, Science, Religion, literature, drama, music, art, architecture, thought, unnamed ideational form

Understanding is enhanced by awareness of similarity and difference. Therefore from the point of view of understanding, human being is seen as animal being but without suppression of distinctions

We can only gain in the sense of adventure when we feel kinship with all / animal being but are not limited by the feeling

Human being

Concepts—feeling, afference, efference, bound feeling, memory, body feeling, kinesthetic feeling, inner—body—affective feeling and modality, outer feeling-sensing and modality, free feeling, compartmentalization, interaction, layering, higher feeling, emotion-cognition, consciousness, self-reference, volition, language, expression, communication, culture

Concepts—freedom, choice, action, charisma

Affective feeling is an aspect of body-kinesthetic feeling

The organism

Concepts—variation, selection, adaptation, co-adaptation, incremental variation, internalization, genetic code, creative intelligence

When two systems are—exist—in interaction their forms may be mutually influenced. They may co-form and be co-formed or adapted; they may have con-formation—but it is not implied that such conformation is intrinsic or goes to the root of the being of the systems. Common origins and extensive interaction are two sources of adaptation that goes to or approaches that root. The occurrence of adaptation is necessary; that it should be of a particular kind or degree is, in the particular case, a priori contingent. When a kind of degree of adaptation is consistently conceived or observed, that it should occur—and occur with infinite repetition—is necessary. While the occurrence of consistent or observed adaptation is necessary, a mechanism of occurrence such as incremental variation and selection is, in any instance, a priori at most probable. That—consistent—incremental variation and selection should occur in some instance is necessary. That incremental variation and selection should always be a priori probable is impossible even if it is most often so; it is perhaps more accurate to say that there are probabilities only relative to an ‘initial’ state that already has form. There must be cases of deep co-adaptation—including adaptation of organism to environment—whose genesis was not one of incremental variation and selection. It is not necessary that such cases have occurred on this earth

When the process of adaptation becomes ‘coded’ into the organism, ‘evolution’ may be said to be internalized. Examples of internalization are the genetic code and—creative—intelligence. The relation between the size of the code and the size of its elements e.g. the primitive molecules that is required for complexity of even the simplest organisms poses an interesting question. The relation between the size of the simplest organisms and the size required for complexity of form and function—and creative intelligence—also poses an interesting question (note that function is dynamic form)

Mind at the level of human being

Concepts—animal mind, human mind, element, elaboration, integration, layering, phenomena

The earlier section Mind in the chapter Cosmology was devoted to general and conceptual questions. This section looks at human and animal mind in light of the earlier discussion

The discussion begins with what is to be explained in the section Elements of mind: the phenomena to be cataloged andor explained. The explanations follow in the sections Elements and concept of mind: explanations of the phenomena and Timelines and origin of the higher elements

Elements of mind: the phenomena to be cataloged andor explained

Mind and its nature

The place of mind, relation to body and external world

While mind and its nature have been considered in the earlier section, this section continues the earlier discussion, elaborating it particularly with regard to detailed phenomena and the place of mind, relation to body and external world

The elements of mind

Element—primitive state, process, relation; afferent-neutral-efferent

State—bound, free; intensity, modality, quality; memory, transient, stable; compound, object or gestalt

Modality and quality—primitive feeling, five senses and their qualities; external feeling—the world, internal feeling—the body (including kinesthetic feeling, internal pain, affective feeling, and the feeling of feeling)

Object—origin of gestalt, binding, constancy

Function—intuition, conception—mental content or cognition-affect—i.e., inner-outer or body-world feeling; perception, higher-conception, icon, symbol, language; cognition, emotion; external world—i.e., inner-outer mental content

Experience and consciousness—primitive feeling—i.e., all experience, pure experience, attitude-experience, action-experience, awareness, consciousness, consciousness—degrees, awareness without consciousness, on-off character of consciousness, focal and volitional aspects of consciousness, consciousness of consciousness

Modes of organization

The following modes are implicit in the subsequent section Elements and concept of mind: explanations of the phenomena

Elaboration—modality, quality; layering

Integration—adaptation via exposure to the Object—the origin of binding in adaptation; degrees of integration—independence, interaction and holism… holism of emotion and cognition… and its essential character—degrees of binding, variation, and self and interactive volition

Integration of cognition… and affect—thought and its experimental integration in synthesis and fragmentation in analysis, affect-thought and its constructive and experimental integration in higher emotion… non-volitional modulation of emotional response over time and cultivation of volition in emotion

The categories—a system of intuitive or adapted Objects

The following categories are to be justified, explained and elaborated: the Natural, the Psychosocial, and the Existential

Timelines and origin of the higher elements

Elements and concept of mind: explanations of the phenomena

Concepts—dimension, intensity, modality, quality, the ‘five’ senses, feeling, the kinesthetic senses, recursion, consciousness, reading minds, volition in mental content, object binding, object constancy, development, conditioning, icon, symbol

Explanations of the phenomena follow. The explanations are those that are not at least tacit so far or that benefit from elaboration

The following aspects of the concept of mind were considered in section Mind of chapter Objects: The concept of mind, Consciousness and awareness, Free will, and A preliminary psychological account of Objects. The following more detailed topics are taken up below: The elements, Introducing states that include elements of volition regarding mental content, Object as element

The elements

The primitive elements of mind—state-inner relation-process—are the inner side of the elements of interaction

These elements are coextensive with outward effect or efference, equilibrium or ‘pure’ feeling, and incoming effect or afference. Therefore, efference-action, stasis-pure experience, and afference-attitude are not distinct ‘dimensions’ of mind

These elements are adapted to the environment. In a Normal sense, one with a different extension than the earlier use, there is a level at which such elements have no freedom in the individual to adapt. Adaptation is supra-individual. However, for anything but the most primitive sentience, it is far more efficient to have developmental adaptation overlaid on the supra-individual or genetic adaptation than it is to have adaptation to be entirely genetic

The elements elaborate as intensity, modality and quality. Modality includes the ‘five senses’ associated with perception of the world outside the body—vision whose primitive quality includes color, hearing whose primitive quality includes pitch, taste, olfaction, and touch that includes tactile feeling, heat and pain… and feeling that includes kinesthetic senses of location, orientation, muscular tension, and general organic feeling; the latter is what is often referred to feeling in the sense of primitive emotion. This feeling includes the recursion of the primitive and all inclusive feeling, i.e. the awareness of mind (later the consciousness of consciousness)

The foregoing includes the distinction of inner and outer sense i.e. of what are commonly called feeling of the affective kind and perception; this distinction does not correspond, however, to the idea of an external world which is, simply, the idea that mental content has an Object

Comments—these are asides in that the logical place for these comments is later— ‘internal feeling’—internal feeling refers to the knowing, not limited to internal ‘perception’ i.e. perception of ‘body’ states but also to the free or higher-conceptual side, therefore refers generally to ‘cognition’ of body states and includes primitive ‘feeling’ as well as emotion; this includes also the reflexive perception of mental states, i.e. to knowing that one is knowing, seeing, feeling, emoting, thinking…

There is a convention that these inner states are logically inaccessible to others. We do read inner states by facial expression and other external manifestations; however this is not a contradiction of the logical inaccessibility for the connection between the inner and the external manifestation is not logically necessary and, though there is physiological causation this causation can be disrupted by non-volitional factors and suspended, at least to some extent, by volition. However, we have identified inner awareness with physiological states—although there is a problem of 1:1 identification, to think otherwise is to posit an unknown substance and is therefore disallowed. Reading minds. It follows, then, that there are various ways in which another agent could connect to and know these states; the term ‘logically inaccessible’ must, therefore be changed to ‘actually accessible but with difficulties of connection and clarity.’ This is an enhancement to what has been called theory of mind in the recent cognitive science literature: theory of mind refers to how an individual knows that other individuals have minds and how they surmise what the mental content of the other may be—theory of mind is not a formal theory but an intuitive function

Introducing states that include elements of volition regarding mental content

There are degrees of binding between this affective feeling and sense perception; this is essential for connection of organism and environment; without any binding there results the ‘free-wheeling’ of autistic-like isolation or disconnection

In a relatively quiescent state, while affective feeling and perception have a degree of binding, the intensity of perception depends largely on the intensity of the stimulus, while the intensity of the affect depends on the nature of the stimulus—some combination of development and genetics results in archetypes that generate intense feelings of fear, love and so on that are absent in the absence of the ‘affection-al archetypes;’ the binding of affect or internal feeling and outer feeling—normally called perception—is the binding of body to world as adaptation; we will soon see that the freeing of the connection is the adaptation of creative adaptability; of course, the ‘free’ does not eliminate the ‘bound’ and the two are present together

Volition regarding mental content is an element of freedom of choice

Object as element

The concept of an Object results from elaboration and integration in adaptive evolution with the world; adaptive evolution results in the capacity for Object recognition; the actual ability arises in development

The general Object is the joint product of organism—mind—and world

Object binding and object constancy require no explanation at the level of adaptation; there may however be genetic, developmental and functional explanations that include binding of the complex of elements in a perceptual archetype in some combination with laying down of the Object in memory—since the Object is what presents—rather than the mere laying down in memory of the elements of the Object of course, developmental adaptability requires that the Objects not be rigidly fixed and the elements can also be Objects (and thus arises the ‘problem’ of Object integration)

Object binding and object constancy are aspects of the Object; they are not other than the Object and do not require explanation over and above that of the Object. Thus the Object is a gestalt that includes binding and constancy and whose basic explanation lies in adaptation; this is not to argue against structural or functional explanations but is to argue that lack of such explanation does not constitute lack of understanding

Development bifurcates as simple development and conditioning. Conditioning in regard to perception emerges as memory which is the origin of the ‘free’ state. Simple transient recall is enhanced by adaptation as the control of recall; stable recall is of what is imprinted and includes elements and Objects; of course, as we know, elements are elementary Objects; the introduction of random elements in memory is the source of creative iconic imagination—these are likely the earlier developed transients; once icon imagination becomes generally adaptive—adaptability of mental process as an adaptation—it bifurcates into iconic and symbolic imagination; again the subject side of the symbol is the concept of an Object

The icon and the symbol enable the knowledge of Objects beyond the Objects known in bound perception; these may take us beyond the world of immediate adaptation to the Universal; however, it is then possible, as we have seen, to return to the intuition and see the Universal in it

The cognitive Object remains in degrees of binding with feeling-emotion; the general object is cognitive-affective; it is essential for connectedness to have strong binding; it is essential for creative imagination, symbolic and iconic, to have freedom; however, some low level binding of varying degree to affect is essential to avoid autistic disconnection and poverty of imagination

The categories

In this Normal world, the modes of Object are the Natural and the Psychosocial. These may be further divided as Physical and Biological—the Natural; and the Psychic, i.e. the psychological and the Social—the Psychosocial

Regarding the unknown of the larger Universe and its unpredictability, which may include the unpredictable aspects of this world, one further category may suffice—the Existential

A short list of the categories might be Natural and Psychosocial; the natural includes the physical and the biological and the psychosocial includes the existential. Following is an expanded list of the categories

Existential

Being (Becoming, Being-in, …), Experience and Content—precursor to self and concept, Object, Humor (the intuition of indeterminism and chaos)

The contrived joke is to humor as pornography is to love-sex

The world has in it much immanent joke-humor, still not pure humor, that is of a higher grade than the mere produced joke even though the latter displays wit; and a little cultivation of an art of perception of immanent joke-humor offers immanent comic relief

Physical

Space, Time, Physical Object, Causation, Indeterminism

Biological

Life Form and Ecosystem, Species, Heredity

Of the psyche

Concept and intuition. ‘Concept’ is used in the generalized sense of mental content and includes percept-affect, and higher concept and emotion: free icon and free symbol and systems of the same

The free icon and symbol require the abilities to recollect and dissociate and to originate

Social

The institution

Of perception and judgment

Perception and judgment are the basis of knowing. Perception provides data. The data are not originally raw or Objective; they conform to the categories of perception that are the joint product of mind—observer—and world. Reason—the categories of judgment—have been traditionally divided according to deduction or necessity and induction or likely. The likely is not however merely and simply likely but may conform to categories causal which may range from deterministic to likely

In this essay it was found immensely productive to bring both perception and judgment at least initially into the fold of intuition and therefore lacking in necessity. This would allow necessity and other grades of precision of perception and judgment to fall out of investigation. The result was that we found certain necessary Objects of perception—experience, being, all and part and absence of being and so on—and certain necessary categories of judgment defined implicitly as Logic. These defined a Universal metaphysics where metaphysics is knowledge of the world as it is. The claim is not that all knowledge is knowledge of the world as it is but that within the Universal metaphysics are identified the ways or at least some ways of knowing the world which do not avoid the ‘stamp’ of mind but reduce the effect of the stamp to zero

In the twentieth century analytic philosophers who abandoned metaphysics per se under the banner of the impossibility of metaphysics spoke of a metaphysic of experience. The motive to abandoning pure metaphysics was multifold—it included Kant’s insistence that while a realm of pure being, called by him the noumenon, did in fact exist it could be thought but not known since its elusion of knowing was logical in nature; it included the rejection by British Philosophers—especially Russell who along with Frege was influential in the analytic turn—of the largely speculative idealist metaphysics typified by the thought of Hegel… which rejection we now see as premature because, first, we have seen that some modes of perception and judgment are Objective and, second, the rejection of all metaphysics was of the form ‘since some schools and trends in metaphysics are merely speculative therefore all metaphysic must be cast from the same die.’ What is crucial here is that pure general metaphysics is the place where metaphysics per se and metaphysics of experience coincide

The degrees of binding of cognition and affect in the moment to moment and in the motivation of directed versus ‘laissez faire’ becoming are crucial in keeping connection with and freedom from the world—nature and society—in appropriate if implicit ranges of balance

Theme—Kant and Heidegger. We go below Kant’s categories of perception and judgment to perception of the necessary Objects and the at least partially implicitly defined Logic. That system provides a framework for a variety of contingent or Normal contexts of knowing. An example is this world where we see in categories of space, time and cause; and reason in categories of deductive (Aristotelian and modern logics) and inductive (e.g. the vaguely defined methods of scientific reasoning from data to law and theory) reason. What remains as necessary is the pure-general metaphysics of chapter Metaphysics and its extension in Objects. Affect is implicit in the framework and one of its dimensions is binding; but binding to the world must include a freeing element on account of actual and effective indeterminism; and of course the higher affect has particularly animal and human forms. Art moves within that framework showing us, not invariably in the representing terms of external cognition, something of our nature—binding—and something of desire and possibility—freedom mixed with binding. Science moves within that framework itself but more along the lines of the representing terms of external cognition; but science is not restricted to any rigid system of categories of perception—e.g. Universal space and Universal time and strict or even patterned probabilistic causation—or rigid Aristotelian or modern deductive or patterned inductive categories of judgment or reason. Categories of perception and judgment are opened up; judgment through the exploration of symbolic systems and abstract forms of modern science and perception via instrument and intervention that is guided by the symbolic systems or theories. Simultaneously, perception may open up into binding external and inner realms; this in turn affects cognition; the system is touched by affect but not entirely bound by it. This expresses in abstract terms the path and motives of the journey. The entire system is framed by the ultimate necessity—the result of abstractive elimination of the local and the contingent—and of the Universal metaphysics

…Where does Heidegger fit into the above scheme? Heidegger’s Dasein is ‘thrown into the world.’ It is capable of asking the question of the meaning of its own being. In Heidegger’s terms we may say that the abstract analysis of Dasein yields the Universal metaphysics. Heidegger’s further analysis of Dasein is contingent or Normal; which is not to say it is ‘useless;’ it has of course an in principle utility regardless of the actual analysis—the reckoning of the place of the individual and his or her inner world in this world; which of course frames not only Heidegger but also Freud and perhaps Jung as well… and, no doubt, others. The Universal metaphysics proves however the infinite character of individual being, its identity with all being, within which framework Heidegger’s Dasein has its day-to-day and its adventures. The day-to-day and the adventure are not the limits of Heidegger’s Dasein—they are Normal limits; they are of course deeply important in the enjoyment of this life; but the true limits are the limits of ultimate Identity which is also the boundary of Heidegger’s Dasein freed from the limits of Heidegger’s implicit categories, e.g. including certain contours of a European paradigm of what it is to be an authentic human

Timelines and origin of the higher elements

Stimulus-response, i.e. afference-efference; generalized ‘touch;’ the intensity parameter

Conditioning—a form of learning and memory

Emergence of dim consciousness that is perhaps unrecognized as such

Complexity—modality and the quality spectra; (1) The afferent modalities—‘five’ senses, kinesthetic senses, affective feeling, feeling of feeling…, and (2) The efferent modalities—attention, movement…

Compounding—the Object; degrees binding of the external modalities—cognition; degrees of binding of cognition and affect—the general grounded Object

Reflexivity—memory as stimulus

Emergence of animal consciousness

Control of reflex—volitional and constructive thought; cultural learning; icon, symbol, language—spoken and written, communicative and expressive

Emergence of the perhaps special aspects of consciousness that may be labeled ‘human’

Analysis—the ‘element’ as Object

Personality and Identity

Concepts—innate, learned, enduring, adaptive, plasticity, pattern, thought, behavior, feeling, affective expression, drive, integration, interaction, self, commitment, other, world

Personality is innate and learned, rather enduring but adaptive with degrees of plasticity, patterns of thought, behavior, feeling, affective expression, drive—direction and force—and their integration and interaction in relation to self, commitment, others, and world

Personality is an integral form as is Identity. Personality will not be analyzed further here except to observe that the integral form is not fixed, requires adequate development, sustenance or maintenance and may be subject to disintegration. The theory of identity has been considered earlier

Mechanism of integration

The actual integration of objects is clearly a function of ability to integrate—which is a function of kind of organism and exposure (growth.) This would appear to be most efficient; the alternative that integration is entirely built in or innate would place a burden on heredity and would mean that all adaptations would be pre-adaptations. The individual is regarded as having the ability to integrate. The integral forms are laid down in memory (neural) which is modified (grows) in exposure

Meta-theory: the nature of the explanations

The explanations start with primitive elements of mind—feeling; a picture of human mind is built up—the variety of elements, e.g. the sensations and the elementary affects, the bound and memory and the free, perception-thought-affect, the categories of perception-thought-affect, development, personality…

Is it claimed that the higher aspects are reduced to the primitive elements? That is not what is done here

Let us reflect via analogy. The physical sciences include physics and chemistry; chemistry is thought to involve no principles outside physics but on account of complexity of explanation, explanation in chemistry requires concepts that do not belong to the fundamental theories of physics. Similarly, biology is not thought to involve principles outside physics—and chemistry—but because of the difficulty with explanatory reduction, biological explanation cannot do without biological concepts. Whether biology and chemistry involve extra-physical principles—i.e. whether the difficulty in the higher level explanation is not merely computational but constitutive or logical—can be debated but the standard view today is that they do not require extra-physical principles and not much attention is given to the question inside the mainstream—philosophers, of course, have devoted efforts to articulating this standard view. The present point is that for explanation in biology and chemistry to proceed, concepts and theories beyond those of physics are required—and, especially for biology, immensely illuminating—even though the concepts and laws of chemistry may be labeled both physical and chemical; biological concepts, however, are generally not considered to be physical even though a constitutive reduction is generally thought to be possible in principle

Similarly, there is no attempt here to reduce the phenomena of mind to the elements. What is done? The foregoing discussions have provided an outline sketch of the various levels and some general features of explanation to the extent that shows the features at various levels with varying degrees of necessity. The necessity of primitive feeling as the essence of mind follows from metaphysical feelings. The variety of senses is contingent upon adaptation to physical environments. The emergence of memory is not necessary but is necessary to learning and to the emergence of free feeling and then to iconic and symbolic thought. The presence of random elements amid structure is essential to true novelty; and the balance of structure and freedom in iconic and symbolic forms is necessary to take advantage of random elements in the ‘generation’ of novel thought. The system of categories is contingent in its emergence but necessary to appreciation and negotiation of the boundary of our world and the Universe…

Health

Functional factors—cognitive and affective response, tone and regulation; interaction between factors of physical and psychical health; personality

Disorder

Single, multiple and interactive breakdown of function

Social world and the social sciences

Concepts—society, institution, lineage group, culture, cultural group, knowledge, creation, education

group process, economic, moral-legal, politic

The social world provides—one—context for individual meaning and commitment. Commitment is commitment to the production of values deemed worthwhile. It is not the case that meaning is absolute meaning or that commitment guarantees outcome. However, commitment is instrumental in outcome and meaning is the place that outcome and effort may be appreciated. In addition to the provision of context, institutions make possible works that are beyond the power of an isolated individual

Outline

In Social world, the ideas of society, culture and institution are developed from enumeration of the possible kinds of group interaction in light of the Metaphysics and the nature of Human being. The significance for the journey is that the group, the Social world is, in the elaboration of its nature, one object of interest—an object that undertakes a journey, and for the individual it is both ground and support

Culture

In sociology, culture is often used to refer to the sum of learned and transmitted human knowledge, belief and behavior

Knowledge and therefore culture may differentiate according to fact and value. The distinction is at least conventional—we may think of fact which hear includes conception as knowledge of definite things as they are… of course to some degree of approximation. On the other hand we may think of values as, e.g. some mix of feeling and norms that do not correspond to any facts but are perhaps guides to behavior in the areas regarding which we have choice

Alternately, value may be thought of as having the following components. First, they are guides to ‘successful’ behavior. Because the future is open they are not altogether definite guides but have some play; still there are definite prescriptions and proscriptions. Thus ‘value’ is a form of knowing that contains an openness on account of indefiniteness… new value systems supplant old ones. Knowledge of fact we think is not like that. However, in an open domain knowledge of fact becomes like that—there are elements of definiteness and elements of openness and new knowledge may expand upon old knowledge while supplanting it. Also in a fixed context value may become fixed except of course for cultural play and creation. Thus value lies in a dual space (of knowing the world as it is and creating the world of culture.) Knowledge of fact is the same as that in the knowing side but not in the creating. Open up now into the Universal realm revealed by the Universal realm—there, knowing and creating may merge. Thus ‘fact’ and ‘value’ are felt to be different but in a—more—Universal perspective the distinction breaks down. It is characteristic of growing insight and knowing that the distinction between apparently disparate realms dissolves in newer perspectives while, of course, the older perspectives do not go away and do not invariably lose all purchase on the world

Freedom

A central idea is that human freedom is a contributing factor in the makeup of the human social world. It is not suggested that there is any set of determining factors for it is unlikely that such a set could be found; and it is not thought that individual freedom is necessary for all societies—human and non-human. However, it is part of the central idea that human freedom is essential for some aspects of human society—and the thought is that that freedom is essential to the self-determining aspects of human society (again, it is not suggested that there is complete determination by any set of factors.) Human freedoms of thought—linguistic and other—and action contribute to human culture and it is human culture that defines and binds the various aspects of human society that acquire their structure in the form of institutions

Institutional form

A dynamic scene may be described in terms of state, process and genesis. Therefore:

The institutional forms are defined by action—and choice—and organization or structure; and the founding or genetic institution—culture that includes, reflexively, the institution of the institution

For future study and research consider that future forms of knowledge of social institutions including knowledge, politics, and economics will require study at abstract and detailed levels. Abstraction must be a component of a science of social forms—allowing a precise and faithful level to interact with the detailed and imperfect; enhancing both. Consider also new modes and means of political-economic organization

The concept of the institution

There is a variety of functions and arrangements within society that constitute the whole. A post-structuralist might not agree that this provides a faithful description but would agree that society is not uniform—laterally or vertically

Designated functions may be called Institutions and the arrangements may be called interaction; alternatively the institutions may be seen as already in dynamic interaction. An institution—lower case—is the particular manifestation of an Institution in a given society

The idea of institutional purity

The idea of institutional purity is that the only function of the institution is that of the corresponding Institution. It is the idea, for example, that the church should engage only in Religion. Reasons for institutional purity include reification of the Institution, ‘abuse,’ and efficiency. There are of course multi-functional institutions such as government whose functions include not only political concerns but, for example, economic, military and educational concerns as well. In the United States, separation of church and state has some constitutional basis

In fact absolute purity of the institution may be near impossible to maintain for practical reasons and not for reasons of ‘corruption’ alone. The definition of a pure Institutional function alone is not reason for purity of the institution; however, efficiency may require some separation of function and promote further separation—but efficiency may require and promote some accumulation of function as well; Normative arguments are generally difficult to defend on any absolute terms and generally refer back to both practical concerns and Normative principles (ethics)

In general, arguments for and against institutional purity be on a case by case basis and may include (a) Historical factors—Is the cost of dismantling a received institution worth the benefit? (b) Positive factors—efficiency of arrangement, historical factors…—and Normative factors

The discussion of Ethics takes up the distinction and separation of the Normative and the Positive—of fact and value

The institutions

People—persons—and groups

individual, role, infant, child, adult, man, woman, warrior, worker, professional, priest, shaman

pair, love, family, sibling, kin, friends

community

actual, virtual

institutional groups

Culture

Simply—this is elaborated and critiqued below—culture is the sum of knowledge and habit of a society. It includes: language; art, literature; technology; knowledge—contextual and universal, myth, religion—its personal and group and formal varieties; science; ethics, morals, norms, value; paradigm—lateral and vertical, disciplines, belief, learning, transmission; culture of the institution

Culture is significantly but not entirely institutionalized; roughly, in the sense of Max Weber, 1864-1920, the non-institutionalized is, ‘charismatic’ and the institutionalized is ‘patriarchal.’ Society needs the institutional and the non-institutional, the patriarchal and the charismatic—approximately, the stability and transformational, conserving and liberal

The conserving and the liberal become institutions in themselves as does the culture of the institution

The institutions are for the most part present in the general discussion. The ‘culture of the institution’ is an exception; this and other institutions of importance to the narrative will receive special attention below

Language

This level five topic, were it not for its importance, would be level six

Source. Language-reserve

Introduction

The first goal of this discussion is to investigate the overlap of metaphysics and language. Why? Language is used in the expression of metaphysics. However, language does not cover the entire expression of metaphysics. A part of metaphysics is an abstraction of perception or intuition. Language points to but does not express that part; however, language may encapsulate this part. A second part of metaphysics, symbolic reason, may be expressed by language. The distinction of a part expressed by language and a second part not expressed by language depends of course on a conventional interpretation of what language is

A derivative goal is the study of language; the study of language—in light of the metaphysics—may be taken up later

At least some linguistic forms have meaning. However, since ‘language’ is a concept, the meaning of language is also an issue. In the study of language, as for any concept, it is possible to proceed by defining language at outset. We have seen, however, that investigation may reveal that the idea-thing being sought is given only roughly by an initial conception of it

What is language?

Main concepts—sign, symbol, language, para-language, function, expression, representation, and communication

A definition is a place to start even if not the place; here is a definition from Wikipedia—A language is a dynamic set of sensory symbols of communication and the elements used to manipulate them. Language can also refer to the use of such systems as a general phenomenon

What might this definition have to recommend itself? It is suggestive. However, it does not distinguish language from animal communication. I am not arguing that animal communication is not language; however Wikipedia immediately adds ‘Although other animals make use of quite sophisticated communicative systems, sometimes casually referred to as animal language, none of these is known to make use of all of the properties that linguists use to define language…’ That is, having ‘defined’ language, Wikipedia is saying—implying—that its definition is incomplete

We might ask What is the meaing of ‘What is language?’? We would be asking, in other words, how concepts are elucidated by search in a dual space of concept and object. Clearly, such search is not guaranteed to have any reasonable outcome unless it has ‘mountains’ corresponding to concept-objects. A concept or definition will be crisp if the projection of a concept-object onto concept space is a spire. This will not be the case for all concept-objects. What is the relation of metaphysics to this concept-object space? The necessary objects will have spire-like concepts. Other objects may have spire-like concepts for restricted contexts but mountain-like concepts outside those contexts. Even if we define a ‘table’ as something with legs, a flat top and that is stable we will find objects that do not satisfy this definition but that we might want to call tables. If we replace the property definition by a functional one we will run into the same problem. If we consider that the properties of this cosmos are not necessary, the same lack of definiteness will obtain of some ‘natural’ objects such as electrons. The natural languages—e.g. English—and artificial languages—Esperanto, programming languages and so on—do not necessarily come near exhausting the kinds of possibility for language. In Process and Reality, 1927, Alfred North Whitehead said that A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge. In a ‘creative universe’ the precise language may exist only for those objects—the necessary objects—for which there is a completed metaphysical knowledge

Approaching language

Concepts—definition, linguistic form, subject-predicate form, sign, symbol, expression, representation, communication, assertion, direction, commission, expression, declaration

Note—assertion includes the sub-forms of fact, exclamation, and question

Instead of starting with something discrete such as ‘A language is a dynamic set of sensory symbols…’ let us ask a dual question. The dual question will supplement property definition ‘A language is…’ by a functional one ‘What a language does is…’ which will be supplemented by experimental and analytic approaches. In an analytic approach we will ask about the parts of language and how they fit together: the analytic approach will include structural study—however, there need be no debate about ‘structuralism’ because the inclusion of structure is not a claim that understanding and definition are wholly structural

What are we doing when we use language? Perhaps the first notion that comes to mind to a scientist or analytic thinker is that language describes the world… is a ‘picture’ of the world. As in science, this may be powerful when patterns are described for patterns permit prediction. As we have seen that picture has precise as well as indefinite parts and the indefiniteness does not arise solely on account of indefiniteness of language but also on account of the indefiniteness of objects. Also, signs and symbols refer to acts of intuition and therefore in many cases where we might seek precision of sign and symbol, that search is misguided andor unnecessary though sometimes useful for, first, the understanding of what is intuitive and, second, for the analytic extension or re-foundation (including understanding) of intuition

However, description of the world is not at all the entire story. In ‘doing’ language, it ‘flows’ from a person or persons, it is an expression of mental content in the broadest sense, and it may be received by a person or persons. Receivers and senders are not necessarily distinct. A sender and receiver may be the same person; this may enhance reflection

Therefore a more complete conception of language requires a complete elaboration of kinds of mental content—conception in the general sense, i.e. cognition-affect. Cognition-affect is complete in the sense that affect refers to body-states while cognition refers to world-states (which may include body states.) In most inclusive sense conception prescribes linguistic form

While we tend to associate language with sign and symbol, its main functions are expression, representation and communication

A standard form of description is the subject-predicate form. This corresponds to the idea that the world is a collection of states of affairs (that include relations and processes.) Correspondingly, the modes of communication are assertion, direction, commission, expression, declaration (assertion includes the sub-forms of fact, exclamation, and question…)

Pre-language

Concepts—state, process, sign, word, meaning, use, syntax

Perhaps the first function is spontaneous expression that becomes selected for its communication function. Later, expressions become words but it might be that the transition from the spontaneous expression is to words-and-sentences

The spontaneous expression is not explicitly a description. Therefore even if the subject-predicate is the standard form of description it is not universal. The terms of mathematics and the sciences are not always in standard-predicate form but can often be so re-written as can much spontaneous expression of feeling. It is therefore a project to determine the true level of universality of the subject predicate form

Meaning

Concepts—meaning or semantic-syntactic function; literal and non-literal functions including poetry; meaning in non-formal elements e.g. pitch, alliteration, meter; non-meaning functions, e.g., social bonding

Therefore, meaning is not essentially atomic and originates and remains in use. Which is not to say that fixed atomic—lexical—meaning is without use even if it does not tell the whole story

Speech

Concepts—speech, para-verbal language, drama-form, dramatics, music

The thought that speech and music occur in different brain areas—with or without overlap—does not imply a conceptual divide between music and speech (there is of course a conceptual distinction)

Speech is likely the first medium of language. It is not necessarily the first; perhaps there were other signs; perhaps non-spoken and spoken signs converged

Sounds, words, sentences are not entirely atomic. ‘Speaking’ atomically, there are compound words that are built up from simple words that have origin in mere expression but meaning is not originally explicitly-universally ostensive but may be functional, i.e., use based. Simple words may be derivative of expression but words, complex words, and word arrangements originate together

Speech is manifestly—temporally—linear when spoken by one person. However even though it is often actually linear it is not necessarily linear since speech may refer to speech

Language—the symbol—may now be expression and now (mental) content

Before written language, culture is maintained in practice and language memory

Context

Speech occurs in a context that may or may not set the confines of what is spoken

Para-verbal language

‘Speech’ occurs in expressive combination with various qualities of speech—rhythm, pace, volume, pitch, cadence, emphasis…—as well as gesture, drama, ‘acting’ that include facial expression

Conventionally, para-verbal language is not language. Even though drama in its various meanings and music may occur in different brain centers from conventional language and even though the concepts have distinction it does not follow that the varieties cannot fall under an interactive umbrella that we may think of as communication or Language

Therefore, a theory of language that focuses on symbolic expression may be easy to write because of the definiteness of its object. However, if regarded as complete, such theories may be misleading

Writing

Concepts—writing, recorded form, para-linguistic expression, graphic form, sculpted form, architectural form

Writing may have originally been little more than pictures; pictures may have come to signify words; the introduction of alphabet may have been selected for because of its efficiency regardless of its origin

Writing makes possible storage and communication much larger amounts of information over greater distances and times. Writing encourages self-reference—the symbolic analysis of symbolic structure and so grammar, reasoning, logic, mathematics, literature, drama, science, and philosophy

Grammar is of course not absent from original spoken language but writing encourages its formalization

Conventional grammar is perhaps dominated by representation—states of affairs including process and relation

As is seen in chapter Method, self-reference may be a source of paradox but is also a source of powerful construction—new ideas, reasoning and criticism

Written language is dissociated from context. This is strength and weakness. And, context may be introduced or created.

Writing is not inherently linear. Writing may be essentially non-linear in reasoning and mathematics forms… and, at least originally, contingently non-linear in relation to expression including art. Writing may be enhanced by art and sound

Is the distinction between writing and such para-linguistic form essential?

Recording and speaking may be combined

Symbol and icon

Icons—visual, auditory, other—are sources of iconic and non-iconic elements of languages. Languages originate in icon and icon-less signs as symbols… or in other languages

A balance between language and imagery provides balance and integration

Too much formal language ability at an expense of imagery may pass for appearance of intelligence but may hinder thought

Summary, conclusions, further development

The boundary of language is not definite even if particular brain centers are devoted to natural language. If we take the boundary of language to be defined by natural languages, synthesis with general imagination and intuition is required for the most complete and realistic thought

These comments are not against specialist developments, e.g. algebraic language; such formal developments are powerful extensions of language; however, for their greatest power they require integration with language in its broad sense—the sense that is not limited by the indefinite boundaries

The broad sense of language corresponds to the integration of pure and applied metaphysics, of intuition and formal representation

Future versions of the narrative may further investigate the concept of language and its relation to or place in understanding at center and edge

Organization and transaction

economic, work, political, legal, discovery, knowledge, ethics, value, transmission, learning, education, university, school, archival, play, tradition, church, performance

Some definitions and explanations

This list of definitions of the Institutions—even when supplemented by definitions scattered throughout the narrative—is not intended to be exhaustive

People and groups

Individual—While the Individual and the self are definite biological and psychological entities, the ‘Individual’ has a social component that varies in fact and concept from one culture to another. This leads some to believe that the ‘self’ is a mere ‘social construct’

Role—Among cultures roles vary along two continuums or continua: the degree of universality versus particularity to specific cultures and the degree of flexibility versus rigidity. Although infant, child, adult, man, and women have a degree of universality some features that define, e.g. ‘man’ or ‘woman’ or ‘child’ are culture-specific

Actual group—a definite group of people, e.g. a family; of course the members of a family change over time

Virtual group—defined primarily by place and function

‘Actual’ groups may have virtual aspects as in the occasional incorporation of persons not included under the normal idea of family; and ‘virtual’ groups may have an actual component—a market that meets on particular days and has no fixed buyers or sellers may have, e.g. a designated organizer

Culture

In defining a widely used and important concept such as culture we face a number of difficulties. The first is that the word will have a number of distinct uses that may be somewhat related and therefore confused. This confusion may be a source of difficulty but is an inessential difficulty that could be resolved by using different terms

It is not as though the laws of physics or even psychology associates any fixed meaning of the word and all that remains is to elucidate the meaning

Rather the problem is to identify an intended meaning and then focus on what is perhaps the best expression of that meaning. That task is of course not independent of the nature of—human—society. Therefore, if culture is to be an element of society the clarification of its nature will proceed in parallel with the understanding of the nature of society and any other concepts with which those understandings may overlap

To keep matters simple—open for future learning and analysis—we use ‘culture’ in the important sense of Edward Burnett Tylor, 1832-1917, ‘Culture, or civilization, taken in its broad, ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.” This may be simplified to regarding culture as the sum total of knowledge and habit of a society—where belief, art, morals and so on are regarded as modes andor grades of knowledge

We leave the concept at this stage with the recognition of course that this relatively specific form remains open—intrinsically and to more recent thought

The culture of the institution

The meaning of ‘culture of the institution’ arises when a society is sufficiently flexible in its arrangements—manifest e.g., by flux—andor to the extent that there may be reflection on social arrangement, a culture of the institution may arise. This may be labeled the philosophy andor science of the Institution and may be also the subject of empirical and mathematical-scientific analysis

Religion

The ideas of religion and science are important in this narrative. Science is considered elsewhere. Religion will be considered briefly here; religion is related but of course not identical to myth; therefore ‘myth’ will be part of the discussion

It is important to distinguish the practice and institution of religion from the concept… and also from the ideal of religion

Most ‘definitions’ of religion relate it to what is mundane—to this common / ordinary world. The concern of religion appears to be that of another rather ideal realm that gives significance to this life

The institution of religion has come under criticism and attack for various ideological and other reasons. The ideological include the belief in what has no support in reality or the empirical; practical criticisms include its opiate effect (Marx) and the abuses of various kinds. Therefore there are today many who distinguish spirituality from religion; they may have affinity for some motives to religion—the true nature of the Universe, meaning and so on—but would distance themselves from the institution

The ‘great religions’ fall into two groups; those originating in the harsh desert of the Middle East—the relatively harsh Abrahamic religions, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; and the religions of the tropics—Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and so on that are perhaps more tolerant, more open to plurality, less the occasion for militancy but still of course not without abuse. It is not thought that the two groups are exhaustive

The religions are generally not unitary structures even though there different elements—metaphysical, historical, moral, practical, and the mystical that is directed at inner-outer union—are bound by common themes and myths

Hunter-gatherer religions are rather different from the religions of the ‘agriculturalists’ (the ‘great religions.’) A characteristic difference is that the religion of the hunter-gatherer, regardless of its literal character, tends to tie the individual and the group to the environment. The images and the norms of the hunter-gatherer mythologies include a language for the elements of their environment and prescriptions that, even if not altogether effective, have an element of efficiency

While the ‘great religions’ have efficiency or adaptedness in their moral side—no claim is made regarding the degree or nature of the effectiveness or the significance of such—the unmooring of the agriculturist from the environment appears to have led to metaphysical systems in these religions that are detached from the immediate environment and that may therefore assume Universal form which in turn opens up the possibility of Universal sense as well as Universal absurdity

Absurdity and militancy are two criticisms of the modern religions today—especially of Christianity and Islam

However, religion—especially fundamentalism—has been rising and is therefore impractical to ignore. If we do not ignore religion we may resist the impulse to institutional purism and, first, open dialog and, second, be open to the positive meanings even in the absurd (it is of course not being said that even the fundamentalist canon is empty of value)

There is a variety of reasons, including the political, that religion and other institutions of culture, e.g. science and philosophy including metaphysics are relatively insular

Recall though the argument of the present narrative that metaphor is on the way to being literal; this is not an argument against the poetic uses of language but simply an argument that the representational uses will be the ultimate form of metaphor (we are not blind to the thought that the literal / metaphorical distinction is not absolute)

Now consider the following concern. If science and philosophy and religion are all about truth, can they be altogether insular? Now consider the follow concept

Ideal Religion is the relating of individuals and groups to the entire Universe, their means of knowing and being and negotiating, and involves all modes of knowing and being…

These thoughts are continue in the next two sections The limits of institutional religion and The future of the idea of spirit…

The limits of institutional religion

The section Religion has discussions of the concept and institution of religion; the discussion of the concept included that of an ideal form. Since the issue here is Normal limits, this section addresses institutions and the sub-ideal conceptions of religion

An obvious limits of religion concern the archaic cosmologies

However, the functions include the meaning and the non-meaning. Meaning includes the non-literal as in ‘rising from the dead’ pointing to our limited understanding of death. The non-meaning include social bonding which may be enhanced by literal meaning

The liberal religions continue to struggle with meaning and inherited limits even of metaphorical and symbolic limitation

As an institution whose function is symbolic andor instrumental, religion has clear limitation

The future of the idea of spirit or the ideational form

A subtitle for the section might be—The role of reason, politics and economics in the acceptance of ideational form

An ideational form is a system of ideas that represent the world or part of it; or they assist perhaps even metaphorically in negotiating the world

Discussion here presumes the earlier discussions, first of religion generally and then of the limits of institutional religion

The general role of faith is discussed in chapter Method

Science and religion are examples of ideational form in that they provide a picture of the world or, at least, the base for a partial picture

The mesh of modern economics and ideational forms, e.g. secular humanism, is such that a return to a religious paradigm of the past is difficult to imagine. This difficulty—but not impossibility—is compounded in view of the immense improvement of the political and economic status of the common individual

The future of the ‘ideational form’ may be difficult to anticipate but Universal metaphysics emphasizes the practical necessity of its future evolution… of course the Universal metaphysics requires further realizations of ideational form that may be remote from contemporary thought but whose best expression may be realized in perception

This evolution will be likely though flexibly tied to the evolution of political-economics; truth requires reason but its spread is interwoven with political-economics—the understandings of immediate and ultimate truth may impinge upon one another

The world is not divided into two ‘spheres,’ the sacred and the ideal or ideational and the mundane that includes the political and the economic

A past form is religion. A major present form may be called secular humanism which is some amalgam of science, especially, scientific method and approach, an emphasis on modern economic values that is balanced by an emphasis on human values; elements of religion—taken metaphorically rather than literally; and perhaps some elements of ‘spirituality’

Although the future form may be labeled ‘Religion’ or ‘Ideal form,’ it is not clear or known what the extension of these ideas will be or what the future names will be. It is not clear to what extent the ideas will be pure and to what extent in interaction with action and transformation

This form which has no necessary limits may be called ‘Religion,’ ‘Science,’ ‘secular humanism,’ … or may be so far unnamed

It is commonly thought that the primary source of the ‘demise’ of religion is the ascent of science and reason. Of course, science and reason are not absolute and as we now know in the early years of the twenty first century, religion is not at all dead. Yet there is a fundamental change in attitudes toward religion and in the place of religion in day-to-day life. In Western Europe, the place of religion is at its lowest ebb. On the other hand, there is a new fundamentalism in many places in the world and in a significant portion of these it is a militant fundamentalism. However, even the ascent of the new fundamentalism, religion is not so much woven into daily life as it is an instrument—a refuge, a political instrument…

The reason for the demise of religion as interwoven into daily life is not directly the ascent of reason. It lies, instead in economics and politics. In the new economics and politics, i.e. roughly since the middle ages, the freedom of information and reason has become instrumental. Older economies and politics were bound by tradition and authority. In the newer, the instruments of economics and politics are significantly free and distributed; of course such change is never absolute but even the politically and economically powerful gain by the new arrangements. The new arrangements make traditional belief far less relevant to daily life and this is perhaps the immediate cause of the demise of tradition that include religion. Of course, the new arrangements require reason and information to be immanent in society and are significantly dependent on reason for the transformation. However, it is not the case, as is commonly thought, that the demise of traditional belief is primarily the result of the explicit assault of reason on tradition

Organization and transaction

Economic—Arises on account of scarcity and the institutionalization or pure economics over and above traditional arrangements—the science and art of feasibility or the positive; and the desirable or the Normative

Political—The arrangement of group decision and action

Legal—Coding and implementation whether by value, incentive or—attempt at—enforcement of desirable and efficient institutions and actions including the coding and negative enforcement of the undesirable; where possible we prefer explanations to rules, incentive to enforcement—this is both a value and an estimate of what efficient even though it is admitted that the value colors the present meaning of efficiency… practical persons do what they do but the scholar who praises enforcement is here thought of as the ultimate perverted sycophant to the power broker and his hired bullies. May distinguish ‘civil’ and ‘criminal’

Learning—e.g. the University—Discovery, Transmission regarding Knowledge and other cultural roles, Preservation of learning and culture; play, performance and action are lesser functions

Discovery—New knowledge of existing worlds and knowledge of ‘new’ worlds

Performance—Ritual modeling of culture and world, reality play—learning and creating and preparing, ritual in which the symbol enters the unconscious and the body

The network of institutions

The purpose of this section is to show the logical completeness of a system of institutions. This begins by asking ‘what are societies needs?’ Of course, an estimation of needs may be ad hoc. How can we rise above the mere ad hoc—it is permissible to begin with it—into the realm of necessity? We distinguish survival and continuation needs from meaning; survival and continuation relate to equilibrium and process in interaction with the local context; meaning concerns the approach to the universal (the two realms are not entirely distinct and while the first supports the latter sustains.) That is a logical cover of all being. And the two are sustained by ‘culture;’ culture is the common system, implicit and explicit, of knowing and communication

It is necessary only to see that the system cover all the stated elements—culture itself, and the institutions concerning context and the universal. This is manifest in the division according to people and groups, culture, organization and transaction

Ethics, value

It is clear that whatever ethics is, it concerns choices in cases that options are available. The existence and necessity of degrees of freedom of choice has been demonstrated and explained in the section Freedom. The consistency of the idea of structure and change in an indeterministic Universe and the fact of the indeterministic Universe have been demonstrated in the metaphysics. While reconciling choice and determinism, which requires something like explaining choice away, may be an interesting exercise it—apart from its ideological-political motives—is nothing more than an exercise (except of course that the presence of such arguments is tolerated due to freedom and that those arguments are a spur to refining the argument regarding choice and indeterminism in balance with structure)

In Western thought there is a context of human behavior that is labeled ‘moral’ and, more generally, ‘value.’ The latter includes aesthetics

When this context is separated from the whole of human activity questions such as the concern with deontology versus teleology in ethics—the ethics of right versus the ethics of ends or consequentialism. Essentialism tends to reign and it is either deontology or consequentialism. Of course among the professionals the original question of the isolation of a moral context tends to be left untouched. In the absence of metaphysical clarity the nature of ethics and its contact with other contexts must ever languish in degrees of vague and vaguer clarity

We have seen that ethics and other contexts of human mind—and being—are not separated even though there are proximate distinctions. In thinking of value we explicitly relinquish the habit of substance thinking; morals will not be regarded as a separate institution; there will be an ontology of morals and values but it will not be an ontology that is distinct from Universal ontology—i.e. meta-ethics is not a distinct study even though it may be a study; we will think of ethical concerns in a Universal context; we may be guided by prior ethics but not by its essentialism; we will not be committed to the either or of deontology or consequentialism or to the separation of ethics from e.g. economics; the problems of choice will require balance between ‘warm hearts and cool minds’ but in a context that lies within contours of Universality

Civilization

The Identity and continuity of—all—societies and cultures; a Universal matrix; the analogy of Islands rising above an Ocean that are connected below

Concepts—civilization, society, identity, continuity, connection, history, animal, extra-cosmological

History, Design, and Policy

Note that history and its significance are discussed in chapter Being

The state of civilization—an ongoing concern

Modes—impurity, i.e. overlap and ‘interaction’ of institutions

Assessment—the world today—opportunities and problems (and the nature and problem of opportunity and problem and such thinking)

Solutions—

(See Journey in being-politics.html)

…

Human endeavor and its normal limits

In this section we review the mass paradigms of behavior and thought that have some governance over mass and daily human behavior. One goal is the justification of such paradigms on a limited and practical basis. A second goal is to review their mutual basis with economics—and therefore, via adaptation, their hold and, importantly, the hold that paradigmatic thought has on individuals generally. This hold is of course not Universal and therefore the balance of the ‘liberal’ and the ‘conservative;’ the good of change—since change is good at times and may be necessary for survival at others—in balance with the good of conserving an already adapted system—even if only partially adapted systems

The mass paradigms are examples of Normal human behavior and reveal Normal limits

Another purpose of this section is to show the intrinsic limitations of the mass paradigms. We have seen from the Universal metaphysics that the paradigms must be limited and, of course, common sense suggests probable limits even while it suggests some adherence to a limited system (if it isn’t broken don’t fix it.) However, even in terms of their internal logic the mass paradigms have limits. By showing these limits I intend to nudge individuals from their unconscious acceptance of paradigm into a conscious awareness of paradigm and so into receptivity to the picture of this narrative which is not altogether different from the paradigms but harbors them as degrees of approximation over limited domains. Thinking this way provides a bridge from paradigm to the Universal metaphysics without the necessity to destroy what is useful in the paradigm

These observations permit a comment on the ‘truth’ of systems of faith. We know that religion is subject to abuse and that part of the abuse is dependent on the sway of the absurd; we know that religion may be an opiate but not that it is the opiate. We are also facing the inertia of the institution. However, literal truth is not the only truth and, further, the world presents us with paradox. Eliminating the faith systems does not eliminate paradox. It is probably true that individuals come in different grades of requiring literal accounts as guide and to this fact is appended the further fact that not everyone has the luxury of intelligence-time for analysis which, in the end, is a life-preoccupation. Therefore while I may feel conflict about the character of faith systems I also feel some degree of irresolution regarding their final value

Theme—Relation of Journey | in being to the—common—human endeavor

Theme—The common human endeavor and its limits. Paradigms of being and knowing, institutions including the individual, significance—esoteric, common

The common human endeavor and its limits. A priori, ultimate limits of the human endeavor are not given. There is today a common though not universal picture within which all mythic and rational schemes are evaluated. What is this picture? It has been emerging at least since the dawn of the enlightenment and, at first, in philosophical thought it concerned how we think of the world—of reality and then, under the growing influence of science it concerned what we think of the world—it’s extent in time and space and its constituents. The combined picture of the how and the what is some incomplete marriage of rational thought and science

Rationalism. ‘Rationalism’ has more than one sense. In a limited but widely used sense, rationalism is the position that the criterion of truth is intellectual and deductive but not sensory or, perhaps less restrictively, that the main criterion of truth is intellectual. In a less limited and diffuse sense, rationalism is any view that appeals to reason as a source of knowledge or justification. Here, rationalism is used in the latter—enlightenment—sense. We may label the common view arising out of standard philosophical thought—admittedly a vague term—and science common rationalism and will hereafter in the immediate discussion call this rationalism. The limits of rationalism on the philosophical, reflective, or intellectual side are the limits of such thought as it is practiced in the dominant paradigms of today. Here we refer to the analytic and Continental traditions. These are analyzed later in discussing Philosophy and metaphysics in the chapter Contribution. The main conclusion of the criticism in that section is that modern western thought is prematurely critical; western thought has rejected real metaphysics for inadequate reasons, i.e. the failure of prior metaphysical systems and the ascent of science. From the failure of prior metaphysics we cannot conclude the failure of all real metaphysics. The present narrative has developed a Universal metaphysics and it is shown that it is both ultimate and empirical; the modern critical attitude is a premature generalization combined with a hasty but inadequate analysis of what it is to be empirical and Logical… Discussion now turns to the question of the ascent of science

Nature of the physical world. Under the influence of Newton the world came to be viewed as mechanistic and this is retained through the twentieth century revolutions in physics although under quantum theory there is some relief from strict mechanism. It remains however, that under a quantum paradigm there is no exception to it and it is not at all clear that the quantum and relativistic paradigms are sufficient to explain all that we see in the world—cosmos, life, and mind. In physical cosmology—from ‘big-bang’ theory—the universe is seen to be roughly 13 billion years old and an equal or greater amount of light years in extent (greater because of the expansion of space itself.) Speculations on bubble universes suggest perhaps much more but still more of the same. There is a lower dimension on sizes or distances and times defined by the limits of experiment and of theory that we can see or currently know on grounds of physical science. However, the fact that the current laws of physical science recognize these intrinsic limits to the laws has no implication that these are limits of being—of the universe. This is one limit of the common paradigm; yet the picture of the physical universe built up from science is taken as an essential part of the common paradigmatic view

Nature of the living world including mind and behavior. Factual knowledge of life is restricted to this world. Theoretical knowledge is primarily that of evolutionary biology and secondarily from functional biology. It seems that these modes provide the best explanation of the origins and nature of the living world including human being and any material foundation of mind. It is clear that the explanations are an immense improvement over what comes from myth and religion. That is not to say that there is no ultimate or metaphorical truth to myth and religion but that myth and religion are not proximate explanations at all. Under myth and religion, complexity—life, thought and behavior—are replaced by or reduced to something of unknown complexity: God. Under science, life thought and behavior are reduced to simple matter and law. Are the explanations complete with regard to life on Earth? They are our best explanations and may be taken as tentatively and practically final but it is clear that not all elements of life are explained, especially mind and behavior; rather it may be paradigmatic that that explanation may be regarded as having been accomplished. Are the explanations complete with regard to life in the entire universe? Because scientific explanation has made inroads into all realms—physical, living, and mental—it finally became commonly accepted in the twentieth century that science provided the boundaries of a common and dominant but not universal picture. Additionally, there are arguments that if we are far from unique, that any intelligent life elsewhere would have already communicated with us. These arguments of course rest on the common picture of the physical universe with regard to extent, nature and kind. Even under these assumptions other civilizations may have had reasons to not communicate with us. Further, even under the paradigmatic physical picture, it is not given that our knowledge of life is definitive. However, it is consistent with physical science that the universe may be infinitely larger than is revealed in physical science. Therefore, only under the tendency to see only what science sees—i.e. under the common paradigm, is it possible to conclude that the common picture defined in its limits by current science has practically reasonable elements but cannot be regarded as rationally necessary. It is important to point out that while the Universal metaphysics shows positively the immensely limited nature of the common paradigm the thrust here has been to show the intrinsic limits of the common paradigm and so to loosen its psychological though not rational sway as psychological preparation for alternate pictures

Human being. What is the picture of human being under science? It is not completely defined. Pictures of the nature of human freedom and the nature of meaning-as-significance that emerge from psychology and philosophy of mind are conditioned by the pictures of the universe and of life from the physical and biological sciences. From the physical sciences, some though not all scientists see the human world as a lonely accident in a material universe and although the thought is not universal it conditions the paradigmatic picture that has been emerging. Biological science tends to confirm a mechanistic view of human being. Mainstream twentieth academic psychology has not focused on a full picture of human being; the focus has been conditioned by a view of science that demands that only observables be admitted into discussion. Psychoanalysis has addressed the nature of human being—here, however, there is no full picture of human being and human limits. Especially under Freud, human freedom is seen as quite limited. However, while Freud’s insights may be profound in their sphere of application, human being is not a simple machine and therefore it is entirely consistent that immense freedom and immense limits should stand side by side

Secular humanism. While science enables a common practical but by no means rationally demonstrated boundary to the extent of the universe in age, size, and variety, the picture is generally regarded by those who accept it—except the most hard headed of positivists—as incomplete with regard to human meaning and the richness of human culture. Secular humanism is a label for the multi-faceted building up of a rich picture on the bare scaffolding of the common bare bones paradigm under science. The picture under secular humanism has explicit components but is and cannot be entirely explicit and is interwoven with our world of cultural, political, economic and other values. Although secular humanism is not the only possible paradigm that lives within the outer bounds of modern science it is perhaps the most common and broadest one in the Western World. Despite its immense appeal it is limited within its own sphere of influence by the limits of its envelope—the scientific side of the paradigm—and its own version of rationalism that accepts the scientific picture even though that picture is at most a practical picture within its domain of application which may itself be immensely limited. It might be argued, however, that the picture from science is the best picture that we have. (Universal metaphysics shows its immense limits but we are here not rationally appealing to that realm of pure necessity)

Myth and religion. Although displaced by the common paradigm under science, myth and religion continue to have immense influence. Of course the metaphorical and other non-literal and non-lexical-meaning functions of religion and myth and other literature are manifest and immense and secular humanism may use such meanings in building up its picture. The common paradigm shows the limits of the common mythic and religious pictures within the realm of the scientific cosmos. That there are adherents to the major religions is testament to the combined force of tradition including social bonding, and, for those who have not thought out the limits of the science based paradigms, some combination of suspicion and desire for something beyond the limits of humanism. If there is something beyond secular humanism—and it is consistent with its rational side even without recourse to pure necessity i.e. Universal metaphysics that there is—then we can see myth and religion as an attempt to see that beyond. Therefore the main criticism of modern religion must be that it builds up, as far as the literal / metaphysical side is concerned, a picture based on a story account that and then defines that picture to be the truth. Therefore, there is a disservice in that we replace the immense possibility of truth with an immensely limited but reassuring picture. We should no longer be defining God by the pictures of Islam or Christianity, by the speculative pantheism of the Vedanta or of the nihilism of Buddhism; instead we should, again setting pure necessity aside, approach the possibility of infinite openness and infinite being without a priori conception

Science and belief. The question arises why, if it they are not rationally-scientifically-empirically necessary, the science based paradigm is taken as truth within whose boundaries all objects of thought must lie. First, of course, science does provide best explanation within the ‘material’ realm (but that realm is the realm defined by science itself.) Certainly, the common rational-scientific picture-paradigm is immensely practical; but here it is not the merely practical that is of concern. The scientific positivists—current science defines reality—therefore hold to a strict scientific paradigm. Second, if we forget the immense limits revealed by reflection and science itself, it is quite possible to think that because it is our most useful practical paradigm, current positive science extends into all reaches of being even though it does not provide a full account of being. Therefore, there is an element of belief among those who hold it for this reason. However, it is not an entirely conscious element of belief. In an earlier era when science had not yet displaced religious metaphysics that may have had sway for want of something universal and better (and also for political-economic reasons,) common belief may have adhered to the religious picture because it was immanent in the culture of the time. Although the underpinnings of the beliefs are different, they have in common that they are held because they are immanent in a culture and because their lack of rational necessity is either suppressed or shielded from common view

Common and experimental endeavor

Concepts—common, norm, adaptedness, stability, adaptability, experimental, adapting, decay, competition, changing circumstance, construction, creation

An issue—tension between adaptedness and adapting

The categories

The categories—Object and Humor; the Objects—natural, social, psychological; and Humor—regarding potential objects and existential concerns have been discussed earlier and are mentioned here for their relevance

Modes of being and knowing and their limits

Concepts—animal, primal holism, myth, legend, Religion, religion, meaning function, non-meaning function, Science, science, technology, secular humanism, literature, sacred text, drama, ritual, music, art, architecture, sacred form and space, sacred ritual, thought, philosophy, metaphysics, scripture, unnamed ideational form

The animal

The animal ‘is’ its contingent or Normal possibilities and limits

Primal holism—early religion-myth, and science

Insofar as these are flowing, limits are tacit

Religion / religion

The limits are discussed earlier in the section The limits of institutional religion

Science / science

Current science has limits

Physics and physical cosmology defines their own limits—at the boundaries of the very small, the simple—and the complex, the distant, and the remote in time. The Universal metaphysics shows that these limits are indeed infinitely limiting; it also shows the limitations of biology in relation to other necessary life forms and their science. Modern psychology is clearly limited with regard to the necessary transformations of Identity

Essential limits of science

Recognizing that our understanding of the nature of science and its processes may change, it follows that any essential limits of science may well be essential limits of human being. There are, however, no necessary limits of human being—even though there are Normal limits

Secular humanism

There are two kinds of limits. The first is general—secular humanism comes nowhere near satisfying all Religious function including the spiritual (which in isolation is rather odd and limited.) Since secular humanism draws from science, a second kind of limit derives from the limits of science

Future of the ideational form

… Discussed under ‘culture’ and just after religion above

Journey

Concepts—journey, ambition, goal, desirability, feasibility, dynamics of being, transformation in idea, transformation in being-identity

A journey in being

Theme—An individual journey. It’s nature; it’s elements including directed and undirected search; search and being; ideas, living, nature, people, society, the universal; multiple paths, some abandoned of which some picked up later; adventure; ends, goals, ambitions always in question and subject to change according to learning and experience. Particulars of an individual journey. Exploration of intellect, feeling, ambition, body, and nature merge in ideas; ideas merge with individual being; merges with action; merges with transformation; merges with being… Note that this hints at ‘spirit’ and related ideas; however, we do not use the term at this point; this is not because we reject ‘spirit’ or inner being of self-world but because the distinction of ‘body’ and ‘world’ on one side and ‘spirit’ on another is one of the way in which we see rather than a distinction in the world

This discussion and Introduction complement each other

Journey

The journey began with ideas but grew—explained above, detailed below in An individual journey—to include transformation

The transformation is in being and identity. While the ideas show the necessity of realization of Universal Identity in the individual, transformation is on the path to—seeks—that Universal Identity in itself as well as in the present

Two meanings of ‘journey’

The two meanings elaborated in the introduction are the individual and the universal journeys

Concept and character of the journey

Journey—the way from the immediate, from limits to the ultimate—transformation in ideas and identity

Transformation is essential and includes ideas and being-identity

Ideas, Identity and Identities are not distinct

The journey is instrumental—the present does not explicitly contain the entire future. Journey is also life—truth is not forced, there is an eternal present moment

A principle of the journey

In developing the metaphysics in chapters Intuition though Worlds, numerous doubts are stated and resolutions given; and yet doubt remains as can be seen in the responses and in the writer’s being

The principle—without a journey… without the journey, without action, without transformation, being is incomplete, a shadow…

It may be added that a life that is concerned strictly and only with action is impossible but were it possible it would be empty. There is a minimum of ideation that gives action its character over and above mere physical process and it is perhaps true that the life of greatest enjoyment and perhaps even of value is one in which idea and action give significance to each other

Origin, development, and evolution

In the beginning my journey was perhaps implicit, perhaps locate only in unconscious. Ambition, means and goals were unclear and at most vague. What is definite that the sense of endeavor, excitement and commitment have been present as long as I remember—they have been constants even though the intensity of feeling has seen ebb and flow

The journey has seen transitions (1) private, personal, and local to shared and universal; (2) from unspecified ambition to clear focus, ambitions and goals; (3) from passion with ideas to the inclusion of transformation; (4) from limited understanding of ideas, possibilities and necessities to a clear vision of the occasional Universal Identity but not to the exclusion of negatives

The process has been fueled by interest and passion that may be metaphorically described as ‘omnivorous.’ The general interest did not exclude detailed, formal, or rigorous concern and developments of ideas. The result has been an immense store of ideas that is more than mere collection—is characterized by articulation and form that derives from imagination and criticism

The ideas themselves have visited many formal and informal points of view in searching for what is real and has finally transcended the ‘point of view’ without being alienated from it

A brief history of ambitions

It is manifest in the narrative so far that the journey has neither been linear nor simply incremental. There have been a number of threads—they do not all begin at the same point or continue on indefinitely. In the beginning ambition was vague though passionate and knowledge and understanding limited. Ambition fueled discovery and the resulting understanding and knowledge enabled greater and more definite ambition. This interwoven process has an incremental and a saltational side

In the early learning my conceptual capability grew. I learned and understood more from science, from the history of thought. Confidence grew. A secular picture of the universe grew and formed a playground for the confident but not uncritical working of the conceptual capability. Understanding and ambition grew together in increments

At some midpoint the questions ‘What is the greatest realization of being?’ ‘What fraction of that realization is open to human being?’ became possible. These thoughts occurred around the same time that it became possible to conceive of an ultimate metaphysics—the metaphysics

It was not clear what these ideas meant or whether they had meaning. It was perhaps naivety that permitted the contemplation of questions whose meaning may not have been clear. A sterner and more critically oriented thinker may have been prevented by the critical side from further consideration of the question. Such a thinker may have even garnered a band of followers who might patrol human thought for wayward thinkers. A less sanguine thinker may have given up for lack of success over more than a few years—it was about five years from the explicit thought of a final metaphysics to the crucial insight that made it possible. There are in some ways no thinkers more critical than I; degree of criticality is perhaps not as significant as balance between criticism and imagination—without imagination thought is impoverished and there is nothing to criticize… ideas remain stillborn and the thinker lives in a barren ideascape; but without criticism and the will to synthesis, ideas remain as gruel—an occasional grain in a thin soup

A key thought regard this problem of meaning emerged later—A question must often wait for an answer to acquire clarity of meaning. Lack of meaning is in itself insufficient reason to not search for answers; if merely critical and merely speculative philosophy are cursed, this is the curse of the critical. Naivety combined with sanguinity is occasionally a good thing for when I set out to investigate the possibility of ultimate metaphysics I was not clear about what that might mean and I was not in explicit possession of the little piece of wisdom about meanings of questions sometimes lying in their answers

A quantum or saltational leap—when the Universal metaphysics was finally achieved: from seed to crystalline form occupied about six years from 2002—the meanings of the questions became clear and their explicit answers realized (in the senses and degrees detailed in chapters Metaphysics through Cosmology)

I spoke earlier of maintaining a sense of wonder and excitement about being even in the light of this ultimate of discoveries. How is that possible? It is perhaps firstly so because it is in my constitution—probably in human constitution even if sometimes suppressed or tired—that the loveliness of a tree silhouetted in morning mist and the loveliness of the ankle of my favorite girl remains ever lovely. Second, my confidence in the Universal metaphysics is ever balanced by a doubting that does not allow the ideas to become stale… that does not allow complacence. Finally, the metaphysics itself reveals its completeness and absolute Logic with regard to depth as it reveals its ever openness to variety and its intimate and remote beauties and horrors, its occasional and temporary if seemingly infinite entrapments and adventures and excitements

A second leap—the occasion for this chapter and occasion for continuing passion and wonder and ever freshness—has been the transition from the focus on ideas to the inclusion of the focus on experiment and transformation. The idea of a journey in being has, I now become explicitly aware, long been part of my ambition. I have been passionate about ideas but it was never an exclusive passion; there has been a parallel passion with human and animal being (and people) as well as this passion with nature. The significance of being in nature, fueled originally and on by awe and loveliness, and its relation to ideas and realization of being have slowly grown in my understanding. When understanding of the essential incompleteness of ideas became formal, the way of nature emerged as one way to (catalyze?) transformations and experiments in being

The origin of the focus on being

The sources of the focus on being are twofold

First, there is the suggestion from the tradition that being transcends traditional approaches to foundation, e.g. theories of substance and form

Second, being is immediate rather than remote; therefore being is not another abstract idea visited in the search for foundation of understanding the world in something else

Finally, experiments with substance and so on revealed not merely there undesirability but also the inability to found an understanding based on them; and, simultaneously, it was possible in ‘being’ to find a foundation that was not in something else but still allowed foundation (which is in contradiction to the philosophical canon)

The Void and the origin of the Universal metaphysics

The void—if I could work out a system in which the universe—all being—is equivalent to the void (this might be an atemporal foundation even of the temporal) but how? The key was to focus away from the universe and on the void and its properties. If the universe is all being the void must be complete absence of being, i.e. not even the quantum vacuum… and not even law. The key to understanding the insight regarding law is to recognize that while law is the result of what is read, what is read itself is of being, i.e., Law… and the rest is history

The journey in being-identity

My interest has not at all been in ideas alone. However, toward the end of the developments of the present system of ideas, I realized that while ideas inspire and are the place of appreciation of realization they are not complete realization; they are among the means—the instruments of negotiation—but are not the exclusive ‘ends’

An individual journey

The discovery of ideas and approach to transformation have been nonlinear in the extreme. There have been numerous lines of experiment and where there has been success it has taken time for the fact and nature of the success to become clear. A number of ‘paradigms’ of understanding—from 1986 to 2002—based in the idea of substance have been tried—materialism, evolutionary and process metaphysics from '86 till '91, idealism including its atomic and Hegelian forms from ’92 till '95, materialism—again—in the study of mind in '96 and '97, a metaphysics—a neutral monism—that equated matter and idea but without commitment to substance from '99 to 2000, and finally a form of voidism that emphasized an intuitive concern with being starting in 2001, were all attempted—via construction of systems and not mere tinkering—before a final search for an understanding that would yield temporality and local substance and structure but not be based in time or substance or structure including atomism

The ‘final’ search, discussed in further detail below, was made possible as a result of an insight of 2002 and the development of the insight in interaction with the system of studies, researches and ideas till that point have occupied a number of years in the intervening period through today—2009. That this search would be final in any sense was of course not known in advance and it is only the outcome of the system that shows and demonstrates the finality and in what sense it is final—the finality is with regard to depth and not variety thus showing that the greatest adventures in ideas and being are not in depth but in variety and that this variety and therefore the adventure is never ending

What was learnt from the discarded paradigms continues to be useful in power of suggestion and local application. The foregoing directed study has occurred in interactive parallel with other activities—first ongoing varied and partially directed study into the variety that is the history of human thought and then the integration of ideas and life via experiments with psyche, travels into the natural world, experiments in social relations

Some representative essays are Evolution and Design, 1987—an approach from evolution and partial metaphysical materialism… contains an exploration of levels of being and mind; Metaphysics and the Problems of Consciousness, 1996-1998—an early exploration of mind and consciousness; Being, mind and the absolute, 1998-1999—an exploration of forms of atomic and absolute idealism… and an analysis of the depth to which mind reaches down into the body in the form of the ‘unconscious;’ Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness, 1999—later treatment of mind and consciousness with a then up to date literature review; Kinds of knowledge—an early analysis of what I would now call the modes of perception (including affect) and judgment or reasoning from the data of perception. The essays on being that follow shortly include vastly improved treatments of evolution, mind, consciousness and the problem of substance

In parallel with these investigations based in substance—though not quite at their beginning—two ideas arose that were to prove fundamental to understanding. First was the idea of being that arose somewhere in a semiconscious region of my thought as a result of reflection, reading and other exposure. Although my use of being came to be definite it initially stood for something indefinite in its reference—the absence of a rush to define permitted meaning to emerge; the early but still explicit tinkering with ‘being’ began around 1997-98. Being is a theme in Western thought—from Aristotle and earlier to current thought—especially modern Continental thought. Later, being would be understood as simplicity itself—a simplicity that omits but does not suppress the complexities of detail (and this is a source of the power of the concept.) Initially though what recommended the idea of being was that unlike substance it is not specified in advance of study and this is also a—related—source of its power. The question ‘What is being—what is its essence?’ led intuitively to the second idea that perhaps being is equivalent to the Void or absence of being. Of course the idea of being stands against the idea of essence but so does the Void—especially as its concept evolved in my thought

Early essays on being, precursors to the present essay, include Journey in Being, 2003—the first version that contains a version of the fundamental principle and some glimmers of what was to come but limited and uncut; some collections of thoughts, rough but valuable in showing emerging form—Journey in Being - New Ideas, 2003-2005… Journey in Being, 2005; Journey in Being - whereof one cannot speak, 2004 and its preliminary version also of 2004—the present form emerges in clear relief; Journey in Being-New World, 2006—the study of cosmology is formalized, much older studies of mind are incorporated to build up a picture of the elements of human mind, the study of society-culture-ethics takes form; Metaphysics-A Journey in Being, 2007—deepening of the study of the logic of the metaphysics, Logic, Objects, Substance and its non-viability, human being, the nature of the journey and many other topics; Journey in Being, 2008—not a finished version the diamond is no longer uncut; other versions of 2008 that introduce a further foundation of metaphysics and grounding in intuition and that further introduce the estimation of modern and historical paradigms of perception and judgment—Version 1, 2008… Version 2, 2008… and Version 3, 2008. The present version continues to enhance insight, bring new studies into the fold, sculpt the form of the essay; especially important is the improved understanding of Intuition… and of the Universal and necessary forms of experience as framing understanding, the journey which are able to see the work of Kant and Heidegger in context, to see their important and suggestive insights… and blind spots—usually the result of being at a certain place in the history of ideas and taking the corresponding insight as definitive—and to see such work as milestones on the path to the ultimate

OLE link below to HISTORICAL SOURCES OF THE VOID AND THE METAPHYSICS.DOC

Starting many years ago, perhaps as early as 1985, based at first I think on the possible equivalence of the Universe to a zero energy state, there occurred a glimmer of possibility—the idea that the Universe is equivalent to the Void—which leads to the Universal metaphysics. The historical sources of the idea and significance of the Void are manifold and include modern science; the thought of Leibniz, Hume, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger—refer to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Nothingness for recent reflection on the Void. Heidegger held the problem of why there is the world rather than nothing to be the ‘fundamental problem of metaphysics (the nothingness of Sartre is psychological rather than actual;) Wittgenstein, Hume and Leibniz implicitly skirt the idea of the void in their suggestions that the only impossibilities are logical. Leibniz says this explicitly; Hume and Wittgenstein say something equivalent—i.e., ‘from the truth of one atomic proposition the truth of another does not follow.’ Hume’s form omitted the word ‘atomic.’ There are species of ‘voidism’ in Judaic, Islamic, Buddhist and Indian thought. The metaphysics, which has been brought to an ultimate level, has been also been glimpsed in the history of thought e.g. by Leibniz, Hume and Wittgenstein who saw some aspect of it but provided neither demonstration nor systematic development of a whole system nor development of a system of implications (while there is some systematic development in the recent literature, there is no demonstration of the existence of the Void and there is nothing like the development in this narrative of the coherent and one and only metaphysics, its elaboration and the subsumption of the entire range of knowledge, academic disciplines, and human activity under its framework.) Similarly, aspects of the system have been imagined in Indian Philosophy, especially in Vedanta. The idea that no possibilities that remain eternally possible will go unrealized has been called the principle of plenitude by the philosopher Arthur O. Lovejoy, 1873-1962. In this formulation the meaning of ‘possible’ and ‘eternally possible’ is unclear. The principle has been referred to and deployed in the thought of Augustine, St Anselm—in ontological arguments for the existence of God, Thomas Aquinas, and Giordano Bruno. Kant believed in the principle but not in possibility of its empirical verification. In the various uses of the principle the meaning of possibility remains unspecified and there is no proof of the principle; rather its motivation is intuitive and or appeals to what it is used to prove. Thus St. Anselm argued that if nature ‘becomes’ as full as it can be demonstrates the existence of God. What has been accomplished in Journey in being? First in terms of importance is perhaps that the principle has been proved. However, preliminary to the proof is the setting up of a system that enables the proof. This includes (1) the grounding in intuition, (2) a system of elementary and necessary Objects of extreme simplicity that suggest the formulation of the principle as one statement that is part of a Universal metaphysics and that are the framework for demonstration of the Universal metaphysics. The framework includes or enables precision in the meaning of possibility, precision in the concept of demonstration and its use, development of a complete metaphysics that resolves essentially the entire catalog of problems of metaphysics and an extension of the metaphysics into the study of Objects, Cosmology, Method, disciplinary studies—the system of human knowledge, and the transformation and realization of being. However, the source of the idea of the equivalence of the Universe and the Void and the metaphysics lay, as I recollect, in the intuition of an economy and power to the idea. Not one of the historical sources provides proof of the equivalence although suggestions of plausibility—and of absurdity—abound. A search for proof of this equivalence remained at a heuristic level for a number of years—notes from 1997 contain the statement ‘ontically an evolutionary paradigm is nothing unless it allows for… the void to generate matter and then, within the paradigm, mind and consciousness’—until in 2002 the realization occurred—in the shadow of mountains—to look directly at the concept of the Void—as absence of being—rather than at the Universe as understood in science and prior metaphysics. This in turn led, via necessity and demonstration, first to the essential characteristic of the Void—the Void contains neither thing nor form nor Law and, thence, to the central and fundamental principle of metaphysics of 2004 and a vastly deeper understanding of the nature of the Universe. In turn, over 2004-2008 the ideas of substance, form, existence, experience and many others arose and—in some cases—fell as important concepts within the evolving system; particularly, substance was shown to be untenable as foundation of any adequate metaphysics as knowledge and understanding of the Universe. Form turned out to be viable but it was an immanent form and not a Platonic form or idea residing in another—ideal—world; in the last quarter of 2008 it became firmly realized that these various ‘stand-ins’ yield to a general notion of Object that starts in but becomes distanced from while including the ideas of thing and entity and is seen in a defined notion of Intuition and grounded for the individual in Experience—also used in a definite sense—which is the subject side of intuition. Although I had earlier attempted to develop metaphysics based on the intuition of the equivalence, the formal proof led to confidence and a set of conceptual tools and methods that enabled the development, elaboration and application of the Universal metaphysics

The realization that looking at the Void itself led to a metaphysics of great intuitive and formal power was immediate. The development and elaboration of the metaphysics was incremental as more and more fundamental topics within philosophy, metaphysics, and the fundamental academic disciplines were imaginatively and rigorously brought under the umbrella of the metaphysic. This process has occupied the years 2002 till the present—2009. It turns out that the Void cannot be viewed as substance and therefore the present metaphysics is not called Voidism. The present metaphysics is characterized below but it is pertinent to remark here that though it is antithetical to analytic thought—i.e., certain rather common though deviant practices of the school of analytic philosophy—it has a point of contact with the view within analysis originally suggested by Wittgenstein that explanation and understanding are to be sought in what presents rather than what lies underneath

Metaphysics was extended to the understanding of the Cosmology—2002-08, then, beginning a little later but subsequently in parallel with the study of Cosmology to Objects—2002-08 and then, in combination with local studies, to study of Normal worlds which is the content of chapter Worlds—local cosmology and human and animal being by the intersection of the metaphysics with studies of ‘human being’ that had begun as early as the decade starting 1980. The meanings of the terms evolved and with each stage of evolution the entire system might require reconstruction. Roughly eleven writings, each reconstructive, occurred before the final structure of the Metaphysics through Cosmology and Normal worlds (chapter Worlds) emerged—the idea of the Normal, elaborated in the narrative, is roughly that of a structured world with such features as more or less continuous space, time, causation, and focal sentience and whose being in a Universe of limitless actuality may seem puzzling but is in fact necessitated by the limitless or absolute indeterminism that is forced by the fundamental principle (recall the equivalence of absolute indeterminism with absolute determinism which is seemingly paradoxical but not at all paradoxical in view of the sense in which ‘determinism’ is used)

As the breadth of application of the metaphysics spread to various domains of philosophical and metaphysical study the essential elements of the metaphysics emerged in clearer and clearer relief until today—early 2009—that relief presents even as chiseled. The fundamental significance of the ideas of Universe or all being, the Void or absence of being, Difference and Dimension, and Domain or part of being emerged. The insight to focus on the Void and its properties—it exists and is the absence of being including Law—led to an understanding of what the concept of the Universe must be—it exists and contains all being including Law and other abstract Objects and is itself an Object that is efficiently understood in the Global description—and which is incompletely realized in the prior history of thought: human thought including my thought… and which incompleteness plagues the history of metaphysics and reduces it to the never ending but never realized study of sub-metaphysics in parallel with attention to minutiae whose importance—naturally in view of the absence of any mooring in the real—becomes bloated. These objects, along with certain others, became labeled ‘necessary’ which meant that they are known both precisely and empirically

The reader is here witness to the discovery and building of the metaphysical system…

From the study of the Void it emerged that what is logically possible must obtain; this view has been glimpsed by many thinkers in Western as well as Oriental thought but it has never hitherto been proved. In turn this thought turned, via reflection on its inherent difficulties, into a definition of Logic; the realization that Logic is being defined crystallized in 2008; however, it is shown that the classical and modern logics are aspects—at least approximately—of Logic and therefore the ‘definition’ of Logic is (infinitely) far from being empty. The final form of the fundamental principle of metaphysics ‘Logic is the one law of the Universe’ emerged. The sense and recognition of the infinite power of the principle continues to emerge. The ‘definition’ is far from empty because the classical and modern systems of logic are all cases of it even if not ideal. It was recognized that Logic is itself a necessary object—this is shown in the developments—but its necessary character is asterisked in relation to the other necessary objects because it is not quite merely perceptual: it involves the reasoning side of conception which however—as detailed elsewhere in this essay—may be seen under the umbrella of perception

An example of a detailed study under Normal worlds (chapter Worlds) is that of human being—the present state of this development is the result of extended reflection and tinkering and improvement with the understanding of the human organism and psyche over many years, starting earlier than 1970, and over may fields within the broad area of organism and mind… and finally the integration, beginning 2003, of this detailed study with the Universal metaphysics. Meanwhile another thread of the process was the long held idea that ideas and understanding by themselves were incomplete forms of realization; this idea took on clear form around 2003 but refinement continues. Investigations into the systems of action of a variety of cultures and experiments in realization have been integrated along with the metaphysics and the result-in-process is described in chapter Journey

A second though not yet detailed study is that of the interaction of the concepts of modern physical and biological science with those of the metaphysics. Careful detailed studies began, originally without direction except a general interest in science, in 1964; the interaction with the metaphysics had to wait until the emergence of the metaphysics starting in 2002. The present study reveals certain affinities between science and metaphysics. But there are also disaffinities. The metaphysics explains space, time, and cause but also, therefore, being without space, time, and cause as understood in modern science; the metaphysics explains the emergence of a cosmos with features as described in science; the metaphysics gives significance to the apparently paradoxical notion of an origin of time. There is an affinity between the Void and the quantum vacuum but the Void is conceptually deeper: its necessities are Logical. The Void provides an explanation of evolutionary systems but does not require evolutionary emergence of complexity; according to the metaphysics evolutionary emergence is Normal but not necessary; yet it is necessary that there will be instances of evolutionary emergence as well as instances of non-evolutionary—i.e. non-incremental—emergence even if the evolutionary is vastly more likely

Superposed on the foregoing are a number of developments whose formal emergence is recent but whose roots as thoughts to be taken up later and as items of interest and study go back many years. These developments concern the concepts and sub-concepts—sometimes reconceptualizations—of Intuition, Abstraction, Logic, and Method. The first development regards the notion of intuition. In the thought of Kant its primary occurrence is the perceptual intuition of the categories of the world, e.g. of space, time and cause. From the vast success of Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry it was felt at the time of Kant that these sciences captured the essential nature of the physical world—were even necessary even though possessed of an empirical side; therefore Kant called them the ‘synthetic a priori.’ That is, Kant thought that—perceptual—intuition, even though it might do so approximately, captured the essential structure of the world. On top of this is overlaid a system of logical deduction—thought by Kant and his contemporaries to be perfect in its Aristotelian form—that builds up the superstructure of a necessary system—the vast array of emerged and emerging application of the science of the time in logical form

We now know that space, time and causation in terms of the sciences of the eighteenth century do not capture the final essence of even our local cosmos. Therefore, our claims regarding human intuition must retreat from the lofty status it was accorded by Kant. We may reflect in the light of the metaphysical development of this essay, that the simplest understanding of the Universe is one that requires no agent external to it and of course this is necessary since any such agent must be part of the Universe—all being; similarly the simplest and best and most realistic understanding may emerge in a form that has no a priori. Additionally, if we ask what is the logical status of logic itself we must acknowledge that there is no final proof of logic—i.e., there is no final ‘logic of logic;’ its necessary structure appears to be immanent in it—in the algorithmic character of deduction—but problems with the foundations of logic and subsequent study have revealed an empirical or experimental side to logic even as logic has progressed with regard to breadth of application and foundation

Therefore, in the present development, logic, too, is brought down from its earlier elevated status and placed side by side with perceptual intuition. One root of the idea is in Kinds of knowledge, 2001; since that time it has been able to see perception and reason with increasing degrees of symmetry and recently—since 2007—I have been working toward a formalization of the idea of the symmetry. Starting around spring-summer 2008 use the single term intuition to apply to both perception and reason and we acknowledge that both have limits. Simultaneously the divide between perception and non-perceptual conception begins to crumble; to distinguish seeing from thinking is natural yet thinking may be seen as perception that is delayed via recall. This retraction from the rarefied atmosphere of a priori necessity is a source of immense power for we can now ask, as did Kant but now with the possibility of a deeper outcome, whether there are any elements of this intuition that may constitute precise knowledge. The retreat is not one of a confession of agnosis for such confession, if absolute, is no confession of agnosis but an assertion—cloaked with ambitions of power masquerading as humility—that the thinker Knows; he or she knows that we are ignorant which is after all a paradoxical and, if intended literally, rather absurd claim. Nor is it the retreat to eternal and absolute agnosticism which too entails assertion and paradox. Rather it is a retreat into an initial or in-process agnosticism tinged perhaps with intuition that allows such knowing as may emerge to in fact emerge; in contrast to universal claims of knowledge or agnosis or agnosticism there is no absolute a priori or universal claim—what shall emerge shall be in process—until such time as logic brings process to a final halt whether of success or failure—and granular over the domain of knowing, i.e., there may be things knowable and known in absolute terms, there may be imprecisely but practically known things, and there may be unknown, and even unknowable, things. How would we know that there is a thing that is entirely unknowable? (Therefore, perhaps, rule out knowledge of un-knowability.) As it will emerge, there are certain necessary Objects known with absolute faithfulness…

The approach is an example of distancing from the habit of substance thinking in which structure or necessity are not imposed at outset but allowed to emerge. Substance thinking has its proximate utilities but around 2006—after the rejection of formal substance ontology as untenable—I became more and more aware of the sway of the habit of substance-style thinking in many areas of thought. This awareness has led to many unifying insights in a number of basic fields of philosophical thought

The necessary objects of the metaphysics emerged as natural candidates for absolute faithfulness. Of course the join of metaphysics and intuition did not emerge as an explicit high level thought but slowly through example and glimmer. Finally it became clear that the necessary objects are known through a process that was labeled abstraction.—the idea began to emerge in 2003 but became explicit and formalized in 2008. In this meaning, abstraction is distinct from another use in which the abstract is removed from the object, in which the abstract concept is a token or ‘stick figure’ representation. Here, the abstract is formed, not by remove from the object but by eliminating from consideration such details of the object that only a net remains that is known precisely and empirically

The necessary abstract objects include Void, Domain and difference, Universe, and Logic. Thus the metaphysics, though it does not need this foundation, is founded in intuition: we may say that the metaphysics is grounded in—our—being. The symbolic study, thought to be an external form e.g. as in writing is now seen also as a net within cognition. The process of abstraction is a cornerstone of the development described in the chapter Method that goes beyond the intension and extension of the classical notions of method to a degree that is ultimate in the direction of its necessary aspects but is not entirely necessary in the direction of the practical objects and this lack of entire necessity is, rather than a limitation, a mark of our being in the world. Recognition of this lack of necessity—especially recognition that does not remain at a superficial level and is not a mere slogan but permeates deep into our being and habit—is a liberation into an adventure of connection as well as discovery

Deployment of the necessary Objects began to emerge in 2003. A clear grasp of their conception—e.g. the Universe is all being and contains all Objects including Laws and other abstract Objects, of their nature as simultaneously empirical and necessary but not a priori, and of the fact that they formed a system that formed the elements of a Universal metaphysics began to emerge in 2004 but became crystal clear in 2007-2008

The present side discussion began with the question whether the system of metaphysics is at root transparent and trivial. It may be concluded that the triviality is only apparent—it is the result of a sustained search whose outcome is transparent and therefore takes on via suppression of details of system and development the appearance of mere triviality. The discussion has taken us through a tour of the many faceted, multi-level and interactive development—it reveals the process as a journey

The power of the ‘trivial,’ e.g. an objective of understanding is to see the complex in terms of what is so simple or obvious as to be common knowledge—and therefore the importance of stating and meditating upon the obvious had long been a theme of interest when, in 2002, I began to realize the formal, logical, and metaphysical power of trivial but—or therefore—immensely powerful ideas of course mere triviality does not imply power but the powerful idea often emerges in being able to see the simple among the complex… even this idea appears trivial once stated: and even if it begins to sound contrite it remains powerful (though of course possible to overwork)

The true power of the metaphysics is revealed in its necessary and its practical development. The necessary development is begins in the chapter Intuition—the grounding of the metaphysics and continues in chapters Metaphysics—the development in which Logic and metaphysics are shown to be identical, substance theory shown to be untenable, and the Universe is shown to be absolutely indeterministic; Objects—the development of the depth or foundation; and Cosmology—the development of the variety. The practical side is the development of the understanding of this world—and its special aspects as revealed in the disciplines—in interaction with the necessary. The actual and potential developments are profound and immense. The developments through Cosmology are developments of ideas

Although I had long been familiar with the thought of Kant, it was my interest in experience and consciousness that began with formal studies of consciousness in 1995 that led perhaps circuitously to the realization that Intuition could found the metaphysics and could be the basis of—seeing—the grounding of the individual (in being in contrast to the powerful but perhaps alienating character of symbolic study.) Beginning in 2007 and fully in 2008 I began to see that Kant’s ideas on Intuition and my thought had a convergence; later this trend included the Kantian Judgment. The summer through winter 2008 and into early 2009 has seen the work of fashioning a system of intuition-conception that was more inclusive and went below Kant’s system in depth and was therefore able to go beyond his system in reach… and as we have seen it is an infinite reach

Ideas are instrumental in negotiating the world—the journey and in their appreciation. As realization ideas are limited and therefore the chapter Journey continues with Transformation. The ideas—chapters Intuition through Cosmology and Method—are essential in approaching and appreciating Transformation. The most ambitious project of transformation is search for pathways from the finite to the infinite—from Individual to Universal Identity. There are numerous ‘finite’ practical as well as ideal adventures in transformation that are expected to be part of and have interaction with the ‘grand’ adventure… Note that the developments here include a logical rejection of the post modernist historical rejection of the grand narrative—i.e. while the rejection of such narrative has validity in the cases considered due to the ad hoc elements of such narratives e.g. Hegelianism through Marxism, no such universal rejection is logically possible and, further, it has here been shown how a non ad hoc system may frame the experimental and tentative character of actual life so that a universal perspective is acquired without any associated elimination of the particular or introduction of related hubris and mere but aggrandized speculation

The experiments in transformation have paralleled the ideas; and while there are indeed positive results detailed in the later sections, these results—except insofar as ideation and affect reach out—remain roughly within the finite confines of a Normal individual even if edges have been tested. My transition away from a mainstream career started with cathartic events in 1985; these events may have been partially precipitated by unconscious factors but I did not consciously choose or influence them. I did, however, learn much about my personal power in choosing my responses to those events—balance between resolution and flow… and the nature conscious and significant changes in a ‘life-path’ and of course the influence of unconscious factors and response to unplanned and unpredicted events and evolutions. Now, since 2007, I have been wondering whether some chosen cathartic event or pathway may induce experiments and transformations beyond Normal confines

In this informal account the space allocated to transformation is much less than that for ideas for while the ideas have achieved a form that seems to be ‘mature,’ the transformations are in-process—and in a stage that I hope is preliminary. Additionally, since the transformations are in-process, the sections devoted to them—Ways and ideas of transformation and The transformations—continue to have some informality

The formal use of intuition, as conceived above, is perhaps the most recent development among the ideas. From 2003 to mid 2008, the Universal metaphysics had some foundation in the ideas of experience, being, all being, difference and domain, and the Void… that, initially, received no further analysis. That is, the metaphysics had informal and implicit foundation in experience. In the summer of 2008, the thought occurred to found the basic concepts of the metaphysics—and therefore the metaphysics—in intuition. This was perhaps the result of an ongoing struggle to found the ideas in experience as the subjective side of mental content and phenomena. Somewhere in the reflection on intuition it occurred that the fundamental concepts are formed out of intuition by a process of abstraction that highlighted those of its—of course empirical—elements that were so simple that they are necessarily faithful and the rest is the history (described in the formal development.) The abstraction in question is, unlike token abstraction, necessarily empirical. Also, the idea occurred to bring all formal and informal mental process, not just perception, including logic and reason into the realm of intuition, i.e. out of the a priori. We are used to thinking of logic as a prerequisite of analysis; the thought to bring logic out of the a priori and into the empirical goes against that but opens up the possibility that there are elements of all mental process including perception and reason that, though not a priori, are necessary. I had long been aware of the ideas of Kant—having written a History of Western Philosophy in 1988—and I was now able to see that my notion of intuition was similar to Kant’s notion of intuition except that Kant allowed a priori elements of perception—e.g. space, time, and cause—and, e.g., the Aristotelian logic. We now that the Kantian-a-priori is not a priori—the Kantian synthetic a priori of Euclidean Geometry and Newtonian Mechanics and the analytic a priori of logic have been brought into the realm of the experimental-empirical. Thus in ‘going below’ Kant, I have been able to go beyond Kant’s putative a priori and into the realm of an ultimate metaphysics—ultimate with regard to content or breadth and foundation and demonstration or depth. This most recent development of intuition and abstraction serves, again, to show the nonlinear character of discovery

Finally, another recent formal development—the formal thoughts began in the fall of 2008: I have held the thoughts in incrementally developing form for decades—is the analysis of the major paradigmatic ideas in the history of thought in which I show their necessary limits and show these limits not only as a result of the immensely deeper and broader Universal metaphysics but also as harbored within the paradigms. I.e., although it is in the nature of a putative paradigm that it is generally accepted as describing the entire universe, the putative paradigms contain the elements of their own limitations and reveal the possibility of a much larger Universe. These thoughts are among the content of section Human endeavor and its normal limits of chapter Worlds. Paradigmatic thinking, though of course valuable, often blinds the individual to seeing beyond and often takes the perhaps natural form of thinking that anything beyond must be absurd. From the paradigms themselves—especially the non-dogmatic paradigms—we see, however, that there is no absurdity to any beyond; the purpose of the analysis has been to free up others—as well as myself—from the chains of even non-dogmatic paradigmatic thought; and the Universal metaphysics shows an ‘unimaginably’ immense beyond. These thoughts also entail reflections on the possibilities of religion, science and future ‘ideational forms;’ a habit of reflection and writing on religion and science—in contrast to having final conclusions on their nature and validity—significantly enhances those reflections. These reflections may enable the reader to go beyond the paradigms and appreciate with wonder the special character of our world and the immense Universe beyond as well as their ultimate identity with these ‘worlds’ as now revealed in Intuition through Being. These thoughts show the multi-threaded character of the developments

The thread of development may be elaborated a little. My early school years, roughly grades one through seven emphasized rote memorization of fact and method. I recall that I hated this aspect of school; my interest was in nature—many hours after and often during school were spent in exploration of local hills and trails… and in reading—I would read during the invariably droning often pompous lectures or, if the teacher was too strict, count the seconds while waiting for the bell; I also recall an early inclination to do things ‘my way’ even if that way did not measure up to the content of the rote. I was not anti-authority but resisted what I saw as the intrusion of authority whether at school or at home; I recall an early acting out—relatively harmless though resulting in punishment—that, what with the resistance to the intrusion of unnecessary and overweening authority, preempted any need for adolescent or very early adult acting out; my younger brother sees me differently but I see my brother as conservative and self-saving in his rosier estimate of the parental behavior and I see my behavior at home as a resolute resistance to the unreasonable tyrannies of my father—to whom perhaps I owe thanks for ever repeating sternly and with monotony the praises of discipline while my mother sang of en-joy-ment of life and poetry and music and the world; theirs was an interesting relationship: living in a conservative time and place on a university campus in West Bengal 72 miles Southwest of Calcutta permitted them to live their own separate lives while breathing in the same space and their—as far as I know—unquestioned loyalty serves, I am sure, as my implicit model for how a relationship should be. I remain resistant to the unnecessary intrusion of authority. I was excited about being in the world; I loved the world—its places, its times of day, the seasons, great white billowing clouds in blue skies, the grey-green of early monsoon clouds approaching from the horizon bringing with them cooling wind, the scent of earth and sudden wind driven wild torrential downpours… There had to be a connection between what I felt and nature… between ideas and the world I hesitate to use the word ‘spirit’ because it is limited, because it suggests a refuge from rather than an embrace of the outer world, and because it suggests a false separation of the world into the sacred and the mundane—along with the implication that the mundane goes no further than the doorstep and the daily grind. My first formal development was intellectual but intellect was not divorced from feeling; if a discipline did not reflect the world I would be unable to generate interest even in the face of examinations. I knew my life must be an adventure—an adventure into the unknown, into what there is (I did not call it being.) Intellect and feeling merged with ideas; ideas merged with action as a completion of idea rather than as (merely) the result of ideas; and action merged with transformation of being

What is the significance of the varied experience? I should first say that while much of the experience—used in a different sense than the one that refers to simple subjective feeling—has been serendipitous, I have sought experience and its varieties. I visited Barranca del Cobre—Copper Canyon: its rivers, the Urique and the Batopilas, and towns of the same names—many times in the 70's and 80's. I experienced the Barrancas as a portal to another world of feeling—one that was larger than the mechanistic world of my formal education (below;) the travels in the Barrancas and other wild places served this function—expanding my consciousness and likely the unconscious regions as well and without the use of psychotropic substances. My greatest inspiration in ideas has occurred in places remote from civilization. Ideas would percolate at home and at work and then, in the wild places there would be inspired realization of what I might have been looking for which, in turn, would be worked out in detail the following year back at home. The key ideas for the evolutionary paradigm that was a phase of development occurred in 1986 at a favorite mountain lake; the intuition of the equivalence of all things and the Void occurred one warm afternoon on a dusty trail in the fall of 1999

Last Thursday, September, 21, 1999 : Left home in Arcata, Humboldt County—a clear day. Visited friends in Burnt Ranch, Trinity County. Weaverville by 7pm—dinner, wine, then beer at the Saw Mill Saloon till 1am and on to the trail head, slept, up at 9, Weaverville again, Friday, breakfast, coffee and reading—the ideas of Karl Popper, but mainly Kant, Schopenhauer… Kant’s transcendental method, the noumenon, how synthetic a priori knowledge is possible, Schopenhauer’s philosophy including the working of Kant’s program in one direction, and Schopenhauer’s theory of art, music, psychology and the noumenon as the one behind the many. Back to the trail head... slogging up the trail, sweating like a horse, camp. Saturday. Short hike then back to the trail head with a day pack—for more maps and an extra pair of socks. Back to camp and sleep. Sunday. Slog up to new camp on a flat by a creek. Monday. Rest and write. Have had some excellent ideas. Am out of shape from an exhausting year working on projects and little exercise

Tuesday. Today, climbing the trail, in the heart of the great forest, I feel my strength returning. The climbing is not difficult. It is afternoon, the day is warm, but I am not sweating excessively. I stop at creeks and enjoy the cool of deep creek beds, and waterfalls, and green, clear pools. Walking on red and brown earth, amid the pines, breeze now warm now cool. Occasional bird and small ground animal. I am reminded that it is that wonderful time in autumn after the searing heat of summer and before the rain, wind, storm, and snow of winter when the forest is most lovely. This is the time of day and the season that, in other years, I have seen deer, bear, rattlesnake seemingly at ease, about without apparent caution. Small insects hover in front of me as I hike but I do not mind them. At one point from the side I see a hawk amid the trees—it is there, it stays, and is gone. Thoughts fly by as well—the noumenon, the ultimate real… object, space-time, cause—the forms and emergence, separation-union, dream… experience is a form of transformation. I am reflecting on the real… what is behind the perceiver-and-perceived, the forms of our knowledge that make knowledge possible … and all the thoughts that I have thought these past few days when, at once, I know the answer to my question. It is two-fold question of, first, the nature of the world and the absolute known by experience and conception and, then, the source for the nature of the same as known through inner reflection, the heart-of-the-mind… and I know and intuit that the noumenon is one thing is equivalent to nothingness is equivalent to creation; I have thought this before but now I experience it

It would be three years from this wonderful but vague and a-logical intuition to the insight, in Trinity County, in October 2002

‘One morning in the shadow of mountains’ to look at the nature of the Void (rather than the nature of this, our, cosmos) that finally enabled the transformation of the intuition into reason…

In Heart of the World: A Journey to Tibet’s Lost Paradise, 2004, Ian Baker writes of the search in the beyul—‘secret or hidden lands, paradisiacal realms in remote parts of Tibet and the Himalayas described by Padmasambhava in revealed scrolls. Beyul have outer, inner, secret, and ultimately secret (yangsang) dimensions corresponding to levels of initiation in the Buddhist Tantras—for yangsang—‘the innermost place of secret immortality.’ In the Tantric tradition the search is inner and outer; Baker writes of his difficulty in negotiating the very meaning of yangsang

My explorations in Barranca del Cobre—Mexico’s Copper Canyon—were not overtly guided by any mystic tradition. I subscribe to no mystic tradition (there is hardly a tradition of any kind, however, that I altogether reject as one from which nothing of value may be learned.) Yet I knew that I was searching for the secrets of the Canyons—

‘What secrets do you keep in your deep and silent soul, Canyon of the Rio Urique? I will visit you again until your silent secrets become mine!’ and ‘I undertake this journey because, in some way, the Barrancas are connected with the source of things’

Did I find secrets? Barranca del Cobre was one of the instruments that connected me to all being. It has been twenty five years since I visited the Barrancas. The connection and inspiration remains to this day and is kept alive in the imprint of the search and travel through the Canyons… and in travels in other wild places to this day. Travel to secret places parallels travel to an inner place in the self…

Earth was invaded by an alien swarm

Who left behind a deadly fallout

Humans went to live below

The surface of earth—

Shutting behind them doors of steel

I sought others—but found none…

I lived by Mountains, Lakes

Winters, Snows and Red Sunsets

I sought for

And was able to arrive at

Some understanding of Truth

Years later when

Survivors emerged,

I was able to communicate

What I had learned

…a dream, 1978, Dreams and vision, the author, 1978-2009

The dream-poem from 1978 crystallized and symbolized for subsequent endeavor a not so distinct and emerging ambition. The dream illuminated my life. The next dream was remarkable for the residue of feeling upon waking

A dream of travel in Africa. We were trekking with Africans, in primitive country. We were with Africans, traveling in primitive land among other Africans. We had just crossed one river and were approaching another—the Undomo river—and preparing to cross it

The Undomo was wide, with clear water reflecting the sky, with eddies, streams and currents and wavelets stirred by the wind forming glittering sparkles in the sun. The native and sympathetic though not westernized Africans broke into song, “Undomo, Undomo.” Deep, sonorous, a song of kinship with the flowing water - the river Undomo. One living being singing to another. Moving. I began to sing with the Africans. At first we matched the deep, sonorous tone and the rhythm in step with the flow and power of the water. And then at a higher pitch I began to sing, still chanting “Undomo. Undomo.” In a intricate, and yet more intricate and beautiful modulation added to, built upon, the underlying rhythm. The underlying rhythm that reminds me of direct, attuned, deep and strong connection. Then, the Africans responded with even higher pitch, greater intricacy, modulation and beauty…

A remarkable aspect of the dream was the immense beauty of it and the feeling upon waking that was as if I had actually experienced the events of the dream—to which comes a response, Why not? … There are theories of the nature and meaning of dreams. Then there is meta-theory—What are we doing, accomplishing or trying to accomplish in building such theories? Here is one ‘meta-theory’—though of course not at all the only one—there is no theory of dreams: the dream is or provides its own meaning. Dreaming originated at some animal or early human stage… and may or may not have had some ‘functions.’ Those functions cannot be said to be the ‘essential functions’ of dreaming even if they conditioned the neurology of dreams. Later, variation and selection may have given dreams further function. This function may have been prior to or parallel with waking thought and feeling—perhaps an adjunct or perhaps equal or even greater. Dreams may then have been a source of creation—the classic example of Kekule’s dream of a serpent eating itself as inspiration for the benzene ring—or inspiration and color to life. There are two diametrically opposite yet not logically exclusive meta-theories of dream interpretation: dreams require interpretation and dreams are or provide their own force (in atheoretical interaction with waking life)

There is perhaps an analogy between the relation between dreams and meaning and the relation between travel to secret places and meaning; and it is perhaps more than an analogy because travel may open up the unconscious to the conscious and develop the unconscious as do dreams. The ways of opening up include the sparking of the unconscious by, e.g., archetypal or concrete images, and the weakening of the censorial divide between the bright and dim regions of mind

There is a parallel, then, between travel to secret places in the geographies of space—earth—and mind… that is pre-theoretical… or perhaps atheoretical

Yet there is another consideration. Think of a search for ‘ultimate’ meaning—suppose that the ultimate is beyond what we have in the present. Suppose that that meaning is found? What then? Shall we continue on to something else because the new present, even if wonderful, is not everything? The search continues perhaps from one realization to the next. Perhaps, therefore, meaning is here and now—not so much in the moment but on the surface of things—everyday, everywhere that we are. That seems to be an achievable and perhaps a worthwhile ideal. But where are we? Are we not a kind of being that enjoys new horizons? Therefore, is not the search part of what we are—part of the here and now. That too, then. We confront, then, that there is perhaps no ultimate state for which to seek. We are perhaps ever in a state of indecision or perhaps never in a state of final decision. After all its just a life… And perhaps it is amid the mundane and its insults to person that we continue on in a search for the awe and the fear within and without

It was around 2002 that I noticed that I had cultivated the ‘art of inspiration’ and that the wild was no longer necessary for inspiration—but it was the wild where I had learned that art. Now, in 2002 and subsequently the various inspirations that enabled the transformation of the single insight into an entire theory of Intuition, and a Metaphysics-theory of Objects-Cosmology-theory of Normal worlds—chapter Worlds—and of this world and a system of journey and transformation

I began this excursion into the inspiration of wild and remote places by asking about the significance of the varied experience—serendipitous and sought. The other ‘inspiration’ is immersion in this culture. While working on advance degrees—below—and then while working at Universities, I felt the desire to be doing something else: I did not want to be sixty six and look back at a life—even a professional life—filled only with engineering and mathematics and science (much as I had enjoyed those endeavors.) Savings from a professorship (University of Texas at Austin) enabled and conflict with other faculty (California State University, Humboldt) provided the occasion for change. I spent four on a number of pursuits—some that I had dreamed of, others as occasions may have arisen. There was travel, there were late nights debating evolution with friends while sipping Myers Dark Rum, there were days and weeks in the mountains, and there was still time for love. Much energy went into reading and writing in philosophy, evolution and other interests—ideas had been accumulating and I had been wanting to do something of this sort but what emerged was far in excess of what I may have imagined or hoped except in vague dreams of adventure and accomplishment. This was the period of time that my knowledge of the ideas of evolution took a quantum leap, the time that my interest in philosophy embarked on its long path to maturity, the time that I cultivated many interests earlier dreamed of. This was a time when I became a human being. At the end of the four years savings ran out and I began to look for work. I had the feeling that my life had been privileged and I therefore played with the idea of looking for employment that would immerse me in the world of ‘everyman.’ I became a nursing assistant at a convalescent hospital; I would go home tired but would often ‘feel this is the best work I have ever done;’ I became a certified nursing assistant and got the highest grade in the class which had another PhD and a couple of holders of Master’s degrees. After about six months of that work, a friend invited me to apply at the local inpatient psychiatric facility. I did so and was not hired… ‘you seem capable but there are six other applicants with much more experience’… but two weeks later the Director of Nurses called to offer me a full time position. I have learned much about people, how to deal with difficult situations—I once used my ‘psychiatric’ communication skills to control two large snarling dogs that approached me while I was running in the local hills—and the work has been some occasion to think about ‘mind’ but I must admit that my general reading has influenced my understanding of mind and psychiatry more than my experience in the field has affected my philosophical thought. There is a real side to the work that is more significant—it is the occasion to be real among people being real. Here, the person may shed the superficialities of day-to-day life. It is an opportunity not realized by many who work there and perhaps it would not be appreciated in any case. And even though I think I appreciate there has been much squandering of opportunity. Still there has been immersion and opportunity continues to remain. Also important is, first, the immersion in the world of work and contribution and, second, the sense of realism that my thought has derived from being forged in proximity with sweat and not from a reclusive ivory tower. I have maintained an awareness of the ‘larger picture’ and perhaps having to work for in a non-academic environment has forced—helped—me to not lose this picture to the intrusion of academic nicety and diversion. Although my thought is of course touched by the esoteric its motive lies squarely in the immediate aspect of the world

I now contemplate a journey in transformation—the subject of the following sections Ways and ideas of transformation and The transformations. For this I think I must return to nature, to the ‘wild.’ However, I must return not with an attitude steeped in my knowledge of Intuition-Metaphysics-Objects-Cosmology-Worlds, i.e. Normal worlds-Method… but with an attitude of not knowing—of ignorance or agnosis relative to the meaning and possibilities—the highest possibility—and ways of transformation… with an attitude again of willing submersion in a state of—Jungian—perceptivity. And it does not have to be so planned; what is new is not contained in what I already have—so there must be essential un-planning; and there may be some abandon and wild nights thrown in and not just for the value of the derailing of any programming but also for its just-being-in-the-world-for-it’s-not-all-about-realization-beyond-the-horizon. But this is not all. Parallel to this will be endeavors that include some immersion in Ideas, Society, and Machine as Being… Of these the most important is perhaps the immersion in Society which has two aspects—an active aspect, the concern with Social Good and Transformation; and immersion in the world without reserve or avoidance that includes, roughly, the Tantric practice of Chöd—Sanskrit: ccheda-sadhana, Tibetan: gChod sgrub thabs. I am not steeped in this practice; and it will be only a part of what I would do—the extent is yet undetermined… it may of course touch everything… and it may be instrumental in the wild as well. I will be open to this and other practices and not just what has come before but also experiment as described in the sections below. Regarding Chöd, however, an aspect that interests me is to not avoid what is ugly and dirty—merely because of aversion or repulsion—to embrace it. Why? Because it may be the basis for immersion in the entire world; for seeing what is real (by not avoiding;) as a base for ascent via descent… without reaching or climbing (not that climbing shall be avoided but rather that there need not be the automatic response to realize by reaching beyond;) because of the potential intrinsic beauty and value behind or in certain though not all uglinesses; to release energies now bound up with holding on and avoiding; to be at one and to realize; to recognize what is intrinsic and to avoid attachment to the mere external; to integrate ‘inner and outer’… Here, too, openness, return to agnosis and experiment; I would not be too attached to a practice that I do not yet know…

Two aspects of Tantra deserve address. Tantra comes in many forms and has various rites—ordinary, secret and sexual; my interest is not against the sexual or sensual but not primarily for it—my personal interest is the avoidance of squeamish avoidance or, positively, undertaking union with the world that may result from whole hearted exposure to it

From Dreams and vision, the author, 1978-2009… In a dream I met a beautiful woman who was emitting a contaminated sexual discharge—

‘The quality of the discharge this: a glistening translucent light pink-red—the discharge was mixed with blood from what I imagined to be a sore; an infected liquid; a corrosive substance; but still a true expression of love and to be truly loved for itself. So I was torn over this fluid and this situation being drawn to it by the true elements of love—I was fearsome of it because of the potential for infection, of chemical burn and what I anticipated would at any moment be a cheesy, pungent acridity and yet at the same time the fluid was beautiful, attractive’

This was, therefore, a conflicted situation which I desired and sought to escape. There was welling but no culmination of desire; there was the wish to leave but no actual departure—only an ongoing wanting and an ongoing vortex of mixed-vague centrifugal feelings without clarity or acuity

Yet at the same time the situation was purely lovely as was my friend. Because: although we all fear contamination we are all contaminated. Therefore a relationship which contains explicit contamination is wonderful. And I thank my friend for her courage in desiring my desire and for bringing to me her lovely form and her acid drip. That drip connected me not only to life but to life-death, i.e., to all existence and non-existence

The second aspect of Tantra concerns the relation between ultimate Identity versus union with the real in this life. Numerous transformational ideas and practices emphasize both immediate and ultimate union and suggest, often without precisely asserting, that the ultimate is perhaps unattainable while the immediate union, the union in this life, is the best realization of the ultimate if not the ultimate. There is an emphasis that non-avoidance—of the necessities and possibilities—of this life rather than avoidance is part of the practice. Regarding non-avoidance I am in agreement. Regarding the unattainability of the ultimate I wish to maintain practical agnosis. The Universal metaphysics-cosmology has already revealed the necessity—even if were to avoid and want and attempt to avoid it—of the ultimate Identity with the Universe, especially the Universe as sentient. The practical agnosis concerns the strength of the divide between ‘this life’ and our ultimate being which will no doubt color any path to the ultimate… And once again I empasize as has my life the importance of this life in itself and as symbol of the ultimate

The events and developments recounted have not been the sum of my life; along the way I have worked toward and received Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral degrees in engineering and mathematics; and while I learned much from formal education I learned more from my indulgence in other interests—advanced graduate courses and seminars in topics not part of the formal curriculum, e.g. theoretical physics, mathematics—philosophy and a wide array of disciplines; travel; extracurricular activities—drama, representing my university in track and field; swimming across local rivers; night long bicycle rides to the sea; women are absent from the school ‘curriculum:’ the Indian Institute of Technology at Kharagpur had about 2000 students of whom some 60 were women—and the numerical disadvantage was magnified by conservative aspects of Indian culture of the 1960's. Since earning the doctoral degree I have consulted, taught engineering (basic and advanced thermodynamics, wind/wave/solar photovoltaic/hydro/nuclear fusion and fusion energy, air pollution-emphasizing atmospheric warming in 1975, vibrations, statics, strength of materials and mechanics of solids, intermediate and advanced dynamics, and computer graphics,)mathematics (advanced perturbation methods,) and computer science (algorithms;) Master’s and Ph.D. and subsequent research was in Hydromagnetic flow, impact forces for solid objects approaching fluid surfaces, classical and approximation (perturbation) and computational techniques in fluid waves and stability, partial differential equations—linear and nonlinear, wave forces on submerged and semi-submerged structures; and traveled—the US, India, Mexico—from Nuevo Laredo to Oaxaca and Chihuahua to Mexico City, where Chiapas is one of the few states that I have yet to visit, and Canada; have run all phases of a restaurant; backpacked in the Adirondacks of New York… in Big Bend, Guadalupe Mountains, and Glacier National Parks in the US… the Gila Wilderness in New Mexico, the San Juan Wilderness in Colorado, the Trinity Alps of Northern California… and extensively in Barranca del Cobre (Copper Canyon) in Chihuahua, Mexico where I traveled the length of Rio Urique that horseshoe bends through the deepest Canyon of the Barrancas (over 5000 feet) by floatation and by foot on river and cliff trails, spent time at local villages including an invitation to a three day drunken wedding ceremony in the village Urique; I have worked as an aide at an inpatient psychiatric facility where I excel at observation, anticipation and verbal de-escalation of potentially violent individuals and where I have combined programming and document formatting skills to work toward automated electronic record generation and maintenance; I am the father to a somewhat alienated daughter; the history of my relationships with women is rather sporadic and sex has been less fulfilling—on the whole—than its promise which is a testament, no doubt, to my self-indulgence and my perhaps unrealistic thought that, despite ambitions and goals and lists and planning, life should be pure fun; and I have ‘partied’ more than any one individual should; and interspersed with these activities I have thought and read and written on the topics under ‘Journey in being,’ have read extensively on a wide variety of fronts—the variety of the topics from the http://www.horizons-2000.org website, have established and maintained that site, continued to develop skills in computer science and programming (languages) aimed at employment and application… I think that what fuels this immense activity is my passion to know and, later, to realize the world in its immensity, its oneness and its beautiful-ugly-horrible detail

I have not shunned the world. From the character of some parts of my written thought it might be concluded that I am a cloistered academic or a recluse—it might be concluded that I shun the world. Judgment aside, however, the truth is that while there is a certain appeal to the academic cloister—I contemplate return but have not done so for some twenty five years—but the whole world—beautiful, ugly, horrible—has a certain unnamed truth to it that makes life and thought—my life, my thought—more real

This passion—the appetite—are not ‘mere’ or empty. In section Principles of perception, thought and action of chapter Method, I emphasize the dual importance of imagination and reason. Appetite fuels both as does time—I detest the overvaluation of hard work and think that intelligent work is far more useful and the application of intelligence often requires retreat from effort into stillness—directly (an example of the interwoven nature of reason and emotion) and indirectly by the provision of a reservoir of awareness and experience and knowing that provides information and metaphor for thought. The fund of connected ideas spread through numerous disciplines from the sciences to the humanities is especially important. The travels in nature are significant as connection to the metaphorical (spirit) world within which I would transform—the suggestion of a world of wonder to which and in which connection is immensely appealing; for the connection afforded to ones own body and spirit; as a source of health; and as an occasion for inspiration—the great insight that permitted the transformation of the Universal metaphysics from an intuitive sense to a rational scheme occurred in 2002 in the ‘shadow of mountains’ … and perhaps most of the major paradigmatic schemes and insights of my thought for some twenty five years have occurred in wilderness in Texas, Mexico, New Mexico and Northern California

Since my writing approaches 20,000 pages it may appear—even as I contemplate the metaphorical burning of most of those electronic pages—that there is here an immense energy; at the same time that makes it seem that I have not precisely followed my dictum against blind hard work; no phase of the work however has been entirely blind although there have been times of relentless reading and writing driven by unclear idea joined to a clear hope of discovery; work teaches something more than mere perseverance; however, the application of an intelligence that requires stillness remains a paramount value

I said that I began early with a sense of independence. I believe that I was perceptive and open rather than judgmental—in the Jungian sense—and directed from the beginning. This was perhaps the influence of my mother andor perhaps reaction to my father; andor perhaps ‘hardwired.’ In any case that is how I developed—with perceptiveness and openness; and this has characterized my success and failure. This attitude characterized my studies for many years and therefore much of my earlier writing has an unfinished and rough character. What direction I did have included the ground level sense that I had a mission that was indefinite in content but quite definitely bound up with seeing the world as mystery—mystery in the sense of some wonder either immanent in this time and place or perhaps across the horizon but definitely accessible to seeking—in fact already immanent in my heart and therefore a short distance from bright consciousness. Now, at this time, the Universal metaphysics etcetera have yielded focus; it is a focus that enables concrete commitment to specialized studies; these specialized studies include the variety of enhancements to local disciplines; they include the realizations of the Universal metaphysics, the unity of Objects, the Varieties of cosmology, the intersectional studies of Normal worlds (chapter Worlds) and the universal; they also, however, include studies of method—intuition and abstraction and so on—that break open the understanding and a way of transformation into the ultimate infinity of being. Thus, even though there is definite commitment, it is a commitment that enables an absolute openness. It is ironic that I have found perception and judgment to lie in that same ultimate place. Still, openness lingers in my heart; my commitment to my commitment—this magnificent open-committed-ness—remains tentative; I have experienced freedom in the loss of social freedom for in losing that freedom we may also cast of the bonds that tie us in as players in an economic machine and enter a time as dream time; this I experience this moment while writing and gazing out of some window onto a scene of frosty rooftops, and—beyond bare winter branches—the green of trees, the snow on hills in the distance, and above them the infinite blue

Now that the Universal metaphysics—once not even a dream—has emerged, looking back at what may have been achieved, I have, sometimes, the thought—the feeling—that it is all immensely trivial and simple; that there is no real accomplishment. We have seen earlier the Logical relation of depth and triviality; here, however, I address the feeling, the occasional though strong thought that I have done nothing at all. Simplicity, of course, is not to be shunned for it is sometimes a guide to discovery—not mere simplicity, though, but the greatest simplicity that is consistent with realism. This thought is not at all new and, in one of its forms, is the well known Ockham’s Razor. What is remarkable is that I have not sought simplicity; rather I have sought realism—therefore I could not for years bring myself to commit to the heuristic thought that the world and the void should be identical in some sense despite the suggestion from physics that that might be the case (taking into account the negative energy of gravity, it is entirely consistent with the laws of physics for the net energy of the universe to be zero.) It was only when logic forced the equivalence that I found that logic also forced simplicity… and it may be interesting that while ‘logic forced certain things,’ logic did not force logic; rather the force of logic was a happy discovery ‘it was as if stumbling upon some new and strange and stark sky-scape that stretched in all directions to infinity encompassing also the place from where we came. It was a happy and unexpected discovery after many years of search; perhaps not so trivial after all but seemingly trivial in comparison to its consequences—the occasion though not the only occasion for search for refinement of proof and demonstration, for search for objection and counterargument, for seeking alternative non-symbolic frameworks for use of the ideas in action and journey—i.e. action under possible incompleteness and tentativeness of ideas, for example the necessity of action and allocation of limited resources under uncertainty. Is or might there be any reason to expect that the ‘final’ discovery should be so extremely simple in form—the one law of the concept universe is that of logic, i.e. the Universe has no Law. Perhaps—if we think that there is always nothing—the Void—present ‘beside’ all things and if we remember that while the Void may be contingently empty it is logically full. Also, while the form of the fundamental principle is simple it covers or is the surface for immense complexities and varieties. The principle reflects not a universe that is simpler than the known universe but one that is more complex; if we seek the universe with the greatest variety it must be one with the least restriction—the richest Law is no-law; and the Law of no-law, i.e. the law of Logic—which would be regarded as obscenely permissive were it not demonstrated in stark and statuesque logic which straddles time and process and does not relegate them to ‘unreal’ in rough analogy to the representation of a ‘flat’ physical surface—quite irregular at the atomic level—by a perfect plane. And the thought that went into the formulation and the consequences of the fundamental principle is far from simple or trivial… and on combining metaphysics with local knowledge the most complex scene emerges; the system of ideas is not at all simple even though we can write them so that the complexities and varieties are implicit… Still, the apparent triviality makes us hesitate and the hesitation reminds us that we should still meditate and reflect upon the ideas for cracks have the potential for crumbling if irreparable and strength if reparable and repaired

Earlier, in this informal account, I referred to the spirit world and noted some reasons for preferring to not use that term. Some functions of what may be called the spirit world may include the following. There may be a system of myth that would appear preposterous when in the concrete, rational modern mode of thinking. In the modern world we are rather divorced from the sense of dependence on the land we are of course ultimately dependent on it (especially in the general sense in which ‘land’ means ‘resources.’) In a world—a culture—in which this divorce has not occurred, a system of myth may serve to connect individual and society to the land in which they live; simultaneously there is an awareness that the world is larger than the immediate world; the individual has also an inner sense of the potential of his or her own being; the system of myth may serve to bind all these—the individual, the land, and the larger ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ worlds; the system at once binds to place and survival and to figurative and potential-literal meaning. Does ‘rational modern man’ ever fully transcend the mythic world? I shall speak for myself. I live in a world that has many mythologies—the ancient mythologies, the mythologies of the ‘great religions,’ the mythologies suggested by our modern art and entertainment forms—senses of form and space and light of art and architecture, worlds and moods evoked by music, senses of other worlds suggested by popular drama, e.g. Star Wars. Regardless of my rational attitude toward these suggestive mythologies they affect me and my pictorial imagination of what the world is like. My rational attitude toward these pictures—the cultural and the personal—is roughly in the style suggested by the resistance to the habit of substance thinking. I may have an opinion about the literal truth but I hold final judgment in abeyance. The truth of Star Wars is not merely one of literal truth but rather whether there may be any other myth-like world at all. Remembering the limits of the scientific picture of the universe, that it breaks down at its edges and allows an infinite world beyond, and remembering that the Universal metaphysics fills that infinite ‘Void’ without violating the scientific paradigm within its domain of validity, it is entailed that I must remain open to mythic worlds even while I do not commit to any specific myth. I realize now that I must have always been against absolute substance thinking even before I formally recognized the case; even in my most rational period I have not been absolutely swayed by any scientific or rational paradigm. Rationally, of course, I should need no myth; the Universal metaphysics is a place where the literal and the mythic meet; myth is not mere metaphor (as many modern interpreters of myth suggest) but, in addition to the metaphorical meaning, and even while we do not take myth as literal in this Normal cosmos, myth stands to remind us of the limits of our paradigmatic views and of a world beyond, of the possibility of living in the light and felt presence of a larger world, of a journey in body-spirit that is some mix of physical and mythic. I have no formal mythic system; but in the journey of transformation I wait to see if some powerful system of myth—since the only fictions are Logical fictions, it may lie within rather than merely and metaphorically complement the Universal metaphysics—should emerge to light up an as yet incompletely defined path in an inner and an outer world

An important theme of the narrative is taken up in the chapter Method that follows Journey. Method has algorithmic and inexorable aspects—the necessary—as well as experimental and tentative aspects—the practical. The foundation of method here is the subsumption of all knowledge under Intuition which eliminates all aspects of knowing, especially logic from the a priori, so that it is possible to separate—via abstraction—the necessary from the practical as a consequence rather than a condition of investigation. It is remarkable that the necessary side of method has emerged; this is a consequence, in part, of the elimination of the habit of substance thinking in all its manifestations—in this context the manifestation of substance would be the idea of logic and method as a priori. Method and content are not distinct but arise together. The realization that I was engaged with method occurred over 2004-2006 and the crystallization of method and its inseparability from content—a partial characterization is that method is a form of content whose object is content itself—started around 2006, became quite definite toward the end of 2008; and, now in early 2009, the understanding of method continues to become more definite, compact, and crystal clear. Classical notions and details of method including logic, reason, and scientific aspects are subsumed—or rejected or marginalized—under the present development. Principles of perception, thought and action—those approaches found to be most conducive to discovery and transformation—are also taken up and may be considered to be on the experimental and tentative but immensely useful side of method

It may be significant to repeat that, here, method is not superposed on content but emerged in interaction with it for method is seen as a form of—reference to—content. The present ideas on method have a number of sources—interest in logic and the ‘method’ of science and in the emerging consequences of the fundamental principle. The first glimmer that powerful ideas regarding method were emerging occurred in 2003 when the first form of the fundamental principle was seen to hold implications for logic and its connections to metaphysics

The final chapter of the essay considers implications of the present development for the concept and use of History; the final thoughts regarding history are very recent—early 2009. The nature and use of history has long been an interest though a peripheral one in which I cannot say I have done extensive and serious reading or study. However, the developments of the ideas permit reflection on the nature and use of history; these reflections concern the metaphorical power of history toward the transformation of being rather than any narrow predictive use which of course remains of interest (and regarding which the reflections on practical faithfulness suggest that some granular and local application may be useful despite incomplete knowledge and predictability.) This chapter also takes up the theme of the general impact on the history of thought and a final section catalogs specific contributions. These reflections include a reflexive self-tracking that is useful in evaluating, motivating and inspiring the ongoing endeavor

Ways and ideas of transformation

… or methods

Pivotal idea—Methods of the Journey—The methods of the Journey arise from the interactions of ideas with experiments; the methodological and knowledge base sources include (a) the Dynamics of being that is a dynamic derived from the fundamental principle and its consequences, (b) experiment with Normal limits based on the Dynamics, (c) the traditional methods and approaches enhanced by further experiment and reflection, (d) catalysts of transformation, (e) categories of transformation, and (f) cataloging and analyzing actual transformations for pathways from the present to the ultimate—including but emphatically not limited to seeing the infinite in the present

Dynamics of being

…Theory of transformation

Dynamics of being is an approach to transformation in which, with bases in the foregoing—especially the actualities revealed by the fundamental principle. The following are iterated (1) experiments are conceived and acted upon, (2) outcomes are interpreted and enhanced experiments in transformation are conceived. The Normal is not fixed and Normal possibilities and feasibilities stand relative to our knowledge and are therefore subject to transformation in the iterative process described

The intent includes but is not limited to incremental negotiation of normal limits

Essential concerns of the dynamics of being

Negotiating the feasible, i.e. knowledge and experiment are instrumental in determining what is feasible

Exploring what is desirable… even if there is an objective ethics, its realization may depend on kind and state of being and, further, knowledge and interpretation of it may change

Incremental andor large scale—saltational—change

Exploring the means of change—physical, psychological, social, technological

Catalytic states and modes of transformation

Concepts—physiological sensitivity, psychic sensitivity, receptivity, readiness

These are states of physiological and psychic sensitivity, receptivity and readiness… and are not restricted to any compartment of mind or physiology

Concepts—dream, hypnosis, vision, heightened awareness, focusing, integration, cultivation, sensitivity, opportunity, idiosyncrasy

Types of state include dream, hypnotic states, vision, heightened awareness to self—including of course the unconscious—and world. Catalytic use includes focusing dreams and so on and integration in awareness; cultivation over time; sensitivity to and cultivation of opportunity and idiosyncrasy

Concepts—meditation, yoga, exposure to and intuitive integration of archetypes, archetype—exposure to, archetype—intuitive integration of, dream-symbol-Art-myth-Faith, mysticism, induction, contemplation, shaman, groups

Approaches include meditation and isolation of the psyche, suspension of judgment, exposure to and intuitive integration of archetypes through dream-symbol-Art-myth-Faith…and induction of states by contemplation, via shaman and equivalents, and in groups

Concepts—physical isolation, deprivation, physiological alteration, exposure, shock, trauma, pain, fear, crisis, anxiety, imposed, volitional, exertion, exhaustion, march, rhythm, dance, inaction, fast, environmental extreme

Enhancing or inducing factors—physical isolations and deprivations, physiological alterations from exposure, shock or trauma, pain, fear, crisis, anxiety—imposed or volitional and purposive, exertion and exhaustion, march, rhythm and dance, inaction, fasting and diet, and extremes in environment

Concepts—the sacred—sacred places, texts and rituals

Sacred places have a transformational nature in being conducive to states of receptivity and engagement with the world. Immersion in such places may be transformational. There is no single kind of sacred place; however, a sacred place is not of another world but of this world—a place that, along with practices of this world, show this world in a new light. Sacred places include churches, temples and monasteries. The world of nature may function as sacred; and immersion may be meditative in function

A ritual that is complementary to the inner-outer transformation of nature and its transformational character is the embrace of the place where I live—its ugliness (which is no doubt a partial function of perception) and its beauty

Sacred texts show—though not by literal content alone—ways that others have found and may be suggestive

Concepts—sensitive person, savant

Sensitive individuals, relation to disturbance—that relations are contingent rather than necessary; personality or disposition and state. Individual and group approaches to transformation of personality; splitting; social action and transformation of self and society

Savant, modes and theories, relation to developmental deficiency—that any such relations are not necessary; relation to states and dispositions to states of psychic sensitivity; experimental inductions of the savant syndrome in normal individuals; possibility of cultivation

Experiments suggest the thought that all persons have un-liberated and savant-like abilities locked in by ‘normal, balanced development,’ that are normally locked in by needs for survival—biological and cultural—but may be liberated in exceptional circumstance by the same needs. There is growing evidence that ‘normal’ individuals are capable of savant development. Much of this evidence concerns accidents such as stroke which debilitates a part of the brain and may so free another part. There are reports of experiments with magnetic fields that confer temporary savant-like behavior. It is important to remember the alternate explanations to savant-ability: compensation and randomness; perhaps the general savant case represents all modes of explanation (in combination)

Appendix to catalytic states—History of transformation

This section is a brief review of some classic modes that share in the goal of transformation

Aims of a study of history of transformation

1. To review traditional ideas for use in transformation

2. To provide foundation for a synthesis of the variety of approaches. This goal is further taken up in Basis and theory of transformation

Western systems

Greek ideal; mystics and saints; the spiritual traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; Freudian and other conceptualizations of growth—deterministic and indeterministic

Shamanism and other systems that date back to prehistory

The shamanic or journey-quest: its original and later variations as approaches to states of insight including hallucination and to transformation of personality. Black Elk, Mircae Eliade, Weston La Barre, Richard K. Nelson—Make Prayers to the Raven—1983, Hugh Brody—The Other Side of Eden: Hunters, Farmers, and the Shaping of the World—2000, Joseph Campbell—Primitive Mythology: The Masks of God—1959, Richard Evans Schultes and Albert Hoffman—Plants of the Gods: Their Sacred, Healing and Hallucinogenic Powers—1992, …

Indian systems

Veda and Upanishad; Bhagavad-Gita and its four yogic systems—Raja, Gñana, Karma, Bhakti yoga; Samkhya, Yoga; Vedanta; Buddhism—reflection on the noble truths and experiments with the eight fold way

The nature of the Object

The general Object is joint construct of mind and world; and as such there is also, in general, some at least implicit and ‘partial’ faithfulness

I have suggested that in the end all truth is literal truth. However, on the way to this simple truth metaphor and symbol are—may be—significant

Emphasize this dual role of perception—conception—in knowing and transformation; remember, however, that it is the peak of realization, if it should be achieved, that determines whether the dual role is transcended and there is emergence into simple perception

Development of the dynamic

The structure of the dynamic may be inferred from the indeterministic-selective character of the process. The process includes many other ‘methods’

Common elements emerge from examples as follows:

Desire for andor awareness of immersion in change with or without an informed goal

Experiment and evaluation of outcome—modification andor enhancement of knowledge of limits, means and goals

The process and context are now experienced as dynamic and changing

The dynamics itself becomes or is seen as dynamic (meta-dynamics) and is integrated into intuition—what is latent becomes actual, reflexivity enters awareness as an explicit tool—and is applied to being itself which includes individual, identity, and world

The transformations: experiments, assessment, study, seeing and planning the way ahead

A minimal system

Concepts—home, work, society, world, the universal, theory, design, simulation, construction, variety

A minimal system is a minimal set of experiments that aim at the ultimate. A generic approach lies in the four phases below and a more specific way is that of the section Assessment; the way ahead

Four phases

Ideas

Being and identity: the present—home, work, society, and world—to the universal

Society, ideas, and action

Theory, design, simulation, construction of a variety of being—physical, psychological, social, technological

The journey so far; illustrations of the dynamic

Concepts—universal—the, personality, ideas, charisma, mental function, self, awareness, healing, medicine

The—universal—ideas and application to the system above

Twenty two examples that illustrate the dynamic now follow—from the areas of. A. Ideas; B. Identity, Personality and charisma; C. Dynamics of mental functions and—self—awareness; D. Body, healing and medicine

The Dynamic is an approach to transformation. The examples are real and are provided, first, to illustrate the approach, second, to show that significant outcomes are possible from ordinary beginnings, and, finally, as possible beginnings—as an anchor in the present—to a Journey in transformation

A. Ideas

1. The dynamic of ideas is sufficiently defined in chapter Method and related discussions in other chapters… and illustrated throughout the entire narrative

B. Identity, Personality and charisma

2. Dynamics of identity. The normal dynamics of identity requires step-wise similarity and continuity; over time, however, identity may be maintained even though there is no material identity. The general dynamics is the normal dynamics enhanced by integration of identity. This thought suggests a variety of experiment

3. The phases and issues of a life. Experience, learning and substance at various levels

4. Interpersonal dynamics and its reflexive evolution. Self–observation and consciousness; evolution of reflexivity and agency… Cultivating awareness of consciousness, its contents, its varieties, its dynamics including relations to events in the ‘external world’ and to other mental phenomena including the unconscious

5. Dynamics of relationships. Love, society, influence… Dynamics and evolution of shared projects

6. The elements of an individual life and relation to the universal—and their integration. The modes of being: nature, society, mind and the universal; the modes of process: action, dynamics, evolution; the modes of relationship: caring, meaning, force

7. Personality dynamics. The crux—a fixity and freedom in patterns of feeling and behavior in relation to self, world and others. In this dynamics, thought is important but feeling and potency are at least equal to and to be integral with thought. The following dimensions open up. (A) Approaches to presentation and energy: preparation with openness, interpretation—individualism vs. mutualism, anticipation and transformation to advantage, lack of anticipation and use of detachment, use of mood in general to advantage, flow. (B) Risk: opening to it, contact, and accepting the unknown and unpredictable consequences; opening to the other and to failure and success; learning about the potential of the relationship. (C) Catalysts: openness to change, diffusion, disintegration, plasticity of self. Personality as a concept. Sources of vision are important; sources: presentation, acting, interpretation, attitude, caring, accepting moments, anger. (D) Dynamics: observation and understanding—critical moments; time stretching and compression—an analogy with geologic and human time, consciousness amplification—silent inner whispers become voices; observing object relations; multiple voices. (E) World as laboratory for experiments in personality—alteration, building, plasticity—and other dimensions

8. Being deep in interaction with others—allows but need not cultivate the negative. Fundamental to freedom and development of dynamics in groups. Self–focus in relation to others; charisma—motivation of self and others

C. Dynamics of mental functions and—self—awareness

9. Perceptual dynamics in relation to the real and their development form an example. E.g. for Brahman, eternity is an instant

10. Dynamics of experience, attitude and action

11. Integration of reality and perception dynamics in relation to yoga, shamanism, the ideas of Freud and Jung. Faith as an element of dual trust in intuition and being

12. Dynamics of cognition, action, evolution and growth. Dynamics of time

13. Reality and perception dynamics as dynamic elements. Dynamics of limits and laws

14. Immersion in new environments, worlds, cultures, nature …

15. Integration of the mental functions—and dynamics of the individual functions and their perception

16. Dynamics of real choice and real action. E.g. dynamics of loss and death. …relation to self–observation

17. The unconscious–conscious and universe–self processes. Dynamics of the entity; what is the entity the individual calls ‘myself?’ Identity!

18. The dynamics in relation to threat, physical and interpersonal interaction in extreme circumstances: response to momentum and pace, mind and no–mind, or conscious and sub-conscious processing and scanning; action and rest; e.g. in typing the fingers move faster than conscious awareness but conscious awareness enters when a mistake occurs; consciousness is associated with re–programming, that is, with adaptability; programming for threat and action in the face of risk and loss; physical arts

19. Dynamics of creative acts and activity: research, art… other creative endeavors. Music—primal and cultured; dynamic integration of art, emotion, action—individual and social… Their development: pushing modern knowledge to its limits to find limits, and to find the absolute or non–absolute nature of those limits

D. Body, healing and medicine

20. Body awareness and healing. Learning to see and recognize and healing and its power… involves dynamics of healing; entry into the dynamics; dynamics of the autonomic system in interaction with the central nervous system. Bio-feedback is included; openness to phenomena, observation and cultivation of observation of phenomena and relationships between action and phenomena, observation of relationships by comparison of multiple instances, cultivation of the process; i.e. the process includes identifying phenomena that are the variables in a feedback loop and identifies the feedback as one of the variables. EMDR, heart coherence, light therapy, exercise, Qi, emotional / heart communication, effect of love-family-person-community, importance of meaning or significance, variety and unity or Atman = Brahman… (modern medicine needs no emphasis here)

21. Development of body kinetics. This development starts at or before birth and may be cultivated dynamically

22. Nutrition, taste, appearance, and health

Assessment; the way ahead

Concepts—conception, perception, fear, defense, self-analysis, risk, action, moral design, shared formal commitment, psychic energy, being-in-knowledge-of-the-ultimate, death, doors to the ultimate, construction, arching-journey, be-in-the-present, unseen path

Ideas—success so far is conceptual; emphasize perception; application to and learning from the disciplines, e.g. the physical sciences

Personality and charisma. Success in use of energy to development of ideas and overcoming fear and ‘defense’—continue perception and trial in this area. Social influence is weak… seek this for ideas; at work—self-analysis and needs, plans, and risk; general action: moral design for influence; cultivation of charisma; sharing; risk—action for influence—and dynamics; shared formal commitment perhaps in a group or institutional setting, existing or separately established toward developing and acting on the designs and plans

Mental function and healing. Use awareness of ‘defense’ to deploy psychic energy toward ideals and goals

From the present to the universal. Foundations lie in the foregoing points, especially understanding of the present and the ultimate. These doors to the ultimate have been recognized: being-in-the-ultimate, being-in-knowledge-of-the-ultimate, death, and construction—the arching-journey. The way ahead: be-in-the-present, see and explore unseen paths, undertake the arching-journey

Background study, research, experiment: in the modes and means of transformation

The narrative suggests the following programs

The modes of transformation are Ideas, community—shared and cooperative venture via individual and cultural intelligence and—general—Transformation, below

Transformation in ideas and understanding: experiments in conceptual development

Recall that perception is a part of conception

Sources—see Resources and Home for collections of still useful essays

An individual journey may have further ideas—explicit and implicit—for development

General

The entire system is subject to reflexive analysis; every topic is capable of refinement

Universal knowledge including the special case of the identity self=Universe, through both analysis and perception

Logic

Logic and logics. Logic as the theory of concepts that have andor are capable of reference; as the theory of the actual; equivalently, of theory of the possible and the necessary. Logic as the law on the concept side; as the absence of Law on the Object side; Logic as immanent, therefore as Logos. Reference as crucial to logic. Development of logics

Experiments with ‘toy’ logical systems suggest that a requirement of reference of every ‘atom’ of logical statements should have reference in order to avoid paradox. Is the requirement of proper reference necessary to validity in Logic and Grammar? Since various semantic paradoxes (Russell…) and set-theoretic paradoxes (Zermelo-Fraenkel-Skolem and von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel) have been resolved by non-referential artifacts, the requirement of proper reference may be unnecessary. It remains true that the requirement of reference may have deep consequences; and these consequences may reveal the artifactual approach to consistency to have an ad-hoc character

An atemporal metaphysics

In this version time is present at the outset. In the ‘global’ perspective it is abstracted out. Consider, instead, a version that is atemporal at outset. The problems—What virtues would this approach have? How is the fundamental principle formulated and proved?

Strengthening the relation between Theory of being and science

It is pertinent to repeat the observation that there is no contradiction between science and Theory of being; indeed without our detailed knowledge of the world, Theory of being is practically empty… The point has been made that while proof of the Theory of being is logically independent of immediate knowledge, science makes a number of suggestive contributions to its development and elaboration. First, certain theories suggest the form of Theory of being and its application. E.g., that the emergence of a cosmos may be energy conserving suggests that something may come from nothing. Second, the mechanisms of evolution suggest one class of mechanisms of becoming; they further suggest the necessity of indeterminism as does quantum mechanics. Further, both evolution and quantum theory show how structure and indeterminism may be consistent

There are similarities and differences between the void as defined here and the quantum vacuum. This raises the question whether the void or the quantum vacuum is fundamental. Theory of being shows the void to be fundamental. This raises the further questions, first, whether the void may—since it lies below the vacuum—found quantum theory; and whether, at root, the quantum theory is only seemingly less general than Theory of being, e.g., if the form and constants of physical theory are sufficiently relaxed but not so relaxed that the result can no longer be labeled ‘physics,’ might Theory of being emerge? These thoughts suggest some directions in which the relations between science and Theory of being may be strengthened. Foundations is another area since the fundamental principle suggests, first, that the theories of science may be seen as kinds of logic and, second, the laws of science must have reference

Foundation of modern physics and biology

Space, Time, and Manifest Being. Relativistic theory of matter and fields, quantum theory and Theory of Being

The analytic investigation of the extension of being, e.g. extension and duration or spatial and temporal extension, and coordinate possibilities

Relation between metaphysics of immanence and evolution and its theory. The mechanisms of evolution are normal mechanisms. That metaphysics of immanence talks of form does not stand it against the population thinking of the evolutionary synthesis. Significance of general cosmology for life: whereas it is reasonable to conclude from the perspective of this cosmological system that life elsewhere in it is very unlikely, it follows from the general cosmology that there must be instances and varieties of life without end in the universe-at-large; that this does not entail contradiction; that it does not invalidate the perspective of this cosmological system applied to itself. That metaphysics of immanence talks of form does not stamp essentialism on populations—for the present theory of form allows gradations of abstraction from the particular to the general. Use of modern evolutionary theory in suggesting general and normal mechanisms of evolution in the universe for organic and inorganic being; that though the suggestive power of evolution may be necessary or near-necessary as inspiration it is not logically necessary

Extending modern physics

Search for field and particle equations not subject to the well known ‘universal’ constants. In analogy to not being categorially committed to the nature of being at outset, this approach may verify known laws as universal if they are and disverify them if not. The approach is consistent with Dirac’s dictum to follow the consequences of the mathematics. There is a sometimes—not very—subtle maneuver in the application of the dictum: a physics is built into the mathematics and the dictum then prevents the consideration of alternatives. In effect, Dirac—the theoretician—says ‘my theory is the correct one.’ The point to the observation is not to criticize or diminish but to open up to possibility and therefore to the real… The concern is the elevation of a heuristic—it's in the mathematics—to a point of logic. A counter-argument could invoke Ockham's principle (razor.) Again, this principle is a useful but relative heuristic and not an absolute or a point of logical necessity. The assumption of absolute universal constants may—sometimes—be the universalization of what are actually local constants. There is, therefore, occasion to relinquish the reign of constants

A quantum or genetic and dynamic theory of laws

One characterization of the development of physics is the introduction of dynamics. The theory of mechanics before Galileo and Newton was essentially a theory of static systems. Newtonian mechanics was dynamic but did not, e.g., include a truly internal dynamic of particles or any dynamic of their mutability, i.e., their creation and destruction in interaction with energy—some aspects of these dynamics are included in the relativistic quantum theories of fields. Newton’s mechanics did not include a dynamic of space and time—the general theory of relativity introduces space and time into the dynamic. In modern physics, the laws themselves are largely regarded as static—progress is progress toward discovery of eternal static laws of dynamic systems. However, it has been seen that laws and patterns are and must be immanent in being—and that the laws read of this cosmological system cannot be universal in extension or duration. It therefore follows that the laws that are read as static must themselves be part of ‘the’ dynamic. The metaphysics of immanence lends itself to a dynamic that includes both local objects and laws or behavior and there is a possibility that such a dynamic will represent progress beyond modern physical science toward a final theory. It certainly appears that exclusion of the laws from dynamics will be a necessary block to progress or development of physical theory

An ensemble of laws

An ensemble of laws in a ‘multiverse’ may explain the hierarchy of energy scales—vacuum through gravitational—of this cosmological system

The ensemble might be treated statistically; each law might be treated as a particle; the following questions may need address (1) how do the laws interact and (2) what is the relation of the system to the Universal metaphysics

Is a quantum theoretic proof of the fundamental principle of the metaphysics of immanence possible?

This is an important research topic because it would appear that the possibility is good and a quantum theoretic proof would further allay doubt about this principle of paramount importance

The following line of approach shows why the possibility may appear good. The quantum theory of a system is always a theory of a system that has certain defining characteristics. Thus the quantum theory of a classical particle is one in which the particle remains a particle. In the quantum theory, the behavior of the particle shows certain freedoms and certain structures not seen in the classical case. An example of a freedom is that there is a likelihood that a particle with kinetic energy K will ‘tunnel’ through a barrier of potential energy P even if K is less than P; such tunneling does and cannot occur in the classical case. An example of a structure is the stability of atoms in certain discrete energy states

To see creation and annihilation of particles it is necessary to go to a quantum field theory

What would be the possibilities of a quantum theory of being as described in the equivalence of all being to the void or as described in the earlier discussions of General cosmology? Development of such a theory would have difficulties for it would be neither classical nor relativistic. How would the open ended character of the system be built in without implicitly importing the desired solution—the fundamental principle? The analysis might start by analogy with invariant formulations of known systems. Another major difficulty is as follows. What would serve as variables, what would serve as coordinates? However, since detailed solutions are not sought, the difficulty might not be as great as imagined.

Human World

Elaboration. Co-development of Theories of being and of human being; relation to Heidegger’s approach. Faith and religion—concepts and prospects. A principled approach to personality

Language, grammatical forms, emotion and will

The question of the universality of the standard subject-predicate form. Can it be proved that there are, for example, relations that cannot be reduced to subject-predicate form. Is there a fixed set of grammatical forms? The possibility of primal forms e.g. a process form that is prior to the subject-predicate form in the sense that subject-predicate form may be one among a number of crystallizations within the primal form. Do emotion and will have objects?

Social world

Study and development of dynamics of or in society and social systems

Application to other areas of experiment

Theoretical understanding, design and construction of machines with mind, life, being. Technological and logical design, simulation, and enhancement of actual organisms including those known through experience and through theory

Transformations of being-as-being: experiments in the individuation, merging and general transformations of being and beings, especially, individuals and identities, the universe and identity

For completeness, some overlap with Transformation in ideas and understanding: experiments in conceptual development

Sources

Experiments in the Transformation of Being—with further material in Journey in Being—2003

Sources on artificial intelligence and artificial life and on biology and psychology

The transformations

The primary transformations are transformations of Being and identity. Ideas are an aspect of such transformations—as such, as the place of appreciation and as instruments of negotiation. The secondary areas of transformation are specialized experiments. These are, first, Social and psychological experiments in charisma and influence and, second, Experiments in forms and degrees of physical being—of life, mind, and intelligence

Areas of study

Areas of study will include foundation for and principles of transformation; history and methods; study of narrative accounts. There is a research project to synthesize the variety of traditional and recent approaches as well as the experimental approaches of this narrative; the approach will be experimental and theoretical; the sources of theory will be the various studies of mind and personality including those of this narrative and the framework of the Theory of being

The range of experiment: definition

The range of experiment will include consideration of a variety of bases, ways and paths of transformation of Being and Identity

The range of experiment: extension

Experiments in ideas and transformation; experience—cultures, institutions, places, roles; society, charisma and influence; experiment and conceptual design for, life, mind and intelligence; nature and dynamics of identity—identity of self i.e. Atman, other and ultimate being or Brahman: seeing or recognizing and being or realizing—bridge from present to the ultimate; variety of experiments, ways and paradigms

Undertake the experiments with intensity—seek time but do the work everywhere; arching and extreme practices; mesh with secondary phases: social action and construction of being

Continue to refine the Foundation and System of experiments toward the ultimate goal of ‘understanding and experience of all being’

Transformation of being; alterations of the body and influence on the whole being: Mind, body, potential

Arching from the present to the ultimate

Emphasizes the dynamics; may use all and any tools… within reason, feasibility and moral concern

Illustrations of the dynamic

The ways of plants and animals

This is a topic for development and will include

The ways of plants and animals as paradigms of being and transformation

Use in vision, inspiration, nutrition, and healing

Location, recognition, habit, and acquisition

Transformation in society—experiments in social and psychological transformation via charisma and influence

In addition to intrinsic worth, e.g. community and communion, the social world has the following significance. Society is the place where individuals of different orientations pool abilities and work for individual and communal realization of values. For the individual, society provides ‘standard’ ways of realizing individual worth and is able to provide fulcrum and leverage for individual effort and ambition

Sources

Action, Charisma and History may have some material that is not in the present narrative. Also see Journey in Being-03 and Journey in Being-New World

Sources on understanding society, politics, economics, ethics and education

Transformation

Transformation within groups and society—design versus (and) immersion

Charisma and influence

… or native and learned leadership

Influencing, building society at all levels including the being of nations—charismatic and patriarchal action and influence, group action

Journey

Journey; multi-cultural experiments; variety of institutions

Transformation in organic and material being—experiments in forms and degrees of life, mind, and intelligence. Theory, design, simulation and construction of being

The concept transformation of organic being has affinity with the fields of artificial intelligence, robotics and artificial life. Even if and when methods are different those fields may be useful and suggestive. The transformation of material being has affinity with technology. The divide between material and organic being and their transformations is not absolute

Organic being connotes animal, plant and other modes of life. The emphasis on human and animal being and their normal behavior and characteristics. Since there is no absolute divide between the general and the normal there is also concern with the ‘edge of the normal.’ Thus these transformations, which emphasis this cosmological system, mesh with the general transformations of ideas and being

Sources

Further detail may be in Experiments in the Variety of Being (03,) Journey in Being and more recent versions

General sources in artificial intelligence and life, robotics, computation-networking and their realizations and simulations

Transformations

Experiment and evolution; theoretical understanding, conceptual design, and technology; actual or material implementation; simulation and enhancement of actual organisms; design versus immersion

Life, mind, intelligence…

Simulation of being and variety…

As noted earlier, priority of ‘material’ transformation is lower than that of transformation in identity

Narratives and narrative form

Goals

Publication, introducing the ideas, exposing the power of the system, overcoming resistance to and unfamiliarity with the ideas, transition to experimental phase

Narratives

Narratives for technical—academic, those familiar with the vocabulary and history of the ideas, specialist, emphasis on demonstration and completeness—and human—real and maximal living, the spirit of being—interest. Example of human interest: journey in the human and universal spirit

Rethink and rewrite a classic, e.g. the Gita. Employ learning from Journey

Consider the following specialist versions… emphasis: technical, academic, philosophy, general, spirit… topic: metaphysics, what is science…

Special versions may be: basis for a talk or debate—informative andor persuasive, a guide, advertisement

Forms

Linear—narrative and discursive; personal versus formal or impersonal; essential; axiomatic; literary—novel or myth, biographical, poetic, dialog, artistic and dramatic forms; mixed. In a literary form a cast may be introduced; roles—a main character who is ideal in spirit though real in action, a co-adventurer and love, a critic, a reactionary, a rugged friend; a set of scenes—university, work, wilderness, foreign land, hardship and luxury—or phases of the story and their local characters

Narrative versus essay versus book versus text versus piece…

Refinements to the ideas in: logic, flow, elegance, charisma, and appeal. Page references

Presentational form

Presentational form and holism—the concepts

The story

The story may include an account of my life insofar as it is essential to the unfolding… Though the truth is adventure enough, elements of fiction may further dramatize it:

Struggles, failures and shame and attempts to overcome and use them

The essential connection between the idea and the real

The fundamental character of the metaphysics and the logic

The metaphysics is logically prior to all previous metaphysics—and its ultimate character

Although there are limits to even a god, the individual is infinitely more powerful than normally thought; the true meaning to god must be one that allows god to be realized in the individual

That all these assertions are shown in cold logic

The sub-stories the journey to the metaphysics, the logic implications for human belief and possibility and the potential for science

The experimental phase of the exploration of possibility

Connection with religion—if it is about truth it must intersect life and the empirical; otherwise there is no religion or need for one

Acceptance of the ideas

A novel

A future civilization discovers earth and its primitive archaeology. They find remnants of a proof of the universal metaphysics and ultimate truth—it will be effective to have the italicized terms revealed but not said, immanent but not explicit. In the end it may be revealed that the novel was written by a man from the primitive archaeology who is also the protagonist from the future. He is seen writing. He is exhausted. He pores over his writing and an ancient fragment. In his sleep deprived unawareness he sees that what he writes is already written and this puzzles him. He then realizes that he was and is the author…

Automation

Consider use of a relational database for outlines, concepts, and text. Use queries for transformations of concepts and emphases and to extract special versions such as emphasis on a special topic, technical and non-technical versions

Appendix to program of research: further possibilities

The following topics mentioned in the narrative are not noted in or complement the program of research. Many of the following are section titles from the text

Cosmology of objects

Logic, reference and the problem of the infinite

Grammatical forms; emotion and will

Space, time and being

The concept of ‘the class’ of consistent concepts. Note that this class, which presents various problems, now has a resolution in the notion of Logic as immanent in being

Dynamics of and in social systems

Research topics: transformations of being-as-being

Research topics: social world

Research topics: transformations in organic and material being

Narratives and narrative form

The future

Being and becoming—perception and transformation

Method

Theme—Method—and principles of thought and action which is perhaps primary—may be elaborated as follows which is repetition from the discussions of ‘method’ and the ‘principles:’ Theme—Method. All knowing—including method—as intuitive and empirical, method as content… method as arising in the study of content and therefore method and content as coeval, the method of abstraction from intuition to what on account of conceptual elimination of contingent detail is necessary and empirical, necessary and Logical objects, relation to the practical objects. Method is further elaborated in discussion of the following themes above: Journey, Being, Meaning, Against substance, Subsumption of kinds under the Object. Also significant to method are argument, objection and counterargument; and action and faith. Theme—Principles of perception, thought and action. Habits of thought conducive to discovery. The habit of no habit; which itself cannot be too serious. Emptiness and filling. Reflexivity and action. Subsumes method in interaction with content; subsumes meta-method

Concepts—modes knowing, intuition, fact, inference, reason, empirical, rational, faithfulness, abstraction, necessary Object, Universal Object, Logic, necessary but not a priori fact and inference, Universal metaphysics, ultimate depth, ultimate breadth, Universal framework, Normal Object, science, induction, intrinsic contextual limit, Normal studies, Local studies, idea, transformation, faith, action, journey

Method

Use of intuition

From adaptation intuition must have faithfulness but this faithfulness is implicit and the individual contents of intuition do no come marked ‘faithful’ or ‘perfectly faithful’

We are therefore open to the forms and contents of intuition lying in the range zero to perfect regarding faithfulness

Even though there are immense practical domains of good knowledge and even though may know items of explicit faithfulness, it serves our purpose to not make a priori commitment

This is an example of avoiding the habit of substance thinking one of whose essences is a priori commitment

We bring all perception and reason—iconic and symbolic, even logic, under intuition or conception; and as we have seen perception fully understood includes affect and awareness of mental content of which self-awareness is a form or case; also included is experience-attitude-affect under conception. Again this serves our purpose. We do not say—‘we know’ or ‘we do not know’ but instead judgment is allowed to flow from investigation

In doing this all elements of understanding become empirical and we open the way to discovery of which empirical objects are perceptually necessary, which are Logical, and which are practical (the practical objects may have high degrees of faithfulness within their domain of application but are not generally of universal application)

In this context ‘science’ will not used in reference to the formal sciences but any process that in which a guess or hypothesis regarding new knowledge is made and predictions compared against reality which may permit improvement in the hypotheses. The idea applies to perception, the formal sciences, conceptual analysis and logic and the logics

We further expand on the realm brought under the umbrella of agnosticism. We use conception in its sense of mental content for this idea. The feeling is the name for the element of mental content. All mental content, i.e. all conception, i.e. all mental content including cognition-emotion, is brought under the rubric of agnosticism. This is freeing for it allows even emotion or emotive-feeling to have objects

Note that the usual principles of science, reason, logic, criticism are not excluded

Abstraction and the empirical

Here abstraction refers to the suppression of detail without token abstraction—i.e., without replacement of the content of conception or intuition by token abstract icons or symbols

Therefore abstraction is already empirical; thus the abstract is immediate and empirical

Being / existence are names for what are already empirical—it is the external world that may require demonstration—the classical distinction of being-in-itself or being versus being-in-relation or existence is dissolved and therefore there is no distinction between existence and being

The ideas of logic and reason are empirical in their own way

Inseparability of method and content

In abstraction from intuition and subsequent emergence of Logic, chapters Intuition and Metaphysics, we see the coeval character and inseparability of method and content. It is only because we do not normally see the origin of method but regard it as given that we think otherwise. But on reflection how could it be otherwise? Method was not given to us by a God! Also method which applies to reasoning about the world also applies to the world since reasoning is in the world. This argument has been seen before above

I remember having encountered the argument ‘How do you know… what you say isn’t given by God’ against some point I may have been trying to make. However the response is that that’s a good thing because it means that our arguments, whatever they may be, are within the realm of actual beings rather than hypothesized omnipotent beings; and if a topic is beyond being that too is good for it could not be otherwise

Method does not stand outside of investigation; it is not essentially algorithmic even if parts of it may be reduced to algorithm; it is in process… it has been discovered; openness to construction and criticism may be required at all levels

The necessary objects

We find, via abstraction, that there are necessary objects

Copy of earlier OLE link to DETAILS_LISTS_ETC\NECESSARY OBJECTS.DOC. Remove second paragraph from this version

Experience, Being or existence, all being or Universe, Object (External world, form, pattern, Instrumental Object—or perhaps the fact of the Instrumental Object, Law… versus law), Difference and Change and their Intensive (quality, independent of amount) and Extensive (mass(?) or coordinate) kinds—Duration, Extension… and their degrees of freedom (e.g. our space is as if three dimensional,) Domain, absence of being or Void, Logic (or word, law, or, better because it avoids confusion of concept and Object, Logos—which is identical to the Universe or all being)

‘Later’ in Objects we see that Being is the intensive quality common to every Object. It is pertinent that in Objects we see that the ontical distinction between quality and entity is erased

The abstraction occurs as follows

From perception to the necessary objects experience, being, all being, object, absence of being…

From reason via the nature of the Void to Logic

Objection. Circularity. Counterargument. Abstraction is not circular; analysis of experience is in parallel with investigation

Necessary and empirical though not a priori

The reasoning has been given earlier where is was seen that the concepts of these objects is empirical and necessary though not a priori. This extends as seen even to Logic

Objection. Every rational scheme requires at least one unproved axiom and one unproved rule of deduction. Counterargument. ‘There is being’ may be regarded as a name; therefore the requirement of one unproved axiom is obviously false; further the program here is not the development of a rational scheme in which facts are discovered and consequences proved by logic; rather the ‘scheme’ is factual-reasoning in which both elements are empirical—but are however ‘enveloped’ by the Logical objects (which include the necessary objects.) There are no ad hoc rules since rules are inherited or postulated but always subject to revision until shown otherwise

Objection—The foundational fallacy is the twin idea that no foundations are possible and that absolute and complete foundations are possible. Response. Stated simply, what has been found is that while depth foundations are possible, the exploration of variety is an ‘adventure’

One and Many—The Universal metaphysics

The outcome of the analysis is that when the Universe is considered under the aspect of its being ‘One,’ absolute faithfulness may emerge and the results include the Universal metaphysics and Logic. The perfect faithfulness is a consequence of the simplicity of the ‘One’ and the results are naturally trivial. However, even though trivial, the Universal metaphysics and the Logic are profound in their consequences

The most significant step in seeing the essential oneness of the Universe is in the derivation of the fundamental principle from the perceptual necessary Objects. The Logical oneness is the abstraction out of distinction from the variety of being to all being-as-a-unit. The practical oneness follows from the necessity of interaction of all elements of the Universe

The further step of seeing the lack of essential distinction between the particular and the abstract follows from the principle of reference that is a consequence of the fundamental principle

One and Many—Normal and Local studies

The ‘oneness’ of the Universe lies in a concept in which distinction is omitted. There is no thought that there is no distinction.

Knowledge of the practical Objects arises in the accumulation and analysis of experience, e.g., paradigmatically in science. This knowledge and the Universal metaphysics are mutually enhancing. The Universal metaphysics provides the framework within which each discipline has only its intrinsic limits—the disciplines are illuminated. Simultaneously, the disciplines flesh out the metaphysics. The result is rich in breadth and ultimate in depth

‘Theory’ as the intersection of the necessary and the Intuitive. Objectivity limited only by the precision of the Object on the Normal world side. Otherwise, study of the pertinent Objects may, in principle, be elevated to an ultimate level

The study of Normal worlds in chapter Worlds falls under the many; these, of course, have local unities. The local unities result in simplicity and improve confidence though generally not to the point of necessity

The Universal metaphysics forms a framework for local studies or disciplines

The Universal metaphysics is given example and flesh; the local studies may elevated to their intrinsic level of faithfulness or objectivity

The objects of study may be labeled ‘practical’

Note that the usual principles of science, reason, logic, criticism are re-understood, integrated with the Universal metaphysics to perhaps their intrinsic critical level, and deployed

Faithfulness—its meaning and range

What has been established sets boundaries to the meaning and extension of faithfulness from zero to one, i.e. from complete absence to perfect faithfulness; the actual situation was seen to necessarily lie in between the extremes

In the history of thought the estimates regarding the actual status of human knowledge has ranged between the extremes

Here, however, we have seen that there is no universal estimate of the faithfulness of knowledge. The actual status depends on what is being considered. There is perfect faithfulness for the necessary Objects, perfect but not Normal faithfulness for the Logical Objects, and fair to high but Normal faithfulness for the Practical Objects

Action

How contingent or Normal knowledge is regarded is not a the result of its faithfulness alone. The absence of universal and absolute faithfulness which has sometimes been regarded dismally may also be seen as an opportunity for discovery and realization. The end of Intuition is not invariably or perhaps even primarily in knowing but also lies in realizing, in remaining in interaction with acting or becoming

Journey

While the Universe and its inhabitants generally remain in becoming, it occasionally enters into or passes nearby states of ‘perfection’

Dynamics of being

The way from the human or here and now to the ultimate. Although the use of ‘method’ above is not intended to suggest algorithmic activity, here the move is further away from that concept of method

The theoretical bases include the Dynamics of being that is an incremental approach toward achieving possibility (in light of the fundamental principle.) Also included are bases from the history of thought, e.g., Samkhya from Indian Philosophy and Freudian and subsequent psychodynamic thought and offshoots including Jung and, perhaps, Maslow

Principles of perception, thought and action

Concepts—method, criticism, construction, reflexivity, self reference, paradox, action, faith, perfection

The title of this section could be principles of conception and action—where conception is used in its wide sense of perception and thought, i.e. mental content, including internal data, e.g. affect

As understood here, the principles are distinct from method. In the present meaning, method is a clear cut way to get a result—the ideal is proof or demonstration; however, proof is not always possible or even feasible and therefore ‘clear cut approach’ may sometimes suffice. The ideal of method is necessity; principles are more practical, they aim at conceiving a result by any means; they may of course include method. The distinction is familiar; method is to the principles roughly as logic or reason are to heuristics, as the rather awkwardly phrased ‘context of justification’ is to the similarly awkward ‘context of discovery.’ A result may be conceived via the principles and demonstrated—to whatever standards of justification are available—via method

Of the two, principles are perhaps greater because they include creativity or construction and criticism; the principles include approaches to arriving at method; the principles may be seen as including method. The principles encapsulate both creativity-imagination and rigor-criticism which are empty without one another

Where do perception and affect lie in this scheme? Perception provides the raw data from which conclusions are drawn by principles of thought—judgment of various grades from logic to heuristics. We have seen that the scheme of Kant lies within that framework; the data of perception are not raw but framed by intuition that Kant believed to provide a precise rendering of nature’s categories; and judgment has its own categories of reason from data to conclusion—including probable as well as necessary reasons. The categories and weight of perception are not fixed—affect carries moment to moment weight in what to perceive and the hue of perception; affect has weight in the area and formation of judgment and the tendency to judgment. The understanding in turn affects to some extent what is important in perception and the contours of perception. In moving from a fixed world determined by a set of paradigms, the terms of perception range on a continuum of world as external versus immersion in the world, e.g. the infinite-in-the-moment

The term ‘method’ is often associated with scientific method. One description of the scientific method is as follows. A hypothesis—a guess, perhaps educated—is made that explains some observations. The expression of the hypothesis may involve concepts and the explanation may involve relations between the concepts. When the system of explanation is able to summarize a significant realm of phenomena and to predict further phenomena it enters into transition into a theory which transition becomes more or less complete as the explanation forms a logical whole and more and more realms of phenomena fall under it. This is the inductive process of science. At one time there was an ideal that there could be a science of induction that would have the necessity of logic, of deduction

Hume showed the error of the ideal in pointing out that a pattern is a generalization over a finite set of data and there was no logical necessity that further data would fit the pattern. Induction, therefore is not reduced to method—is more than method for given a system of explanation, prediction may proceed deductively. Further, we have shown in this essay the existence of concepts whose correspondence to Objects is empirical and necessary but not a priori. Therefore Hume was not entirely correct; additionally every consistent system of explanation or theory must have an Object somewhere and somewhen in the Universe even if it corresponds only approximately to its intended Object

Starting perhaps with Francis Bacon there originated a dream of the reduction of discovery—science—to logic or method. Two hundred and fifty years of success for Newtonian science may have seemed to give credence to that dream even though Hume was regarded to have shown its untenability

Scientific revolutions from 1859—Darwin—to roughly 1928—relativistic quantum mechanics—suggested a revised view of science as ‘hypothetico-deductive’ which is roughly the inductive method as described above. The ‘new’ view was formalized by Karl Popper in his Logic of Scientific Discovery where he argued against the truth of scientific theories and for the theories as the ‘best’ available systems of explanation-prediction awaiting disproof or ‘falsification’

Popper’s view of scientific method has been evaluated as explaining reasons to accept the latest science—even if only tentatively—but not as explaining their truth. Hume, however, may be regarded as having shown that we can never know the truth of scientific theories because a future observation may discredit a theory. The actual situation is not quite as simple

The explanations of modern theories of physics and the theory of evolution are not quite as simple as the statement ‘the sun has arisen everyday for thousands of years, therefore it will rise tomorrow.’ The modern theories of science explain vast realms of articulated phenomena with coherence, elegance and precision. This suggests that although they are potentially revisable they also have truth. How can that be?

The explanation has been given earlier: the theories of science have truth over a domain of phenomena and the problem of the truth of a theory may be reformulated as the problem of determining the extent of its domain of ‘truthful’ application. Additionally, as we have seen earlier and repeated in this discussion concepts whose correspondence to Objects is empirical and necessary—i.e. deduction (tautology) is not the only source of necessary truth. More generally any context that is finite because it concerns a finite domain or because it concerns finite aspects of an infinite domain—e.g. the trivial case that even if the Universe presents an infinite set of data there is but one Universe—is not subject to Hume’s critique and this includes the case that there is a large but accessible number of data points or even an infinite set of data points provided that they have some finite representation

Regarding the possibility of necessary induction and perhaps more generally regarding the range of confidence in induction the conclusion is not as clear cut as imagined by Hume who thought there to be no such possibility or the Logical Empiricists first half of the twentieth century who sought to show that true scientific theories are verifiable

Instead, what has been revealed is that there are at least classes of ‘contexts’ that range from the necessary, to the articulated but limited truth, to the probable, and perhaps to lower grades of ‘truth’ such as the hypothetical and the anecdotal

Reflexivity and faith

The generalized principle or system of principles is not a method but a practice that is conducive to discovery—to originality, comprehensiveness and validity of thought

A common conception of critical reflexivity is that a critical theory or system should satisfy its own criteria. Not all theories fall under their own criteria but it is a reasonable claim that a critical theory should. As it stands it is not a particularly strong claim. Here, a generalized idea is that of cross-interaction among all elements and levels of discovery-action and knowledge-being—and at any point or occasion that is opportune. Specifically, principles arise in practice and remain or ‘should’ remain open to revaluation in practice—principles are not in another category than practice. The interaction of principles and practice is not merely a suggestive principle and is seen most clearly in Logic

Self-reference is a source of paradox and therefore a related doubt or objection may arise regarding the ‘principle of reflexivity.’ However, not all self-reference leads to self-contradiction and therefore the doubt should be applied case by case and is not a doubt regarding reflexivity per se

Principles of thought—reflexivity—that may be seen as a dual source of paradox and the essence of creativity and genesis. Method should perhaps be everywhere in quotations marks

Action ‘begins’ in thought; therefore principles of thought are principles of action. However, there are principles of productive action that may be distinguished from those of productive thought—these are emphasized in chapter Journey. In that thought is a mode of action principles of action apply to thought. The principles consider adequate balance and relations among the modes. The distinction between principles of thought and principles of action begin to dissolve if the idea of faith—as understood here and not as in the dogmatic ‘faith’ of some religions—is included as counterpoint to thought

The primary twin principles are those of reflexivity and faith. Reflexivity begins with the criticism if possible of a system of understanding or theory by its own criteria. However, the idea expands then to the criticism of criticism, imagination applied to imagination (which implies imagination and criticism in interaction,) to the interaction between domains of phenomena and therefore the splitting of apparently coherent domains and the uniting of apparently disparate domains. Reflexivity refers to the interaction of established ideas and reflection, of criticism and construction including the vastly important but often underrated imagination, of thought and action; even more, however, it refers to the turning back of these elements upon the process itself and to the stopping to reflect upon the fruitfulness of a present line of development and a turn whether partially or fully away and, simultaneously, consideration of other lines merely imagined or read or once pursued and abandoned or forgotten. Reflexivity may hold many such elements in mind and in interaction but may occasionally be single minded. Reflexivity is immensely powerful and comprehensive and this is brought out in the text. The first faith is animal faith. However, reflexivity requires that we not dwell ever in animal faith. It permits doubt and reason but it recognizes also the limits of reason and doubt and therefore allows and encourages both but, in reflexively varying degrees, in combination with animal faith and confidence in being

Imagination is used to study cosmological and other variety. Ideas from the history of thought are instrumental. An encyclopedic awareness of—immersion in—human thought is instrumental

Although various doubts have been addressed we may remain doubtful for reasons stated earlier and elaborated in the development. Faith is a response to doubt. However, it should not be thought that faith is a substitute for proof. Rather, faith may guide action in the absence of certainty. Enlightened faith in what is reasonable—rather than the kind of faith that places trust in dogma—enhances the quality of being the expected value of outcomes

Principles of perception, thought and action

Reflexivity

The following paragraph contains repeats the paragraph OLE_LINK2

Experience, Being or existence, all being or Universe, Object form, pattern, Law… (versus law), Difference and its Intensive (quality, independent of amount) and Extensive (mass or coordinate) kinds—Duration, Extension… (and their degrees of freedom e.g. our space is as if three dimensional,) Domain, absence of being or Void, Logic (or word, law, or Logos)

Reflexivity as a source of originality

When it is asked what differentiates the—human—mind from an algorithm, reflexivity and reference arise as strong differentiating candidates. The organism is embedded and this is a strong source of creativity; additionally self-reference, especially the ability to reflect on what one is doing—one’s arguments, one’s method or approach to argument—presents as particularly strong

Reflexivity is simultaneously a source of paradox and an essential source of creativity

As noted in the earlier studies of mind in this essay, elements of indeterminism are essential in creation of the essentially new in ideas—necessary for newness and for structure. This element is an essential part of the constructive side of reflexivity whether applied to the imagination of variety or of new ways of and insights into criticism

Elaboration and examples

Interaction and interaction of criticism and imagination or construction in thought, action and transformation—e.g. criticism of criticism, criticism and construction rather than an either-or attitude, construction or imagination applied to critical approaches and philosophies… thought and action experiment. Interaction of knowledge—e.g. the disciplines—and thought, of principles and applications, of sense and reference or concept and object, of psyche and its elements, of life and ideas, commitment to goals and projects and spontaneity of direction—even dissipation, of seriousness and light, of institution and occasion

Sources of ideas. Construction. Listing possibilities

Literature and conversation, imagination, reflex

Concept formation (similarity and difference)

Logic applied to construction

Construction and criticism

Logic (literature and conversation, imagination, reflex,) and construction applied to Criticism. Construction and criticism may both involve experiment in thought and action

What reflexivity covers

In previous versions of this narrative the following were regarded as principles but may be subsumed under reflexivity

Attention to meaning

Integration of the psyche

Thought and action

Action and faith

The point elaborated earlier is that while action is informed by creative-critical thought, that alone is insufficient. It is essential to occasionally have animal faith in the stability of the world, in the occasion for ‘pure’ action that is experiment without regard to an outcome of failure or success—which is not to exclude hope or even faith in success… or equanimity in the possibility of failure

Perfection

While the Universe and its inhabitants generally remain in becoming, it occasionally enters into or passes nearby states of ‘perfection’ whose occasion is a necessary consequence of the fundamental principle

Being

Concepts—history—history, nature of history, function, functional continuum, vision, transformation, the theory of history, fact, establishment, interpretation, error, distortion, revisionism, realism, myth, cool heads, warm hearts

Concepts—pure being—substance, slant, significance, crystal purity, the problem of eradication of all doubt, fetish or neurotic attraction, fetish or neurotic avoidance, pure being, eros, death, inseparability of eros and death, pure being is not crystal purity, attraction, repulsion, life, annihilation

The nature of being-as-being has been addressed in Intuition and Metaphysics. In this chapter the nature of being is approached from the point of view of an individual that is capable of meaning-in-the-sense-of-significance to the life of the individual andor the universe

The topic is sense of significance that an individual may have about his or her life and person—its nature, source, and foundation

An individual who complains about the lack of a sense of significance is making that complaint under the expectation of significance. The lack of significance that is experience by some people—and related philosophies—bring into question whether significance deserves to be called real

The topic may be described as the meaning of being where ‘meaning’ is used in the broad sense of significance rather than that of word-meaning

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

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 one that arises out of our sense of significance rather than some universal or objective meaning of significance

Perhaps being-as-significant-being and being-without-qualification are not distinct at root

This chapter provides context for the journey

The approaches to the concept of significance shall be History and Pure being

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

The ideas of this narrative have significant impact on the concept of history and the relation of being—and beings—to history; in turn, the concept of history is briefly explored for its potential to contribute to transformation. The analysis of the idea of history provides occasion to assess the contribution and potential of the developments of the narrative

This chapter explores the relation between being and history in light of the theory of being, i.e. the Universal metaphysics and its development

The first section—after this introduction—Being and history takes up this general theme and reflects on implications of the ideas for history and its meaning. This section explores the nature and uses of history—what history may impart regarding vision of the world and its possibilities, what history may imply for the possibilities of transformation, and for the nature of history in the light of the understanding of being

Pivotal idea—Nature and use of History—History and ‘cultural heritage’ are distinguished by the claim or attempt of history to objectivity; the common pre-objective significance of these endeavors connects them to the legend and myth of the ancient and ‘pre-historical’ cultures; the question—what is that significance? One significance is that it has use as a guide for being in the search for and transformation to Being! Objective history has as one of its uses this same significance; in so far as objectivity is obtained and in so far as cause and effect and pattern are objectively discerned, i.e. insofar as historical study may be predictive, objective history has the use of transformation of value, perhaps interactively and iteratively, into material and cultural transformation of our world. The Journey will use as one of its instruments these intuitive and objective guides to possibility and exploration; and this will or may occur in interactive parallel with attention to the nature, possibility, and value of the two sides to history

What is History?

The twin problems of History are those of writing and of using it—of its nature and function; and realism dictates that it cannot have just any nature or any function or that nature and function can be entirely independent. At once this suggests that any traditional or dominant notion that ignores this dictate of realism may be limited. It may require that any single specific assignment of nature and function shall be found inadequate

A flexible assignment, however, may be more adequate—that is, function may lie on a continuum and, accordingly, there may be a variety of proper approaches to writing history

‘History’ has generally been dominated by the requirement that it be factual. However, it is known that establishment of facts, selection of focus, and interpretation of facts have the potential for error and distortion. We take it that some error is unavoidable; that some selection of focus is unavoidable; and that some coloration of interpretation due to temperament and political persuasion is near unavoidable

Therefore any strict requirement of factual character is impossible and must be relinquished. One use of fact, in combination with theory, is to predict the outcome of action and so to make effective choices. This is not an altogether impossible aim. Even though the ‘best’ political and economic histories might have difficulties of fact and interpretation—and theory—we are undoubtedly in a better position to make economic and political decisions with such a history than without it

The unintended coloration of history is unavoidable. ‘Revisionism’ is regarded as an ugly word because it typically implies the whitewash or suppression of acts and values of barbarism and brutality. However, the disempowered ‘revise’ and ‘reinterpret’ as much as the powerful. And the question arises how long we should live in the shadow of the past. Therefore, revision is not inherently ugly even if it is not factual. Importantly, even if there was no historical wrong we are not thereby absolved from addressing today’s inequities

There is therefore a Gordian knot concerning fact and fiction in history waiting to be cut. Let us cut through this knot by allowing history to concern both fact and fiction—realism and myth—that shall lie on a continuum. Let us not assume that we shall be saved by logic and rigor (or that logic and rigor are inessential.) Rather, ‘cool heads must be balanced by warm hearts.’ Indeed, the term ‘balance’ is not quite adequate but may be replaced by ‘enhanced’

To the critic who says ‘history is merely myth’ we may respond that we have acknowledged and gone beyond the truth of that position. And we respond that fact is allowed where possible to anyone who asserts that the factual character and predictive function has been entirely surrendered

This discussion provides a framework within which it is found most effective to not have a preconception of the nature of history—to avoid the habit of substance thinking—but to allow multiple objectives and corresponding criteria to develop without anyone laying a priori claim to the exclusive title of ‘History;’ which, after all, is may be disguised a play at political exclusivity

Being and history

Vision

What may History contribute to our vision of being, of the Universe, of the place and future of human being—of any being or individual—in the Universe?

The Normal view is one of limited freedom and restraint

The Universal view is one of infinite freedom; however this ‘freedom’ lies on a continuum of light and dark; the light contains what is infinitely positive. What is the nature of that positive? Is the dark a mere emptiness or is it infinitely negative; that negative over which we have no control may be a source of fear but has perhaps no further significance. Perhaps the form of the negative over which there is control results from freedom—freedom is burden and opportunity

Transformation

In a Normal view we may learn incrementally from the local world and its history

An Open view may and perhaps must at least occasionally include the Normal but also opens up and—if the ultimate is a value it may be effective to seek this opening—into infinite possibility. What balance may there between the incremental and limited freedom-restraint versus the open and the infinite?

History in light of being

In the Normal perspective, History has force that provides ‘positive and negative momentum’

In the Universal, History is an element within Vision; this element has no weight or inertia or force. In the light of being, History itself is weightless

Pure being

Theme—Being in the present as Identity with all being… as a mode of eternity

…Wittgenstein

An individual may derive some significance from the world outside his or her own being; however, significance cannot be derived from outside being itself

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 or neurotic 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 or neurotic 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

Theme—Contributions. Original contributions—Intuition through Being. Contribution to thought, action and their history. Contribution to philosophy and metaphysics. Contribution to definition and definitive resolution of the classical through recent problems of metaphysics. Contribution to method and effective development of conceptual knowledge and understanding for new and extended contexts. Contributions to Human knowledge

Concepts—contribution, originality, significance, ultimacy, intrinsic ultimacy—raising a contextual study to its intrinsic limit

Concepts—the contributions—metaphysics, philosophy, intrinsic limit of philosophy, error of premature criticism, error of paradigmatic criticism, problems of metaphysics, death of problematicity, method, system of human knowledge, ultimate system, symbols and knowledge, the Universe, artifact

The original contributions

There is no need to repeat the details of the contributions that are part of the main development. The following recapitulate some of the broad topics regarded and tendered as significant

Intuition, Metaphysics, Logic, Theory of Objects, Cosmology, and Method

The possibilities of Human and Animal Being

Human knowledge

Reconceptualization of logic as Logic; potential contributions to logics, science, and other disciplines. Some potential contributions are pointed out in Background study, research, experiment: in the modes and means of transformation

The section Significance of the ideas of the narrative for thought and its history mentions contributions in the areas of metaphysics, philosophy. The section Human knowledge indicates the impact for human knowledge

Method and conception of the possibilities, feasibilities, and actualization of transformation

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

Pivotal idea—Significance of the work—The general significance of the work is brought out in the narrative. The significance for academics include the following recapitulation of the main areas of contribution—(a) Metaphysics, Logic, Theory of Objects, Cosmology, and Method; (b) the possibilities of Human and Animal Being; (c) Human knowledge nature, extent, and content; and, specifically, (d) potential contributions to logic, science…

The following topics have general significance but are secondary to the main development. The nature of the ultimate character of some of the contributions is brought out in the main development; it is pointed out below without full elaboration of the nature of the ultimates

Philosophy and metaphysics

What is perhaps the problem of the nature of philosophy is—includes—that it has come to have specialized and limited connotations as in analytic and continental circles via its history and relation to other disciplines. What is the status of these limited connotations? Are they necessary?

The response is that the Universal metaphysics shows that self and externally imposed limits on philosophy can be and are transcended and, further, in the ultimate character of the metaphysics goes beyond anything thought and earlier recorded. Although there are intimations of elements of content and the ideas of the method, the various elements and ideas have not been put together before—either separately as content and as method or combined as content-method—and the dynamic result is a system of immense consequences that is new, ultimate—in depth of understanding and breadth of being revealed; and surprising—perhaps even intoxicating

The surprise lies not only in the ultimate character but also in the economy of the development

However, a focus on hastily thought out reflections based on suggestion from limited contexts is reflected in the recent history of academic philosophy in which every generation barely refers to the work of the previous while the works and questions of the seminal thinkers remain fundamental

In paragraphs that follow, some possible reasons for the uncritical acceptance of suggested limits will be given

Critical philosophy has the following uses. First, it attempts to eliminate error. This is important. However, elimination of error, even though we accept its fundamental importance, can be overrated—for errors of method do not invariably imply errors of content… and it is often important to act even in the presence of error or in the absence of knowledge that error has been eliminated. A second use of critical philosophy, one in which criticism is not an end in itself, is that it may suggest or force the overcoming of error and the development of methods of greater power than available previously. As we have seen, even neurotic criticism may be of immense value. All too often, however, criticism is seen as an end in itself and philosophy and thought then suffer a self-imprisonment in which they labor under falsely held and, paradoxically, uncritically critical ideals

In any case, the present development, demonstrates the possibility of overcoming the critical momentum of recent thought and simultaneously realizes that possibility in the ultimate Universal metaphysics

Therefore consider the following

Metaphysics

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

The goal of metaphysics may be said to be to bring all experience—and intention and action—including the forms of experience into a single coherent system of description of the universe. The final concept will not include all forms because, due to consistency the requirement, there is no Object that is the referent object of all forms. However, the final Object will implicitly contain all forms of experience-in-themselves, i.e. as concepts. Metaphysics may be said to be the result of this goal

Philosophy

It is now possible to see philosophy as 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; and which is revealed as a study of meaning but also of fact and significance and a study in lateral analysis but also in analysis via depth. The firmness of the foundation of metaphysics is carried over to the foundation philosophy where the limit of firmness or certainty is the modified firmness or certainty of the special context or discipline

Where philosophy has been seen as limited on account of its boundaries in relation to other disciplines, such boundaries may be seen as contingent or Normal. The Normal boundaries may be seen as apportioning of subject matter, division of labor, territorial concerns. We do not claim that the apportioning of subject has no basis—only that it is and cannot be absolute and this has been shown. That philosophers occasionally show naïveté regarding science shows the naïveté of the person and not a necessary limitation; the physicist even as physicist occasionally needs to turn to philosophical concerns that overlap the physical

Philosophy has been held to be ‘merely’ conceptual. However, as has been seen here the conceptual is not ‘mere’ in any sense but is fundamentally empirical at root

Certain movements in Continental philosophy have abandoned the ‘grand narrative.’ If ‘grand narrative’ refers to the positing of a vast speculative scheme then there is some validity this abandonment (the validity is not entire because there may be value in a grand speculation.) Modern thought reveals the emptiness of certain grand narratives of the past as does history. What history may show, however, is that certain speculative schemes are empty; and modern thought itself has been shown here to be immensely contingent even though it regards itself as natural—which is the case with the thought of every age. What history cannot show, however, is that systematic and comprehensive metaphysics is impossible. History may suggest this impossibility and the suggestion may turn out to be valid or not. Perhaps, then, reason may show the impossibility of systematic-comprehensive metaphysics. Since Kant it has been thought to have been demonstrated that this is in fact the case. The implicit error in this thinking has been shown. It is, first, that while there is an aspect of detail in which the central metaphysical concepts ‘all,’ ‘part’ and ‘absence’ may be incapable of being known by a—finite—being, the abstract versions of these concepts, i.e. the versions devoid of detail, are supremely, necessarily, and precisely empirical and faithful; in fact it is only in the case of such concepts that faithfulness has explicit meaning. The second part to the error in the anti-metaphysical thinking is the supposition that no absolute non-relativist (yet non-substance) demonstration is possible; such demonstration has indeed been performed here with the result that the Law of the Universe is Logic

It may be a failure of nerve, a self-aggrandizement, a parochialism that generalizes from—e.g. historical—sequence to concept; the thinker who so generalizes commits the error that he criticizes. It may have been a similar failure to think from empiricism and Kantianism that no systematic-comprehensive (Universal) metaphysics is possible—it is perhaps the case that the implicit errors in empiricism-Kantianism were neglected in the parochial and self-aggrandizing rush to abandon the Universe in favor of the backyard. Perhaps we should not be critical; perhaps we should think, simply, that certain details were not noticed, certain lucky inspirations were not had—for it is not clear to the writer whether the present developments have occurred because of attention to detail and luck or due to persistence and insight

Here, we have developed an immense view of the variety and connectedness of being which is not grand in the sense that it emerges from a simple view of the elements of being, in that it is not posited, not speculative

Extensions

An extension to these thoughts on metaphysics and philosophy is implicit in the chapter and idea of a Journey. This extension may be called the reflective life which is not one of pure reflection but one in which reflection and action interact to enhance and illuminate one another in greater realization and meaning

Problems of metaphysics

It is clear that numerous classical and modern problems of metaphysics have received illumination and resolution. Such problems include identity, mind-body, substance, the fundamental problem of metaphysics, the possibility of metaphysics… The problems and their resolutions are catalogued at http://www.horizons-2000.org

The essential problems of the discipline of metaphysics concern the nature of the objects—and categories—identified above and the problem of fitting them into a coherent (consistent) system. A review of the actual problems reveals this to be the case and it is not necessary to re-list the problems to prove the point

What are the important Objects? First are the important metaphysical Objects taken up earlier—being, all being, void, identity, mind, matter, human being… Second are the Objects of intrinsic importance to human beings, e.g. knowledge, peace, love (it sometimes seems that love does better without analysis although some clarifications and removal of confusions of sophistry might be useful—there is perhaps a twofold philosophy of emotion or feeling, first, in the integration of cognition-feeling performed here and in greater detail in other essays of http://www.horizons-2000.org and, second, in a two-way ‘conversation’ between cognition and the emotions in which each learns from the other; this would, perhaps, be vastly better than any attempt to bring emotion under the rule of thought or the alternative abandonment of reason altogether in the domain of pure feeling.) The two classes of Object are not distinct; the analysis of the first is exhaustive; that of the second cannot and perhaps should not be exhaustive but attention to it eclectic (except of course as noted that the system of concerns is not decomposable into Objects to be addressed in isolation.) A final Object is the meta-Object such as metaphysics itself that is also addressed

Resolutions

The problem of final or ultimate explanation. The problem of grand narratives—the problem is not of the actuality but that of positing such a narrative for, if such a ‘narrative’ emerges in cold Rationality there can be no stand against it except cold argument

The problem of a non-relativist philosophy without substance… of final or ultimate explanation. An encapsulation of the resolution is to recognize the sense in which such explanation is possible and actual. First, it is explicit with respect to depth—the foundations are trivial even though immense and profound in implication; and, of course, seeing the foundation is not at all a trivial endeavor. Second, the ‘final and ultimate’ explanation is implicit with respect to breadth—All Being is its implicit Object; however, the discovery and Experience—Capitalization implies becoming the Object rather than merely conceiving it—is a process, a journey

The nature of the ultimate breadth and depth of metaphysics, i.e. of the Universal metaphysics or Metaphysics of immanence

The problem of ultimate explanation that has no application. This problem is resolved, first, in revealing the falsity of the practical / theoretical / immediate / ultimate dichotomies; and then in showing, in their common meanings, both applicability and application

The problem of mere being. There is no mere being—except as approximation. Human being is not ‘mere;’ animal being is anything but ‘mere.’ Greatness does not require being greater than

The fundamental problem of metaphysics. This is the problem of why there is anything. Its resolution; its fundamental character is rendered trivial. The fundamental problem becomes ‘What things exist?’

Method. Effective development of knowledge for new contexts

The novel and in some ways ultimate contributions to method are detailed in chapter Method

Human knowledge

The nature and limits of human knowledge have been discussed earlier. This section presents a system of human knowledge with basis in the developments of the essay

A look at the system that follows shows significant impact of the thought developed here

The scheme is a significantly enhanced version of that of the 15^th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica

As a consequence of the Universal metaphysics, each discipline assumes a form that has an ultimate aspect that is limited of course by the Normal Object of concern

Such limits should not be thought of as entirely the result of limited faculties but at least partially in the nature of the—Normal—Object. While improvement in understanding is possible and often good, the search for perfect understanding of Normal Objects may stand in the way of adventure in the infinite Object, i.e. the Universe. When we sense the presence of an Object it does not follow that it is entirely determinate. When an Object is incapable of precise understanding, there is no value to the search for such understanding—put this way this is of course obvious: it is the present development that has made this understanding—of understanding—obvious

Symbols and Knowledge

10a. Symbols and signs; semiotics—the study of signs and sign behavior. Symbolic Systems including language, logic, and mathematics. 10b. The Humanities and Philosophy; Study of Science and History

The Universe

1a. Metaphysics and general cosmology, nature and unlimited variety and extent of Being, which includes Logic, Value or ethics and aesthetics, epistemology; nature and varieties of Knowledge, where, note, Belief is fundamental and the varieties of belief include Faith as (primarily) Belief-Action, Knowledge as Belief-Justification; 1b. Physical science, nature, behavior of energy and varieties of force and material object including physics, physical cosmology, and chemistry; 2. Geology; 3. Biology, life—its nature and variety and origins of life and variety; Medicine; 4. Mind as the study of psyche in its integration and its ‘functions;’ nature of mind; 5. Society, nature, institutions (groups) and change… and aspects including culture (institution of knowledge,) economics, political science and philosophy (and Law;) and 6. History

Artifact

7. Art, its nature and varieties (literature, music, painting, sculpture, architecture…;) 8. Technology elements: energy, tools and machines… and fields: agriculture, transportation, information, earth and space exploration…; Engineering; and 9. Faith, literal and nature and varieties of non literal meaning and non meaning functions; religion, its nature and varieties: religions of the world—hunter gatherer and agriculture based societies, throughout pre-history and history. The concept of religion as knowledge and negotiation of the entire universe by the entire individual in all its faculties and modes of being. The relation of this concept to possible and potential realizations of as yet unnamed and un-thought ideational form