Ontological commitments of our common traditions

It seems to be characteristic of the majority of systems of being that they are overcommitted in the beginning. Some commitments may be explicit while others are not fully conscious

Typically such commitments may seem reasonable. However, it is clear that many commitments that may have seemed reasonable in one time and place later turn out to be incorrect. This may be the case even for our most obvious and most cherished commitments

If at the outset of some investigation or journey we avoid such commitments, the following advantages may accrue. First, perhaps we avoid unnecessary error. But the issue is far greater than one of simple error for the result of a simple erroneous in the conception of the nature of being may be an immense misunderstanding and even limitation on our understanding of the actualities and possibilities of being. And second, even where pre-commitment should happen to be correct, it may fall out of the investigation that that commitment is correct; in this case the commitment is not merely assumed but is strengthened--and more for the means of strengthening can only be improved understanding and therefore a mere stance may be replaced by understanding

Some commitments that we make are explicit but others range from the explicit to the implicit—from the conscious to the unconscious. The less than conscious factors may be absorbed from the social milieu or may be more or less organic in that they are built into our constitution. As an example of the latter, imagine another cosmos far from ours, where the laws of physics and therefore the modes of communication are quite different from ours. If it is true that our human being has arisen from the background of this cosmos, it is natural that powers of perception attuned to the cosmos should have an 'innate' component. Similarly, we will probably lack innate attunement to the other cosmos. Still, our powers of conception and analysis may be sufficient to have some understanding of another cosmos. Therefore, if we should insist that this cosmos is the mould for all cosmological systems then we cut ourselves off from what may be a valid understanding of the entire universe and its possible immensity

It may (and will) therefore be useful to search for and catalog our ontological and other commitments

The world is mind; the world is matter; the world is some other substance; the world is more than one substance; the world is substance

Common knowledge and tradition-science, the traditions, myth, religion, art-define the world

I am Anil Mitra

Language has an absolute anchor that is defined by its institutions (schools, scholarly societies, language associations, textbooks, grammars, dictionaries...) Even if we do not know the meaning of every word, there is a meaning that could be found if only we were intelligent enough; dictionaries arbitrate meaning. Spelling should be fixed by dictionaries. Grammatical form is fixed by convention and rules...