work with tables of contents to have a range of summary types, e.g.—concept hierarchy, concepts with main statements… insert some of the following between field marks, ,

TOC \n\h \t "Heading 1,1,List,2,List 2,3,Normal Indent,4,Normal Indent 1,4,Normal Indent 2,4,Normal Indent 3,4,Normal Indent 4,4,Normal Indent 5,4,Normal Indent 6,4,Normal Indent 7,4,Normal Indent 8,4" \z

main topics to address at more than one level

pre and post fundamental principle and metaphysics

see into the way > the narrative > character > topics treated at two or more stages or levels

perfect vs approximate | pragmatic

final vs tentative

systematic stepping through the outline

some important sections and topics

backup the document, then minimize the introduction to its essentials

need more detail for sections 3 and 4

section 2—need more details for

descriptive metaphysics

cosmology

general stepping through

step through from beginning to end,

1. Making comments on what is needed,

2. Supplying the need.

using the comments

deal with most comments in the main narrative; this is ongoing

plan for all documents for the way

Have a separate plan document for site, essays, other material—or is the site plan effective?

upload

Join with outline (after minimizing its main ideas; ) brief and long outlines, using this document as hierarchic outline – may fill in with from topics and concepts

Write short manual version, combining it with précis and brief version, using then eliminating the general manual

Write other versions in the field

long version

may redo journey in being-axiomatic

Sources

planning—home, plan, priorities

essay content—topics and concepts and a journey in being for external sources for topics

styles

List styles—concept names (List and levels 2 – 95)

Red font shows work to be done

Normal Main for first look content (one style)

Normal Indent styles for brief, essential content (Normal Indent and levels 1 – 95)

List Continue styles—detailed content (List Continue and levels 2 – 95)

Definition styles—definitions (Definition and levels 2 – 95)

Heading Color

comment

~~comment—resolved but to be reviewed for continued application~~

improving the automation of ‘hierarchy’

1. improve the programming—

may change if blocks to case,

rather than multiple blocks in ‘promote’ and ‘demote’, call a function or sub

2. when a style set button is clicked, input should suggest the most likely style and level

3. make the numbering of styles consistent

4. other styles to introduce

1 into the way

this informal section is on the place and origins of ‘the way’ in the world; it has some functions of a preface and an introduction

to know and realize the world

“into the way” is an informal introduction to the way and its origin in the world; its aims are to (i) to provide an overview or preview and motivation (ii) informal explanation that will, first, illuminate the more formal treatment in the sections “the world” and “the way” and (iii) to make the presentation of those sections systematic and readable as a result of the preview and yet not burdened with excesses of motivation and explanation

align what comes before the preview with the preview, and minimize the former

aim of the way

the principle of the aim

to find a framework to see the many aims, directions—even if destructive, contentment without aim, and the chaos of history as real but yet a unity

is to seek, know, and become the greatest possibility

seeking the meaning of the greatest part of the greatest

the aim

shared discovery and realization of the ultimate in this world and beyond

this is later shown to be the aim of being

the ultimate

… concept and object

at the beginning of seeking, we are unlikely to know what constitutes the ultimate; however it is easy to state an outer boundary to it—

the ultimate does not exceed the greatest possibility in the most permissive sense of possibility

we will find that

the ultimate is the greatest possibility in the greatest sense of possibility—and that that greatest sense is ‘logical’ possibility

what lies within logical possibility? that is significantly open to discovery! that process of discovery—and realization—is what the way is about; however, there are some preliminary issues to address

is logical possibility sterile and restricting? no; what is required by logical possibility is sterile, but what is allowed is ultimately liberating

would realization of all possibility (for the rest of this section, the descriptor ‘logical’ is omitted) violate our experience, science, or reason? a short answer is ‘no’, for experience and science show part of what there is but not what there is not, while common reason is about what can be inferred from experience and science (in the narrative ‘reason’ will have two uses, neither of which is just inference)

what are (some of) the sources for discovery and realization of possibility? here are some—

imagination, experiment and action, attempt to transform self and world, learning

world culture—science, art, religion and other disciplines; even beyond science, science may provide useful paradigms; art and religion may imagine possibility, philosophy and reason may show us which of those possibilities are worthwhile and feasible

what are some consequences of the limit of realization being the limit of possibility?

we find later that (i) the universe has identity (ii) which are limitless in variety, extension, and duration (iii) for example, there limitless arrays of cosmoses and physical laws, all in transaction with the void (iv) the individual inherits this limitlessness (v) there are ways to the ultimate (vi) if enjoyment is a value, it is imperative to be on a pathway to the ultimate (vii) to be on a pathway is not just to follow but also to negotiate ways and transformation intelligently (viii) enjoyment includes happiness but is more than that—it is appreciation of all our states of being and experience including pain (ix) the best address of pain is a combination of direct address (‘therapy’) and being on the way (except where overwhelming, the address of pain ought not to divert us from realization)

origins

be-ing and be-coming

search for meaning

i.e., significant meaning rather than concept and linguistic meaning

significant meaning

a capacity to recognize and seek significance in and beyond experience so far

tradition and its limits

the values of tradition

the values arising from tradition are neither stability and conservatism nor change and liberalism, but—

interactions of stability and change, conservatism and liberalism

preliminary notions

in secularism, the world is thought to limited by what is seen in consensus common experience and its consensus interpretations

in transsecularism, the secular world admitted but is part of is a part of a larger world

dogma is an uncritical but rigid projection onto the world and may reject elements of critical secularism and transsecularism that contradict it

kinds of transsecularism—

weak

the larger world is not ruled out by principle

strong

the extent of the world is limited only the most permissive but consistent possibility (subject of course to existence of the experienced or secular world)

religious

there is a range of transsecular pictures, some affirming a world beyond, others denying it but affirming that this world is more than as seen in direct experience; these pictures are typically characterized by some dogma and regarded as complete, and, because they are seen as complete, they may suffer from ideologically imposed stasis

metaphysical

metaphysics

knowledge of the real

speculative metaphysics

a part of world is characterized by a hypothetical but not irrational metaphysics suggested by and projected on but not derived from experience

the entire world as well as the void are considered to be ‘parts’; the experience may be delimited or may seek to cover its entire range

scientific metaphysics

speculative metaphysics, subject to the requirement that it be consistent with sought and emerging experience (which may be suggested by the metaphysics itself); note that on this conception, theoretical physics, perhaps tidied up, is a part of scientific metaphysics

rational metaphysics

which goes beyond tradition so far, and will therefore be discussed below under the head ‘beyond tradition’

interpretation of experience

natural tendency to see experience-and-its-interpretation-as-the-world, for (i) it is default (ii) it provides no vista or guide for any beyond (iii) it includes the ‘latest’ in visionary and critical thought

projection onto the world

but the natural tendency becomes further reinforced as (i) mutual social construct (ii) the power of conservatism and disapprobation of liberal thought

dogma

various projections, including the religious, political, and the academic, become tools of power and crutches of thought

twin limitation of secular and transsecular thought

when a secular thinker would break out of conservative or traditional secular thought, including science, the alternative of dogma is discouraging

transsecular thinkers, especially in dogmatic religion, are unaccustomed to open – critical – experimental thought as in properly done philosophy and science and do not see their point and this is capitalized upon by those who would use dogma as a source of power

beyond tradition

but tradition has a tradition of going beyond itself

in this work we find explicit ways of going beyond the worlds of knowledge and action as they generally stand today

in some ways this going beyond (i) has perfection (ii) finds the ultimate in the universe

tentative probing beyond tradition

does our historical world culture have direction? is its direction right? what senses of right might emerge in this regard?

its self-definition has blindness, incompleteness, lack of definition

to right it would require a metaphysics that reveals the universe, the place of beings in the universe, and universal value

from the ‘twin limitation…’ above, because they are bound by ‘consensus experience so far’ and dogma, the secular and the transsecular of tradition, together, severely limit our critical-creative view of the real, and process toward the ultimate; in summary—

because they are bound by consensus experience and dogma, our best paradigms are severely limited views of the real

of course, it is conceivable that experience so far defines the limit of the world; however, this is improbable, and will be found untrue, for—

rational metaphysics

a picture of the real derived from experience

not merely speculative or scientific

in rational metaphysics a conceptual system or picture of the universe is derived (in the sense of necessary inference) from experience, and while a system cannot be specified without derivation, its outer limit is the limit of the most permissive but consistent possibility, it will be found that the outer limit of possibility and the actual coincide, so that the only freedom in rational metaphysics is the degree of detail in the picture, which is a significant and limitless freedom (and which is not a limit on the freedom of beings); note that with metaphysics is true knowledge of the world, rational metaphysics is the most inclusive true metaphysics, and that scientific metaphysics is less rigorous than rational metaphysics and given systems of scientific metaphysics may fall outside rational metaphysics; finally, note that there is no commonly known and consensus rational metaphysics

a rational metaphysics has not been shown above, but the foregoing suggests that there is a significant way beyond tradition

in this narrative we will find a rational metaphysics

sources

the world

history

destiny

chaos

equilibrium

process

cultures

tradition

paradigms

literature

the individual

experience

reflection

learning

action

transformation

principles and means

reason

the received use of ‘reason’ is, roughly, ‘inference’ or ‘indirect establishment of knowledge’; in this work reason shall cover both direct and indirect knowledge

this is a preliminary discussion of reason; see the main discussion of reason

the most effective way to achieve ends

acquiring knowledge

as we approach the question of reason, we may hope for but do not expect absolute, full, or given foundation; we learn from experience that foundation may be relative, partial, and in-process

we will find (i) with sufficient abstraction, there is absolute foundation for perfect knowledge as correspondence (ii) joining this perfect knowledge with the pragmatic knowledge of tradition yields a system, the perfect metaphysics, which is perfect in terms of values revealed by the perfect

direct and inferred knowledge

i.e., understanding and reason (Kant)

elements of reason

knowledge

worldview—the real metaphysics

logic

“perfect”

limitlessness of the world “the universe and its beings are limitless”

i.e., the fundamental principle of metaphysics

if enjoyment is a value, realization of the ultimate is imperative

science and tradition

abstract and concrete

pragmatic

imperfect on its own criteria

the best so far

perfect synthesis

the real metaphysics—perfect synthesis of reason, limitlessness, tradition and tradition free of its dogmatic limits

the perfect illuminates and guides the pragmatic; the pragmatic illustrates and is instrumental toward realization

the synthesis is perfect toward realization on the revealed value of enjoyment

no a priori

transformation

action

path

learning

the imperative

the text

aim of the narrative

develop and present means and resources to achieve the aim of the way; which include

knowledge of the universe and our place in it (as process, if appropriate)—separated from action and transformation sufficiently for efficiency, but never entirely separated (at higher levels, knowledge and action are one)

since knowledge and process are in the universe this includes the means or methods for knowledge and incremental imagination, criticism, and action toward transformation and learning

present resources for transformation

function

discovery and realization of the ultimate

knowledge and action

means of realization

path to the ultimate

character

original

ultimate

system

emergent

not imposed

value

if appreciation of the world and process is a value

then realization of the ultimate is an imperative

contribution

not a compendium or synthesis of the received, not a text

the real metaphysics

place in history

continuous text

synthesis

new and received ideas and concepts

basis

experience

reflection

tradition

literature

culture

system is emergent, not imposed

concepts treated at two or more stages or levels

pre- and post-metaphysics

¿other levels?

aim and destiny

foundations

what a foundation is

why are foundations important

what the world is made of

secure basis for knowledge

how foundation is elusive

being—what has being?

immediately definite

being itself

experience

its recursivity

as if (world)

… other interpretations as interpretations

not immediately definite

interpretations as real

common objects

matter

… other concreta

abstracta

universals

tropes

experience

what experience is

experience and the world

interpretations

dimensions

logic

the sciences

concrete

natural

social

abstract

mathematics

linguistics

incompleteness of the distinction

continuum

overlap

the ‘concrete’ sciences are also symbolic

the ‘abstract’ sciences are also empirical

reason

free will

determinism

indeterminism, form, paradigms of process

choice

more…

on understanding the narrative

principle

beyond the definitely known, meaning is not determined—and so meanings of terms and the system transcend received meanings; naturally, there will be some continuity of meaning, perhaps some breaks, but in any region sufficiently far from that of common experience, concepts may have significantly altered or expanded meaning… and perhaps entirely new meaning

the universe is revealed as limitlessly greater than in standard received paradigms, secular and transsecular—therefore received paradigms may be limited and distorted versions of the real

the ideal knowledge just above is abstract and not instrumental and needs synthesis with ‘tradition’ to be concretized and instrumental

therefore

set aside received meanings and paradigms, at least temporarily

follow concept meanings as defined in the narrative

follow the system of meaning

recognize that the meanings constitute a system

hold judgment from received paradigms in abeyance while absorbing the system (later, such judgment will be useful in synthesizing the ideal with tradition or rejection of the ideal)

absorb the system as a gestalt

allow critical synthesis with the received (tradition)

resources

see into the world > resources

preview

this is a preview of the ideas and system of the way; motive and origins are given earlier

rewrite ‘into the way’ and the preview after completing the main sections

the concepts

combine the essential concepts with the flow

the world

tradition and beyond, substance and its rejection, being, reasons—not reason—generalization of cause or power, experience, concept, object, meaning (concept, linguistic), knowledge, culture, society, action, transformation, possibility, logical possibility and logic, science, abstract sciences, concrete sciences, reason, beings (dramatis personae), kinds of being, particular beings, possible beings, actual beings, cosmology of limitless identity, metaphysics, the real metaphysics, reason (again, improved in intension and extension), general metaphysics and cosmology

the way

aim of being, ways of realization (tradition, principles, synthesis, pathways), resources (dedication and affirmation, templates)

the flow of ideas

principle

reason and the a priori

reason

Immanuel Kant’s approach to knowledge and its foundation was via ‘understanding’ and ‘reason’

for Kant, understanding was direct knowledge and reason was inferred knowledge

here, we seek a single term to encompass direct and inferred knowledge; we will use ‘reason’

reason is the most effective way to achieve ends, including the end of knowledge, with inherent and appropriate certainty

though reason is the means, that it should contain knowledge itself is implicit

does reason include its own means? i.e., does—can—it self-justify?

the a priori

the received meaning of a priori knowledge is that it is known without experience (other than the experience of learning the language in which the knowledge is expressed); here I will define

a priori knowledge is that whose foundation, to a desired or appropriate degree of certainty, is integral to or part of the knowledge itself (in this sense, a priori knowledge would be self-founding)

thus, while there may be a priori propositions in the received sense, in general, such propositions will not be a priori in the present sense; on the other hand metaphysical system that had propositions at a range of ‘levels’, e.g. propositions about the world and propositions about propositions, could, at least conceivably, be a priori in the present sense

is reason a priori

the questions ought to be what might it mean for reason to be a priori? can reason be a priori? and, if so, how can we formulate reason—or, at least, a system of reason—as a priori? let us address these issues

when an individual or society and its culture develop, in the beginning, most knowledge will be received and the knowledge is not a priori for the knower, but it may be treated as a priori; however, as the development continues, some aspects of knowledge will carry with it its own means and therefore become a priori (note that so far I have not distinguished certain from likely true knowledge or means)

however, surely, one thinks, not all reason can become a priori; at minimum the idea that all knowledge is a priori seems improbably true

however, what we will find is outlined in the next two sections ‘abstraction’ and ‘the real metaphysics’—

abstraction

to abstract from a concept is to form another concept in which some details of the first are omitted

in this meaning the abstract concept is not remote or abstruse but may be more accessible, more real, and more knowable than the real

the essential concern about abstraction, here, is whether abstract concepts can be perfectly faithful to their objects

consider ‘being’ conceived as the property of existents; are there existents? indeed there are, for the universe as all being exists and experience as consciousness exists; therefore, though the set of examples thus far is sparse, there is being and there are beings or existents; further, we will develop an abstract, potent, and perfect metaphysics that refers to the universe and finds it to be limitless

abstraction enables perfect and potent knowledge; this will be exemplified and amplified next

the real metaphysics

there is a realm of abstract knowledge that is perfectly faithful, that shows the universe to be limitless, that shows that all beings realize limitlessness, and that, if enjoyment is a value, being on a path to realization is an imperative

on the other hand ordinary reason as received and practiced continues to have its received and conceived problems of truth and significance

yet this ordinary reason is the only means we have at present of negotiating pathways to the ultimate; and while it is unlikely to be perfectly faithful, it is in its pragmatic worth perfect as the only effective means to realization (and further realization may be a motion of beings from cosmos to cosmos, each with its own pragmatics, each to be cast off in moving to the next)

the perfect illumines and guides the pragmatic; the pragmatic illustrates and is instrumental toward the perfect; and, in terms of the ideal of realization, they form a perfect union*, which will be named the real metaphysics

* the criterion of this ‘perfection’ is dual—perfect correspondence for the realm abstract and universal knowledge and pragmatic for ‘ordinary’ reason (which includes ordinary knowledge); it is important to note that this stands against purism (or anti-purism) regarding knowledge and its criteria

the flow

the flow is designed to support the aim—discovery and realization of the ultimate, stated earlier

being and experience

we begin with being, in itself, unlike standard foundational approaches – substance, infinite regress – coherentism which are all posits, being requires no foundation and is not, as argued by some thinkers to be so trivial as to be impotent or not a concept at all. it is not only founding, but it also is grounding of our place in the world and process toward the ultimate

in a sense we never emerge from experience, particularly consciousness at all its levels, and it is therefore the place of our being and significant meaning—and co-founding and co-grounding; in its richness it stands in apparent contrast to the abstraction of being; experience is the place of realization; being is found essentially experiential and relational

beings—the universe, the individual, the void

the universe is defined as ‘all being’ and is therefore framing; the individual is critical as it is the locus of experience and realization; the void is the absence of being and is critical to the development as the place where no laws obtain and is therefore a source of absolute limitlessness

note that the definition of the universe as all being (over all extension and duration and any other extensional parameters of which, by the way, it can be shown that there are none)—it eliminates endless debates such as what created the universe, for, since there is no other being, the universe was not created (and generally, beings are categorially incapable of self-creation)

it is from the properties of the void that the fundamental principle may be derived

possibility

analysis of possibility is analysis of limitlessness and leads to new conceptions of—

logic

concrete sciences

physics, biology, psychology…

abstract sciences

mathematics…

tradition

as the store of cumulative knowledge and process, tradition is the pragmatic complement to the fundamental principle noted above; the integration of the pragmatic and the perfect lead to

the real metaphysics

the elements of the real metaphysics are

foundation of reason

…as the place and process of knowledge and inference

cosmology of limitless identity

…as description of the universe, its identity, and what the individual realizes

pathways to the ultimate

2 the world

to know the world

the universe is limitless, and all beings inherit its power

concept meaning

a preliminary section on concept and linguistic meaning;

the discussion

meaning will be formally discussed below; this discussion of meaning in into the way—is an important preliminary to the formal development of the way

the constituents of a linguistic meaning are a concept and associated sign, simple or compound, and its possible objects

even within the known, the associations are, in general, at most semi-definite or fixed

in moving into the unknown, there can be no fixity

in the following, however, there is definiteness of meaning; how is this possible?

the definiteness obtains only on the ideal side of the real metaphysics to be developed, as follows

a system of meaning is—was—arrived at by trial and error; the emerged metaphysical system is shown to capture an abstract of all being—the entire one universe; in the context of this abstract, meanings are definite; in the less abstract realm, meanings have tentativeness relative to an ideal of perfect faithfulness but it is shown that their pragmatic meanings are perfect in a pragmatic sense to be defined

it is therefore critical to follow meanings as defined; to put aside received meanings and criticism while absorbing the emerging metaphysical system; later, the reader may and ought to return to criticism to accept or reject the system; and if it is accepted, perhaps to enrich the significance of the system and received meaning by integrating them into the reader’s system of meaning

summary

to follow the narrative, it is essential to follow meanings as defined; later, the reader may return to criticism and perhaps to meshing the emergent system with their native and received system of meaning

being

preliminary comment—because being is found to be essentially experiential, metaphysically and epistemologically, the discussion of being and experience may be seen as a single discussion ‘being-experience’; for convenience, however, the material is presented as two textually separate but not conceptually distinct discussions

the concept of being

a being is that which is and being is the characteristic of beings as beings.

alternate—

being is the characteristic of that which is, and a being is that which has being

is being a being? the concepts are distinct, but with and only with sufficient abstraction, the objects are the same

neutrality of the concept

toward differences among beings, kinds, and categories; examples—

though we think of beings as manifest, even that distinction will not be sustained in admitting, later, the void as a being

toward be-ing vs becoming (vs relation, interaction)—i.e., to form (with extension and quality) and formation (change, with relation)

substance distinctions

toward any view of the universe as what has been revealed so far in our experience including science (that is, universe as being is consistent with experience and science) … further, universe as being is logically consistent with the content of experience as fact but this says nothing

though it is neutral to the distinctions above, it allows them (as well as their ruling out) and the possibility of their reality—i.e., it allows, within it, a range of special connotations of ‘being’

characteristics of being

see section of same name, later

criticism

not a concept

trivial

significance

it is the concept that excludes no object

seemingly trivial, being is—will be seen—powerful as ground and container for the world and its variety, for special and general kinds

ontology

the study of being

there is being

the object of ‘being’

there is being

why being

metaphysically, ground of the world, framework for (human) endeavor, knowledge, understanding, reason, value, action, and transformation

does not refer to particular or special beings or kinds—which enables founding and framing them

epistemologically, foundation for metaphysics (as above)

foundation without infinite regress or coherentism or pitfalls of substance—see infinite regress arguments

as will be seen, enables objectivity without relinquishing significance via closure in depth but ever openness in breadth—i.e., via ‘philosophical algebra’

foundations

foundations and foundationalism are appendiceal to ‘why being?’

foundationalism

a basis for truth of assertions

why

of assertions, we want to know their truth and, therefore of reasons for truth

assertions may be ‘single’ facts and theories

of things and values, we want to know their ‘kind’ and reasons, and whether things and values are distinct

of our own being, we want to know its nature, place in the world—the scheme of things, its significant meaning, and potency for becoming

how

an assertion is known true (a) directly (b) inferentially and therefore (at least seemingly) depends on some statement known true

classification

neutral

regress

pragmatism

transience

cartesian skepticism

coherentism

negative

anti-foundationalism

pyrrhonian skepticism

positive

substance

what (positive)

‘depth’

pro, con

alternatives

being

the foundational character of being is that, unlike substance, it is not a posit; it is the unknown of a metaphysical algebra; and the power, then, is it allows and levers unfolding of metaphysics as study of the real and, further, since being is ‘that which is’, as study of the immediate and the ultimate

being is optimally foundational relative to metaphysics, epistemology, values, and existenz; in plain terms—

being is the best foundation for the real, for knowledge, for values, and for being authentic

how is being known

“how being is known and studied”

ontology

the study of being

note—much of the development above and below is ontology

relation to metaphysics—

metaphysics is study of the real as it is (pragmatic metaphysics may be admitted) and includes the question of the nature of the real (admitting that in that there is nothing more real than the real, there may be no ‘nature’ of it, beyond that which is known to be known—perfectly or pragmatically)

ontology, a branch of metaphysics, deals with being—what it is, its nature, its characteristics, its form and formation…

abstraction

if a concept pragmatically identifies an object

to abstract is to delete some details from a concept

either to focus on the essential or to leave only the undistorted or ‘perfect’

thus, objects may be labeled ‘abstract’ or ‘concrete’, but lie on a continuum—are not fundamentally or ‘metaphysically’ distinct; thus ‘abstract’ means neither ‘abstruse’ nor ‘remote’—but is most real and most immediate

the abstract is often defined via free, especially linguistic, concepts (‘concepts’) and the concrete by bound concepts (‘percepts’), which renders the abstract suitable for correspondence perfection and the concrete inclined to pragmatic sufficiency

later we develop a join of the perfect and the pragmatic in a real metaphysics that is perfect in a way that will be defined

the abstract inhabit the concrete; the concrete populate the abstract

abstraction enables perfect knowledge, e.g.—

there is being

abstracts

shows the power of being

examples—being itself (and existence), experience as experience, a number of the characteristics below (with sufficient abstraction), form (and extension), formation (and duration), Form (and the abstract block universe), ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete’ objects

characteristics of being

“what being is” (the object and the concept)

existence

the defining characteristic

but note, existence is an equivalent, not another concept

the distinction between ‘being’ and ‘existence’—e.g., independent vs dependent existence or being is fundamentally nil, because, as will be seen, to talk of being as distinct from experienced being is null (see discussion of experience)

the claim that existence is trivial is true, but the trivial may be potent; the claim that there is no concept of existence stems from the thought that the putative concept makes no distinction, which in turn results from suppressing the concept, which in turn results from thinking ordinary things exist in isolation from their concepts, which the analysis of experience below will show to be untrue

the ‘problem of negative existentials’ is trivially resolved by analysis of (the meaning of ) concept meaning

no further essential characteristics—except those essentially inherent—being is just the characteristic of beings as beings

real

removes ‘mystery’ regarding what is real—given that something has being, there is no further question of its reality (e.g., is it material, is it transcendent…)

… but does not remove the experience of the real as mystery

there is of course the question of how being-hood is determined, and this is taken up in considering experience, below

experience

a general characteristic in that being is essentially experiential; the meaning and truth of this assertion are treated beginning with the section on experience below

a hierarchy of experiential being is described in the section on beings below

interaction

power, cause

discussed later, under ‘reasons’

state

a set of characteristics (properties) in terms of which a being is partially or fully known

form

the knowable characteristics of a being

all beings have extensional form—which entails spatiality, i.e. which specifies spatiality rather than fitting an otherwise conceived notion of spatiality

exception—the void or absence of manifest being

similarly, if the ‘material’ is to have an ontological meaning, it ought not to be sought in the ‘physical’; rather it ought to be sought in form—e.g. occupying space, or having power (see below)

non-durational, changeless, or static form is conceivable, therefore logically possible; later we will see that the logically possible is realized, therefore there are static cosmoses, which are of limited significance and cannot support sentient beings

while change is not entailed by form alone, it will be seen to be entailed by experience; and change is an aspect of formation which is entailed by the fundamental principle of metaphysics, demonstrated later

formation may be seen as an aspect of form; it entails temporality

there is no third form related characteristic beyond form and formation—i.e. no third kind of coordinate beyond space and time (but a world with two measures of time is not logically impossible), abstract or concrete, except, perhaps, the absence of form and formation

sometimes ‘form’ will refer only to extensional or spatial form; thus we could write Form, which has aspects of form and formation

becoming

becoming, e.g., origins and change, where there are any, entails duration—immanent temporality

thus, being includes becoming, action, relation…

non-characteristics

“what being is not”—some other uses of ‘being’

being does not refer specifically to the special—e.g., ‘higher’, ‘spiritual’ – or ‘material’, ‘essential’, ‘independent be-ing’, ‘human’, ‘sentient’…

includes these modes, so far as real—i.e., though being is neutral to these non-characteristics they may lie within or constitute sub-divisions within being

power

power is the capacity for interaction—i.e. to enter into cause and effect, including self-cause and self-effect

the being that has no power does not exist

a generalization of the concept of power is that of a reason (distinct from reason)

a need for this generalization is the fact that it is conceivable that there are states of being that have reasons for their being that are not ‘material beings’

reasons

‘reasons’ is to be distinguished from reason

note—‘reasons’ is singular because its object is a word, not the concept

a reason is that which has entailment in the world

both the reason and its entailment may be states of being, e.g. a fact or a quality of a being, particularly its existence

a reason may be abstract or concrete; however, the distinction is not intrinsic but relative to (our) mode of conception—‘direct’ as in perception, or representative as in iconic-symbolic conception

consequent

the entailed state

classes of reason

logical

the relation between reason and consequent is logical

logic is defined later

real

the relation between reason and consequent is in the world

the real is defined later

self

the reason is located in the consequent, or

the reason and the consequent are the same

full

a full reason is a reason

absolute

a full but empty reason

deterministic

full

partial

a partial reason is contributory to a reason

necessary

the consequent is certain

possible

the consequent is not ruled out

impossible

if the reason is given, the consequent certainly does not obtain

indeterministic

neither deterministic nor impossible

probable

the consequent is likely

cause

another term for a reason

self-cause is logically possible

it is obviously possible for complex entities

it apparently occurs for ‘particles’ in physic

effect

another term for a consequent

to be a consequent includes but is not limited to temporal consequence

power

power is concrete cause (and effect), the action of a being on self or other

the being that has no power, self or other, does not exist; power is a measure of being

monadic, dyadic, perhaps polyadic

creation

create

to materially cause the existence of a being

creator

being that creates (a being)

self-creation

impossible, for it presumes simultaneous existence and non-existence

exception—the void, for, as will be seen, the void is the being for which existence and non-existence (non-manifestation) are the same

spontaneous creation or origin

logically possible

appears to violate usual notions of cause, so one might not want to call it ‘cause’ but that is somewhat a matter of terminology, for while physical cause might not be applicable at that level, the level is at least apparently not physical in our common sense of the physical—i.e., the void (nothingness) does not seem physical

possible being

the reality status of ‘possible being’ and examples of possible beings are discussed in ‘beings’

greatest conceivable (logical)

real (natural, experiential, universal)

experience

the concept of experience

the use of ‘experience’ as developed below, is broader than as in ‘external experience’ and has overlap with uses of ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’

‘experience of’ (first meaning)

i.e., ‘experience of’ ‘the experienced’; i.e., awareness directed toward-from the world (attitude and action)

the etymology of experience—ex: ‘out’, per: ‘try’—is not particularly helpful to the meaning of experience used here but is so for the following

here, does not refer to the related use of ‘experience’ as the process of getting knowledge firsthand—i.e., doing, feeling, seeing, or thinking about

is there ‘experience of’ etc? at least a manner of speaking (metaphor) we use till what obtains is clarified and shown

detail

an ‘experience of’ is a concept (‘mental content’) and examples are feelings, perceptions…

‘the experienced’ is the object (‘material’ or formal—i.e., of form) and an example is the world, which includes experience itself

experience as concept and object

to be able to talk of experience (e.g., of the world) is to know that there is experience of experience—experience, which is ‘subjective’, is also object or objective

in this manner, experience is unlike the abstraction to being; yet it will be found that being is essentially experience and experiential

discussion of experience as object continues shortly

‘mind and matter’

the material is being as such; the mental is relationship; a further ‘kind’ would be relationship of relationship which is relationship—i.e., there is no further kind; mind and matter are the only elements of what Spinoza thought to be an infinite series (but there may be limitlessly many Spinozan attributes)

‘mind’ and ‘matter’ can be seen as attributes of experience, as experience is intrinsically ‘mental’ and extrinsically of form; and thus, seeing mind as temporal and matter as spatial is limited as experience has both temporality and spatiality and as experientiality is seen below to be the greatest real view of the universe

experience is extensional

experience is durational

from experience there are ‘mind’ and ‘matter’; later from possibilism (FP), it will follow that the universe must be experiential and there must be mind and matter

modes

experience is attitudinal-active; bifurcates as attitudinal and active; there is no strictly pure case, for there is always potential relation to the world

attitude-action

experience directed toward self in relation to (form and formation of) the world

note—even though there is distinction, attitude and action are integrated and it is therefore better to conceive and define attitude-action than to define attitude and action separately

attitude

emphasis on form and world over of formation and self

but note in the more inclusive senses, form includes formation and world includes self (and with reinterpretation, the inclusions could be reversed in direction)

action

emphasis on formation and self over form and world

‘pure’ experience

case that the directedness is null (but inner or potential)

dimensions (‘functions’)

inner-outer, form-quality, bound-free, iconic-symbolic, imperative-neutral, state-function-recall (memory)

develop the logic and implications for cognition, emotion, feeling, memory, personality…

find and use existing documents

animal awareness in all its forms (second use, abstracted from the first)

is there non-conscious awareness? will find awareness to be a kind of relation between sentient and world and conscious to non-conscious awareness a continuum (multi-d) of degree, not kind

awareness is relational; this is also noted below

relational being in all its forms (third use, justified below)

as ‘experience of’, experience so far is relational; pure experience is internally relational and potentially relational regarding the world

substance

substance theory is rejected here—but taken up as an aid to analysis of the place of experience in the world (as it was earlier taken up to showing being as truly fundamental)

a substance is a particular that exists independently of other beings

thus, substances may found the existence of all beings on ontologically independent beings

and if the behavior of all substances can be described and known, so can that of all beings (in principle)—i.e., substance would be epistemically founding

in this role, substances are (i) unchanging, for if changing indeterministically, they are not epistemically founding, and otherwise they are reducible to the unchanging (ii) describable (simply) in their being and changes (iii) non-interacting, for if interacting and describable they are reducible to one substance (iii) but one in number

if ontological independence includes causal independence, only self-caused entities like Spinoza’s God can be substances; though this can be gotten around (the void is self-caused), it is an unnecessary sophistication (and from its complexity and power, Spinoza’s God is unfounded, as are all substances)

shortfalls of substance are (i) a substance is a posit (ii) a substance is inadequate to variety (iii) multiple substances do not interact

dualist foundation is incoherent; substance foundation must be monist

a strict material cosmos is one in which matter is the only substance and experience (‘mind’) is no part of matter

therefore, our cosmos cannot be a strictly material cosmos; it is at least approximately substance, but the substance must be experiential—and as experiential to have form and change which is experienced as ‘material’; but this is no foundation because as a strict monist world there is no explanation of its being

a possibilist cosmos is one in which the greatest possibility is realized

in a possibilist cosmos, experientiality may reach down to the root

it is later seen that the universe is possibilist

being is experiential-relational, where the experientiality down to the root is of the same kind as conscious awareness but of lower degree; and also extends up to the greatest being (whether an actual being or an open hierarchy)

levels of emergence of the concept of experience

we see the concept beginning to emerge above; collect these emergents as a first level; regard the interpretations below as part of this first level; since the interpretations cover the possibilities of the nature of the world from experience, they provide neutral objectivity

regard the post FP fixing of the fixing of experience as the world as the second level

the object of ‘experience’

there is experience—and experience of experience

the notion of an ‘external world’ is metaphorical

experience is recursive

experience is part of the world

… and an as if world which includes experience

the as if world contains (as if) experience itself, the experiencer (or self), the experienced which—over and above experience and the self—other selves including animals and the ‘environment’ which harbors all of the foregoing

the environment and its contents are the world or universe, which are usually distinguished, but will be seen to be the same

later ‘as if’ will be removed—even if ‘as if’ is not removed, the as if world is a world (of sorts)

why experience

place of our being and significant meaning

experience is the place our being and place (if not source) of all significance

not transcended, for the measure of experience is experience; therefore, for us, being is experiential and, ultimately, as experienced

as will be seen, we are entirely experiential; the universe is entirely experiential

the place of all change, intrinsic and instrumental

relational; therefore, being—the world—is experiential

the being without (with no trace in) experience, self or other, is effectively non-existent (later ‘effectively’ will be removed; this will require expansion of the meaning of ‘experience’ to the root—to make the elimination meaningful; and it will require establishment of the fundamental principle to make it true)

co-foundation

…together with being

necessity—experience is our only window on being (for we do not get outside it); it is therefore necessary to foundation

sufficiency—and therefore sufficient to whatever foundation there may be

with adequate, unconditionally sufficient, e.g., to being

will be seen perfect, relative to the aim of realization

source of all knowledge—the world

being and experience complement one another as object and subject side of the world and approach to the world; this is taken up in detail in ‘interpretations’, below, and further developed in the subsequent narrative

experience incorporates reason

effective—optimal—way of achieving good—valuable, optimal—outcomes (ends, right ways, virtue)

includes determining value

includes attention to received reason

note the distinction—reason vs reasons

understanding, inference, and feeling—and their products (knowledge, rational action); received reason

includes learning

knowledge

world

‘everything’

clarified below

concept

mental content

in this most general sense, does not distinguish between percept, or ‘low or high level concept’

referent

that part of the world which a concept locates

not all concepts have referents

a concept can refer to another concept—i.e., concepts may be referents; if they could not we could not have a concept of the idea of a concept

object

referent of a concept

external object

an object that is not a concept

the distinction between a concept as object and an external object, may mislead us into thinking that the distinction is fundamental (it is not), definite (it is not, objects have been seen to have an interpretation of being concepts at root, and the idea of the world as a conceptual system will be found to be an effective understanding of being and the universe), and that external objects have a different grade of reality than concepts (a mistaken view)

from a universal perspective, the distinction between concept as object and external object is not as significant as it seems, and will and need not be emphasized in any metaphysical description of the universe

world

the complete system of objects

external world

the system of external objects

with minor modification, the comments on external objects apply to the external world

meaning

a concept and its possible intended objects

the use of ‘meaning’ here is that of concept meaning and is distinct from that of significant meaning

iconic case

iconic concept

the concept is ‘pictorial’—i.e., it ‘shape’ (appears to) conform to the object

iconic meaning

an iconic concept and its possible intended objects

sign (simple)

mental content or other object, whose shape has no significance in itself, and whose role in meaning is solely in association with iconic concepts

sign (compound)

arrangement of simple signs that acquires meaning (possible intended objects) from conventions about the arrangements that correspond to forms of the world

i.e., the convention is not mere convention, but has arisen in selection or in design, so as to model (aspects of) the world

linguistic case

a linguistic concept is a simple or compound sign associated with an iconic concept

a linguistic meaning is linguistic concept and its possible intended objects

knowledge

meaning realized

how is experience known

as stated above to talk of experience requires its existence

in higher being (e.g. in some animals), experience is self-aware

that we have experience of experience is a source of intelligence for it results in the ability to direct experience

Descartes—to doubt experience is an experience: to doubt experience is to have experience

That there is experience requires no foundation beyond experience; and, certainly, the being of experience is not to be and does not need foundation in something else (e.g., matter or brains—which does not mean that there is no conceptual or actual relation between matter and brains or that the study of the relation is without worth)

further characteristics

form

experience and form

experience has form (with extension and relation) and formation (with change)

given experience as premise, there must be form and formation; but are form and formation will later be found necessary without further premise—but there are no further modes of difference but for absence (there may be multiple spatialities and temporalities in the same region)

sameness-difference

difference

fundamental and elementary aspect of the world, without which there is no experience of the world

sameness

absence of difference

duality

sameness and difference are dual

is not absence of sameness equivalent to absence of manifest being?

identity

this definition covers individual or personal and object identity

sense of sameness of object (including self as object)

extension (space)

measure of difference over difference of object

duration (time)

measure of difference with sense of sameness of object

change

difference with sense of sameness of object

therefore, duration is measure of change

attribute (Spinozan)

measure of difference

as difference with sense of sameness vs of difference of object exhaust kinds of Extensional difference, there are no further Spinozan attributes; however, this account does not eliminate the possibility of limitlessly many qualities

Extension

extension with duration

attributes (non-Spinozan)

quantity

aspect of an object that is dependent on Extension

quality

aspect of an object that is independent of Extension

may include spatiotemporality

property

quality that is independent of an observer

experiential relations

experience of

see more complete earlier discussion of knowledge

‘pure’

experience is relational

icon

sign

language

symbolic-iconic

syntax is iconic

languages

a metaphysical language

the experienced

world

includes experience—i.e., experience is experienced

object

experiencer

self (also experienced)

relational nature of experience

meaning

knowledge

interpretations

—i.e., of experience and the world

experience as if of the real may be (i) categorially in error in mistaking what is ‘as if of the real’ with the real (ii) imprecise, even if categorially valid

the aim of this section is to (begin to) derive valid description(s) of the real from experience

since we always remain ‘in experience’, the notions of ‘world’, ‘validity’, and ‘the real’ will necessarily be derived from the entire range of experience

what

in this section, an interpretation is a description of the world that is consistent with the entire range of experience

more generally, ‘interpretation’ may be used to refer to description of some object that is consistent with some system of experience

the interpretations may include patterns (‘higher’ concepts) projected on ranges of direct experience (percepts or ‘lower’ concepts)

why

interpretations are pragmatically useful

since not posits, even if categorially and objectively unfaithful, are open to refinement and correction

analysis of a range of interpretations that are consistent with experience may and will lead, by demonstration, to a true picture of the world and the real (this will require clarification of the meaning of ‘true picture’)

the aims are (i) to develop definite conclusions from experience, e.g. that there experience, that there is being (if only the being of experience itself) and so on which we have done so far, then of the existence of beings and the universe, which (in outline), is rather trivial and then the existence of the void, which while formally trivial, is profound in its implications (ii) develop a range of interpretations of experience (there is some concern with whether the range will be complete in some sense) (iii) regarding consistency with experience we can choose the level of conclusions in #i—if we start at the beginning (just experience) we will be able to generate a greater range (iv) we will look for a (the) maximal interpretations (an interpretation is maximal if it contains all beings contained in any other), there mutual consistencies, which can be eliminate at which level of conclusions #i and which are true descriptions (v) the remaining descriptions will then be true and the choice from among them will be made, not on the basis of truth, but on the basis of efficiency (noting that efficiency will be relative to criterion—but perhaps our analysis will single out one group of criteria that will be pertinent to the greatest value which should also emerge from analysis)

the interpretations

the main interpretations—i.e., classes of interpretation—are numbered (i) and (ii)

there is experience—for to doubt experience is to have an experience, positively—experience is the medium of our being and window on being

there is experience of experience—for without it, we could not know there is or report experience

there is a world—if only that the range of experience is itself a world

there must be a world—this will be shown after demonstration of the fundamental principle; heuristic—the standard world view, below, and its apparent stability; existential heuristic—from meaningfulness

the world is strictly materialist—this seems to follow from some interpretations of science and the apparent objectivity of ‘matter’, but, as we have seen, it is not a consistent interpretation of our world; however, from possibilism, developed later (the fundamental principle), there are strictly materialist worlds and other barren worlds that are dead to process, life, and experience

the world is monist, with experience as the substance and as having a matter-like aspect in having form and formation—this is at least an approximation to proximate experience (i.e., to our experienced world, e.g., the world of modern cosmology—the big bang or, perhaps, the multiverse world)

(i) a common world view that we call the standard secular view (SSV)—the world is a place with selves and others (including animals) and an environment (including plants), where the environment is not experientially null but has experientiality at a low or zero level

(ii) the world is the world experience as if of a single experiencer, but without the experiencer; though seemingly absurd, this is logically possible; here are two sub-cases (a) the experiencer has the experiential capacity of a human being as it is typically held to be—if our world is as rich as generally held, this cannot be our world (b) the world or universe itself is the experience of an experiencer of sufficient experiential capacity—from the earlier discussion under ‘substance’ this is not absurd, and it incorporates interpretation #i (SSV) above; it shall be named a field of being and experience (FOBE, FOE) interpretation and is an interpretation for the universe; if possibilism (FP) holds this is the maximal universe and includes all other possible interpretations of experience above; FOBE would phase into and out of manifestation, and the manifest phases would include human beings merged as ultimate in peak being

Since FOE will be found to hold—

being is fundamentally experiential, and experience its measure

experience is the place of our being, and the place, though not source, of all significance

beings

principles of enumeration and grouping; making a complete catalogue

of course, this goal is likely impossible for limited beings—the aim of this section is, therefore, to enquire into and begin to execute approaches to constructing a complete catalog

a first question—what is the manner in which beings are known? as seen they are known as

concept and object

criterion—perfect faithfulness vs pragmatic or ‘good enough’

with sufficient abstraction, there is perfect faithfulness

intension-extension

intension

actual and possible significant beings—actual because they are; possible, for later we find all logically possible beings to be beings; significant because non-significant beings are effectively non-existent (later, they are found to be non-existent)

extension

beings and kinds

aspects

from the concept of being, an aspect of a being is a being

just as being is a being (with sufficient abstraction; note that Heidegger and many metaphysicians would reject this assertion; but they, though they are right at a concrete level, their objection does not withstand abstraction or, as we will later see, a pragmatic interpretation)

of beings and kinds

made rational—first in terms of the intension vs extension of ‘beings’

then, since beings are seen in aspects—even a whole may be seen as an aspect, the rationale is being ® aspects and their kinds

classify the kinds rationally

grouping

particular vs kind

kinds

a kind is defined by an aspect

a variety of aspects

part of a being; a being seen from a perspective

an aspect of a being is a being

aspects—

abstraction

to abstract is to filter out detail by working with the concept side of a being

with sufficient and appropriate abstraction, the concept may be perfectly faithful to the abstract of the being

abstract being

there are no abstract vs concrete beings, rather there are continua of abstraction, and ‘abstract being’ and ‘concrete being’ are metaphorical uses for places on the continua

there is no fundamental distinction between abstract and concrete objects

the abstract have concretion, and the concrete have abstraction; the distinction is rather epistemic—what we label concrete are those referents first registered by the senses; those we label abstract tend to be those first known by conception—there is thus (i) an air of hypothesis about abstract beings (ii) a sense of non-reality, e.g., that they—many abstract kinds, though not all—do not reside in time and space and are not sensible; however, pre-FP, we can establish the being of some abstract kinds; and from abstraction, they are not categorially insensible or non-spatiotemporal but, rather, degrees of sensibility and spatiotemporality have been abstracted out—in some cases completely

post FP, all consistent concepts have objects

aspects of beings

being vs essence

an essence is ‘what a being really is’

for being as such, its being-hood is its essence

essence

an aspect of being ‘most’ significant to itself or another

essences arise as part of discovery and realization, not as defining

characteristic

aspects of beings are beings

entity-hood

process

relation

state

i.e., a state of being or affairs

form

forms as snapshots

formations

material or substance aspect

property or characteristic

quality

quantity

concrete vs abstract

reasons vs existents

considered earlier

form

includes formation (and ‘static’ form)

and how there is no further attribute to form, beyond form and formation

object

identities

concept-object

though treated earlier, the purpose here is as part of a classification and catalog of beings

the two discussions should be made consistent and unnecessary repetition eliminated

concept-object as the essential object—from earlier analysis of experience

therefore, there are no abstract objects as distinguished from concrete objects

of course, some objects may be properly called abstract or concrete from other perspectives

rather, objects lie on a concretion-abstraction continuum

and the distinction is one of how the objects are known, rather than their constitution

and, so, from that perspective we consider—

concrete objects

the term is metaphorical, and used for objects known perceptually (i.e., via bound concepts)

abstract objects

used for objects known in terms of free concepts

and, so, from that perspective we consider—

value

values as real

the abstract and the concrete

the abstract and the concrete are not distinct kinds but lie on a continuum (or continua, for there is more than one mode of abstraction)

the abstract or ideal forms are immanent in the concrete, so, from the theory of being, there is neither need nor justification for their distinction according to kind

what is more because our ideas are (co-) forms, we attribute substance (reify), but there is no need or justification to do that; substance therefore is a reification—and not a justified one at that

parts

proper parts

wholes

parts

voids

parthood

whole

or ‘all’, ‘the being’, e.g., universe (below)

part

e.g., cosmos, individual

null

the void, below, the being that contains no being

experiential

or sentient

elemental

through feeling, cognitive, agentive, through…

idea

subject aspect of form

concept

sign

elements of language

phonemes, words, parts of speech (see Part of speech - Wikipedia), tropes

intelligent beings

intelligence is ability for meaning as significance and reason

a hierarchy of intelligent beings—

living

animal

plants? viruses?

societies

self-aware beings

identities

identity

sense of sameness of self or object

here, focus is on self as object

self

why is my-self this self

or, why is one who they are and not another

‘are you in fact You’—or is self a fractured version of Self

agents

free willed beings

free will—what it is or may be; conditions for possibility of; human free will, issue of

persons, individuals

humans can know that their real being is greater than their form—but are at a primitive level and so this knowledge is not common and takes effort

but this knowledge is possible—later we find the universe limitless; therefore, all beings are limitless; and realize Brahman (below)

societies and cultures

human societies

…

gods

there are remote gods; but we are not other than gods; we are on the way to becoming god(s)—we are ‘eruptions’ of creation, a wave front as much as rays, manifesting agenthood, on the way to ultimate agenthood

Brahman

thus far in the narrative, gods and Brahman are hypothetical

actual vs possible

an actual being is one that in fact exists

a possible being is one that could exist according to certain criteria

while details are given later, here are some criteria

logical

if a concept is not illogical, possibility is logical; a logically potential being could not exist if it were not physically possible and physical possibility were the only real possibility; however there is nothing in our sciences that rule out beings that do not satisfy our physics; later we will see that all logically possible beings exist (i.e., all logical concepts have objects)

if a concept is illogical we may say, equivalently, (i) there is no corresponding object, i.e., it does not exist (ii) the object is the void or in the void

real

satisfies some ‘reality’ criterion—e.g., the laws of physics, validated experience, and so on

the real are a subset of the logical

post FP—the real are the logical

particular beings

part vs whole

a being

repetition

universe

all being; all beings

there is precisely one; no other

that is, the universe exists

must the universe exist?

if there is a reason for existence of the manifest universe, it must be necessary—i.e., not just likely; and it must be absolute—i.e., not require another reason

if there are two never-interacting sub-universes, for a being in one sub-universe, it is effectively the universe

for a being, the effective universe is all being that has power with the being

will see later that there are no distinct never interacting universes

nothing outside; neither form, nor matter, nor idea, nor foundation, nor creator, nor potential…

contains all possibility

for the universe, the possible, actual, and real are the same

for a given world—or the universe—different possibilities arise relative to parts of it, but the world itself is just one actuality, one possibility

creator, creation

the creator of a being is the reason or cause of its being (existence)

no being self-creates (can self-create) for that requires simultaneous existence and non-existence

exception—the void because its existence and non-existence are equivalent

however beings may be self-causal

a creator is other than the created being

the universe has no creator—for there is no other being

…unless, however, if the nil being, reason, or cause is a being (if the universe has a reason, there is a conclusion without a premise)

it is logically possible for the manifest universe to spontaneously originate from the void or nonmanifest

cosmos

creation

stable

essence

pattern

law

a law is a being

limit

individual

occurs in more than two places; finalize

identity

the void

the absence of being; the being that has no parts

the void is a being, for its being and non-being are equivalent

the reason for existence of the void is the source of deep and interesting properties that now follow

the void exists; its existence is necessary and absolute

this is a first form of the fundamental principle of metaphysics, abbr. fundamental principle or FP

its existence is necessary; its destruction leaves it intact; it may be said to self-create (thus, since a being is the being adjoined to the void, beings can self-create—and while this seems to contradict the earlier assertion that beings do not self-create, it is not a true contradiction, for what was meant is that manifestation is not self-manifestation)

there are no laws in the void

in the void is the potential for and connection among manifest phases of the universe and its peak being-identity

the number of voids has no significance

it might be said that except that there is at least one, the number of voids is without significance; however because there is no distinction between there are no voids, there is one void, and there are some voids

in the void—i.e., in nothingness—eternity is an instant; this is relevant to the eternal being of the individual… in the wait between one occurrence and a recurrence the being is void and the wait is an instant

quantum vacuum

the void is not the quantum vacuum

in considering the origin of our cosmos, it is worth looking at the origin of the quantum vacuum from the void, rather than looking only at the origin of the quantum fields

possible beings

this is a preliminary and short treatment of possibility, prior to the real metaphysics

at this point that a possible being is a being is neither affirmed nor denied

the concept

given a concept of an object (objects), it is possible according to a criterion, if existence of the object is not ruled out by the criterion

in this sense, possibility as a property of concepts and their potential objects rather than a property of an object

intrinsic

of the concept

e.g., logical

extrinsic

of the object

‘real’

e.g.—directly and definitely experienced (perceived), scientific

for a world, cosmos, or other limited context

a single occurrence implies possible reoccurrence only on conditions such as sufficient homogeneity (e.g., spatiotemporal), which are presumed to obtain

a possible object, not known actual, cannot be ruled out, and, with appropriate conditions, may be effected by agents

for the universe over all duration

the actual and possible are identical

metaphysics

the concept and possibility of metaphysics

study and knowledge of the real

has begun

therefore, possible

trivial so far

trivial means easy to the point of tautology, but, as will be seen, not empty or lacking power or potency

not trivial in that the conceptions of being (and its relation to experience), experience (awareness), reasons, power, beings, the universe, the void required interactive refinement as part of the metaphysics under development

will continue to develop into a metaphysics of ultimate power—the real metaphysics

therefore, the present conception is an excellent one

does not and is not intended to exclude other conceptions of metaphysics

but will include and subsume some of those others

and may require or suggest rejections of further others (a) as metaphysics (b) altogether

existence of the void

this was shown above

limitlessness of being

i.e., the fundamental principle—limitlessness of the universe, its identity, and the individual

if a possible being, i.e., one corresponding to a consistent concept, did not emerge from the void, that would be a law of the void; therefore, since there are no laws in the void, all possible beings emerge from the void, i.e.—

the universe is conceptually limitless

the universe has identity

the universe is realization of the greatest possibility

which will be seen to be logical possibility

this is the second form of the fundamental principle

the demonstration is an ontological proof (one that appeals only to the property of being or existing)

Anselm’s erroneous ontological proof of God’s existence, ‘the ontological proof’, is an example of an ontological proof

existence of the void which is necessary and absolute, is a necessary and absolute reason for existence of the universe

the individual inherits the power of the universe, for the contrary would be a limit on the universe

possibility

this the full treatment of possibility in light of the real metaphysics

the concept (preliminary)

given a concept of an object (objects), it is possible according to a criterion, if existence of the object is not ruled out by the criterion

in this sense, possibility as a property of concepts and their potential objects rather than a property of an object

paradigm of possibility

possibility according to a criterion

intrinsic

i.e., logical

third form of the fundamental principle

kinds

kinds and modes of expression or concept

extrinsic

i.e., real

kinds

kinds and modes of being

metaphysical

from the fundamental principle, the most inclusive possibility is logical possibility (presuming logics to cover all valid forms of description)

general

identical to intrinsic

thus, note the oneness, at the most inclusive level, of the intrinsic and the extrinsic

and, below, note that mathematics and science fall under logic as particularizations in the abstract-free concept-symbolic vs concrete-percept-world directions

special

real in having some features of the real but not necessarily of any particular being (cosmos)

cannot violate logic; may violate law but that is not a primary intent, except to understand law and laws

purpose—to analyze the real or aspects of it without encumbrance of particulars

real

form

i.e., form and formation > extension, change

theoretical

limited by theory, hypothesis, or law

scientific

limited by theory, hypothesis, or law

e.g., physical, cosmological, chemical, geological, biological, psychological, social, economic, and political

mathematical

sentient

intelligent

self-aware

able to inquire into the nature and meaning of (its own) being

logic

potential knowledge may be classified by how it is right (or not)—the concern of self-consistency or self-conflict (‘square squares’ is self-consistent, ‘square circle’ is not) is logical; the concern with agreement or consistency with the world is real, e.g. empirical of scientific; the mathematical is the scientific for (some) abstract or possible worlds

given premises, logical consistency permits conclusions, which, when the forms of expression of the knowledge is sufficiently context free and abstract, are certain and the logic is deductive

thus deductive logic may be seen as a means of certain or necessary inference

if conditions permit probable inference at best, the reasoning or ‘logic’ is inductive; conclusions from limited data to a scientific law or theory is deductive if only intended to apply to the data set; otherwise it is inductive; but conclusions under a scientific theory may be deductive and certain, if the theory is deterministic and applicable, and if the premises (e.g., initial conditions) are true and sufficient for uniqueness of and therefore certainty of the conclusion or prediction; on the other hand, if the theory is probabilistic, then, in general, only a probability distribution for the predictions is possible—but the distribution itself may be certain and thus the probabilistic case may sometimes be seen as permitting certain prediction (except in the case of absolute indeterminacy in the sense of no pattern at all, some certainty obtains)

science (and mathematics) presume logic; logic may be seen as (proto) science (it is from here that a sense in which logic is empirical is derived)

there is a sense in which science says nothing of the world—the world is there being the world, doing what it does—science is merely saying what it does (but is of course informative to limited minds); similarly, logic, too says nothing; logics (as including science as including mathematics as structures within logical structure) are aids to limited minds so that the minds can say something, and aids to potentially erroneous minds so that they avoid saying less than nothing

thus, for limited minds

logic is a (the) theory of the universe that applies to all parts, but to no part particularly—i.e., just to that part though not to others

since the given part or being may not require all modes of expression for its description, not all logics apply to it; but their application is nil rather than inapplicable

if the universe has a reason, there is a conclusion without a premise

it has been seen that the universe has a reason—therefore there is a (‘deep’, ‘profound’) conclusion without a premise; this is a way to see that—

logic is a theory of being and is not just the theory of inference

but being and inference are related as it is the form of (the description or concept of) a being that permits and requires the possibility of inference

similarly, the sciences, while they are ostensibly about the world, enable inference

how to arrive at a system of logic—the sentence calculus

given sentence expressions, p, q, … e.g., “the sun is shining”, … , let the expressions in quotes be such that (i) they can obtain or be ‘true’ (ii) their negations, e.g. “the sun is not shining” or ““it is not true that” “the sun is shining”” have meaning and obtain or be ‘true’ (iii) expressions (statements) can be true or not true but not both, then (iv) it makes sense to define false as not true and assert that (v) statements are true or false and cannot be both

now one can set up a sentence calculus by appeal to the semantics of sentences

an interesting and potentially useful case: dialethic logic

some references—Dialetheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Paraconsistent Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Inconsistent Mathematics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

consider the example, taken from dialetheia (Wikipedia), that if John is in the doorway to a room, we might say “John is in the room” and “John is not in the room”; now that is not a true contradiction for the apparent contradiction depends on different meanings of ‘in the room’ (and we might prefer to say “John is three quarters in the room” and then, with the appropriate meaning of ‘is three quarters in the room’, there would be not even the apparent contradiction); still, however, the example above suggests there may be some value to considering ‘dialetheia’, i.e., statements that are both true and false

in another example, Graham Priest, who may be considered the main founder of the principle of dialetheia for arguing that there are true dialetheia, discusses Kant on the phenomena and noumena—Kant argued that since only the phenomena are describable by the categories of thought, one cannot say anything about the noumena—however, Kant says a lot of things about the noumena; this example may be defused by arguing that whereas we cannot say anything about the noumena at one level (base level categories) we can do so at other levels

now consider the void—its existence and non-existence are equivalent; if destroyed, it is not destroyed… which are seeming dialetheia—and, so, a dialethic logic might be one in which some statements could be both true and false; which may perhaps be defused by arguing that existence is not a property such that for all beings, either the being exists or does not; in that case, again, there would be no true contradiction even though “the void exists” is both true and false; another resolution is to see that if A = x has manifest existence, then B = A and not A, is an explosive contradiction, but that mere existence is a property that (i) is a property of the manifest as well as of the void (ii) non mere existence is not a property

now consider the empty universe—any element of this universe is black and not black, which is in the form of a dialetheia, but not a true dialetheia because the universe is empty

from the examples it seems that the dialetheia are in some sense edge cases and that ‘dialethic logic’ would be standard logic with a patch; however, it is not clear that significant examples of dialetheia cannot be given; therefore—

it would seem that dialetheia are interesting but that the issue of dialetheia might need further clarification before being recognized as (i) more than standard logic with a patch (ii) clearly useful or not (iii) clearly admissible or not

the sciences

the distinction between abstract and concrete sciences is not absolute or regarding kind of object

abstract

mathematics

linguistics

concrete

natural

social

reason

pre-metaphysics

real metaphysics

join of the abstract metaphysics above, with tradition, and reason

description

perfection

residual significance of ‘limited world’ philosophy—metaphysics, epistemology, value

issues

newness

doubt

alternate proofs, heuristics

residual doubt

consistency

alternative attitudes

metaphysical postulate

existential principle of action

meaning of the real metaphysics

i.e., meaning and implications of the real metaphysics and the fundamental principle

intensional

intensional or explicit—limitlessness, the only inconsistent concepts have no objects

fact and nature of the demonstration

analysis of possibility

extensional

extensional or implicit—the variety of being

being and universe

metaphysics of experience

~~developed below under world > interpretations of experience > revisited~~

implications for optimal action

distribution of effort – allocation of resources

modified Pascal’s Wager

reason

this is the main post metaphysics discussion of reason

the concept

foundation

no a priori

elements

discovery and action

feeling and cognition

value and object

criticism and creation (imagination)

doubt

attitudes

interpretations

… of experience

revisited and ‘finalized’

functions

of experience, the

revisited, grounded in cosmology and logic, finalized

cosmology of limitless identity

description (cosmological)—identity of universe and individual, Brahman, extension, duration, variety, peak, cosmoses, transaction

limitless universe, identity, beings or individuals

the universe has identity; which are limitless in variety, arrays of cosmoses, physical laws, extension, duration, peak, and dissolution; the ultimate peak or process has been named Brahman; and as below, individuals inherit the limitlessness of the universe

the ultimate

and the individual

in the ultimate, facts, patterns, and values are one

aim of being

to be repeated in the way

individuals

proximately limited experiential beings

death

real but not absolute

individuals inherit the limitlessness of the universe

realization

enjoyment

appreciation of the quality of living, intrinsic or experiential—perception, thought, pleasure, and pain, and extrinsic—being in the world

pleasure

pain

value

see enjoyment above

ethics, aesthetics, intelligence, and their relations

intersection of value and being (previously: values are beings)

ethics

aesthetics

intersections of ethics and aesthetics—properly understood, ethics and aesthetics are one, and are not so much restrictive as about imperatives to action, whether constructive or experimental

imperative

on pathways to the ultimate

principles

reason

(the real metaphysics)

further sources

tradition

the agent

on paths

there are intelligent and effective pathways to the ultimate; if enjoyment is a value, there is an imperative to be on a pathway; to be on a pathway is not just to follow but to negotiate the real and to develop pathways, which are informed but not determined by tradition; they are developed via reason—experience, reflection, action, and learning; enjoyment—particularly, pleasure and pain—is a necessary part of paths and requires attention, but the best approach to enjoyment is not only direct—it is also being on a path

there is an imperative to develop and negotiate pathways to the ultimate; the means is reason; enjoyment, particularly pleasure and pain, is a necessary part of path, and its best address is dual—direct and to be on a path

pathways to the ultimate

would be part of ‘cosmology of identity’; promoted because of its significance

combine with same topic at end of previous section?

detail and practice are in the next division—the way

givenness of realization

beings already participate in the identity and limitlessness of the universe

effectiveness of intelligent engagement and development of pathways

intelligence

define

is there a better word than intelligence?

the world

interpretations of experience

revisited

dimensions of being

treatment here is ‘vertical’—in terms of ‘levels’ of being; also placed in cosmology, where treatment is ‘horizontal’—in terms of detail and variety within the levels

~~also placed in cosmology~~

pure

pragmatic

paradigms

development of the discipline of metaphysics

relation to other sections under ‘the world’

descriptive, analytic, and synthetic-experiential metaphysics

the aim is to analyze classical and modern metaphysics in terms of the methods leading to and results of the real metaphysics (i) for completeness of the approaches and problem sets (ii) evaluate the problems and any receive resolutions as significant, trivial, or ill conceived (iii) resolutions of significant outstanding problems

logic of the problems of metaphysics

classical through current problems of metaphysics

the logic

the descriptive metaphysics

emphasize those problems not already treated

cosmology

cosmology is part of metaphysics, but is placed in a separate section, first because it incorporates the pragmatic side of metaphysics that draws extensively from tradition, and, secondly, because there is a traditional distinction between cosmology and metaphysics

the concept of cosmology

description of the universe and its forms or patterns

supplemented as possible and useful by concepts, analysis, experience, and learning

form includes formation

patterns allow extrapolation, prediction

general cosmology

logical

logical cosmology is general cosmology

philosophical

method

reason

see the main discussion of reason

paradigms

paradigms are part of reason but are mentioned explicitly here because their use is significant

mathematics, logic, recursion, computation, games

determinism

part determines whole

this is also what a pattern is

… and indeterminism; kinds of determinism; absolute determinism and absolute indeterminism

block universe

as perspective or description rather than having a different grade of reality than that of other descriptions

the alternate description vs different grade of reality pervades knowledge of many contexts, e.g. the interpretations of experience, and the question of heliocentricity—which, from a neutral standpoint, is a question of efficient description

relative nature of the determined—

the determinism (vs indeterminism) is effectively determined by locale in the universe, e.g. a cosmos, and is observer dependent to the extent that the substance of the observer is the pragmatic substance of the locale

and merging of identities

cosmology of form

form and formation

method

method for general cosmology

real metaphysics, received and reasoned paradigm

reason—review and extension from earlier discussions under metaphysics and general cosmology

our cosmos

‘physical cosmology’

method

method for general cosmology and cosmology of form

methods of physical cosmology

astronomy

theoretical physics

cosmological modeling

cosmological realms

origins and reasons… galaxies… solar systems… planets… life and its creation and origins

dimensions of being

the dimensions are treated ‘vertically’ in metaphysics, here the vertical treatment is in greater detail and is extended horizontally

path

also treated in cosmology

here the treatment is one of principle—derivation of the essentials; later treatment in cosmology is practical

3 the way

to be the world

the world and the real as one

aim of being

same title earlier in the world > cosmology of limitless identity

the aim of being is the aim of the way

realization

“the way and its means”

reason

reason is treated above; here there is brief recall of essentials of reason for realization

received ways

integration

of reason and received ways

paths

foundations for path development were considered above; here the aim is to develop practical detail for sharing and realization

principles

template design

immediate to universal

all activities and dimensions of being

adaptable to a range of circumstances

individuals to civilization

templates

everyday

dedication and affirmation

meditation-action

everyday template

universal

world problems and opportunities

~~should the entire topic be in ‘into the world’~~

the principles; need to integrate the secular and the transsecular; details and programs developed in ‘into the world’

universal template

4 into the world

‘into the world’ follows ‘the way’ back into the world, illuminating the connection in individual life, civilization, and ideas; it could be part of the previous section, but is less formal

to be real in the world

~~write ‘Into the world’ after writing the previous parts; think carefully about this~~

return

having understood the nature of the world, transformation, and destiny, we return to an emphasis on realization in and from the world

being in the world

one world

the immediate and the ultimate as one

being and becoming

~~alt title?~~

commitment

renewal

meditative

active

retreat

secular and transsecular

one world and integration

problems and opportunities of the world

~~detailed treatment; principles earlier, in~~ ~~the way~~ ~~> paths > templates > universal~~

~~sources—world problems and opportunities.html; details in~~ ~~Journey in Being-detail.html~~

a theory of ‘challenges’

sharing and immersion

reason

~~here, reason is just mentioned; see~~ ~~reason~~

ideas, action, and continuity

~~title?~~

history

oral and ritual tradition

written

literature

media

continuous text

historical integration

cyclicity

~~flesh out from outlines and sources~~

resources

~~complete from resources in other documents… which ones?~~

database of concepts

plan

the way

site, publication, sharing

life, death

visioning life, death, and their resolution

incorporate personal priorities

texts

sources and influences

development of the way as a resource

reading

glossary of terms

there may also be an index