In many questions that are at all beyond the realm of the obvious, so long as our picture of the world is incomplete or imprecise, answers will be similarly incomplete or imprecise, or both.

We invariably have some picture of the world as a whole, which may be more than just incomplete or imprecise—it may be implicit and intuitive.

Such metaphysical pictures are open and may be ‘fuzzy’. Perhaps that is the best we can do; perhaps it is all we need.

But philosophers attempt to go beyond; they attempt at precision and completeness, for there is always some potential for success.

At the same time, it cannot be said that the endeavor of modern metaphysics has arrived at completeness or precision. In analytic philosophy, the drive to precision has lead to a complexity that itself appears to overwhelm the possibility of completeness or precision. And other modes of philosophy tend to balance between completeness and precision, sometimes celebrating one ideal or other, or a balance, or relevance (particularly they point to the failure of systematic schemes that they call ‘grand narratives’).

However, it does not follow that precision or completeness are impossible ideals, particularly as the notions of precision and completeness in metaphysics may be ill conceived so far. And it does not follow that precision or completeness should necessarily rule out other modes of philosophy, even though it may seem that that is the case.

Thus, modern metaphysics is not fuzzy; rather, it is tinged by openness and fuzziness.

Here, we investigate how far we may get in the joint endeavors of precision, completeness, relevance, meaning (and the difficulties of language), and the meanings of these terms.

Limitless and limited being

The greatest conceivable being, which would be limitless, might know and be all that there is, with perfection according to its own perfect criteria. We are not that being. Therefore, as human beings, our metaphysics must be essentially fuzzy—imprecise in meaning and content.

The power and limits of modern metaphysics

In modern metaphysics, especially today, the tools of analysis of language, concepts, objects, being, often in terms of precision of logic, e.g., the propositional – predicate – and other calculi, while clarifying are also a veil to hide imprecision and incompleteness.

Human limits

However, even though we are limited, we will find perfection in some directions but not in others. Thus, regarding perfect being, we are on the way, even though, yet not there—and, it will be found, in some ways far from there.

We are a mix of perfection and imperfection

Therefore, while perfection in knowledge is an ideal in some perspectives, it may also be an impediment to what we can realize. From that viewpoint, knowledge is an instrument. We ought to move forward despite any of its inadequacies, keeping the vision of our greatest conceivable being uppermost. That knowledge should aim at reliability remains a pragmatic imperative.

The imperfection is in terms of received but not ultimate criteria

The metaphysics here is imprecise in not attempting to over specify meaning or over demand realism. Imprecision is initially countered by coarse grained concepts, which filter out details whose distortion we have been unable to remove. This permits the universe to be the object of the concepts, the aforementioned precision in some directions, and the imprecision in others. It will emerge that, though imprecise and therefore imperfect by received criteria, the entire system is perfect by emergent criteria.

In acknowledging imprecision, we may overcome it.

The concepts

In this section, terms in small capitals are fundamental concepts whose conception is given or is in evidence.

A basis in the common verb ‘to be’

the verb to be

In common use, ‘is’ is a form of the verb to be—particularly, third person, present. Here, except in definitions and casual use, ‘is’ shall be a form that is most general—it does not recognize such distinctions of number, gender, and particularly being in or not in time and space (or any other markers of situation).

In the history of thought, we have often thought of the real in terms of what it is or may be—e.g., matter, mind, process, word and so on. Such terms are not definite in meaning and may carry a weight of unjustified preconception. On the other hand, the preconceptions are loaded with a history of reflection and use.

Consequently, it is conceptually powerful to be neutral to the preconceptions—to neither assert nor deny their reality and usefulness. How may we talk of the real without prejudice?

Rather than talking of what it is, we shall say nothing more than that it is. Thus, use of the verb to be in describing the real is metaphysically powerful (‘metaphysics’ is formally defined later). The neutrality is empowering in its inclusivity and avoidance of error.

Given that the concepts such as those of mind, matter, and process are useful, is our neutrality disempowering? It might be, but we can also be reflexively neutral—i.e., neutral to neutrality. That is, while we begin with neutrality, we may later introduce specificity within the framework of neutrality. That this can be done consistently and without compromise to power, will emerge later.

Space, time, and neutrality

Time and space are concepts that specify situation; it is not assumed that they are precisely known or that they are the only concepts pertaining to situation, or that ‘is’ refers to situatedness or not.

Being

a being is that which is (plural: beings), i.e., which exists. Being (existence) is the characteristic of and only of beings as beings.

In modern thought ‘is’ in ‘That being is’ and ‘That being is red’ have been equated by some thinkers and differentiated by others. Here, we see some equation between these two uses of ‘is’, but also a difference—‘That being is red’ is perhaps better rendered as ‘That being has redness’.

The use of ‘being’ to mark bare ‘isness’ or existence contrasts to some uses of ‘being’ which emphasize richness and ineffability. Here, being is essentially simple. Neither meaning is the meaning. Rather, meanings constitute a system, and the issue is not of the meaning of the terms considered individually, but of validity and degree of completeness of the system. The present system has the virtue of perfect understanding while allowing richness and any ineffability to emerge without being condemned by initial prejudice to contingent imprecision and ineffability. The perfection arises from abstraction. From abstraction, what results is a perfect but minimal framework. It permits richness and detail to be filled in.

Experience

Experience (a first conception) is consciousness in all its forms.

Without experience, beings are as if dead; that which does not register in experience, even indirectly and tacitly, is as if nonexistent.

significance

Experience is the place of (i) significance of things, particularly ‘the meaning of life’ (ii) concept and linguistic meaning.

concept, relation, and object

The structure of experience is ‘experience of’ – ‘the experiencing’ – ‘the experienced’ or ‘concept’ – ‘relation or intention’ – ‘object’.

A referential concept is a concept that is in the form of reference to an object. In the following, concepts are referential (except where noted otherwise).

Given a concept, x, if it refers to an object, also named x, we say ‘x is real’(or ‘x exists’; otherwise ‘x is not real’ or ‘x does not exist’). A fictional object is one whose description may make it seem real but is not real.

The terms ‘a real object’ and ‘a being’ have the same meaning. Though it is not necessary to be strict about it, provided we are careful, we shall not recognize the idea of ‘fictional beings’. All objects have concepts (conceptions); a fictional object cannot be causal as it does not exist, but the concept for such an object can be causal.

Even ‘pure experience’ in which there is no external relation or intention, or the object is empty, is relational for to have experience requires internal relation and structure.

There is (i) experience ( ‘experience’ names a given, for which Descartes’ cogito is a primitive argument) and (ii) experience of experience (i.e., experience is ‘reflexive’) and the reflexivity or reference of experience to experience contributes to the intentionality of intentional experience.

meaning

concept meaning is a concept, simple or compound, and its possible (intentional) objects; a sign, simple or compound, is a bare concept, in itself without intended reference; linguistic meaning is a sign associated with a concept and its possible objects.

knowledge

Knowledge is meaning, realized.

Since apparent knowledge may be illusory, all knowledge appears to be tinged by the as if. However, (i) some knowledge is true from abstraction (removing from a concept, that which is subject to error—and an example is the naming of the given above), (ii) of the remaining as if knowledge, where many as if interpretations of the world as real in itself have alternate nonreal interpretations, the realist interpretations turn out to be pragmatically certain (reasons are given later) (iii) of course, error remains and so traditional epistemology is important but from the perspective of the real metaphysics, error is not and should not be a block to engaging in realization.

The concept and object sides of experience are as if ideal (mental) and material. The mind-matter distinction is not of ultimate significance here and will remain as if. There is of course, a pragmatic distinction, for the as if has importance, at least in our world. In fact, substance plays no ultimate role in the development; substance, determinism vs indeterminism, mechanism, and cause-as-commonly-understood lie on (at) the worldly or pragmatic side (level).

The universe and the void

Universe, void

The universe is all being or beings.

The void is the being that contains no beings.

Laws

Law

A pattern for a being obtains if the data to specify the being is less than the raw data.

A law is our (often abstract) reading of a pattern for a significant range of being, e.g., a cosmos; the pattern itself will be referred to as the law.

Possibility

In the following, concepts are referential.

An object or state of affairs is possible if existence may obtain according to certain criteria. In the earlier language of concepts and objects, we say ‘x is possible’ if existence is consistent with the criteria (if the criteria are ‘c’, we ought to say ‘x is c-possible).

For the universe and its nature (the nature may, conceivably, be empty), if any, the possible and the actual are identical).

conceptual possibility

An object is conceptually possible if nothing in the concept rules out existence.

logical possibility

For conceptual possibility, the concept must not be self-negating, and it is therefore identical to logical possibility (but logical possibility is more than possibility according to known logics, in that they are limited forms of expression and possibly of calculation).

The possible is inherently logical; it is only our representations of it that may be illogical.

real possibility

If, further, nothing (in our understanding of the world) rules out existence, we say the object has real possibility.

the greatest possibility

Conceptual, or logical possibility is the greatest possibility, for a self-negating concept would define a contrareal (i.e., conceptual constructions that are unrealizable because they are self-negating or illogical—e.g., contra-dictions are only illogical when their object would be a contrareal). Therefore, real possibility and the ultimate cannot exceed the greatest possibility.

The greatest possibility is inherently logical; it is only our representations of it that may be illogical.

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is knowledge of the real.

This specifies a definite conception of metaphysics; preliminarily, it is implicit that the knowledge should be perfect—but this is subject to what perfection shall mean, for, after all, knowledge is part of the real; and the real as ‘what is there’, has reference to the entire universe. Though the received conception of metaphysics in philosophy has indefiniteness, the present conception captures a broad range of the received in terms of (i) the meaning of the term (ii) what topics fall under it.

speculative and real metaphysics

There are two views or ways of metaphysical knowledge (i) speculative, in which a metaphysical system is posited or hypothesized, and its consequences worked out for rationality and agreement with the real (ii) real, in which the real is built in at outset.

That the real may be known at all has been and may be criticized, we have already seen some metaphysics in the present sense, which is developed below into a real metaphysics that is ultimate in two senses (i) perfect capture of the real (at least in framework but more, as will emerge) (ii) in showing the universe and being to be ultimate (also, as will emerge).

dimensions of being

Dimensions or categories of being are or elements of the world that are effective in describing and negotiating the world.

paradigms

Paradigms are general features of the world that summarize its behaviors and forms; paradigms are patterns of behavior are more general than laws and theories (a paradigm of incremental becoming by indeterminist variation and selection for form explain why the realist interpretations of experience far outnumber the non-realist).

The dimensions and paradigms are derived from the real metaphysics (which emerges below); the pure and pragmatic are from the ideal and pragmatic sides of the real metaphysics, respectively. There is some freedom in choosing the pragmatic, which are imperfect captures of the real, but as will be seen the metaphysics remains perfect by its natural criterion, which is the value of realizing the ultimate.

The metaphysics

In this section, terms in small capitals are defined earlier or newly introduced.

The universe, the void, and laws

The universe is a being.

For the void, to not exist is to exist.

The void is a being.

A law is a being.

The void contains no laws.

An abstract and ideal metaphysics

If, from the void, any being, e.g., the greatest possible, did not emerge, it would be a law in the void.

The ultimate

The void, all beings, and the universe, are identical, and the greatest possible (from a perspective outside all particular situations, e.g., in time and space). The ultimate is the greatest possible.

All beings realize the ultimate.

This ideal knowledge is perfect in its capture of the real from its abstract level, but it is insufficient to effective realization. For an instrument, we can only have what we have (regarded as in-process)—let us choose tradition, that which is valid in the history of human culture—knowledge of things, of how to do things, art as inspiration, and more.

The real metaphysics

To the ideal, join the instrumental.

The ideal illuminates, frames, and guides the instrumental; the instrumental illustrates, fills in, and suggests incremental action. The join is dynamic and unified.

The join is named ‘the real metaphysics’ or, just ‘the metaphysics’.

The metaphysics is imperfect as capture of the real; however, it is an effective instrument in realization of the ultimate, and the only instrument available to limited beings and in that sense it is perfect.

The real metaphysics (i) entails categories and paradigms at ideal and pragmatic levels, which are instruments of becoming—including realization of the ultimate (ii) empowers design of pathway templates for becoming and realization.

An imperative to realization

Pleasure and pain are unavoidable. If enjoyment—appreciation of all aspects of being in process—is an essential value, realization is imperative. There are intelligent, effective, and enjoyable pathways to the ultimate—which may begin with but do not end in the received ways of the traditions.

Experientiality extends to the root of being

From the real metaphysics experientiality must extend to the root of being where it may be dim or zero (in magnitude) but not null or essentially nonexperiential.

This occasions a second conception of experience in which its kind is not changed from the first, but its range (what has it) and breadth of degree (of intensity and other variables) are change. Original experience still falls within experience. However, low level experience is not identified with high level experience (the identification is a reason that some thinkers reject the extension of the concept of experience to the root of being).

The universe is a field of experiential being

The universe is a field of experiential being.

We are experiential beings.

The division of seeming ideal and material sides reflects a pragmatic but not an ultimate distinction.

About realization

There is an apparent paradox—a conflict between (i) our sense, experience, and conceptual systems which show us to be limited (ii) the metaphysics which shows us to be limitless.

The resolution of the paradox is that limits are real but not absolute. Realization of the ultimate requires attention to limits—to the world—and their overcoming.

Instruments of realization

As we are incompletely realized beings the two pragmatic sides of being are significant. On the ideal side, meditation, metaphysics, art, and ideal religion are key to realization; on the material side, keys include pragmatic knowledge (science), technology, and humanism.

In a hierarchy of experiential being, we—human and other living being—are neither the least nor the greatest; we are at a stage where we know that we know and can therefore direct our knowledge and becoming, but still only partially and incompletely.

Among our apparent limits, some are the result of mis-perception, others are real. However, limits are real but not absolute.

Peak being

The highest or peak being, perhaps a process, is one of universal knowledge and being and perhaps of arrival.

Life on earth is a limited part and phase of the process of peak being (‘god’ is not essentially another being).

The process is unlimited in variety, extension, duration (and any other markers of situation), peak, and dissolution.

Realization is an eternal process

We are part of the process that is the universe in peak and dissolution.

The range of being includes cosmoses without limit to magnitude, kind, or number; every atom is a cosmos; every cosmos an atom; and all are in contact with the void (and so with all being).

Realization may be across the cosmoses, in contact with the void (and therefore with all being). We, as experiential beings, are already immersed in the experiential universe and already realized in potential.

We may have realization in ‘this life’ but if not, we emerge, at or with potential for higher form in a series of becomings on the way to the ultimate.

To be born again and again only in human-like form is not our fate; our realizations are limitless—and the ‘our’ in ‘our realizations’ is that of all being and beings, not just of human or earth beings.

Being is ever fresh

Being is ever fresh in eternity—the eternity of peak and dissolution is not an eternity of repetition, for the variety is without end. There is no end to adventure.