|
The Way of Being: A Manual Copyright © Anil Mitra, September 27, 2002 – April 5, 2023 Website since 1999 About the summaries Realizing ultimates in and from the immediate world is a human value. But what is the ultimate? In this work, the universe and its beings are found limitless. The way uncovers and develops the conception of limitlessness, and consequences for knowledge, values, and being in our world and beyond. The summaries pave the way into the narrative, speak to its truth, and inspire seeking toward ultimate. Demonstration and elaboration are deferred to the main text. themes thread through the narrative, promoting coherence and unity. The following are foundational. Metaphysics or what there is in the world! Epistemology or knowledge and how the world is known! general logic is knowledge of the world and methods of knowledge. The universe, the void, and limits The universe is all being. The universe is a being—i.e., it exists. An abstract or ideal metaphysics Logic as abstraction from ordinary inference The universe as a field of experiential being. Here, experience is extended to all being and to the root of being. Consequences of limitlessness for limited beings Development of the worldview of the narrative ends here. The nature and way of realization is already present in the worldview as presented. The resources are for readers and for development of the way and its narrative. The manual PrologueThough, from our perspective, it is seen as immense, the universe is usually thought of as having limits. This work finds otherwise; and it finds that the empirical universe as of 2023, the big bang or inflation model, is infinitesimal in comparison to the universe conceived as ‘all existence’. It will be shown that the universe and all beings are limitless in that the entire system of possibility is realized. Readers are not expected to be acquainted with the specific meanings of possibility and limitlessness this narrative, for the paradigm of limitlessness is that the universe is far greater than in either received secular or transsecular paradigms. The meaning, significance, demonstration, and truth of this limitlessness will emerge with the narration; particularly, it includes that limits are real relative to our world but not absolute relative to the limitless universe—that is, relative to the universe, the limits are only apparent. Therefore—To connect the apparently limited with limitlessness, it is effective to begin with apparently limited being. We are born with little explicit sense of our nature and the nature of the world. Of those with resources (who ought to be materially and existentially supportive of those who have not), some seek beyond; others are content with the world as they find it. Some of those who are given the resources to live a life of more than mere survival may endeavor to better know themselves and the world and to question whether this is all that there is. Traditional answers include the secular and the religious, which, in their standard received versions, are ‘infinitesimal’ in comparison to the real universe. The aim of the way of being and an aim of being is discovery and realization, as far as possible, of the ultimate in and from the immediate world (it is not a prescription to be followed, but is reasoned, requires process, and taking part in the process is an element of realization), in a manner that promotes the entire world—the immediate, the ultimate, and their mesh. In advance of discovery, we do not know whether focus should be on destiny or history but will find that in their ultimate meanings they are equivalent. The aims of the way and of being will be found to be identical. Though human beings live in an apparently limited world, we attempt to live with limits as they are understood and to transcend them. The origins of the way are in (i) this attempt (ii) reading in history and culture (iii) experience, exploration, and learning (iv) imaginative and critical reflection and narrative on these issues. The ultimate is and will be found to be a realm that is ultimate in kind, extent, and duration, and, though not fundamentally remote, limitlessly exceeds and contains the local and cosmos and their physical, living, and experiential beings and their societies and cultures. From the magnitude of this conclusion and the reasoning leading to it, doubt is and should be crucial—and is raised and addressed in the development and, especially, in a later section on doubt and certainty. The essential conclusion will be (i) while the reasoned defusion of the doubts is successful, common cultural and psychological attitudes will continue to raise doubt (ii) doubt should be sustained in any case for it is an instrument in facing and resolving issues of existence and realization. A limitless universeThe way of being is grounded in a demonstrated worldview based in a real metaphysics—a view (i) of the universe as limitless and (ii) consequences of the limitlessness. Particularly, the consequences included that all beings inherit the limitlessness and that the extent, duration, and variety of being is far greater than in all standard received views. Though it is not the next fundamental detailed theory of the universe and its elements, and it is not any subsequent but non-final theory, it frames all possible theories of the universe—particularly of nature, mind, and society. The view begins as a framework for and an outer and logical boundary of any final theory of the world. It is also developed, fleshed out, and presented as an approach to living. Limitlessness has consequences for immediate and ultimate being and knowledge and renders many problems of knowledge and action of less significance than on standard worldviews. At the same time, limitlessness offers fresh perspectives on received and ultimate issues. The consequences, perspectives, and issues from a range of angles at various places in the narrative. Reading the way of beingAs the narrative aims beyond received knowledge and ways of being and understanding in fact (e.g., the extent and duration of the universe), kind (the kind of beings and constituents of the universe), and ways of thought (what it is to be empirical, or rational, or pragmatic), its concepts go beyond received meaning. So, for precision, and to understand the narrative, its system of defined meanings should be followed, and it should be endeavored to absorb the formal system and its meaning to intuition. The worldview of the way will be unfamiliar to many readers, academic and other: to absorb the view, they may need to (i) recognize their explicit and tacit received worldviews, see their truth as pertaining to a limited domain, and apply effort to seeing that truth as nested in an inclusive truth (‘deprogramming’) (ii) reeducate their formal understanding and intuition. The penultimate section of the work has resources that provide greater detail and may assist in understanding the work. Those familiar with the possible worlds metaphysics of David Lewis, will see a similarity to the metaphysics of the narrative, yet there are significant differences—Lewis’ metaphysics is not a non-standard view of the actual world and, as a view of the real, is nested within and a small fraction of the view of the narrative. Small capitals indicate important terms (read an immediately following ‘is’ as “is defined as”). To help with understanding, the table of contents has summaries and so functions as a simple overview and way into the narrative. The way is a system of ideas and action. Each is essential for effective realization. However, readers may prefer to focus on one or other. The ideas are developed in sections experience through on doubt and certainty. Action is the focus of dimensions of being and a program of realization. The resources have material relevant to both concepts and to action. Originality and sourcesThe narrative is presented—is tendered—as a contribution to thought and ways of being, perhaps with some originality. It has origins in my experience, reflection, and, of course, reading in the history of ideas. It is impossible to list all the sources for the narrative. However—The references (i) list sources that give some indication of indebtedness (ii) link to detailed listing of source material. The materials are given also as a further source of ideas but not of definitiveness. Inline links are local (within this document or to the https://www.horizons-2000.org site) or external, underlined, to other sites (an exception to underlining is the section on references). External inline links give the full name of the external site and document only where the narrative draws from the site. However, all full names to other documents, local and external, are given in the resources. Themesthemes are subjects or topics supported by, supporting, or parallel to the way (i) whose development threads through the narrative, promoting coherence and unity (ii) that emerge with the narrative and are important in themselves. There are many themes (see the program of realization), but the following ‘foundational themes’ are foundational for the way. Foundational themesThough a distinction is made, the following can be seen as a single theme, ‘metaphysics’ for metaphysics is about the real, but knowledge and values are real (they are in the world) and are determinative and generative of true metaphysics. MetaphysicsRegarding the concept of ‘metaphysics’—i.e., what metaphysics is—readers should be aware that in modern western thought, there is such a thing, but its meaning is not seen as altogether definite or precise. Here, we adopt a definite meaning—metaphysics is knowledge of the real (see real object), and while this conception may be thought questionable or too definite, has definite meaning, which encompasses most of what may today be considered to be metaphysics (see metaphysics) and more, without admitting content that is either absurd or too distant from the standard conceptions. Metaphysics or what there is in the world—i.e., what the content of the universe is! “What there is” is understood most generally—it refers not just to ‘things’, but (i) what the essence of things is (or essences of things are), e.g., relationship vs process vs state vs object vs being (ii) includes knowledge, logic, and value, for knowledge, logic, and value have being, i.e., are in the world (iii) includes the insight that an ‘ought’ is an ‘is’ but also looks into the questions of what their distinctions and relationships are. Thus, regarding “what is there” we might have asked what do we know and what can we know, but this is implied by the next theme. “What there is” is metaphysics (its development is in experience through dimensions of being). Metaphysics entails and encompasses issues of epistemology, logic, and ethics (a) because value and knowledge, inference, and value are part of the world (b) as an activity of being, metaphysics devoid of epistemology, logic, and ethics truth, discovery, and significance. Understood as an account of knowledge of the real, metaphysics includes knowledge of knowledge, method, and value (it is implicit that the knowledge is valid, for, in addition to this being necessary in the received meanings of knowledge, otherwise it would not be of the real). EpistemologyEpistemology or theory of knowledge (see epistemology, particularly knowledge and how the world is known—and how we get to know what is there! How we know is an issue of knowledge. Though it is necessarily an element of any complete metaphysics, its significance warrants explicit mention. The thread of development of issues of knowledge is in the section, meaning and knowledge, subsection, validity. This entails epistemology understood, in greater detail and specificity, as the theory of knowledge and its development, particularly of what it is, criteria of validity, how it is developed and validated, and the value of knowledge. The method of knowledge falls under epistemology and includes considerations of empiricism, rationalism (see Rationalism vs. Empiricism), and pragmatism, and oneness of knowledge and method. This intersects logic as understood below. LogicAs used in philosophy, logic is broader than deductive logic and includes both less than certain and informal inference. But here we generalize further. While logic is inference from premises, it can be enhanced to include establishment of facts, especially necessary or necessarily true facts. Thus, general logic is conceived in the narrative as knowledge of the world and methods of knowledge, and includes the place of perception and emotion, and is extended to action via rationality. In an extended sense, yoga is rationality. EthicsOther themesThese conceptual and action themes and sub-themes are over and above the foundational. Some are implied in this document—details may found in documents on the way of being site, https//www.horizons-2000.org. The main documents are listed in references for reading and development. Philosophical themesImmanuel Kant’s three questions (see Kant’s Account of Reason) at the core of understanding of the world and the significance or meaning of life—What can I know? What ought I to do? For what can I hope? A system of human knowledge—the metaphysics of the work is foundation for a comprehensive and systematic account of human knowledge. Metaphysical subthemesProblems of metaphysics, eastern and western, classical, modern, and current. Includes the question of the nature of metaphysics. The philosophical theme of illusion and doubt in elucidating the nature of the real—particularly a range of questions on the interpretation of experience as real vs mere illusion, of which the main question is that of solipsism while others include the questions of free will, world as simulation, Descartes’ demon (see Descartes’ Epistemology), and Bertrand Russell’s thought that we cannot distinguish between the standard account of the world and an account on which the world was created five minutes ago, complete with human beings and memories as if of the standard account. Such questions may be looked upon as interesting but not particularly significant puzzles. However, the point here, is not that solipsism and so on are significant theses, but that the attempt to untangle such issues as solipsism vs realism sheds light on both epistemology and metaphysics and, further, that a circle of such problems is especially revealing and a systematic approach to what is real emerges from consideration of the circle or system (see the rough database of ideas). Of course, the problem of free will is not a mere puzzle, and other significant problems might be included—e.g., materialism vs idealism vs world as being, and the question of the explainability of the facts of being and existence of the world. While this theme is overtly epistemological, draws on and is consequential for what is real and is therefore placed here. Epistemological subthemesThe related philosophical themes of the nature of meaning and of atomism vs holism of the meanings of systems of concepts intended to capture systems of the world. Action themesSecular and transsecular programs of action for the immediate and the ultimate (see a program of realization). World challenges and opportunities (see world challenges and problems). Decision theory and application to the world (see Decision Theory). ExperienceExperience, consciousness, and awarenessIn its first meaning here, Experience (or awareness) is conscious awareness in all its forms (in the universe as a field of experiential being, the meaning of ‘experience’ will be extended later to include and be consistent with this meaning and to extend to the entire world). Is experience (itself) real—i.e., is there (such a thing as) experience? Of all that presents to us, experience is not only the most immediate, but the very medium in which things, i.e., apparent elements of the real, some illusory and some indeed real, are present (or, perhaps more precisely, the medium without which there would be no presentation, real or illusory). Without experience, ‘we’ would (effectively) be dead, living in a dead world; there would not even be illusion. As most immediate, we shall not prove that there is experience, for we need not—it is not in the category of what is to be proved in order to be known—rather, ‘experience’ is the name given to the medium of the presentation of things. Experience is real—i.e., in terms of existence (the concept is introduced later), experience exists; and that it is known (by humans and other higher animals) shows that experience is reflexive, i.e., there is experience of experience itself. We wait until later because resolution is impossible without robust enough metaphysics or metaphysical assumptions. The fundamental principle and abstract metaphysics will allow lifting of ‘as if’ for abstract objects; the real metaphysics will extend the lifting for pragmatic objects, which however, will be very likely rather than certainly. Can all doubt about reality of the objects be eliminated? Obviously, not—but can we validly assert that solipsism is certainly probably false? Without a definitive metaphysics, we cannot. But on the ‘everyday’ premise that the world is too complex for ‘my mind’ to hold, yes, solipsism is false. More, generally, solipsism is false, on a number of sets of ‘common sense’ metaphysical assumptions. Analysis of the conclusion that there is experienceLet us review the conclusion that there is experience. Though the reasoning used, and the conclusion are somewhat different than in Descartes’ ‘Cogito Argument’, the result is what is essential in Descartes’ conclusion, for when Descartes’ concludes “therefore I am”, he is asserting that there is experience. But we are reviewing the argument to the conclusion that there is experience. The essence is abstraction. Though experience has many varieties and many objects, real or apparent, all of which may be doubted, when we abstract way the detail, we do not doubt what is left, for it is the medium of all things—even any doubts about itself. To abstract is to remove from an idea or concept all detail but that which can be and is distortion free. Though the possibility of this function of abstraction may be doubted, elucidation of the nature of experience removed the doubt (in this case). More is said on abstraction, later. Experience is relationalExperience is relational. This may be spelled out as follows—The relational elements of an experience are the experience of – the experience itself and – the experienced. That is—experience relates the two relata (or sides), the knower (the knowing subject that has the experience of, intrinsic or inner aspect, of the psyche, or experiential, metaphorically labeled ‘of mind’—as if of mind or psyche) and the known (the known object that is the experienced, instrumental or outer aspect, of the external world, which is better regarded as the object aspect of the world, metaphorically labeled ‘of matter’—as if of matter; later, these ‘as ifs’ may be dropped for pragmatic purposes). Note that some problems of knowledge are treated in the section, meaning and knowledge, subsection, validity. Even what is called pure experience is relational—the relation is internal to the aware being (that without internality cannot have interaction—which may seem contradictory on a particle ontology but is not so on a field ontology). There is experience of experience (I know I am aware) and (i) this is the source of knowledge of the reality of experience (the fact is not proven, rather, it is a given and ‘experience’ is here used a name for this given) (ii) thus experiences are also capable of being experienced—and at least most of what we think of as conscious experiences are—and therefore, experience is as real as anything, particularly the—as if—material. Experience is the place of our beingExperience is the place of our real being and sense of significance (or meaning in the sense of ‘the meaning of life’) of the world and all that is in it. The universe will be found to be experiential—We are experiential beings in an experiential universe. Experience is also the place of concept and linguistic meaning and knowledge. Experience as the place of meaning and knowledgeThis informal subsection is preliminary to the next section on meaning and knowledge. ‘Experience of’ is a concept and ‘the experienced’ is an object, which may be as if or real; if real it is a being. An effective conception of concept and linguistic meaning can be derived from experience as a concept-object relation. The conception that follows is fundamental to the theoretical side of the development of the way. Meaning and knowledgeMeaning and knowledge reside in experience. The concept of meaning here shall be that of an elaboration of sign-concept and potential intentional object (see The Meaning of Meaning - Wikipedia). The concept of knowledge is meaning realized—i.e., sign-concept and real object. These conceptions may be seen to have perfection in the sense of perfection of the real metaphysics, which, of course, does not entail perfection in all received and other senses of ‘perfection’. These conceptions enable effective conceptions of existence and being. MeaningHere, ‘meaning’ refers to concept and linguistic meaning. To avoid confusion ‘significance’ was used earlier to talk of ‘the meaning of life’. Though experience is relational, at the level of cognition, there may be an ‘experience of’, which may be felt to refer, but may fail to have reference. The experience of, referring or failed, is a, perhaps as if, mental content or concept. An object, also perhaps as if, is that to which concept refers (real object), may refer, or seems to refer but is not real (literary, symbolic, or fictional object). In the case of meaning, below, there is also an intention to refer. Later, the ‘as ifs’ in this subsection will be found unnecessary and are emphasized because the argument that allows them to be dropped is an argument for what reality is and the reality of the world. A meaning is a concept and its possible objects (intention may be included but is not explicitly essential here). A sign is an object that, in itself has no meaning—but is in fact or potentially associated with meaning by use, convention, or definition. Linguistic meaning is concept meaning, supplemented by association with a sign; the concept and sign may be elementary or complex and the sign-concept is a symbol. Thus, linguistic meaning is a symbol and its possible objects. Though there are aspects of meaning that lie below experience as conceived so far, the concept of meaning is extended later and then all meaning will be seen to lie in experience. KnowledgeKnowledge is meaning realized. Search for knowledge occurs in a dual space of concepts and objects. The concept of meaning as introduced here will enable clear definition, just below, of the central concepts of existence and so of being. It is shown in an older field manual for the way, that the present concept of meaning is necessary and sufficient to meaning, especially, here, to what meaning is needed to do and effective in the clarification and specification of the essential concepts used here (and of many concepts of greater and lesser significance). Indeed, a true metaphysics—and epistemology, logic, or ethics—is not possible on lesser accounts and the present account empowers metaphysics. ValidityRegarding knower and known, issues of validity are objectivity—question of realism vs illusion and question of error and precision. In metaphysics, the aim is perfect knowledge, the means of which are in an abstract or ideal metaphysics, logic as abstraction , and in dialetheia, and the result in an abstract or ideal metaphysics. This abstract metaphysics is perfectly faithful to its object, the universe, but only as an abstract framework. Though abstract, the framework is immensely revealing and powerful as in the universe as a field of experiential being and consequences of limitlessness for limited beings, yet it lacks a substantial means to realize what it reveals and while it has richness regarding the ultimate, its lacuna is that of immediate detail. That lack is made up—in principle—in the real metaphysics, with detail provided in the dimensions of being. The real metaphysics provides a resolution to problems of systematic illusion as in the problem of solipsism. The detail, which includes science, is pragmatic and revisable and thus imperfect by traditional criteria. Yet it is shown to have perfection relative to the criteria revealed by (higher knowledge of the) the metaphysics. This might seem to invalidate much of received epistemology, but it does not. Rather, the received is placed in context. As an example of the significance of received epistemology, it gives a local resolution of the problem of solipsism (which, just as in the resolution via the metaphysics is necessarily not perfect but pragmatically certain). On abstractionWe saw that abstraction is a key to perfect knowledge in the sense of perfect faithfulness. However, it is in the nature of abstraction that detail is omitted. Therefore, perfection of all knowledge cannot be claimed. However, we just saw that (i) abstraction will be a framework of perfection (ii) the framework reveals an ultimate value for being and an associated ultimate criterion for knowledge according to which the join of the abstract and the concrete form a perfect union and (iii) this places received metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic in context; it does not invalidate them. Thus, there is a sense in which abstraction as used above is more real than concrete knowledge. For in direct perception the detail of things is glossed—we do not see the atoms and so on. Indeed, the glossing and possible essential non-capture of the thing calls into question the possibility of knowledge in the sense of perfectly faithful capture of the ‘thing’ (later identified as the real object). This is at the center of the problem of received epistemology. However, we may repeat the conclusion that it is the system of the abstract and the concrete that is perfect. It is worth noting, in this context, that if the sometime ideal of perfect capture is impossible, even meaningless, it should not invalidate knowledge but, rather, it should inform us that the criterion that we were using is not relevant (it may remain a pragmatic criterion for some purposes). While we have been talking mainly of conceptual abstraction, we have also noted that there is perceptual abstraction, which is functional in that it is appropriate to the nature of our being in the world. Being and existenceIt would have been direct to define being at outset; however, it is more effective to have defined concepts, objects, meaning, and knowledge. So—what is being? Given a concept that has (real) reference, what is referred to is an existent whose name is the same as that of the concept—and existence is the property of existents as existents. We then say, existents (and only existents) exist. Then, a being is that which exists, an existent (plural—beings), i.e., a real object, and being is existence. Thus, an example of an existent (or being), given later, is the universe, whose conception is all being. ‘Existence’ has been criticized as not being a concept, for to say of something that, for example, ‘it is an existing red ball’ adds nothing to ‘it is a red ball’. But even if the criticism had content, it would be better rendered by saying, not that existence is not a concept but, rather, that it is an empty concept—and it is better because it would not require ‘to exist’ to be seen as a special case. That the criticism is not true follows from the fact of fictional objects. Further, we will find, not only that existence does add something to objects, but that what it adds is significant (even deep). We can now see a fictional object as a nonexistent object. Already, there is some significance, for the definition of existence and objects in terms of meaning as defined earlier, defuses the received problem of negative existentials, which is that to talk of them, one must assume they exist. This is obviously defused as the assumption is now seen as not at all necessary. The definitions given, unlike Heidegger’s conception of being, are simple. Heidegger looks for depth and richness in his conception of being; Heidegger’s being is ineffable, i.e., it has ineffability. Here the depth lies in simplicity and inclusivity, while richness is to be sought within being rather than of being itself. There remains, of course, the question of the ineffability of existence, no matter how it is understood. The response, here, is that the received view of the ineffability is a necessary consequence of the indefiniteness of received metaphysics and conceptions of metaphysics. Here, simpleness of the conceptions of metaphysics and of existence, together with the definite and demonstrated metaphysics to be developed, makes the concept of existence straightforward. But to limited beings, being does have ineffability in some directions; yet in the direction of depth or foundation and as a framework, being is transparent—even to limited beings, such as humans. This of course certainly does not remove all concerns over what it is that exists; to describe all that exists remains difficult—an impossible task for limited beings. However, the metaphysics to be developed frames all that there is. Richness is to be sought in variety or breadth rather than depth. The universe, the void, and limitsThere are no standard received conceptions of ‘universe’ and ‘void’ (‘universe’ sometimes refers to everything and other times to what is known empirically; further, ‘everything’ is vague—are the kinds of thing material, ideal, or of being; and correspondingly, the void is also vague—e.g., it is sometimes taken to be the quantum vacuum, which is most definitely something over and above the void, which will be conceived in terms of absolute absence). This indefiniteness—and vagueness—leads to confusion and limited ability to reason globally about the universe and its extent, duration, variety and limits or lack of limits. This critical section rectifies the situation and presents conceptions which, because they are clear and definite, are consequently precise and inclusive in the referred objects and deep in consequence. The depth arises from the definiteness of the conceptions, from the inclusion of all being in the conception of the universe, and from the exclusion of all being from the conception of the void. The section presents a proof of limitlessness of the void as it is simple and profound in its consequences. This shows and illustrates the importance of interactively constructing a system of concepts which cover the intended domain, and which includes the method of construction. For, without construction of an entire system, deficiency in a single concept may result in deficiency of the system. The universe is all being (over all time, space, and other markers of situation). The following is evident. The universe is a being—i.e., it exists. The void, if in fact the following defines a being—i.e., a real object, is the being that contains no beings—i.e., the void is the absence of manifest being. The void is a being, for its existence and nonexistence are equivalent. That is, the void exists and does not exist—i.e., we assert the truth of a contradiction (doubt about the proof is addressed, especially, in an abstract or ideal metaphysics). In standard logic truth of a contradiction implies that all assertions admitted to the particular logical universe are true. This would seem to deflate the claims at the beginning of the paragraph. On the other hand, since the void is nothingness, the claim does not seem to defy real possibility. The form of the assertion is that of a contradiction and that it should have reference or truth is apparently impossible and absurd. The apparent contradiction and its seeming absurdity are briefly noted in an aside—the next paragraph—but are defused later. A dialetheia (‘two-way truth’, see dialetheism) is a true contradiction and dialetheism is the view that there are true dialetheia. If there are true dialetheia, particularly the one above, special treatment is necessary. Resolution of the issue is deferred to dialetheia. A true limit or constraint on a being is something that, in its nature, it cannot be or achieve—that is, a limit is immanent in the being. In other terms, a limit or constraint may be conceived, but to be a real constraint, it must be a characteristic of the being. Therefore, limits or constraints exist or have being—i.e., limits or constraints are beings. A law of nature is a constraint and therefore laws are beings. PossibilityA being’s existence has conceptual possibility if there is nothing in its conception that rules out its existence (since conception refers to no particular world, the structure ruled out by conceptual impossibility would be logical and therefore conceptual possibility is logical possibility). Thus, conceptual possibility is the greatest possibility, that is, possibility in the sense of the greatest inclusivity rather than value, for if not satisfied, existence cannot obtain, regardless of the nature of the world (it is tacit that the case is ideal in that the mode of expression is limitless, the sense of ‘greatest’ is not ‘highest’, but the greatest will include the highest, when it is properly conceived). If, further, nothing in the nature of the universe rules out the being’s existence, it is simply possible, i.e., we say that it has real possibility or just possibility (physical possibility is a case of possibility). Some further conceptions—a possible object is one whose existence is possible; an impossible object is one whose existence is impossible; a necessary object is one which must exist, i.e., whose nonexistence is impossible (the concept of necessity is implicit here and will be later defined explicitly). The fundamental principleThe universe is limitless—the realization of the greatest or logical possibility (and therefore the real and the greatest possibilities are identical). ‘Limitless’ is preferred to ‘infinite’ because the former is most inclusive, i.e., it includes the connotations of the transcendent and the in-process, the actual and the potential, and the absolute vs limited infinities. The assertion in italics above is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics or just the fundamental principle (some consequences important to the way of being will follow). Regarding necessity of a being’s existence as impossibility of its nonexistence, the existence of the limitless universe is necessary. An abstract or ideal metaphysicsThe fundamental principle entails a metaphysics, which, from its abstraction, is perfect, and from its system of concepts, reveals the universe to be without limit of any kind—the realization of possibility in its greatest sense. This section develops the metaphysics and comments on proof under the metaphysics—and doubts about the proof. Consequences are developed later, beginning with the universe as a field of experiential being. The main doubts are (i) empirical—that there is apparent contradiction between the metaphysics and physical cosmology (ii) rational—regarding the proof of the fundamental principle (iii) realist—that the conceptions employed have precise reference (this has been addressed in the section, on abstraction (iv) existential—a possible uncomfortable feeling (‘angst’) regarding truth of the metaphysics despite proof. The metaphysicsThe demonstration of the fundamental principle is formal but let us examine how we know it to be true. The fundamental concepts and elementary inference involved are abstract—concepts and operations from which distortable elements are conceptually removed, leaving only undistorted content (the present definition of abstraction enhances the earlier one to cover operations). Thus, regarding the fundamental concepts, here are some examples—given that being is existence, there is being; given that the universe is all being, there is one and only one universe; and so on. In this sense of the term, the abstract is neither remote nor abstruse but immediate, real—more definitely real than the concrete (which itself participates in abstraction). This addresses the issue of objectivity and precision for abstracta. What of illusion? ‘Experience’ is the name of experience as experience and thus while particular experiences may be illusory, that there is experience is not. Similarly, being as being and the universe are not illusions. How may we address systematic and particular illusions? The claim of solipsism is that of a paradigmatic systematic illusion (the importance of problems such as that of solipsism is not that personal solipsism is to be taken seriously but that insights from their resolution are pivotal in developing metaphysics; and it may be noted that universe as field of being and experience is universal identity as solipsist identity). The fundamental principle shows that there must be solipsist cosmoses and that we cannot be certain that our experienced cosmos is not an illusion. However, the concept of robustness discussed in dimensions of being, shows that it is pragmatically certain that our experience is pragmatically faithful to the cosmos. Particular illusion is dealt with in the usual way of confirmation by multiple observations, multiple modes of observation, multiple observers, and conceptual fit. That the pragmatic is good enough is confirmed in the real metaphysics, which further shows the pragmatic to be perfect in a sense to be given. Any apparent contradiction with, say, the big bang model of the cosmos, also called the inflation model of cosmology, is defused in seeing that the model, being empirical, says nothing about the entire transempirical region (it is allowed that the near transempirical region is likely to have continuity with the empirical), but the idea of the contradiction arises from assumption that the model holds in the transempirical. From the logic of the inference, this is consistent with science and experience. However, it shows that the scientific (big bang) model is that of a world that is infinitesimal in relation to the universe. From its method, science has pragmatic truth, but its truth is not known to be real (precise) or complete. The history of science suggests that its truth may be far from real and far from complete and this is confirmed by the fundamental principle, which shows that ‘far’ should be replaced by ‘limitlessly far’. Having considered fact let us now examine inference—the elementary inferences are of the kind in logic as abstraction, which it is convenient to place shortly below. Thus, with metaphysics as true knowledge of the real, the development is metaphysics—it is an abstract or ideal metaphysics. On proof under the abstract metaphysicsMost proof based on the abstract metaphysics in this narrative is simple; exceptions will be noted. In later development, proofs may be difficult—an example would be to develop a description of the limitless, i.e., of possible worlds. Logic as abstraction from ordinary inferenceIntroductionThe aim of reasoning is to arrive at truth (and reasoning is reflexive because its ways should be valid). A statement or proposition, ‘It is raining’ is true if, indeed, it is raining (this formulation, which follows from the earlier conceptions of meaning and knowledge seems trivial and perhaps obvious, yet it is useful and important). Systems of inference or logic are usually concerned with what is implied by the truth of propositions (or, simply, what is implied by propositions), but not with establishing their truth (which is assigned to observation, measurement, experimental science, sometimes to necessity, and so on). Note, (i) as the notion of truth includes relation of ideas to the real, i.e., truth is a function of meaning, the following development is semantic (ii) while this suggests a subscription to the correspondence theory of truth, we are seeing how this is not a limitation in the abstract case, and will see how it is not a limitation in the pragmatic case (there are limitations to pragmatic knowledge, which are indeed pertinent to our world, but they are not ultimate limitations) (iii) a syntactic development in which the symbols are meaning-free is useful for formal and structural purposes but is omitted here (iv) in parts of this narrative the idea of logic is extended to in various ways (received) to induction (likely inference) and (not received) to establishment of truth, but these extensions do not concern us here. Statements have structure. Examples are (i) ‘Lincoln was tall’—Lincoln is described as tall, i.e., tallness is predicated of Lincoln (ii) ‘Of all men, there is a taller woman’, which has a predicate and two quantifiers—‘all’ and ‘there is’, the universal and existential quantifiers. The logics of truth relations between sentences that involves predicates and quantifiers are called ‘predicate logics’. We shall look at a simpler logic that involves only the truth or otherwise of sentences without reference to their internal structure. One such logic is the ‘sentence calculus’ or ‘propositional calculus’. It is the simplest of the modern logics and shall be used as a platform for development of a three valued logic, which is applies to dialetheia. The propositional calculusThe propositional calculus is a system of inference that (i) captures some aspects of and so some uses in careful everyday reasoning in (ii) can be formalized so that inference is certain and can be mechanized (iii) is useful as a part of formal logic in mathematics and science. This system was employed in reasoning to the abstract metaphysics. In standard propositional logic, statements are one and only one of true or false. We can imagine non-standard or deviant situations in which some statements are neither and in the next section on paraconsistent logic we will encounter statements that are both true and false, which, the apparent paradox of which will be defused. Here, however, the concern is with the standard situation. Thus, the propositional calculus invokes abstractions from ordinary reasoning, which give it perfection—as far as the sentences refer to the real, which is not a logical issue—and certainty. To make for ease of comprehension and notation, statements (propositions) are denoted by letters, P, Q, R, and so on. As an example, P might be the statement ‘It is raining’, which could be true or false. Things commonly done in ordinary reason is to consider (i) negation, e.g., ‘It is not raining’ (ii) compound statements, e.g., ‘P and Q’ and ‘P or Q’ (iii) infer, e.g., ‘If P then Q’. To formalize inference, we will introduce special symbols, and specify their use or meaning. For example, ‘not’ will be such that ‘not P’ is false when ‘P’ is true and vice versa. ‘Not’ may be seen as an operator that changes the truth value of a proposition (below, we will look at the identity operator which does not change the truth value of the proposition). Then, there are two-place operators. ‘And’ will be such that ‘P and Q’ is true if and only if P and Q are both true. In ordinary use, ‘or’ is ambivalent and could be such that ‘P or Q’ is true when (a) exactly one of P and Q is true or (b) at least one of P and Q is true (b is standard). It is not standard to use ‘implication’ because it has connotations that are difficult to formalize; rather, the usage of choice is ‘If P then Q’ which is false if and only if P is true and Q is false. It may seem odd to define this surrogate for implication in terms of truth values and in terms of the choice of truth values, but it is part of a system that satisfy the criteria set out in the opening paragraph of this section. The following symbols are standard (i) the identity symbol Ͱ, the identity function of truth—thus the truth value of ͰP, is the same as the truth value of P, and hence we will omit Ͱ, and thus P abbreviates ͰP, which is also standard (ii) negation, ~, thus the truth value of ~P is the opposite of the truth value of P—i.e., ~P is true when P is false, and ~P is false when P is true. Four further symbols are common, which will be defined just below (iii) or, symbol Ú (‘vel’), where P Ú Q stands for P or Q, (iv) and, symbol Ù (‘wedge’), where P Ù Q stands for P and Q, (in another common notation, ‘Ù’ is omitted, and P Ù Q is written PQ), (v) ®, (‘material conditional’), where P ® Q is read ‘if P then Q’, (vi) º, or equivalence, where P º Q is read ‘P and Q are equivalent’. Note that common names for ~, Ú, and Ù, are ‘negation’, ‘alternation’, and ‘conjunction’. Above, Ͱ and ~ were defined, but the remaining symbols were not. Note that Ͱ and ~ are (can be interpreted as) operators, i.e., truth functions. If P is true / false we write its truth values as t / f. Thus, the meanings of Ͱ and ~ can be specified in what are called ‘truth tables’—
Using the same idea, ‘and’ is defined,
which indicates that ‘P and Q’ is true when both P and Q are true and in no other case. Using the same formulation for all six symbols,
In the standard propositional calculus above a true contradiction is explosive, i.e., for all P and Q, (P Ù ~P) ® Q. From the discussion of dialetheia, a non-explosive calculus is needed. Of the given symbols, two may be chosen—a common choice is negation and alternation, and others (conjunction, the material conditional, and equivalence), defined in terms of the chosen two. Another symbol, known as the Sheffer stroke, can be defined, and all other symbols defined in terms of it. To substantiate these observations is simple, but not needed here. We have seen that this system has some application in ordinary reasoning (but is far from capturing all our ordinary reasoning), in mathematics, and in science. It is also the ground of predicate logic and a springboard for extended and deviant logics. But why the particular chosen operations when there are others in everyday thought? On this matter, Susan Haack (Philosophy of Logics, 1978) writes (using this document’s symbols), “Two features of the favoured expressions suggest themselves: truth-functionality and precision. ‘Ù’ is truth-functional; and truth-functions are especially readily amenable to formal treatment – notably, they allow the possibility of a formal decision procedure.” And thus, the predicate calculus is simple, applicable, and precise. However, it would not be argued that precision and truth functionality are the essence of reason. Rather, the propositional calculus is an elementary ground for other formal and informal logics. A three valued paraconsistent logicThis calculus is a modification of the standard propositional calculus from Paraconsistent Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). A proposition can have three truth values—t (true, only), f (false, only), b (both, i.e., true and false). Truth tables for logical connectives ~, Ù, and Ú, the first three below, are—
From the reference above, with paraphrase and omission of detail, “t and b will be designated values—values preserved in valid inference. Defining a consequence relation as preserving designated values as in the fourth table above, what results is the paraconsistent logic LP of Priest, 1979. In LP, ECQ (explosion or ex contradictione quodlibet) is invalid. To see this, assign b to P and f to Q. Then ~P is also b and so both P and ~P are designated. Yet Q is f, i.e., not designated. Hence explosion is invalid in LP. That is, LP invalidates explosion by assigning a designated value, b, to a contradiction. However, there are a number of strategies in which LP does not necessarily fall under dialetheism. A feature of LP which requires some attention is that in LP modus ponens comes out to be invalid. For if P is b but Q is f, then P ® Q is b and hence is designated. So, both P and P ® Q are designated, yet the conclusion Q is not. Hence modus ponens for ® is invalid in LP. One way to rectify the problem is to add an appropriate conditional connective, i.e., one that as in the earlier example of raining makes the premise relevant to the conclusion, as in relevant logics (also see relevance logic).” Application to dialetheia and metaphysicsThe three valued logic is a potential framework for dialetheia such as ‘the void exists and does not exist’. That statement is not disallowable and therefore does not imply (existence of) a contrareal. At present, however, dialetheia are accommodated by excluding them from the standard logical universe and treating them separately or by seeing that they are only apparent contradictions that arise by having a symbol that makes no discrimination, refer to a situation that could be described by a symbol that does make discrimination. Dialetheia and a brief application of paraconsistent logic to dialetheia are taken up in dialetheia, below. The universe as a field of experiential beingHere, the concept of experience is extended to all being and deepened to the root of being. That is, experience is universal, which requires (i) that elementary experience is of the same kind, but primitive compared to animal experience (ii) the experientiality of beings is not null but may be zero in value. The universe as a field of experiential beingThe extended concept of experience and the abstract metaphysics, together, imply that the universe is a experiential field and that we—humans and higher animals—are focal centers in the field. This section shows and elaborates upon this conclusion. A limitless or substance world would have the character of experientiality (rather than matter), not as in ‘higher being’ (e.g., human or other animal), but in having its root elements have ‘primitive experientiality’, which, in complex structures such as bodies, combine to constitute experientiality such as in human beings. Such a world would be a field of experiential being in which higher beings are locations of focal experientiality. The main relevance of these conclusions is that (i) since we have shown that the universe is limitless, the universe is an experiential field and (ii) since our cosmos is approximately substance-like, it is approximately an experiential field. This extends the meaning of experience to the root of being, in a dual space of concepts and objects—i.e., both conceptually (in intension) and in its application (in extension). These reflections have significance for the meaning and nature of knowledge and its justification, which will now be discussed. A consequence for knowledge and its validityWhen, in the course of routine, one sees a tree, one acts as though one knows it is a tree. In philosophy, the meaning and nature of knowledge and its justification are questioned. Philosophical questioning and reflection are quite unnecessary for many purposes but are (i) needed when there is doubt (ii) important when we want to go beyond everyday knowledge, e.g., to science (iii) essential when we want to go even further, even beyond received worldviews—and even to see that there is a beyond. But let us return to the everyday attitude. One everyday conception of what it is to know is that we have an idea or picture in our minds that corresponds to the known thing. But we may question the precision of the picture in relation to the thing. In digging deeper—and as noted above, this is essential to going beyond and not idle reflection that is disconnected from the world—it may be asked (i) but what is the nature of the picture (and do we even have minds or, more precisely, what is mind) (ii) what is the nature of the thing: is it a thing and what is it made of (iii) what is the relation between the picture and the thing (which needs clarification before the question of precision can be fully addressed) and (iv) is this picture of picture – thing – their relation a true picture? Answers to these questions are many. The skeptics have considered the positions that (i) there is no such thing as knowledge—this is called Pyrrhonian Skepticism (ii) Cartesian Skepticism—all knowledge is suspect and therefore, to be true and certain, requires justification without regress. In materialism, the thing and the picture, if at all there is a picture, are made of matter. If matter is held to be devoid of mind (and the point to materialism is that matter is both fundamental and not mental in any way), it is a problem that is regarded as regarding the existence of experience—for if matter is categorially non-mental and it is everything, how could there be experience? In fact, under materialism, the problem as stated points to its intractability. In Kantian idealism, knowledge is possible only if, the form of the picture (perceptual and conceptual) is precisely the form of the world. But is the form of the picture precisely the form of the world? This, we cannot say, except on the premise that it is true; however, we can say that it is effectively true, for else we could not ‘see’ and negotiate the world (Kant deduced its truth from the then common but no longer accepted view that Euclidean Geometry and Newtonian Mechanics were necessarily true of the world). But of the real, which Kant calls ‘noumenon’, Kant concludes that since it is not experienced, we can say nothing, except that there is the noumenon, for it is in experience in that it is a source of experience. Note (i) that I am not aware that Kant made the argument that experience is in experience as its source and (ii) the unknowability of the noumenon will be partially defused in the section, the real metaphysics, subsection, the ground of epistemology. Now all of this—materialism and idealism—is rooted in our everyday picture that ‘we know’ things—i.e., that there is something special about the place of our knowing in the world. Note that ‘rooted’ does not mean ‘founded’; it means that the everyday picture is the starting ground from which materialism and idealism attempt to found. That there is something ‘special’ about knowing does not mean (or not mean) that knowing is unique or higher—it means that knowing is rather a different thing than things. And this view is natural enough for it seems to be the case it is effective to not be questioning our knowing in (much of) our everyday functioning. Is there a way out of this view of knowing? There is and it has a ground in the concept of the world as a field of being and experience. The universe is a field and those entities that think of themselves as knowers are places where the field is focused. That is, among the forms of the world is the form of a local focus of the field in relation to the world. It is a self-adaptation of the world (we could appeal to evolution—or even to God—but neither appeal is necessary and at least one would be prejudicial to the ontology under development). But though it is a self-adaptation, is it precise? I.e., does the form that thinks “I know” know precisely? Well, even if the question had meaning (which it may, but it does follow from the existence of the form and its feeling that it knows), it would not necessarily have significance, and it might not be useful to answer. Yet, we do ask the question, we do think it useful to answer, we do think it has significance, and though we question it, it might indeed have all these things. A resolution will be provided in section, the real metaphysics, subsection, the ground of epistemology. Consequences of limitlessness for limited beingsConsequences range across the human endeavor, especially, in metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and ethics; this is seen below and detailed in the real metaphysics. From the fundamental principle, there are, of course, no truly limited beings. Rather, the limits are seeming. This does not imply that the seeming limits are unreal or that they are easily overcome or that they will be overcome in this world. In this section, we continue to look at the relation between the individual and the ultimate and to understand the approach to the ultimate; we begin to look at pathways to the ultimate in and from the immediate. Earlier, in discussing experience, we saw that the nature of our being implies that there is experience. Given experience there must be a universe—even if it is only ‘my’ solipsist universe. But the fundamental principle—the abstract metaphysics—requires my experience and much more as follows (that ‘this cosmos’ could be a solipsist cosmos is logically possible but immensely unlikely, which follows from the discussion of robustness in dimensions of being). The universe has identity; it phases in and out of manifest being; the universe and its identity are limitless in extent, duration, variety, and highest or peak being (which may be a relational process); the variety and duration include cosmoses without limit to number, kind, beginnings and endings, all in transaction with one another (the degree of transaction will be nil at times) and with the void. All beings inherit this limitlessness, for the contrary would be a limit or constraint on the universe; there are of course experienced and real limits on limited beings, which include natural as well as developmental limits, but they are not absolute, for achieving the ultimate (limitlessness) in or from this life, though rare, is absolutely possible; and, if not achieved in this life, it will be attained beyond death; which occurs across migration of identity across, e.g., cosmoses (it is not contradictory for two limited beings to simultaneously become the ultimate, for they merge in doing so); though (contrary to conceptions in which the ultimate is essentially remote) ultimate realization is given: there are intelligent and effective pathways to the ultimate (intelligence being regarded as effective negotiation of the ultimate in and from the immediate). That ultimate realization is given may seem to imply that will be require neither effort nor perseverance nor intelligence; however, this is far from the truth. Let us say a little more on the migration of identities. While it occurs across cosmoses, it occurs, at least, in the identity of being with the void, which may be seen as a reservoir of ultimate identity. Relationality lies in the substrate of being and the universe, which is the void. Equivalently, it lies in the universe itself. enjoyment is appreciation of all aspects of experience (and the world), including perception, cognition, emotion, and pleasure and pain; if enjoyment is an essential value, it is imperative to be on an intelligent path to the ultimate. Though values are typically not counted among elements of the real, many thinkers have adopted a contrary position. Here, since what ought to be done is a concept, the object is either real or as if. But, from the fundamental principle, it must be real. In our limited world, we might object that values are not material, cannot be touched, are relative and so on. Of course, some values are not ‘real’ in the way bricks are, but neither are experiences and experiences are more real than bricks; of course, values are relative, but that does not affect their reality. Values and experiences have the same reality status. pleasure and pain (‘suffering’) are unavoidable—the way is not and should not be seen as a guarantee of eternal bliss as a reward for prescribed behavior but, rather, there is no way out of an eternal mix of pleasure and pain and an eternal, if not uniform, path of improvement; perhaps such a guarantee could be seen as a good lie with positive consequences, but I think that the net consequence would be negative and perhaps destructive; pleasure is good, but to seek it excessively for its own sake is diversionary and while entertainment is not to be denied it is good to find entertainment in the world and the way. Though pain is unavoidable, its best address, as far as it is possible and reasonable, is to be on a shared pathway to the ultimate, which is therapeutic in itself and with which the best instrumental therapy is integrated. The way does not offer eternal release from pain or worlds and lives without pain—it offers an effective approach to and transcendence of the issue of pain. To feel at home, complete, or content, but as process and ends are both good, therapy in itself and achievement ought to be balanced. DialetheiaEarlier the true contradiction or dialetheia (‘two-way truth’, see dialetheism), ‘the void exists and does not exist’ was encountered. We saw that with standard logic, such contradictory assertions lead to explosion. This section examines how such apparent dialethic impossibilities may be accommodated without absurdity—without explosion and without world impossibility. The foregoing is a dialetheia or true contradiction. However, while dialetheia are generally regarded as disallowable because of apparent absurdity and that in standard logic a dialetheia implies the truth (and falsity) of every statement, if a disallowable contradiction (a more general term would be disallowable symbol) is one that cannot be realized, then this dialetheia is not disallowable (may point to a seeming but not true contrareal—that is, it does not define an impossible object as do classical dialetheic paradoxes such as ‘the barber in the village who shaves everyone except those who shave themselves’. The fact and possibility of dialetheia, at least of this one, can be figuratively put—a contra-diction is allowable provided it does not entail reality self-violation of the real. Now we know that disallowable contradictions, if assumed true, result in explosion—i.e., all assertions in the relevant logical universe (of propositions) will be true. Since this does not happen with allowable contradictions, this requires a logic that (i) does not result in explosion for allowable contradictions (ii) reduces to standard logic if the allowable dialetheia are excluded. Such paraconsistent logics have been developed. An alternative to paraconsistent logics is to exclude the dialetheia from the standard logical universe and treat them separately. Generally, an alternative to variant logics for formally but not semantically contrareal propositions would be to exclude them from the standard universe. It is worth seeing that dialetheia abound in the ideas of the void and its existence, e.g., the void is everywhere and when and yet nowhere or when; and in existence of the void and its equivalence to the universe—i.e., the equivalence of everything to nothing and more generally of every being to all beings—particularly to every other being; in the void an instant and eternity are the same; that we are limited and unlimited (not a true dialetheia if we note that the timescales are different), the identity of individual and universal self. But these dialetheia are not true paradoxes. What would be a true paradox? It would be a contradictory in the world itself—not just in a description of the world. But how may we adequately separate world from description? Here is an example—see, for example, the discussion of Thomson’s Lamp in Infinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Thomson imagined a lamp with a switch is initially off. After half a minute it is switched on. After another quarter minute it is turned off. An eighth minute later it is switched on again. Thomson asks whether the lamp is on or off at one minute. At one minute, the switching rate is infinite, and therefore the lamp is both on and off. This, claims Thomson, is a paradox-for at one minute, the lamp is on and not on, and off and not off. Is it indeed a paradox? Is it a world-contradiction? We should be more specific—is it paradoxical under (i) our physics—the current physics of our cosmos (ii) all possible systems of physical law (iii) logic. Let us consider #iii first, for logic frames physics. Recall a concept of a state of affairs or situation is logically impossible if the concept—and the concept alone—that rules out existence of an object. Now ask—Is Thomson’s lamp a world contradiction under logic? No, for infinitely many situations are condensed into an instant and therefore there is no situation—state of affairs—in which the lamp is both on and off. That is, while it is both on and off at one minute, infinitely many situations are condensed into that instant, and it is not on and off in any one of those situations. This may present a problem for intuition for we are—may be—accustomed to identifying one situation with one instant and this is encoded in common thought—we often say, “to be and not to be at the same time is paradoxical” whereas, with what we have now learned, we ought to say, “to be and not to be in the same situation is paradoxical”. But perhaps the void can be and not be in the same situation and so we ought to say, “for a definite being to be and not be in a given situation is paradoxical”. Of course, there is a reason we make the equation, one instant is one situation, for this is our usual intuition and our usual understanding of physics (this more or less repeats the above point about intuition). So, we now ask—Is Thomson’s lamp paradoxical under our physics? It would seem to violate the light speed limit of our cosmos. The reference above has some considerations on the matter, but the physics of our cosmos is not of immediate interest to the narrative and so will not be taken up here. However, we may make the following observations—(i) if a physics allows a switch that can alternate with infinite frequency, then, surely, it also allows an observer who can observe such infinite rapidity as if it had finite frequency (ii) the fundamental principle implies that there is a physics—not just a possible physics—which allows infinite speeds. Let us now consider whether Thomson’s lamp is paradoxical under all possible systems of physical law. A pertinent observation here is that most academic philosophers and physics today accept our physics as universal (it is at least a putative truth). It is important to see that under the real metaphysics the received physics of the cosmos has local but not universal truth. The boundary of all possible physics is logic in its most general realization—i.e., some systems of physics will allow infinite speeds. Thomson’s lamp is not an essential physical paradox. Returning to Thomson’s lamp as a possible paradox under logic, we saw that it is not, for ‘two places at the same time’ is not ‘two exclusive states in the same situation’. However, our usual mode of description time is as a continuum, particularly, the real number continuum, which does not recognize ‘many situations or even instants condensed into a single instant’. Therefore, we may query—though physical infinities of this and other kinds are not violations of logic and therefore real (under the abstract metaphysics), are they ever beyond our description. The answer is not necessarily, for perhaps we can formulate a number system, e.g., the surreal number system, which can describe the infinities and the ‘infinitesimal distinctions’ adequately. Before closing, let consider an aside—if we were to have a number system adequately describe Thomson’s lamp’s infinite frequency at one minute, would it be adequate at times greater than one minute? Finally, let us make a summation on dialetheia. Dialetheia are regarded as controversial today, in 2023. However, we have seen definite cases of dialetheia that are not essentially paradoxical and do not lead to explosion (the literature has many further examples). We have also seen logics that accommodate dialetheia. The essential question, therefore, seems to be—Are dialetheia significant, and are they best treated by non-standard logics, or is it better to treat them separately, excluded from standard logical universes? The answer is not fully clear to me, but it seems (i) dialetheia can be treated as lying outside the standard logical universe (ii) paraconsistent logic is not necessary to adequately treat dialetheia but may be useful for dialetheia and other applications. The fundamental principle implies equivalence of all beings, but the equivalence is one that suppresses distinctions of time and space and possibly other things. For many seeming dialetheia there is a non-dialethic interpretation. Perhaps that is true for all putative cases of dialetheia. Even then, however, dialetheia and its treatment will be essential to beings that are unable to discriminate the distinctions that would untangle the dialetheia. Perhaps we can therefore identify u-equivalence vs l-equivalence, i.e., equivalence in universal vs limited context. Then two ‘distinct’ beings would be u- but not l-equivalent. The thought can be generalized to u and l properties. The example here and the consequent generic analysis pertains of course to one kind of dialetheic situation. I hope to return to the subject to see where the kind of analysis presented here may—or may not—apply to other applications in the literature and beyond. Referring to logic as abstraction, “the void exists” may be assigned the truth value b, and, consequently, “all possible beings exist” will also have the truth value b. This may be interpreted as saying that both statements are false in some regions but true in others as well as universally. This application is significant in principle but trivial in fact, for the conclusion was earlier obtained rather easily, without the three valued paraconsistent logic. Peak being (god)What is peak being? One term for it is God—but ‘God’ has many meanings and senses (god and other ultimates). There are limitlessly many Abrahamic, Hindu, and other Gods in far and near corners of the universe (subject to straightening of the narratives), limitlessly many Buddhas. They are neither ultimate nor ultimately robust. How may we visualize an ultimate and robust god? Traditional concepts are speculative, grounded in a sense of incompleteness of the empirical world. Thus, tradition flounders in the dual space of concepts and objects. However, the abstract metaphysics shows that the highest being is all being and beings in process, while limited, on the way to the limitless ultimate. This requires the following concept of a peak being, which we would have justification in calling ‘god’ (perhaps the term ‘god’ ought not to be used for it may mislead both secular and religious individuals on account of their cultural immersion). We, all life and being, are part of that process. It is the one, the eternal. Our cosmological corner of the universe is still primitive, on the way to ultimate being—and already there, beyond our situation; even in our situation if it would be seen (we can conceive it with justification—as we are doing here, and sense it, and the conception and sense may reinforce each other). But does this not contradict current physical cosmology, i.e., the view of the empirical universe as originating in a singularity? No, it does not, for while that view has truth, the empirical universe is already immersed in the ultimate. The imaginative side of these thoughts has derivation from the Advaita Vedanta. The real metaphysicsThe metaphysicsThe abstract metaphysics, so far is perfect via abstraction. If pragmatic knowledge is appended to it, the result is an imperfect capture of the real—e.g., in correspondence terms. However, in terms of the ideal revealed by the abstract metaphysics, the join is the best instrument in—and guarantees—realization of the ultimate. In that sense it is perfect, and the result of the join is named ‘the real metaphysics’. This section develops these ideas and reveals the join as a dynamic unity. The abstract metaphysics shows what may be achieved but not how. Tradition shall mean all our pragmatic and pure knowledge. Append this to the ideal content (metaphysics) developed so far. Tradition is the how; imperfect in itself, regarded as in process it is the best we have; therefore, relative to the imperative of realization, it may be truly and realistically be called perfect. In the join, the ideal illuminates and guides the pragmatic and the pragmatic illustrates and is instrumental toward the ideal. The combination, which is thus a dynamic join, is named the real metaphysics, or just the metaphysics. Since tradition is in process, we take elements from diverse cultures and we emphasize the modern west and some elements of Indian philosophy, with the understanding that what we take remains in process, reflectively, experimentally, and is open to and seeking further supplement. From the comprehensive system of human knowledge, we take only certain elements as follows. While the above is ideal, we know from inference to the real metaphysics, that the local need not be ideal. We choose disciplines typical of western culture. The description that follows may seem to derive from a material worldview (i.e., materialism) but may also be derived from and experiential worldview (thus the ideal, the approach from being, the cultures of the east, and the existential thought of the west are not excluded). The elements, named the ‘dimensions of being’ are given in detail in the section, dimensions of being. ProofProofs from the abstract metaphysics may be likely—even highly likely, rather than necessary. The ground of epistemologyThe final paragraph of a consequence for knowledge and its validity raised the issue of what it is ‘to know’, whether it can have justification and precision, and whether it has significance. And, given the real metaphysics, the resolution is trivial (that is, the non-trivial part of the resolution is in the real metaphysics). The resolution is that there is perfect and abstract knowledge, which reveals ultimates in ontology and values, and which frames pragmatic knowledge. The entire system, including the pragmatic component is perfect according to the ultimate value—that is, though it is imperfect as a ‘picture’, this imperfection, especially as it is always there for limited beings, is not pertinent to final realization and, indeed, may be seen, existentially, as a good thing. This does not mean that there are no significant problems associated with pragmatic knowledge. To improve it is material to where we are in the immediate and beyond. There is value to received epistemology and its development (which is not to imply that its current status cannot be bettered in principle or in practice). An analogy can be made to the relation between older scientific theories and revolutionary advance, e.g., Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity. Newtonian Mechanics still has local validity as a framework and as a system of prediction. Where valid, it agrees with relativity. But in the larger universe, where Newton’s scheme breaks down, relativity holds. Relativity ‘nests’ Newton’s system. There are two levels of thought—the local and the cosmological and the latter nests the former. Translating the analogy—view of the world as an experiential field of being is ultimate and nests the other views: materialism, idealism, and the everyday view. There are two levels of thought—the local and the universal and the latter nests the former. One difference from the analogical picture from physics is that whereas relativity is cosmological but far from universal, field of being with real metaphysics is truly universal. About real metaphysicsI named the metaphysics of the narrative the real metaphysics a number of years ago. I had been looking for a suitable name and, among other things, intended a contrast to merely speculative metaphysics and to the abstract side of the metaphysics. However, ‘real metaphysics’ is a term used to describe an approach that aims to discover objective truths about reality and has been contrasted to speculative metaphysics (see real metaphysics). Though the choice of names has coincidence, it is not entirely so, for there is similarity of intent. One contrast of the metaphysics of the narrative to the common use of ‘real metaphysics’ is that here, there is a place within the perfect and objective framework for pragmatic knowledge and a speculative approach that does not destroy objectivity—and this requires not only revision of what is known—the object—but also the nature of and therefore the criteria for knowing as well (but, if instead of regarding the search space as the ‘external world’, we regard it as the knower, the knowing, and the known, it is a single search, but a recursive one). It is appropriate to point out here, that over and above critiquing what knowledge and its criteria are and ought to be, the nature and criteria need not be uniform across all knowledge or, particularly, all metaphysics—and it is found that they ought not to be so (the real metaphysics) . Though it may be thought that uniformity of criteria is necessary to secure foundation, there is no reason for it to be so—the meta-criteria are reliability and certainty. It will be found that the perfect real metaphysics employs non-uniform criteria, the perfection of which is in terms of an emergent value (in contrast to thinking in terms of received or imposed criteria). This turns out to be one way out of unwarranted universal skepticism and universal neutrality, but allows skepticism where warranted and neutrality toward neutrality itself. It also ought to be mentioned that the term ‘speculative metaphysics’ is not mere speculation as, for example, in Alfred North Whitehead’s process metaphysics see (process philosophy and process and reality), in which the approach is rather like the theory building approach in science. It will be seen to follow that there is ‘peak being’—a transcendent state and a process—of which we are all part. Our world is both part of and platform toward that process. Being in process does not imply neglect of our world; rather, efficient process gives attention to all levels of being. The real metaphysics transcends the standard and received worldviews. Both terms ‘standard’ and ‘received’ are important for there are current and historical views that approach the real metaphysics but, as far as I know, fall short of it (and of course, one cannot know, what all human beings are thinking or have thought). However, I do see it as true that there are widespread views, sometimes tacit, that we have essential limits. The real metaphysics, as noted above, sees these limits as real but not absolute. But what does this mean? Does it mean that everything one thinks or imagines can and will be achieved? Does it mean, as in the popular phrase, that ‘everything is possible’? The narrative explores and provides answers to these questions. The narrative develops these ideas, with main and secondary assertions or positions, demonstration, heuristic supplement, explanation, elaboration, appropriate equivocation, doubt, and address of doubt. Wittgenstein and regressIn Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein enquires into how we (may) know whether a representation corresponds to an object. To know that there is a correspondence, Wittgenstein points out that there must be a representation of the representation—but that in ordinary perception and conception is immanent and therefore presumed (it is ‘shown’, not ‘said’). Further, even if there is a representation of the representation, i.e., a second order representation (‘second order’ is not Wittgenstein’s term). Thus, there is infinite and vicious regress and, though we might have it, we cannot know that there is representation at all. The reader can now see, of course, that the real metaphysics is a way out of this regress. In the abstract metaphysics, perfection of representation follows from abstraction. On the pragmatic side, there is imperfection by correspondence criteria, but the entire system is perfect in terms of an emergent value (as we have seen). Of course, the problem has not gone away entirely, but it is not critical, for it is now a local problem. EthicsLogicDoubt and certaintyDoubtThe assertions and arguments of the narrative will and should raise doubt, including and over and above standard ‘philosophical’ doubt. The following are characteristic of the formal doubt that should arise. That the universe is limitless goes against the empirically supported view of the universe as having definite structure. The argument that existence and nonexistence of the void are equivalent will be questioned. These doubts have been formally addressed. However, arguments and conclusions are contrary to the grain of standard secular and transsecular thought. Therefore, doubt will remain. In addressing it, the consistency of the conclusions with science and reason ought to be kept in mind. The following attitudes to doubt may be productive. Alternatives to certaintyOn an existential front, the conclusions of the narrative may be taken as existential attitudes that there is an imperative to pursue, even if the outcome is not guaranteed. On a metaphysical front, the fundamental principle of metaphysics, rather than being regarded as proven, may be taken as a metaphysical postulate. As a framework for discussion of the real—regardless of whether the metaphysics is accepted as a metaphysics, it is a productive and consistent framework for any attempt at completeness in metaphysics and epistemology (the real metaphysics is closed regarding depth or foundation but beings while in limited form, it is ever open in breadth or variety of being). It is significant here that any fundamental discussion of the real that is (at all) realist or definitive must presume some at least tacit metaphysics. Other concepts pivotal to the development are experience, meaning, being and beings, abstraction, the abstract metaphysics of limitlessness, tradition as pragmatic (yet perfect as framed by the abstract metaphysics), and peak being. CertaintyHaving addressed doubt, let us return, once again, to the issue of certainty and its sources. When we physical science as describing the entire universe, i.e., not just the empirical, we do so because (i) we project the theory to the universe, which principle has occasioned scientific advance from the ancients, to Galileo, to Newton, to Maxwell, to Einstein, to Heisenberg and Schrodinger and beyond—yet the very same progress informs us that the latest science at every stage in the sequence except perhaps the final is not universal (ii) but we take the final as universal because it is the model that informs our worldview, which in turn is felt to justify the latest science as universal—even though the sequence ought to give us doubt (iii) but the doubt is dealt with by arguing that now, finally, we have explored every niche of being and therefore, this latest model is essentially final—even though we would again be invoking a worldview in the niche argument (iv) we have a habit of empiricism, which works very well in the pragmatic realm and therefore think it universal—even though there is no reason to project the latest empirical result or theory to the universe (this essentially repeats the argument in #ii, above). Now while some thinkers make the explicit pro-latest-model (plm) argument above, others explicitly reject it, observing that we now know that “all that the latest theories so far do is model the physical world; they are not necessarily a true representation”. Which is saying (a) too little, for the latest theory is more than just a model—all successful theories have some local truth (b) too much, for even those who make the argument in quotes, tend to the tacit plm position because it is widespread and there is not seen to be anything else (the result of the power of tacit but widespread worldviews). Yet, despite the tacit position, there is a recognition that the latest model may be transcended, just as every earlier model has been. And, now, we observe (i) relative to the question, “what is the limit of all science”, that the limit is that of logic, for violation of Logic (capitalization indicates reference to logic itself, not to some systems of logic) is impossible (which we might turn around to say that it is the impossible whose inviolability is encoded in logic) (ii) that we have proven logic to be the limit of all (possible) science. I have been arguing that (a) since received doubt has been removed and (b) the metaphysics has been proven (c) therefore the metaphysics is certain. Yet I remain at the edge of certainty and doubt, (i) because of an ingrained habit of empiricism—though not the ideology (ii) because the proof of the metaphysics is rational, i.e., ontological in the present case, which is not an ingrained habit (but note that though Anselm’s famous ontological proof lacks clear validity, as we are seeing here, ontological proof is not inherently invalid) (iii) existential doubt about the fate of my conscious self remains (iv) doubt is a stance with positive existential and metaphysical aspects. The edge on which we now find ourselves is that of empiricism vs rationalism. As we have seen, the rational and the empirical are united in the abstract metaphysics—see an abstract or ideal metaphysics. And as it will be observed in the next section, even in the full case, abstract and concrete, logic and science are brought into unity and the empirical and the rational are brought closer than might otherwise be thought. Dimensions of beingPure dimensionThe world is experiential—the pure dimension of the world in process is Experiential being in form and formation of worlds and beings on the way to the limitless ultimate. Pragmatic dimensionsSince the ideal picture of realization is given, we choose to complement it with a system of pragmatic knowledge. The chosen local and pragmatic dimensions are from a western materialist view—the natural, the social, and the universal-ultimate, which are laid out in detail in this section. While this seems to be materialistic, the natural and social could be seen in terms of experience and therefore of being-as-such, which, therefore, does not exclude non-western and non-materialist views; and the universal is already seen in terms of being-as-such. Nature, ground, has flexible and apparently fixed aspects; sub-dimensions are elementary or physical, complex or living, and experiential as intrinsic ground; which ‘give rise’ to society and creativity, and show nature as more flexible than previously thought. From the natural sciences we derive certain paradigms of form and formation and of paradigms of perception and thought. These include incremental change and emergence via variation and selection from biology and mechanism (on determinism-indeterminism continuum) from physics. The paradigms enable understanding of formed and robust cosmoses and beings from the void which exhibit high symmetry and stability and thus effective population of the universe by robust cosmoses with experiential beings. society (community to civilization); sub-dimensions are cultural, geo-political-economic-ethical (universal, global, national, and local), and transsecular, which entails, as we now know, the universal-ultimate. In detail—the cultural encompasses language, custom, science, reason, metaphysics, and human knowledge and exploration, generally; social science— structures, origins, change, and dynamics of culture and society; economics is about organization and distribution of resources—means and principles; politics concerns group decision and its organization, practical and ideal, whose address is immersive and instrumental (elements of power include: individuals, wealth, economy, institutions, charisma and anti-charisma, force, e.g., military, information, e.g., media); ethics is seen as being about good ideals and ends, right actions, and virtuous behavior and thought, but, though ought to be given weight, the significance of different ethical systems, folk and philosophical, is unclear, and, further, it is not at all clear to what extent and in what manner they universalize: ethics ought to remain experimental and reflective. Paradigms from the social and ethical realm are tentative. Some themes are sustainability vs growth; political-economics and ethics in wealth distribution; theoretical or conceptual ethics, morals, and their relation to choice, decisions and action, for individuals, societies, nations, the world, and the universe (and balance among the same); charisma and institution in power; populism vs liberal democracy in stable and effective governance; power and history; secularism and transsecularism in history and ultimate being. Real metaphysics shows the universal-ultimate (abbreviated to ‘universal’) to be absolutely flexible in its realization of the ultimate. The universal (ultimate) begins with understanding of limitlessness, and yogic and instrumental intention and action toward its realization. It merges with culture in art, science, philosophy, exploration, and spirituality and religion-in-an-ideal-sense. It is critical that these disciplines (yoga through religion) be understood not just in terms of their canon but as in process, experimental, subject to reason, informed by the metaphysics, and interactively. Paradigms arising here include necessary design (for example, we as beings are on the way to peak capability), necessary cause—premised and spontaneous, and general logic (the logic of the real metaphysics, which includes induction of systems of logic and theories of science and deduction within those systems, and necessary fact as well as pragmatic fact); this brings logic and science closer than might have otherwise been thought. Inasmuch as there is doubt about facts and theories in science, the rational and the empirical are brought closer than we might otherwise think. Development of the worldview of the narrative ends here. A program of realizationThe nature and way of realization is already present in the worldview as presented. Though the worldview or metaphysics of the narrative is formally completed, realization is an implementation of the view and, therefore, if metaphysics is seen as an interaction among ideas and action, a program of realization extends the metaphysics. The elements of the program are ‘everyday’ and ‘universal-ultimate’, outlined below and detailed in an adaptable template, linked from the section on resources, subsection referencebelow (the template is also available as a downloadable MS Word document). DesignThe aim of being is to be in the immediate and the ultimate as one. For limited beings, this is a process. The ways are intrinsic, involving the experiential self (which is not distinct from the physical being), and instrumental, i.e., of the world, e.g., natural, social, and universal. The implementation in the immediate and the ultimate is via an every-day and universal-ultimate programs, developed as a template. IntroductionThe template program is in two main parts, every-day and universal, each addressing all aspects of realization, but having different emphases. The everyday focuses on individuals and communities, relationships, inner transformation and immersion in the world, and attention to daily and career material needs. The universal program focuses on pure being and action in the dimensions of being. A detailed program is in templates for realization, a pdf document, and its html and downloadable and editable Word docm versions. The template is designed to be adaptable (1) a range of life situations, cultures, and personal attitudes, (2) varying time schedules and levels of detail (3) ‘normal’ days at a home, work, and play vs ‘special’ days, such as immersion in nature, other cultures, and commitment to and reaffirmation of a worldview and approach to life and action in retreat. The parts of the template are an everyday template, a universal template with an emphasis on immersion, a dedication and affirmation, and a brief overview of meditation. There is a separate supplement on meditation and yoga. EverydayEveryday program—everyday action is a flexible daily routine attending to development and execution of a way of realization, and physical and experiential yoga (received ways), work and relationships, and material and health needs and concerns. The template is designed to be adaptable (1) a range of life situations, cultures, and personal attitudes, (2) varying time schedules and levels of detail (3) ‘normal’ days at a home, work, and play vs ‘special’ days, such as immersion in nature, other cultures, and commitment to and reaffirmation of a worldview and approach to life and action in retreat. An example of immersion in nature is the Tibetan Buddhist practice of beyul, i.e., of immersion in remote places, to evoke the inner and outer real) or culture as inspiration and sharing, and retreat whose function includes reinforcement of worldview and renewal of self. Therapy shall be an integration of the way and the best current therapeutic practice. Universal-ultimateUniversal-ultimate program—everyday to life action via the everyday program, with focus on the dimensions of being. In addition to the everyday—Focus on nature is via exploration, experiential travel, and living in nature (‘the wilderness’), especially beyul; focus on the social dimension is via instrumental and immersive action in its sub-dimensions (society and community; culture, knowledge generation and transmission; global through local politics and economics; and the transsecular); focus on the ultimate is via sharing, and instrumental and immersive action toward realization of the ultimate in and from the immediate. ProjectsCurrent and this documentPlanning documentsThe design documents are this, today, and design. The document1. Update, simplify the template. What to do with the little book. Review and confirm print material—use the outline in design: select §§ to print. Use Styles Print or PrintOnly—to be eliminated in saving Internet versions. > Print > today and zero. In the worldThis document1. Edit for content, clarity, and impact—word choice, sentence and paragraph structure and length. 2. Versions—long, print, possible version without academic detail. 3. Integrate print and web material – introduce Style ‘WEBANDPRINT’. 4. Introduce temporary paragraph headings (H9) to help keep track of content, order, and repetition. 5. Improve the structure of the vocabulary and add reference links; use it as an outline; accordingly, and rearrange, improve, import, and flesh out content; perhaps have sub-documents – using the general documents? 6. Incorporate today? General1. Project – the projects—improve formulation of the projects for minimality, realism, and executability. 2. Essential documents—improve, minimize number and content of all essential documents in the references, especially the site, useful links, bibliographies (perhaps), influences, a little book (perhaps eliminate; look at an older field manual), system of human knowledge, templates, received ways (change to received, experimental, and essential), beyul, experience-the-world-and its dimensions (extract information for material on psychology), world challenges (integrate with world problems). 3. Review and improve the circle of concepts—experience (abstraction, world, as-if-real to real, meaning, knowledge), metaphysics (possibility, logic, real, limitlessness, abstract metaphysics, value, tradition, real metaphysics, method, natural-constructive-rational emergence of a circle of dual space of concepts and objects including meaning – knowledge – meta-analysis – and axiomatics), application (cosmology, method, system of knowledge), path (the world, the ultimate). 4. Lessons for the way—there are generic lessons whose order of presentation will depend on the reader / user’s orientation, determined by question and response. Planning the lessons and the questions—carefully review the lessons and questions; the lessons should be pedagogical and canonical; the questions should identify reader’s needs, abilities, and orientation, and should, likely, be much simpler than the questions below. The lessons, a tentative order (the order will be interactively adapted to the reader’s orientation determined by their response to the questions) (i) Meta lesson—readers will not absorb the system at once (therefore begin with an overview, so that there is an anchor while reading the parts and building up a gestalt), (ii) The range of human endeavor, (iii) Standard received worldviews and their limitations; the worldviews—secular (and secular humanism), transsecular (dogmatic, speculative, and rational, e.g., the real metaphysics), (iv) Critique of reason, (v) Possibility, (vi) The void and limitlessness, (vii) Relation between limited and limitless being (some sections in which this is developed are the universe as a field of experiential being, consequences of limitlessness for limited beings, peak being (god), the real metaphysics, and cosmology), (viii) Ways, pathways, and programs (templates, and projects). The questions (to be revised), a possible set, in a possible order (i) Likes and dislikes, (ii) Intelligences of various kinds, (iii) Secular vs transsecular orientation (dogmatic, speculative, rational), (iv) Regarding the transsecular and trans-paradigmatic, seeker vs follower vs disinterested, (v) Judgmental and accepting of received views vs perceptive and open, (vi) Economic situation and education, (vii) Conservative vs liberal etc., (viii) Cultural environment—open vs repressive, (ix) Prefer town and cultural entertainment vs nature and self-entertainment. 5. Thick narrative with scenes vs thin with multiple orderings; my name; writing as balance and ballast – chisel in interaction with immersion, sharing, and help; richness (Heidegger / European philosophy). Development of the ideas1. Metaphysics—abstract and concrete sciences and method; refine the real metaphysics and applications; problems of metaphysics; incorporate to system of knowledge. 2. Essential philosophy (i) is reflection and conclusion at the edge of and beyond knowledge that is established in a received sense (e.g., science, logic), (ii) emphasizes the universal, the universe, our world, and our place in it (iii) emphasizes what is of significance (meaningfulness, importance) and why and how it is of significance (iv) is critical and imaginative (as seen below, this allows both likely and certain, contingent and the necessary)—which entails that the critical imagination is applied not only to the external world but also to knowledge and coming to know (vi) emphasizes the connection of philosophy to all human endeavor (and academic disciplines), without eschewing critical thought (vi) this is not a new conception of philosophy but a re-formed one in light of the real metaphysics, trends in modern thought, and criticism of the aspects of excessive critical, academic, and relativist thinking that led to the counter-essential narrowing of philosophy (without rejecting what might have been gained). The ongoing relevance of received philosophy. This does not imply that the vast production of philosophical thought and writing (‘research’) that does not address essential philosophy is irrelevant to the world for (i) philosophy is a web and outlying thought always has potential to contribute (ii) that essential philosophy is about the universal and so on, does not imply that it is not concerned with the immediate—in fact, true concern with either the universal or the immediate entails the other. However, recognize that (i) much of what is published is for professional reasons or ego rather than philosophical reasons (ii) the rejection of essential philosophy, where it occurs, is bankrupt (an example would be the insistence on piece meal thought or philosophy while rejecting anything more) (iii) but critical reflection on essential philosophy is a good thing (and must be part of essential philosophy itself). Criticism of the idea of essential philosophy: this notion of essential philosophy will be criticized—(i) philosophy is more than this conception (ii) since sciences broke off from philosophy and began to determine our worldviews (rather than philosophy determining the views), since Frege and Russell abandoned idealism and philosophy in the English-speaking world began to emphasize analysis and empiricism, since Wittgenstein, Rorty and others proposed delimitations to philosophy, philosophy as about the world became a defunct view (iii) even if a part of philosophy were to be about the world, there is not much it could say beyond everyday experience and science, that is— despite the possibility of content to essential philosophy, there is, in fact, barely any, which is shown by science, logic, and criticism of philosophy. Response: (i) it is, but it is not claimed that essential philosophy is philosophy (ii) while the view of philosophy under the analytic-empirical paradigm defines a valid endeavor, there are, after science and logic, the tasks of looking beyond, of looking at the whole world, and of integrating the analytic-empirical disciplines (iii) we have found there to be a vast region for essential philosophy, e.g., as defined in response #ii (in truth, there is some degree to which modern philosophy does recognize more to it than envisaged by those who saw it as having no content of its own, and the attempt to delimit philosophy is, in part, a function of over-valuation of science and logic, an excess of self-criticism, and academic territoriality). 3. Meta-philosophy is philosophy (but perhaps those who argue otherwise are using a limited or delimited conception of philosophy). 4. Logic (and metaphysics and)—general logic or universal logic; variety of being (possible worlds); zero, first and higher order logics; axiomatic formulation vs natural deduction; set theory – zfc – nbg – mk (Morse-Kelly) – theory of types – Quines new foundations; proof and model theory; examples of dialetheia – kinds of dialetheia, and analysis of whether dialetheia require special logic; dialetheia and paraconsistent logic—especially paraconsistent logic for dialetheia and metaphysics (theory) of nothingness (μπφ). 5. On limits and possibility. That the universe is the realization of logical possibility is not a limit, for the logically impossible is the case that the unrealizability of a concept is inherent only in the concept. On the other hand, physical and economic possibilities are examples of limits. 6. More on general logic. Establishment of truth has two parts (1) establishment of fact without premise (2) establishment of (other) facts from established facts—i.e., inference from premises to conclusions. Now both items 1 and 2 can be certain in some cases and uncertain in others. So there are four cases (i) contingent fact—but also uncertain for not only could the fact be otherwise, but my observation could be mistaken—the sun is shining (ii) necessary fact—either the universe enters a void state or it does not (some might argue that this is not a fact) – in a second example we establish some necessary facts: there is experience (given, as in the narrative, and in this case the observation could not be mistaken, for a mistaken observation is experience) > there is a universe (if only the universe of solipsist experience) – note that in the second example the only inference is that a given situation satisfies a definition (iii) likely or inductive inference (they are not identical) – the sun has risen everyday in memory therefore the sun will rise everyday in the future (iv) necessary inference – many examples of analytic inference can be given and would be trivial, but what we want is a necessary synthetic inference, for, which the above establishment of a universe is trivial, but the proof of existence of the void, below, is non-trivial. Thus, there are two cases (i) fact and inference are both certain > the certain and sometimes necessary case of general logic or argument (ii) at least one is uncertain or contingent > the uncertain-contingent case. 7. Improve proof of existence of the void, e.g., proof #1—the universe exists ® either the universe enters a void state, or it does not ® if it does not, the universe is eternal and therefore necessary; therefore, the void exists, which is contradictory and so the void enters a void state and the void exists ® if it does the void exists, and the universe is eternal limitless. Proof #2—the universe is limited, or it is not; if it is limited, it is eternally limited, which is therefore necessary, and so from absence of assumption, symmetry entails that a limit is a contradiction—and therefore the universe cannot be limited; if it is not limited the conclusion is trivial; therefore the universe is limitless. 8. Write on psychology… see psychology. 9. Study naming and necessity (book), Kripke, because it’s thought to be very important. ResourcesThe resources are for readers and for development of the way and its narrative. A catalog of beingsThe catalog is now in the vocabulary for metaphysics in the section on being, under ‘beings’. A vocabulary for metaphysicsPreliminary Function1. Provide a vocabulary for description of the world as in the real metaphysics, 2. Reveal the concepts as essential and constituting a system with system meaning and an at least implicit grammar, 3. Function as an outline for the way of being. 4. Preliminary to construction of a database of concepts. Selection of the conceptsThe system has been arrived at with sources in the history of ideas, experiment with forming a comprehensive metaphysics, application, and correction for internal and empirical consistency. Some concerns have been (a) how to avoid the pre-judice of materialism and idealism, which is accomplished by focus on being (b) how to arrive at a true and ultimate picture of the universe, which is accomplished by focus on the void—nothingness—and its properties (c) how to cut through the problems of knowledge, particularly what it is in terms of its psychology and criteria, and the problem of illusion vs reality; this is accomplished, first, by the foci on being and the void, which, on account of abstraction, are known precisely and, second, in that the abstracta so far result in a metaphysics of limitlessness—the universe as the realization of all possibility, which shows realization of the ultimate in and from the immediate to be a fundamental value and therefore that our pragmatic knowledge, though limited by received criteria, joins with the abstract to form a real metaphysics which is perfect in terms of this fundamental value (and which does not eliminate received concerns of epistemology but places them in the universal context) (d) that since knowledge is in the world, method and content should be one, which is realized, via the join of abstraction and pragmatism. Though system is not likely to be final, it has approached a state of completeness and definiteness, relative to the aim of a perfect and complete abstract metaphysical framework. With regard to the concrete, it is not as complete but it attempts comprehensiveness in (a) inclusion of metaphysics, cosmology, epistemology, logic, and method (b) dimensions of being. OrganizationThe concepts, definitions (given new and alternately defined concepts), comments and references, are arranged in ordered hierarchies. There is also the question of the order of introduction of the concepts. If we begin with the most immediate, we will begin with experience (conscious awareness in all its forms) for it is not just immediate but the medium of the immediate. On the other hand, we would like to begin with context. Therefore, we might begin with the world, treated informally, followed by discussion of experience. But in that there is illusion, the treatment of the world, if we begin with it, will have been ‘as if’. Beginning with experience the as if is removed in stages, beginning with abstraction, and concluding with the real metaphysics., being (which could have come earlier), possibility and limitless, and the remaining topics in the list. Some crucial points to note are (i) the final justification occurs in the section on real metaphysics (ii) the concept of experience is extended consistently and of necessity to the root of being (iii) method is immanent in the development but also given a section of its own toward the close of the development (iv) though the received concept of logic is that of inference, particularly inference that preserves truth (and modes of truth), a new and extended conception is given of logic as the join of knowledge and its means (which is related to one version of what is called ‘argument’ in the literature). This explains the beginning with the world and then the introduction of experience and abstraction and concluding with the real metaphysics. Let us now explain the order of introduction of the concepts in greater detail, but without mention of the issue of illusion, for it has been addressed above. Let us begin with the immediate—with experience. Experience has two sides, ‘experience of’ and ‘the experienced’—the concept and the object, from which concept and linguistic meaning are derived—linguistic meaning is a symbol (a sign, simple or compound, associated with an iconic concept) and its possible objects (whose intentionality is a function of self-referentiality of experience); and concept meaning is the case of linguistic meaning where the sign is absent or detached. This concept is crucial for it cuts through the issues of how meaning can and does point to an object and, more particularly, the problem of negative existentials whose resolution is rendered trivial. Then—knowledge is meaning realized. It is efficient to now introduce the concepts of existence, being, and beings. So far, the picture of the world does not extend beyond that of the received. Possibility and logic establish the framework of, not just an extension, but the greatest extension—the limit of all conceivable extensions. The concepts of universe and the void are the concrete terms that enable the extension, which, with prior concepts, results in an abstract metaphysics. The consequences of the abstract metaphysics are those of value, the ultimate, and cosmology in the abstract—but it is preferred to defer the consequences (even though this is not done in the text). The abstract metaphysics is joined to pragmatic knowledge (tradition) to result in a dynamic and integral join, the real metaphysics, which is perfect in terms of emergent ethical criteria (i.e., ethics is an element in determining criteria for knowledge), and which entails a universal ethics (with implication for local ethics), cosmology, and system of knowledge founded in the real metaphysics. Finally, the concept of method affords an explicit review of method as it has emerged. That ends the formal development of the metaphysical system. The concept of path is about ways of realization of the ultimate. The final concept ‘the world’ is really the world viewed afresh and a place where one can look back on the trajectory we have followed while also looking forward all contained in being-in-the-world. A slight rearrangement of the system of concepts from a formal point is—experience (with abstraction, the world ‘as if’) ® meaning ® knowledge ® being ® possibility (and logic) ® metaphysics (and value and cosmology) ® the world (as it is). Alternate namesConsider renaming some concepts for precision and effectiveness. A preliminary list of terms is—narrative, book, work, section, prologue, epilogue, metaphysics, abstract or ideal metaphysics, real metaphysics, void or nothingness, universe, world (enter below, define), religion, morals and morality, god and Brahman, experience, abstract, abstraction, general logic. the world i.e., the world as we find it the entirety of existence, with emphasis on how we experience it and what is important (identical to the universe, if our understanding of the world of experience is objective) experience of treated below (note non-uniqueness of the first concept) as if the world prologue retreat from the world, temporary phase of reflection individual human situation birth death birth and death are among some concepts that occur more than once history foresight destiny acceptance seeking search human endeavor knowledge appearance illusion no foundation foundation relative regress absolute no apriorism process final the real worldview projections agency intention action retreat place of being aim of being the immediate limits necessity contingency real absolute the ultimate realization experience conscious awareness in all its forms immediacy givenness there is experience abstraction retaining in ‘experience of’ only whatever is capable of perfect correspondence depiction or representation it is not necessary but often desirable that what is retained is all of what is perfect the place of what we are—i.e., of ‘our being’ (the quotes indicate informal use) naming reflexivity self-reflexivity there is experience of experience world entered separately, above (note non-uniqueness of the first concept) as if significance roughly, in the sense of the meaning of life experience as place of identity experience as place of form of experience, i.e., structure of experience psychology greater detail under psychology and dimensions of experience and the world concept experience of (concept) subect first order of the world second order of a concept inner of self, body, or concepts of concepts outer of the world icon a concept that is intrinsically depictive—i.e., the concept corresponds to the object structurally rather than formally sign a concept or token thereof that has no intrinsic depictive quality symbol associated icon and sign simple word vocabulary compound syntax relata the experience intention object the experienced (object) real as if fictional illusory dimensions of experience this outline from dimensions of experience and the world and the dimensions should be revised together fundamental parameters that (may be used to) specify the variety of experience including relation and process; may be enhanced by detail; the unit experiences below are an enhancement of Leibnizian monads and roughly the actual occasions of Alfred North Whitehead’s metaphysics of organism ideal field of experiential being in form and formation—relation and change—as the world on the way to the limitless ultimate elements from the fundamental principle, there are not true elements—the void or any being may function as an element unit experiences may be identified as pragmatic elements for dimensions of experience pragmatic axes attitude-pure experience-action axis one dimension, pure experience itself, with three directionalities—active and passive—world to being or attitude, null or pure experience, and being to world or action (note being includes self); this is contra some accounts that see the axes as independent; here, attitude and action are essentially experiential attitude pure action inner – outer axis though there is a distinction, it is relative and the demarcation is blurred self (with body) world free – bound continuum bound perception autonomous motor control some feeling relatively bound to world as object perception of spatiotemporal form with change and formation, the result of perceptual intuition in the sense of Immanuel Kant free conception (higher) conscious motor control some feeling and emotion relatively free (including concept formation) body – inner – feeling with degrees of freedom world – outer – iconic and symbolic concepts and conceptual intuition or capacity for concept formation (emotion is a join of conception and free and primitive feeling) spatiotemporal concepts of spacetime, past – present – future, will and sense of purpose related concepts of science, philosophy, and the transcendent aesthetic syntheses of forms and properties that speak to the being synthesis expansive operation of mind—perception, thought, concept formation, feeling and emotion come together in realism regarding the world intensity continuum it is functional for some experience to be intense in the sense of imperative to action (of which non-action is a case), and for other experience to be of low intensity; for this is the root of reflection and foresight. the reflective and the imperative interact imperative fear pain joy reflective, foresight perception thought form and property form that which requires extension property intensive attribute, primary or secondary symbol and feeling feeling and symbol may occur together; yet symbol and feeling may be dissociated—adaptive in some contexts, dissociative in others symbol associated with form feeling associated with quality form and formation eternal forms abstractions; have being but omit dynamics; their pragmatic approximations have dynamics pragmatic forms are associated with formation and dynamics; in which space and time or spacetime are immanent meaning concept meaning a concept meaning is a concept and its possible and intended objects linguistic meaning a linguistic meaning is a symbol and its possible and intended objects knowledge meaning realized—a meaning and its actual objects intention knowledge or meaning in which the object is the concept, object, and conception of the object narrative Metanarrative aim audience narrative aim design flow readability impact planning reading reflection study experience writing publication structure prologue non-uniqueness of optimal point of entry even from pedagogical, metaphysical, and epistemic perspectives taken separately themes reference internal and external cross-linking index glossary vocabulary grammar epilogue universal narrative summation revision historical thread a being (plural: beings); An existent (plural: existents) real object of a concept-object pair being, existence property in virtue of which beings are beings, existents are existents (here, contra-Heidegger, richness of beings and the world is framed by being rather than of being as being, approach to questions of richness and existenz) significance of being foundation contrasubstance depth superficiality of, from the concept of being, but not merely trivial breadth variety, frame for richness, place of discovery, ever open for limited beings beings system of beings - the aim is to show and specify the inclusivity of being Experience, existence, being itself with sufficient abstraction, being is a being. Concepts concepts are causative in two ways (i) the conception precipitates action – this is not understood to be classical physical causation (even if there is an underlying physical mechanism of the precipitation) (ii) the concept is itself physically immanent in the brain; however, the configuration of the brain is not the concept As if objects and fictional objects are not beings since the objects are not beings, they are not physically causative, but the concept may precipitate action Logical objects anything that is a true (i.e., not as if) reference of a concept of a possible being—e.g., entities, states, processes, relationships, concrete and abstract objects, experiences and concepts, universals (e.g., redness), tropes (e.g., the redness of a red ball). Mereological objects Whole, part, null part. Physical mereology the universe, cosmoses (super cosmoses, cosmological structures), worlds, elements, the void, inter mereological interactions, e.g., transients from the void being as being Chain of being suggests a Christian hierarchy that is not useful here a recognized medieval Christian and modern concept, placed here as suggestive rather than definitive reality hierarchy nonexistent, fictitious, as if, possible, probable, actual, contingent, conditionally necessary, and absolutely necessary hierarchy of form god and other necessary beings from elementary beings (particles or fields as far as real) to elementary living beings through animals and human beings, to higher beings (higher than we see on Earth), to local ‘gods’, and on to peak being (the hierarchy of form and of experience overlap experiential hierarchy sentience through agency—feeling, sensation, inner (proprioception), outer (perception), recall, conception (‘higher’), emotion (pleasure, pain, suffering, enjoyment of experience, identity—self and shared, foresight, value, imperative, will, agency), and limitless or peak being, god. possibility impossibility necessity problem of negative existentials (resolved by the theory of meaning used in the way of being) logical possibility conceptual possibility logical possibility logical necessity deductive, absolute logic propositional first order higher order logics— extended modal logic deviant many value paraconsistent dialetheia symbol in the form of a contradiction, which has or may have a real object generalization of dialetheia allowable symbol diction disallowable symbol contrareal set theory metaphysics inductive scientific method form formation science law greatest possibility most inclusive paradox apparent paradoxes are false or merely apparent limitlessness limitlessness is not paradoxical real possibility physical human economic …and more real impossibility real necessity limitlessness fundamental principle abstract metaphysics, the the ultimate range of being identity situation duration-extension-being (space-time-matter) argument for no further parameters of situation variety individual limits real but not absolute birth gateway to realization death gateway to the ultimate realization ways pathway intelligence enjoyment imperative yoga reason peak being dissolution metaphysics metaphysics knowledge of the real real metaphysics, the dynamic join of abstract metaphysics and pragmatic knowledge framework for received metaphysics (knowledge) and its problems tradition pragmatic knowledge an ultimate value realization of the ultimate in and from the immediate corresponding perfection of the real metaphysics real metaphysics as knowledge method concept formation, free imagination recombination fact inference deduction certain, necessary induction likely best fit projection heuristic hypothesis … and more demonstration general logic argument validity soundness reason yoga rationality value (treated separately, below) cosmology (treated separately, below) value ethics aesthetics cosmology general cosmology logic concept formation possible worlds perspectives material (object) ideal (subject) being (neutral) preferred, inclusive, no prejudgment field of experiential being relation change form and formation, cosmology of form relative stability due to near symmetry perfect symmetry is frozen dynamic form static form study of symmetry origins transients from the void or other formed systems selection for relative stability and near symmetry evolution variation and selection variation initial neutrality to stable form selection for relative stability of near symmetry forms, the interaction with change determinism with residual indeterminism mechanism causation determinism as approximation physical cosmology our cosmos general speculative evolutionary biology variation and selection paradigms cosmology suggests paradigms which, with others, are that are incorporated to dimensions of being dimensions of being intrinsic and instrumental modes or ways of description pure of being, relatively fixed experiential being in form and formation of worlds on the way to the limitless ultimate pragmatic relatively changeable due evolution or change in knowledge and culture; chosen from a western material perspective as balance to the perspective on the pure dimension, but easily altered to perspectives from being and experience nature ground physical living experiential paradigms these paradigms are suggested by natural science and philosophy indeterminism, variation and selection mechanism, determinism with and without residual indeterminism, causation society form resulting from interactive cooperation, which may be intelligent born of nature, which is found more flexible than once thought to be, which leads to conceptions of transcendence, limitlessness, and the universal culture power economic-political local through global geo-economics-and-politics secularism transsecularism cultivating awareness and realization in experiential being paradigms from the social and ethical realm; the following are tentative themes (and also incorporated under themes in the manual) sustainability vs growth political-economics and ethics in wealth distribution theoretical or conceptual ethics, morals, and their relation to choice, decisions and action, for individuals through the universe charisma and institution in power populism vs liberal democracy in stable and effective governance power and history secularism and transsecularism in history and ultimate being. universal-ultimate immersive cultivating awareness and realization in experiential being instrumental science and technology in the world civilizing the universe paradigms of form and formation ultimate, proximate, certain, probable, spontaneous, absolute, variation and selection, emergence (of kind, of complexity), mechanism, robustness, apparent design, necessary design paradigms of thought general logic, explanation and prediction, creativity, criticism universal-ultimate immersive cultivating awareness and realization in experiential being instrumental science and technology in the world civilizing the universe paradigms of form and formation ultimate, proximate, certain, probable, spontaneous, absolute, variation and selection, emergence (of kind, of complexity), mechanism, robustness, apparent design, necessary design paradigms of thought general logic, explanation and prediction, creativity, criticism application source—system of knowledge the real two levels of truth for limited being this world the ultimate system of knowledge knowledge and action this outline from system of human knowledge and the system should be revised together ground humanism philosophy knowledge reason tradition religion …and the given world science sciences general abstract symbolic systems metaphysics method physical life psychological social abstract concrete methods artifact …and the created world art established history use elements fields recent artificial intelligence technology of language, mind, and being developing technology for advanced civilization and being being and the universe transformation of being method (method and knowledge) method is content content foundation begin where we are problems of epistemology (see problems of knowledge below) knowledge the concept, theories of knowledge was seen as meaning realized, but here the concept concerns what it the state of knowing is correspondence knowledge corresponds to objects coherence knowledge as coherence pragmatism knowledge as behavioral knowledge as instrumental problems of (knowledge) illusion truth justification relating to kinds of knowledge fact theory about method general logic unification of method, process, and content under unification of certainty and necessity with likelihood unification of fact and inference under search in dual space of concepts and objects hypothesis construction that it applies to all phases of discovery evaluation reflexivity meta-analysis vertical systemic analysis horizontal, parallel path ways primal religion ultimate search, rational-emotive search under all degrees of certainty and uncertainty, all aspects of being employed in realization of ultimate being religions note the crucial distinction between religion and the religions abrahamic buddhism hinduism brahman secularism secular humanism spirituality modern transsecularism morality good evil truth utilitarianism tolerance practice yoga meditation intrinsic instrumental retreat action prayer pathways in received ways this list is incomplete—it is a beginning eightfold way in Buddhism and Yoga mysticism Christian for the way of being principles i.e., of ways design path programs shared path templates everyday-immediate dedication the immediate and the ultimate as one. affirmation tat tvam asi yoga (reason) the world and the ultimate self world the ultimate affirmation tat tvam asi universal-ultimate retreat renewal resources the world the world, afresh cycle of life birth gateway to realization death gateway to the ultimate epilogue looking outward into the world being-in-the-world narration universal narrative the future eternal return ReferenceThe InternetThese references will be useful for development of the way and its publications—and may be useful for readers. Rationalism vs Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Relevant to discussion of validity, abstraction, and inference. Decision Theoryhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/decision-theory/ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Mereology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Relevant to discussion of whole, part, and null part, and, so, to existence of the void. Dialetheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Relevant to the discussion of dialetheia, i.e., true contradictions. Thomson’s Lamp (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). This reference is part of an article on infinity that also has information surreal numbers in a section on infinitesimals and hyperreals. Paraconsistent Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy); see, especially, the section on many valued logics, which has been used in the section, logic as abstraction from ordinary inference. Relevant to dialetheia, the many valued paraconsistent logic is modification of standard two valued predicate calculus to incorporate dialetheia without ‘explosion’, i.e., without a dialetheia implying that all propositions (and their negations) are true. Modal Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Relevance Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Relevant to paraconsistent logic. God and other ultimates (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Relevant to the discussion of God, i.e., of peak being, especially given that there is no single worldwide conception of ‘God’. God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Relevant to discussion of God and necessary objects. Afterlife (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Cosmology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Value (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Heidegger (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Relevant to ‘being’—see the section on being. Concepts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Object (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). This and the next two links are relevant to discussion of ‘being’ and ‘objects’. Possible Objects (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Nonexistent objects (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Possible Worlds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Relevant to doubt. Set theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Eliminative Materialismhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Kant’s Transcendental Idealism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Kant’s Account of Reason (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Process Philosophyhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Propositional logic (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Immanuel Kant: Transcendental Idealism (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Advaita Vedanta (Wikipedia). Relevant to the ideas of (i) peak being and (ii) the universe as experiential, beings as experiential and as merging in peak being in peak phases of the universe. A Sourcebook in Indian philosophy, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore. Relevant to discussion of Advaita Vedanta, Samkhya (a philosophical basis for Yoga), and Yoga. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism (Wikipedia), C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, 1923, is an influential book on the nature of linguistic meaning. Great chain of being (Wikipedia). Principle of plenitude (Wikipedia). Possibility theory (Wikipedia). First-order logic (Wikipedia). Higher-order logic (Wikipedia). Materialismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism (Wikipedia). Transcendental idealism (Wikipedia). Process and Realityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality (Wikipedia). New Foundations (Wikipedia). New Foundations an axiomatic set theory, due to Willard Van Orman Quine, is a simplification of The Theory of Types of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica. How to do Real Metaphysicshttps://againstprofphil.org/2021/02/21/how-to-do-real-metaphysics-revisited-theses-1-7/ (Against Professional Philosophy). The title of this website will raise some eyebrows, but I refer to it because (i) I think it says something useful (ii) it is relevant to the name, ‘real metaphysics’. Edith Stein (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Relevant because her metaphysics is realist and has similarity to the real metaphysics. In printReading—suggested readings, and a listing of some of my influences. From the way of being, for readers and site developmentThe way of being site address is https://www.horizons-2000.org. A little book, a version of this manual. An older field manual for the way, detailed, still useful. A system of human knowledge based in the metaphysics of limitlessness. Everyday and universal templates for realization (for html and downloadable Word docm versions, replace ‘pdf’ in the address bar by ‘html’ or ‘docm’). Received ways of being—secular and religious, with focus on yoga and meditation. Beyul—the Tibetan Buddhist practice of immersion in remote places to evoke the inner and outer real. Focus on world challenges and opportunities—a systematic presentation of problems of the world for the present and foreseen future. World problems and opportunities (a brief version of the focus on world challenges and opportunities). Experience, the world, and its dimensions—a systematic metaphysical, philosophical, and psychological map of the world of experience. Concepts for the way of being—the most recent version of the system of concepts as of March 2023. Reading—suggested readings, and a listing of some of my influences. From the way of being—primarily for site developmentThe way of being site—https://www.horizons-2000.org. The home site for the following documents. A collection of resources of the way of being—a source for resources for use and to add to this list. It lists the following documents. Useful links for the way of being—an older and not particularly focused but still useful resource. Doubt and reason—seeks a foundation for reason without infinite regress or apriorism with bases in the real metaphysics and its implied imperative. Wilderness hiking—supplement to beyul, above. Bibliographies for the way—a source to a set of bibliographies to scholarly and general reading. The way of being—a long template for the structure and ideas for the way of being. Main influences for the way—a detailed listing. Database of ideas for the way—detailed complement to the main influences. What is philosophy—useful, needs reassessment, minimality, and rewriting. Toward a database for philosophy—see comments on what is philosophy… the two documents may be combined. History of Western Philosophy. This is rough, immature, and derivative, but may be useful. There will most likely never be a significant update. Topics and concepts for the way—may be marginally useful since its roots are distant relative to the evolution of the system of the way. External sources for development of the narrativeSome works in print used in the development. Haack, Susan, Philosophy of Logics, 1978. Priest, Graham, One: Being an Investigation into the Unity of Reality and of its Parts, including the Singular Object which is Nothingness, 2014. Quine, W.V., Methods of Logic, Fourth Ed., 1982. Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations, 1953. EpilogueLife is reflection and action. A phase of reflection, though not of inaction, comes to fulfilment; it is now time for a phase emphasizing immersive action and commitment, though not of unreflective life. Narration will continue in-the-world and its foci shall be improvement of the via imagination and criticism, an issue of what I have not seen due to focused seeing in some regions of the real, and universal narrative—i.e., collapsing the essential history of narrative and thought so as to extract what is essential and to have balance against tendencies to infinite detail and the sheer weight of the cumulative record. Death will be unremarkable in itself, but, if, at death, I am incompletely realized, it will be a gateway to the ultimate. |