The aim of the way 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) and thus the concern with the ultimate promotes the immediate. 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.

Enter—with birth, which is taken as a fresh beginning in a received secular worldview, it begins as a story.

Though human beings live in an apparently limited world, they seek not only to live with limits as they are understood, but also to transcend those limits. The origins of the way are in reading and reflection on history and human culture; and in individual—personal—experience, exploration, reflection—imaginative and critical, narrative, and learning. 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. 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.

On reading the way of being

As this work aims beyond received knowledge and ways of 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. Thus, for precision, and to understand the narrative, its defined meanings should be followed. Small capitals indicate important terms. When such terms are followed by ‘is’, it is to be read ‘is defined as’. To help with understanding, the table of contents with summaries functions as a simple overview of and way into the narrative—some though not all sections have summaries—a star* marks a section without a summary, which emphasize the main ideas and omit much detail, definition, and complexity.

The following should be Style Detail—

The way is a system of ideas and action. Readers may prefer to focus on one or other, but each is essential to the other for effectiveness of realization. The concepts are in sections experience through doubt. Sections dimensions of being and a program of realization focus on action. The resources have material relevant to the concepts and to action.

Experience

Experience (or awareness) is conscious awareness in all its forms. Experience 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. Experience is also the place of concept and linguistic meaning and knowledge.

The elements of experience are the experience itself, ‘experience of’ and ‘the experienced’—so, experience is relational: it relates the two ‘sides’, the knower (knowing subject, intrinsic or inner aspect, of the psyche, or experiential, which may be labeled ‘of mind’) and the known (known object, instrumental or outer aspect, of the ‘external’ world, which may be called of ‘matter’).

Even ‘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 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 (for greater detail see a little book—resources).

Meaning and knowledge*

Here, ‘meaning’ refers to concept and linguistic meaning. To avoid confusion ‘significance’ was used earlier to talk of ‘the meaning of life’.

An object is that to which an experience refers (real object), seems to refer (as if object or fictional object), or is intended to refer.

A meaning is a concept and its possible objects. 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.

Knowledge 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 (resources), 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.

Being and existence

It would have been simple to define being at outset—A being is that which exists; being is existence.

But what is ‘an existent’ and what is ‘existence’? Given a concept that has reference, what is referred to is an existent whose name is the same as that of the concept—and existence is the property that marks existents as existents. Then, a being is an existent (plural—beings) and being is existence. Thus, an example of an existent (or being), given later, is ‘the universe’, whose concept is ‘all being’. Where precision is not available via abstraction, a tentative thought is to think of the name-referring-concept referred-or-as-if-referred object as the existent (the being).

The universe, the void, and limits

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 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.

The foregoing is a dialetheia (resources) 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—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 violating itself. 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 disallowable contradictions, this requires a logic that (i) does not result in explosion for allowable contradictions (ii) reduces to standard logic if the allowable criteria are excluded. Such paraconsistent logics (resources) have been developed. An alternative to paraconsistent logics is to exclude the dialetheia from the logical universe and treat them separately.

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. So, 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.

The void has no limits, laws, or constraints (for a constraint is a being and the void contains no beings).

Possibility

A 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, 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 its existence, it is possible, i.e., we say it has real possibility or just possibility (physical possibility is a case of possibility).

The fundamental principle

Every conceptually or logically possible being emerges from the void, for non-emergence of a possible being would be a limit or constraint on the void. Therefore—

The universe is limitless—the realization of the greatest or logical possibility (and therefore the real and the greatest possibilities are identical).

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).

An abstract or ideal metaphysics*

The demonstration is formal but let us review 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.

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).

The elementary inferences are of the kind in an abstract logic, 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.

Any apparent contradiction from, say, the big bang model of the cosmos is defused in seeing that the model, being empirical, says essentially nothing about the transempirical region, 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’.

An abstract logic*

The elementary inferences mentioned earlier are of the kind in the following abstracted semantic description of a propositional calculus. Here, truth is taken as given and the description defines a logical use of ‘negation of’, ‘and’, and ‘or’—

(i) A is true and not A is false are identical in meaning (syntactically, A º ~~A).

Here ‘not A’ or ‘not-A’ is the negation of ‘A’, usually written‘~A’, where ‘~’ is the ‘tilde’ operator of negation.

(ii) A is true and B is true and A and B is true are identical (syntactically, (A) Ù (B) º (A Ù B).

‘A and B’ is often written ‘AB’ or ‘A Ù B’ where ‘Ù’ is the ‘wedge’ operator.

(iii) A is true or B is true and A or B is true are identical (syntactically, (A) Ú (B) º (A Ú B).

‘A or B’ is often written ‘A Ú B’ where ‘Ú’ is the ‘vel’ operator, used in the inclusive sense in which ‘A or B is true’ means ‘at least one of A and B is true.

The universe as a field of experiential being*

A limitless or substance world would have the character of experientiality (rather than matter), not in being experiential like a human being or other higher 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 humans and animals 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).

Consequences of the fundamental principle

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 limits (on limited beings, which include natural as well as developmental limits), which are real but not absolute, for limitlessness is possible in ‘this life’ and will be attained beyond death (if not in this life)—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 remote, true) ultimate realization is given, and there are intelligent and effective pathways to the ultimate (intelligence being regarded as effective negotiation of the ultimate in and from the immediate).

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.

It is worth seeing that dialetheia abound in the ideas of existence of the void, its equivalence to the universe—i.e., the equivalence of everything and nothing, 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. If an object moves with infinite speed, it is at two (many) places at the same time—i.e., it is at some given place and not at that place at the same time. Is not that a world-contradiction? No, for it is not at two places in the same situation, but it might seem so because infinitely many situations are condensed into a moment. However, our usual mode of description, the real number continuum, does not recognize such distinctions. Perhaps the surreal number system can describe the distinctions adequately. The point is that ‘two places at the same time’ is not a world contradiction, but a descriptive one arising from the inadequacy of description. Now, while that application of the idea of world vs description is not particularly significant, there is another one that is. It arises in the idea that the void and the limitless universe are equivalent. While true, it seems to be a descriptive paradox, but perhaps one that awaits a sufficient mode of perception and understanding.

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; pleasure and pain (suffering) are unavoidable; pleasure is good, but to seek it excessively for its own sake is diversionary; pain is unavoidable, but its best address is, so far as possible, to be on a shared pathway to the ultimate, which is therapeutic in itself and with which the best instrumental therapy is integrated.

Peak being (god)

What is peak being? One term for it is God—but ‘God’ has so many meanings and senses (god and other ultimates—resources). There are limitlessly many Abrahamic and Hindu 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. This requires the following concept of a peak being, which we would have justification in calling ‘god’. Imagine a scene at lake, the wind does not quite ruffle the water, it is teeming with living activity—the coming and going, the competition and cooperation of creatures and species; see yourself as part of it; think of it, not as nor in opposition to life branching as in evolutionary accounts, but as living form arising from primality, as if inevitable; it is a phase in the process named peak being—the real god of which we are a part. We, all life and being, are part of that process. It is the one, the eternal, in our corner of the universe still primitive, on the way to ultimate being—and already there, beyond our situation, even in the situation if it would be seen. The imaginative side of these thoughts have derivation from the Advaita Vedanta (resources). Perhaps the term ‘God’ ought not to be used for it may mislead both secular and religious individuals on account of their cultural immersion.

The real metaphysics

The fundamental principle 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 (resources), we take only certain elements as follows (a little book has explanation and elaboration (resources). The elements to be taken are aspects or dimensions of being.

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).

Doubt

The 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.

On the 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.

Dimensions of being

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, and political-economic-ethical; 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 logic and science and deduction within those systems, and necessary fact as well as pragmatic fact).

A program of realization

Here is a program of realization, in outline (for action and for construction of a detailed template see, e.g., as in templates for realization, a pdf document, and its html Word docm versions (resources). The program is in two parts, 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.

Everyday program—everyday action is a flexible daily routine attending to development and execution of a way of realization, physical and experiential yoga (received ways—resources), work and relationships, and material and health needs and concerns. A template may be adaptable (1) to different life situations, cultures, and personal attitudes, (2) to different time schedules and levels of detail (3) ‘normal’ or ‘home days vs away days, such as immersion in nature (e.g., the Tibetan Buddhist practice of beyul (resources), or 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.

Projects from the dimensions of being, above. A sample—(1) being in the world, (2) the way of being, (3) yoga—development, practice to action for the world and beyond, (4) politics, economics, and ethics (values)—instrumental and immersive, pragmatic focus on world challenges and opportunities and a short version world problems and opportunities—resources), (5) ideas, culture, and art (emphasis to be defined), (6) civilizing the universe, and (7) ways of realizing peak being in the present and beyond.

projects for-the-world—(1) projects from the dimensions of being—review, cull, expand upon; write ‘dimensions of experience’ using experience, the world, and its dimensions (resources), (2) thick narrative with scenes vs thin with multiple orderings (3) what to use from design and resources (4) writing as balance and ballast – chisel in interaction with immersion, sharing, and help (5) my name.

miscellaneous projects—(1) the projects (meta) (2) self and ‘today.dotm’ (3) doc-list (4) review (5) introduce ‘Detail 2’ or something similar for this paragraph.

Resources*

Reference*

In the sources below, where no site is noted, the site is The way of being—https://www.horizons-2000.org.

A little book, a longer but still brief version of this manual—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2022/secondary/little book.html.

An older field manual for the way—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2021/ek%20project/the%20way%20of%20being%20-%20field%20manual.html.

A System of human knowledge—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2021/resources/system%20of%20human%20knowledge,%20reason,%20practice,%20and%20action.html.

Templates for realization (pdf)—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2021/narratives/templates%20and%20dedication.pdf(for html and Word docm versions, replace ‘pdf’ by ‘html’ or ‘docm’) .

Received ways of being—secular and religious, with focus on yoga and meditation—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2021/topic%20essays/meditation-more.html.

Beyul—Tibetan Buddhist practice of immersion in remote places to evoke the inner and outer real—https://horizons-2000.org/2021/old/the%20essential%20way%20of%20being.html#Beyul.

Focus on world challenges and opportunities—https://horizons-2000.org/2021/resources/journey%20in%20being.html#Challenges_and_opportunities.

World problems and opportunities (a brief version of the challenges and opportunities)—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2021/resources/world%20problems%20and%20opportunities.html.

Experience, the world, and its dimensions—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2021/topic%20essays/dimensions%20of%20experience%20and%20the%20world.html.

A collection of resources of the way of being—a source for resources for use and to add to this list—https://www.horizons-2000.org/2022/resources-more.html.

Dialetheia—https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Paraconsistent logic—https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

God and other ultimates—https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ultimates/ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Advaita Vedanta—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta (Wikipedia).

A catalog of beings*

The aim of this catalog is to show the inclusivity of being; a source is a little book (resources).

With sufficient abstraction, being is a being.

As if and fictional objects are not beings. However, they may be causative even though the cause is not directly material. Yet, if we regard the concept side of the object as the object itself, it may be seen as a being.

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).

Whole, part, and the null part. The universe, cosmoses, worlds, elements, transients from the void, the void.

Experiential beings on a hierarchy 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.

A metaphysical vocabulary*

The aim of the vocabulary is to be sufficient to the real metaphysics and its application. It is currently tentative in (i) being taken from a little book (resources) and needs to be rederived from this narrative (ii) except that ‘inference’ is a term it lacks logical elements such is implication and logical connectives that would be used in constructing factual statements and arguments.

The concepts in small capitals are defining for the group of concepts in which they occur.

Aim of being, ultimate being, human being, way of being, destiny, individual, world, history, foresight, worldview (secular and transsecular), limits (of the worldviews), limitlessness (consistency), aim, discovery, realization.

experience, significance, concept, subject, object (‘inner’ – ‘outer’, ‘state’ – ‘process’, ‘open’ – ‘intentional), relation (argument for higher form but no higher kind) , meaning (concept meaning, sign—simple and compound, symbol, linguistic meaning), knowledge, dimensions of experience (introduce here, but treat with or just before dimensions of being), existence (existent), being (verb to be, becoming, beings).

abstraction, terms, inference (see elementary logic and an abstract logic), system.

possibility (kinds—conceptual or logical, real, cases of the real, e.g., experiential, physical, cosmological), impossibility, necessity, inductive and deductive logic (propositional, predicate—first and higher order, set theory, modality, possible world, dialetheia, paraconsistent logic), argument, metaphysics, limitlessness, form and formation (substance), science, law.

fundamental principle, abstract metaphysics, tradition, pragmatic knowledge, the real metaphysics, metaphysics of limitlessness, method, demonstration (proof), general logic, reason, rationality, yoga.

doubt (metaphysical doubt regarding the way and Cartesian doubt regarding robust vs thin reality), attitude, proof.

chain of being (suggests hierarchy), mereological (mereology), whole, part, null, universe, cosmos, world, element, void; experiential hierarchy—sentience through agency—feeling, sensation, inner (proprioception), outer (perception), recall, conception (‘higher’), emotion (pleasure, pain, suffering, enjoyment of experience, identity (self, shared), foresight, value, imperative, will, agency, and limitless or peak being, god (god and other ultimates, god and other necessary beings); reality hierarchy of beings—nonexistent, fictitious, as if, possible, probable, actual, contingent, conditionally necessary, and absolutely necessary.

range of being (suggests variation in situatedness), sameness, difference, identity, situation (its parameters), duration-extension-being (or space-time-matter; there is an argument, at least, for no further parameters of situation), variety, individual, limits (real but not absolute), birth (gateway to realization), death (gateway to the ultimate), realization, way, pathway, enjoyment, imperative, yoga (reason), peak, dissolution.

dimensions of being (intrinsic and instrumental modes or ways of description), pure dimension (fixed, relatively)—experiential being in form and formation of worlds on the way to the limitless ultimate; pragmatic dimension (relatively changeable due evolution or due to advance in knowledge: ad hoc, cultural etc)—nature (physical, living, experiential), society (culture, power—economic and political, transsecularism), the universal (immersive—cultivating awareness and realization in experiential being, instrumental—science and technology in 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 (of explanation and prediction), creativity, criticism.

ways (primal ways, Abrahamic religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, Brahman, secularism, secular humanism, good, evil, truth, utilitarianism, tolerance, spirituality, modern transsecularism, religion, meditation, intrinsic, instrumental, practice, action) and pathways (occur above in relation to range; here the terms occur in relation to received ways, principles of ways and design, detailed pathways and templates), the way of being, means, design (aim of design), path programs and templates [everyday-immediate (dedication, affirmation), universal-ultimate, retreat, renewal, resources, universal narrative], shared path, the immediate and the ultimate as one.

Epilogue

Life 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 text—i.e., collapsing the essential history of text 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 I am then incompletely realized, it will be a gateway to the ultimate.

Planning the document

Main

1. Wrap-up parallel to minimizing today.dotm. Brief wrap-up of little book.docm.

2. In-the-world—immerse ¬® publish.

Wrap-up – now

1. The metaphysical vocabulary is basis of essential outline; paste special from here to little book.docm.

2. Add study topics and links to the system of concepts.

3. When done here, update the metaphysical vocabulary in little book.docm (consider renaming ‘metaphysical vocabulary’).

4. The essence of this planning at wrap-up will go to projects in the program of realization.

In-the-world

Templates.

May want to not use Style List 1 for paragraphs with both summary and detail. Is this necessary? Good? How would it be done?

May introduce a range of styles beyond List and Detail for different kinds of narrative significance. Could use WebOnly for ‘super-detail’, headings and narrative, … andor introduce, say, Detail 2, etc. This would enable a single document to be rendered as (i) multiple kinds (ii) single documents with more than one kind of abstract (e.g., summary). Programming should not be difficult—the basics are already there.

Add to the resources using ‘more resources’. This will go toward completing a list of source documents from and for the way.

Working with primary and secondary content

Styles

Normal—Alt + N.

List—Alt + I.

Detail—Alt + Z.

Template

See template.docm.