Our thoughts and actions are informed by our world views. Standard received worldviews are transsecular (religious, metaphysical) and secular, which have symbolic and literal truth and see the world and beings as having significant potential, but absolute limits.

The demonstrated and named ‘real metaphysics’ reveals real but no absolute limits. That is, limits are real relative to a phase of being. Thus, to know reality we shall (i) understand the nature of limits and (ii) strive to understanding and living at immediate and ultimate levels (iii) work toward synthesis—being in the world and the ultimate as one.

Introduction

Summaries are woven into the table of contents, which links to the parts of the narrative.

Prologue

Though seen as immense, the universe is usually thought of as having limits. This work finds otherwise. 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.

Human endeavor is a weave of living well in the world, sharing, and seeking beyond. Here, grounded in the immediate word, in this narrative, we shall look into what there may be beyond received tradition.

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—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, 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 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 universe

The 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.

Whether the narrative achieves these aims and assertions, and whether its view appeals as a worldview or framework for living and the significance of (our) being, is for the community of readers to evaluate and decide.

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 being

As 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 sources

The 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.

Themes

themes 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 themes

Though 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.

Metaphysics

Regarding 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 and value, for knowledge 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 ethics and epistemology (a) because value and knowledge are part of the world (b) as an activity of being, metaphysics devoid of ethics and epistemology are devoid of significance and truth. Understood as an account of knowledge of the real, this is metaphysics (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).

Epistemology

Epistemology 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.

Ethics

Ethics, values, and aesthetics. As morals and values have being, as it will be seen, ethics also falls under metaphysics. However, as it will also be seen, ethics is, in turn, among factors determinative of the nature and valid content of metaphysics (and epistemology).

Other themes

These 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 themes

Immanuel 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.

Metaphysical subthemes

Problems 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 subthemes

The 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.

Method, empiricism, rationalism (see Rationalism vs. Empiricism), and pragmatism, and oneness of knowledge and method. Reason, logic as inference, and general logic as knowledge of the world and its method; includes the place of perception and emotion; extended to action via rationality. Yoga as rationality.

Action themes

Secular 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).

Experience

Development of the worldview of the narrative begins here. It begins with experience as our most immediate contact with the world and which is part of the world.

Experience, consciousness, and awareness

In 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.

Analysis of the conclusion that there is experience

Let 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 relational

Experience 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’) 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’). Note that some problems of knowledge are treated in the section, meaning and knowledge, subsection, validity.

Experience is the place of our being

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. 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.

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 as the place of 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 knowledge

Meaning 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.

Meaning

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), may refer, or seems to refer but is not real (as if object or fictional object). In the case of meaning, below, there is also an intention to refer.

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.

Knowledge

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, 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.

Validity

Regarding 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 abstraction

In this section we review the concepts of the abstract and the concrete and their place in metaphysics and epistemology.

We 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 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 conception is all being.

It would have been simple to define being at outset; however, it is more effective to have defined concepts, objects, meaning, and knowledge. So—what is being? A being is that which exists; being is existence.

The definitions given, unlike Heidegger’s conception of being, are simple. Heidegger looks for depth and richness in his conception of being. Here the depth lies in simplicity and inclusivity, while richness is to be sought within being rather than of being itself. There is 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 existence straightforward. This of course 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 limits

There 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 claim 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.

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, 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).

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). ‘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 metaphysics

The 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. Consequences are developed later, beginning with the universe as a field of experiential being.

The conclusion regarding necessity at the end of the previous section shows that, in the abstract case, the rational and the empirical are united.

The metaphysics

The 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.

Proof

Most 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 inference

The aims of this section are (i) to see elementary logic as a distortion free abstraction from ordinary inference (ii) and then, motivated, here, by apparent contradictions such as existence and nonexistence of the void, to provide a formal framework for a logic of dialetheia—i.e., of allowable assertions that are contradictory in form but not in meaning.

Introduction

A central concept in reasoning is truth. 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, 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 calculus

The propositional calculus is a system of reasoning or inferring that (i) captures some aspects of and so has some uses in careful everyday reasoning in (ii) can be formalized so that inference is certain and can be mechanical (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 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. For example, P might be the statement ‘It is raining’, Q the statement ‘The ground is wet’, and R the statement ‘The ground is dry’. To make the statement in ordinary use is to say or, at least, suggest that it is true. Here, however, it is just a statement and as a bare statement, there is no commitment to its truth. To say P is true, we might just say ‘P is true’. We will also need to say, ‘P is not true’ and ‘P is false’. Some compound statements are (i) ‘P and Q’—‘It is raining And The ground is wet’ (ii) ‘P or R’ —‘It is raining Or The ground is dry’ (iii) ‘P implies Q’—‘If it is raining The Ground is wet.’

The abstraction from ordinary reasoning is not yet complete. Ordinary reasoning is often ambiguous. One ambiguity is that the very meaning of ‘and’ ‘if… then’ have more than one meaning. To complete the perfect abstraction, the meanings must be specified. Other specific meanings could be introduced as needed. A further ambiguity concerns truth. It seems clear that a statement cannot be true and false. It is reasonable that a statement should have one definite truth value—either true or false. These reasonable conditions are built into the standard calculus below (yet are not universal over all logics: a statement could have no truth value; there could be further values beyond true and false; and, though often regarded as heretical, we will shortly encounter a calculus in which statements can be both true and false)

For simplicity notations are introduced for the various conceptions and for precision their meanings are specified. In standard propositional calculus the following conceptions are effective, which with their standard symbols, are (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 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, Ͱ and ~ can be specified in what are called ‘truth tables’—

Ͱ		~
t	t	t	f
f	f	f	t

Using the same idea, ‘and’ is defined,

P Ù Q	P	Q
t	t	t
f	t	f
f	f	t
f	f	f

which has a convenient alternate formulation—with the left rows 2 and 3 have truth values of P, top columns 2 and 3 have truth values of Q, and corresponding values of P Ù Q are entered in the lower right two by two matrix,

Ù	t	f
t	t	f
f	f	f

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 logic

This 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 metaphysics

The 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 being

Here, 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 being

The 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 validity

When, 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 beings

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.

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.

Dialetheia

Earlier 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.

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 so many meanings and senses (god and other ultimates). 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’ (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 th e 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 metaphysics

The metaphysics

The 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 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, 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.

Proof

Proofs from the abstract metaphysics may be likely—even highly likely, rather than necessary.

The ground of epistemology

The 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 metaphysics

I 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 regress

In 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.

Doubt and certainty

Doubt

Doubt has been addressed, yet it should be sustained because it is productive in itself and that living in terms of the worldview of the way is productive. Noting that the real metaphysics is externally (empirically) and internally (logically) consistent, this section lays out effective attitudes that are alternate to the real metaphysics as fact.

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.

Alternatives to certainty

On 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.

Certainty

Having 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 theory is, is a model, and 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 am 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 of empiricism) (ii) and because the proof of the metaphysics is ontological, i.e., in this case rational, which is not an ingrained habit (but note that ontological proofs are not inherently invalid—it is the famous ontological proof of Anselm that clearly lacks verifiable validity) (iii) existential doubt about the fate of my conscious self remains. On other hand, it was noted above that doubt is a stance with positive 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 being

This is the concluding section in the development and fleshing out of the worldview of the narrative.

Pure dimension

The 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 dimensions

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 (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 realization

The 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).

Design

The 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.

Introduction

The 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.

Everyday

Everyday 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-ultimate

Universal-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; 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.

Projects

Current and this document

Planning documents

The three design and planning documents are this , today, and design.

The document

1. Edit for content, readability, meaning, and impact—word choice, sentence structure, paragraph length.

Versions—see the template for formatting with style and color are used to build short, academic, and print versions (update and minimize the template, the little book, and any other versions to sustain).

2. Print—select print material according to the canonical outline in design: select §§ to print. Use Styles List and Detail to be printed. Add a few judicious paragraphs, which will be eliminated in saving Internet versions, in Style Print or PrintOnly.

3. Ongoing edit.

In the world

The way involves foundation or development and realization or execution. The phase that emphasizes foundation (writing the narratives) now transitions to a phase that emphasizes realization. Foundation will continue but it will be ‘in-the-world’.

This document

1. Improve and fill in the outline from the metaphysical vocabulary; rearrange, and import material. Maintain subdocuments? Do relevant tasks from ‘general’, below.

2. Introduce temporary paragraph headings (H9) to help keep track of content, order, and repetition.

3. Incorporate and keep today?

4. Add (i) heuristic (re: method and validity) (ii) ‘ought’ and ‘is’.

5. Improve structure of the vocabulary (flesh out, add study links, keep consistent with the sequence in design).

6. Work the core, then build around it. Consider use of sub-documents for important topics and themes.

7. From the dimensions of being, p. 77, above: (i) flesh out the pragmatic dimensions of being for use—the three realms—nature, society, the universal; focus on explanation, then prediction; integrate the dimensions above and in the metaphysical vocabulary; write and integrate ‘dimensions of experience’ using experience, the world, and its dimensions (ii) develop yoga and meditation (iii) civilizing the universe.

General

1. 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).

2. 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.

3. 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 ideas

1. Metaphysics—abstract and concrete sciences and method; refine the real metaphysics and applications; problems of metaphysics; incorporate to system of knowledge.

2. (Metaphysics and) logic—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).

3. Improve proof of existence of the void, e.g., 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.

4. Write on psychology… see psychology.

5. Study naming and necessity (book), Kripke, because it’s thought to be very important.

Resources

The resources are for readers and for development of the way and its narrative.

A catalog of beings

The aim of this catalog is to show the inclusivity of being.

Experience, existence, and being itself—with sufficient abstraction, being is a being.

Concepts are beings; As if and fictional objects are not beings. However, they may be causative even though the cause is not directly material—that is, the causative agent is not the fiction itself, but the concept of the fiction in a person’s mind. Thus, if we regard the concept side of the object as the object itself, it may be seen as a being.

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 (mereology)—Whole, part, and the 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 (and the Chain of being, which suggests a Christian hierarchy that is avoided here, a recognized medieval Christian and modern concept, placed here as suggestive rather than definitive) on (i) a reality hierarchy—nonexistent, fictitious, as if, possible, probable, actual, contingent, conditionally necessary, and absolutely necessary (ii) a hierarchy of form, 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—see god and other ultimates, god and other necessary beings) (iii) an 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.

A metaphysical vocabulary

Introduction to the vocabulary

Aims of the vocabulary are (i) to be sufficient to the real metaphysics and its application (ii) to reveal the concepts as an interrelated and interacting system or circle (iii) to function as an outline for the way of being.; regarding which ‘the world’ serves as introduction to the way.

The main concept or concepts in each group are in small capitals. Where there is more than one, the first is usually defining. Though most links below elucidate meanings, not all are the meanings used here in the narrative; and, naturally, it is near impossible to exhaust the meanings of the terms, even as intended in the narrative. Some concepts are repeated.

Alternate words

This is a temporary section of concepts that it may be effective to rename—narrative, book, work, section, prologue / epilogue, metaphysics, abstract / ideal metaphysics, real metaphysics, void / nothingness, universe, world (enter below, define), god / Brahman, experience, abstract, abstraction, general logic.

Experience

The world

The world, our place in it (the human situation), acceptance and seeking, worldviews as projections, limits, limits and the issue of their necessity.

Experience—the concept

Experience, question of experience—what it is, whether it is, to be discussed here, and what its significance and current relevance are, to be discussed below; abstraction (logic as abstraction), faithfulness, the given, naming.

Experience and significance

Significance (especially the significance or meaning of life), place of significance and identity, birth, human endeavor, agency (search, discovery, realization, intention, action, retreat, aim of being, destiny, individual, world, history, foresight, the idea of an ultimate in being and knowing (no apriorism, absolute foundation— but foundation is found along the way, in process except if there should be arrival at the absolute, not at the beginning, and is therefore significantly referred forward to establishment of the real metaphysics).

Psychology (‘dimensions of experience’)

Psychology (not interpreted only as or limited to modern western academic psychology), dimensions of experience (introduced here, treated later).

Meaning and knowledge

Concept, object, and meaning

Concept, subject, object (‘inner’ – ‘outer’, ‘state’ – ‘process’, ‘open’ – ‘intentional), relationship (argument for higher form but no higher kind), meaning (concept meaning, sign—simple and compound, symbol, linguistic meaning).

Validity (meaning)

Possibility of meaning, i.e., of reference; object vs existent or being.

Knowledge (intension)

knowledge, (this world, the ultimate, reason).

Knowledge (extension)

Metaphysics, system, worldview, (Secular, including secular and scientific humanism; and transsecular including religion and metaphysics, intrinsic limits of received worldviews, possible worldview), epistemology, (includes ‘meta-metaphysics’, referred forward—and why), doubt (see skepticism), (metaphysical doubt regarding the way and Cartesian doubt regarding robust vs thin reality), criticism and criticisms, method, proof, attitude.

Validity (knowledge)

objectivity—(questions of) (i) realism vs illusion and (ii) error and precision; see epistemology, above.

Knowledge (presentation and transmission)

Narrative, Metanarrative; aim, audience; narrative aim, structure, prologue, epilogue, themes; design for flow, readability, and impact; planning for reading, reflection, study, writing, and publication; universal narrative, summation, revision, historical thread, and connection.

Being

Being and beings—the concepts

Existence (existent), being (verb to be, becoming), a being (plural: beings), systematic catalog of being; Heidegger.

Being—significance

substance, foundation (being as response to questions of substance and foundation), depth (superficiality of, from the concept of being), richness (or variety or breadth, framed by being rather than of being as being—which, contra Heidegger’s tacit presumption, is an effective approach to the question of richness and issue of existenz).

A catalog of being(s)

The catalog is now in a separate section a catalog of beings, above.

Possibility

Possibility and its kinds

Possibility (theory of; kinds—conceptual or logical, real, cases of the real, e.g., experiential, physical, cosmological; modal logic), impossibility, necessity (possible object, necessary object, nonexistent object) inductive and deductive logic (propositional, predicate—first and higher order, set theory, modality, possible world, dialetheia, disallowable symbol, contrareal, paraconsistent logic), metaphysics, limitlessness, form and formation (substance), science, law.

Is the concept of limitlessness contradictory?

Criticism—If all possibilities obtain, it is possible that the possible is impossible. Response—It is inherent in ‘possibility’ that the possible is not impossible.

Paradox (seeming violation of possibility); understood in this sense there is no paradox more than seeming. This principle lies behind the resolution of dialetheia, true disallowable diction, and the contrareal.

Limitlessness, the ultimate

Abstract metaphysics, the

Metaphysics of limitlessness—fundamental principle (also see Principle of plenitude - Wikipedia), abstract metaphysics (continued with the real metaphysics, below).

The ultimate (consequences of the metaphysics)

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.

Metaphysics (and value)

A system of metaphysics

tradition, pragmatic knowledge, the real metaphysics (the metaphysics as a framework for received metaphysics and its problems), method, demonstration (proof), general logic, argument (validity, soundness), reason, rationality, yoga; cosmology (may be seen as part of metaphysics but because of its detail is taken up separately below).

Ethics

Value, especially ethics, aesthetics.

Cosmology

A system of cosmology

Cosmology, general cosmology, logic, cosmology of form and formation, mechanism, determinism and indeterminism, physical cosmology, evolutionary biology, paradigms from metaphysics and cosmology.

The dimensions of being

This section continues cosmology in some detail.

dimensions of being (intrinsic and instrumental modes or ways of description), pure dimension (relatively fixed)—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.

Application—knowledge and action

Source—system of knowledge.

This world, the ultimate; two levels of truth.

Knowledge-action.

Method (and knowledge)

General

Further application—system, experience, epistemology (why wait till here, “begin where we are”, problems of epistemology, resolutions, and residual problems), problems of metaphysics—received and more, particularly problems consequent to the real metaphysics.

About method

Unification of method, process, and content under general logic.

Search in dual space, hypothesis construction (concept creation), evaluation (consistency—conceptual and perceptual-empirical); which applies regardless of degree of certainty or necessity. Meta-analysis and systemic analysis (parallel analysis) are implicit.

The path

Ways

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).

Pathways

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.

‘The future’

Cycle of life, death (gateway to the ultimate).

Epilogue, looking outward, into the world, being-in-the-world, narration, the future, eternal return, death.

Reference

The Internet

These 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 Theory https://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 Materialism https://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 Philosophy https://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.

Ethics (Wikipedia).

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.

Surreal numbers (Wikipedia).

Great chain of being (Wikipedia).

Principle of plenitude (Wikipedia).

Yoga (Wikipedia).

Experience (Wikipedia).

Retreat (Wikipedia).

Worldview (Wikipedia).

Possibility (Wikipedia).

Possibility theory (Wikipedia).

First-order logic (Wikipedia).

Higher-order logic (Wikipedia).

Argument (Wikipedia).

Validity (Wikipedia).

Soundness (Wikipedia).

Sheffer stroke (Wikipedia).

Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism (Wikipedia).

Transcendental idealism (Wikipedia).

Process and Reality https://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 Metaphysics https://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 print

Reading—suggested readings, and a listing of some of my influences.

From the way of being, for readers and site development

The 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.

Reading—suggested readings, and a listing of some of my influences.

From the way of being—primarily for site development

The 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 narrative

These sources are not presently especially intended for readers.

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.

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 narrative—i.e., collapsing the essential history of n 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.