We are born with little explicit sense of our nature and the nature of the world. Of those with the resources (who ought to be materially and existentially supportive of those who have not), some are content with what is given; others also seek beyond. Some are given the resources to live a life of more than mere survival—and some 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. Here, in this narrative, we 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. 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 that goes far beyond all standard received views and that shows the universe to be limitless. It shows of all beings that they inherit this limitlessness. Though it is not the next fundamental theory or any subsequent but non-final theory, it frames all possible theories of the universe—particularly of nature, mind, and society. The view is a framework for and outer boundary of any final theory of the world. It is also presented as a framework for living.

Whether the narrative achieves what these assertions claim, and whether its view appeals as a worldview or framework for living, is for the community of readers to evaluate and decide.

Reading the way of being

As the narrative aims beyond received knowledge and ways of understanding in fact (e.g., the extent and duration of the universe), kind (the kind of beings and constituents of the universe), and ways of thought (what it is to be empirical, or rational, or pragmatic), its concepts go beyond received meaning. So, for precision, and to understand the narrative, the 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 reeducate their formal understanding and intuition. Those familiar with the possible worlds (see resources) metaphysics of David Lewis, will see a similarity to the metaphysics of the narrative, yet there are significant differences—Lewis’ metaphysics is not a different view of the real 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 doubt. Action is the focus of dimensions of being and a program of realization. The resources have material relevant to both concepts and to action.

Themes

themes are subjects or topics (i) whose development threads through the narrative, promoting coherence and unity (ii) that emerges with the narrative and may be important in itself. There are many themes (see the program of realization), but the following are foundational for the way.

Metahphysics 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 or theory of knowledge, 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 meaning and knowledge > validity. This entails epistemology understood, in greater detail and specificity, as the theory of knowledge and its development, particularly of what it is, criteria of validity, how it is developed and validated, and the value of knowledge.

The narrative development has implied conceptual (understanding) and action themes Conceptual themes include, for example, (i) the classical, modern, and current problems of metaphysics including the question of the nature of metaphysics (ii) 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 and world as simulation (iii) the related philosophical themes of the nature of meaning and of atomicity vs holism of the meanings of systems of concepts intended to capture systems of the world (iv) ethics (v) reason, logic as inference, and general logic as knowledge of the world and its method (iv) Immanuel Kant’s three questions 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? Action themes include (i) secular and transsecular programs of action for the immediate and the ultimate (ii) world challenges and opportunities (iii) decision theory and application to the world.

Experience

Experience, consciousness, and awareness

Experience (or awareness) is conscious awareness in all its forms. 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’, real or illusory, are present. Without experience, ‘we’ would (effectively) be dead, living in a dead world. 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’, 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.

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 our ‘argument’. 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

The relational elements of an experience are the experience itself, the ‘experience of’ and ‘the experienced’—so, experience is relational: it relates the two ‘sides’, the knower (knowing subject, intrinsic or inner aspect, of the psyche, or experiential, which may be labeled ‘of mind’) and the known (known object, instrumental or outer aspect, of the ‘external’ world, which may be called of ‘matter’). Note that some problems of knowledge are treated in meaning and knowledge > 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 ‘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 (for greater detail see a little book—resources).

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, resources). 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), seems to refer but is not real (as if object or fictional object), or is intended 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 (resources), that the present concept of meaning is necessary and sufficient to meaning, especially, here, to what meaning is needed to do and effective in the clarification and specification of the essential concepts used here (and of many concepts of greater and lesser significance). Indeed, a true metaphysics—and epistemology, logic, or ethics—is not possible on lesser accounts and the present account empowers metaphysics.

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 the fundamental principle, yet it lacks a means of 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 criteria 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 noncapture of the thing calls into question the possibility of knowledge in the sense of perfectly faithful capture of the ‘thing’. 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 concept 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 is no standard received conception of ‘universe’ and ‘void’. 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, though simple, are deep in significance and consequence. The section presents a proof of limitlessness of the void as it is simple, deep, 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. 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 seeming absurdity of the contradiction is briefly noted in an aside—the next paragraph—but is defused later.

A dialetheia 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. So, limits or constraints exist or have being—i.e., limits or constraints are beings. A law of nature is a constraint and therefore laws are beings.

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

Possibility

A being’s existence has conceptual possibility if there is nothing in its conception that rules out its existence (since conception refers to no particular world, the structure ruled out by conceptual impossibility would be logical and therefore conceptual possibility is logical possibility). Thus, conceptual possibility is the greatest possibility, 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 many infinities are limited.

The assertion in italics above is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics or just the fundamental principle (some consequences important to the way of being will follow).

An abstract or ideal metaphysics

The 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 metaphysis. Consequences are developed later.

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.

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.

A central concept in reasoning is truth. A statement or proposition, ‘It is raining’ is true if, indeed, it is raining (yes, that formulation seems trivial, 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 and so on). Note, (i) as the notion of truth includes relation of ideas to the real, the following development is semantic (ii) a syntactic development in which the symbols are meaning-free is useful for formal and structural purposes but is omitted here (iii) 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.

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.

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’ and Q the statement ‘The ground is wet’.

One feature of deductive logic, which includes the standard propositional calculus, is that inference is necessary—i.e., not just ‘likely’. Another feature involves removing an indefiniteness in some ordinary reasoning. Suppose P implies Q, i.e., the truth of P implies the truth of Q. What is the truth of Q if P is not true? Sometimes, though not always, we think that Q will be untrue if P is not true, and that is because we might think, for example, that there is a causal connection between P and Q. However, it will be useful to use a kind of inference in which, since Q might be true for other reasons, to allow that the falsity of P has no implication for the truth of Q. This is reflected below.

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) ‘®’, called the 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’.

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 ‘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 2 by 2 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.

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 some 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

In this section, the concept of experience is broadened to cover all being—to the universal—and deepened to the root of being.

The 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).

Consequences of the fundamental principle

The universe has identity; it phases in and out of manifest being; the universe and its identity are limitless in extent, duration, variety, and highest or peak being (which may be a relational process); the variety and duration include cosmoses without limit to number, kind, beginnings and endings, all in transaction with one another (the degree of transaction will be nil at times) and with the void.

All beings inherit this limitlessness (for the contrary would be a limit or constraint on the universe); there are of course limits (on limited beings, which include natural as well as developmental limits), which are real but not absolute, for limitlessness is possible in ‘this life’ and will be attained beyond death (if not in this life)—which occurs across migration of identity across, e.g., cosmoses (it is not contradictory for two limited beings to simultaneously become the ultimate, for they merge in doing so); though (contrary to conceptions in which the ultimate is remote, true) ultimate realization is given, and there are intelligent and effective pathways to the ultimate (intelligence being regarded as effective negotiation of the ultimate in and from the immediate).

Let us say a little more on the migration of identities. While it occurs across cosmoses, it occurs, at least, in the identity of being with the void, which may be seen as a reservoir of ultimate identity. Relationality lies in the substrate of being and the universe, which is the void. Equivalently, it lies in the universe itself.

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, “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 (resources) or true contradiction. However, while dialetheia are generally regarded as disallowable because of apparent absurdity and that in standard logic a dialetheia implies the truth (and falsity) of every statement, if a disallowable contradiction (a more general term would be ‘disallowable symbol’) is one that cannot be realized, then this dialetheia is not disallowable (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 (resources) 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—Thomson’s lamp (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (resources). 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. However, the reference above has some considerations on the matter, but the physics is not of immediate interest here and so will not be taken up here. However, we may make the following observation—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.

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 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—resources). There are limitlessly many Abrahamic and Hindu Gods in far and near corners of the universe (subject to straightening of the narratives), limitlessly many Buddhas. They are neither ultimate nor ultimately robust. How may we visualize an ultimate and robust god? Traditional concepts are speculative, grounded in a sense of incompleteness of the empirical world. Thus, tradition flounders in the dual space of concepts and objects. However, the 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’.

We, all life and being, are part of that process. It is the one, the eternal, in our corner of the universe still primitive, on the way to ultimate being—and already there, beyond our situation, even in the situation if it would be seen. The imaginative side of these thoughts have derivation from the Advaita Vedanta (resources). Perhaps the term ‘God’ ought not to be used for it may mislead both secular and religious individuals on account of their cultural immersion.

The real metaphysics

The metaphysics

The fundamental principle shows what may be achieved but not how. Tradition shall mean all our pragmatic and pure knowledge. Append this to the ideal content (metaphysics) developed so far. Tradition is the how; imperfect in itself, regarded as in process it is the best we have; therefore, relative to the imperative of realization, it may be truly and realistically be called perfect. In the join, the ideal illuminates and guides the pragmatic and the pragmatic illustrates and is instrumental toward the ideal. The combination, which is thus a dynamic join, is named the real metaphysics, or just the metaphysics. Since tradition is in process, we take elements from diverse cultures and we emphasize the modern west and some elements of Indian philosophy, with the understanding that what we take remains in process, reflectively, experimentally, and is open to and seeking further supplement. From the comprehensive system of human knowledge (resources), we take only certain elements as follows (a little book has explanation and elaboration (resources). The elements to be taken are aspects or dimensions of being.

While the above is ideal, we know from inference to the real metaphysics, that the local need not be ideal. We choose disciplines typical of western culture. The description that follows may seem to derive from a material worldview (i.e., materialism) but may also be derived from and experiential worldview (thus the ideal, the approach from being, the cultures of the east, and the existential thought of the west are not excluded).

Proof

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

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.

The assertions and arguments of the narrative will and should raise doubt, including and over and above standard ‘philosophical’ doubt.

The following are characteristic of the formal doubt that should arise. That the universe is limitless goes against the empirically supported view of the universe as having definite structure. The argument that existence and nonexistence of the void are equivalent will be questioned.

These doubts have been formally addressed. However, arguments and conclusions are contrary to the grain of standard secular and transsecular thought. Therefore, doubt will remain. In addressing it, the consistency of the conclusions with science and reason ought to be kept in mind.

The following attitudes to doubt may be productive.

On 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). 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.

Dimensions of being

Nature, ground, has flexible and apparently fixed aspects; sub-dimensions are elementary or physical, complex or living, and experiential as intrinsic ground; which ‘give rise’ to society and creativity, and show nature as more flexible than previously thought. From the natural sciences we derive certain paradigms of form and formation and of paradigms of perception and thought. These include incremental change and emergence via variation and selection from biology and mechanism (on determinism-indeterminism continuum) from physics. The paradigms enable understanding of formed and robust cosmoses and beings from the void which exhibit high symmetry and stability and thus effective population of the universe by robust cosmoses with experiential beings.

society (community to civilization); sub-dimensions are cultural, and political-economic-ethical (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 logic and science and deduction within those systems, and necessary fact as well as pragmatic fact).

A program of realization

The program

Introduction

Here is a program of realization, in outline (for action and for construction of a detailed template see, e.g., as in templates for realization, a pdf document, and its html Word docm versions (resources). The program is in two parts, each addressing all aspects of realization, but having different emphases. The everyday focuses on individuals and communities, relationships, inner transformation and immersion in the world, and attention to daily and career material needs. The universal program focuses on pure being and action in the dimensions of being.

Everyday program

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

Program for the universal-ultimate

Projects

From the dimensions of being

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

For the world

projects for-the-world—(1) projects from the dimensions of being—review, cull, expand upon; write ‘dimensions of experience’ using experience, the world, and its dimensions (resources), (2) thick narrative with scenes vs thin with multiple orderings (3) what to use from design and resources (4) writing as balance and ballast – chisel in interaction with immersion, sharing, and help (5) my name (6) immersion, sharing, influence, and transformation (6) update and integrate the local documents in resources, p. ; use for mini-topics.

Development of the ideas

development plan for the ideas—plan of sources, study, reflection, action, synthesis, writing and presentation—a miscellaneous collection—meta—enter topics as they arise… and are suggested by system of knowledge; systematize this ‘logically’ and in sequence of study, find and enter sources w metaphysics—abstract and concrete sciences and method; refine the real metaphysics and applications; problems of metaphysics w logic—general logic; variety of being (possible worlds); zero, first and other order logics; axiomatic formulation vs natural deduction; set theory – zfc – nbg – mk (Morse-Kelly) – theory of types – Quines new foundations; proof and model theory; dialetheia and paraconsistent logic—especially paraconsistent logic for dialetheia and metaphysics (theory) of nothingness (μπφ) w our world—the natural and social sciences; applied sciences; secularism and transsecularism (what they are—e.g., transsecularism includes speculative, dogmatic, and rational metaphysic; where they do and do not get it right and what does or may lie beyond); challenges and opportunities from secular, transsecular, and transcendent viewpoints; instrumental and immersive approaches (and their integration).

This document

This document—(1) Formatting information—see template.html. (2) Do now or add to to-do-in-the-world—work the core, then build around it w heuristic—add to method / validity w ‘ought’ and ‘is’ w edit for broken links, readability, meaning, and impact—word choice, sentence structure, paragraph length w wrap-up parallel to minimizing today.dotm. w fair, print minimal version. (3) Use of sub-documents for important topics and themes? (4) In-the world—essentialize the metaphysical vocabulary, continue to add study links w continue to add links to reference w improve the templates and dedication w use template.docm as a formatting reference noting, particularly, that, via Word Style selection, multiple document versions may be built from a single document. (5) When printing multiply the ‘Academic’ and ‘AcademicOnly’ styles for sections and headings—projects, resources

Immediate—this item will be eliminated when this version for this time is done and printed—(1) Continue to think about and focus on what is essential, today.dotm (2) Work on the contents with summaries for the right length (brevity = impact vs longer = elucidation)… consider two levels for now or later (3) Edit the narrative for content, readability, meaning, and impact—word choice, sentence structure, paragraph length (4) Select items from ‘this document’ and other project items (5) reduce to print version and print (6) zero.

And

Bang.

Reso urces

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; a source is a little book (resources).

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—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.

Experiential beings on a hierarchy from elementary beings (particles or fields as far as real) to elementary living beings through animals and human beings, to higher beings (higher than we see on Earth), to local ‘gods’, and on to peak being.

Chain of being (suggests hierarchy)—though repetitive, this part of the catalog is retained, at least temporarily, because ‘chain of being’, together with the principle of plenitude, is a recognized medieval Christian and modern concept; mereological (mereology), whole, part, null, universe, cosmos, world, element, void; experiential hierarchy—sentience through agency—feeling, sensation, inner (proprioception), outer (perception), recall, conception (‘higher’), emotion (pleasure, pain, suffering, enjoyment of experience, identity (self, shared), foresight, value, imperative, will, agency, and limitless or peak being, god (god and other ultimates, god and other necessary beings); reality hierarchy of beings—nonexistent, fictitious, as if, possible, probable, actual, contingent, conditionally necessary, and absolutely necessary.

range of being, dimensions of being.

A metaphysical vocabulary

Introduction

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. It is also entered to a little book (resources).

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 concept that it may be effective to rename—metaphysics, abstract / ideal metaphysics, real metaphysics, void / nothingness, universe, world (enter below, define), god / Brahman, experience, abstract, abstraction, general logic.

Experience

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 (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—the concept

Existence (existent), being (verb to be, becoming), a being (plural: beings), systematic catalog of being (a beginning); 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, p. 44, 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 (principle of plenitude), 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

Real metaphysics, the

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

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 (fixed, relatively)—experiential being in form and formation of worlds on the way to the limitless ultimate; pragmatic dimension (relatively changeable due evolution or due to advance in knowledge: ad hoc, cultural etc)—nature (physical, living, experiential), society (culture, power—economic and political, transsecularism), the universal (immersive—cultivating awareness and realization in experiential being, instrumental—science and technology in civilizing the universe); paradigms of form and formation—ultimate, proximate, certain, probable, spontaneous, absolute, variation and selection, emergence (of kind, of complexity), mechanism, robustness, apparent design, necessary design, paradigms of thought (of explanation and prediction), creativity, criticism.

Ethics

Value, especially ethics, aesthetics.

Application—knowledge and action

Source—system of knowledge (to be expanded upon).

The system

This world, the ultimate; two levels of truth.

Knowledge-action.

Knowledge and method

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.

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, resources.

‘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.

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, especially the section on many valued logicsespecially (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). 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)

Propositional logic (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).

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 longer but still brief 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 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

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.

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.

Quine, W.V., Methods of Logic, Fourth Ed., 1982.

Priest, Graham, One: Being an Investigation into the Unity of Reality and of its Parts, including the Singular Object which is Nothingness, 2014.

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 I am then incompletely realized, it will be a gateway to the ultimate.