The Way of Being

Welcome Metaphysics Realization Resources Anil Mitra

Text

Description automatically generated

The Way of Being is a shared journey of discovery and realization, of the transparently limitless ultimate. Here is a preliminary next version.

The Way of Being—A Guide—Contents

The Way of Being

The site

This site is an ongoing, iterative record—not a finished endeavor. Visit resources and the latest essays. Mini-resources—the little manual, sources (short version), system of human knowledge.

Some people accept the world as they find it; some seek beyond; many integrate acceptance and seeking. Here, we value acceptance and seeking, for, as we shall find, the world and the ultimate are interwoven. The ultimate illuminates the world, and the world is platform to the ultimate.

Worldviews and their foundation

A worldview is an encapsulated picture of the essential features of the world. Can a worldview be realist in the sense of being a perfect depiction? How can realism be given foundation? Two foundational approaches to a realist worldview are (i) strictly empirical—the universe is roughly as we experience the world and that is where all reality and value are found (ii) empirical and rational—the empirical has reality and value, but there is more. That ‘more’ is to be found in the empirical, supplemented by intuition, mystic vision, and reason to suggest ideas and eliminate those ideas that are internally or empirically inconsistent.

As a worldview is more than a collection of data, the empirical must allow some rational—conceptual—overlay to integrate but not go beyond the data. This potentially destroys realism. It might therefore seem that the two approaches above cannot be well founded. Yet we will find that a view that is perfectly realist as a framework via (i) abstraction from observation to undistorted fact and (ii) necessary fact and inference.

While item #i above provides foundation based in a given (undistorted abstracts from observation), the foundation from #ii is pure (requires no presumption at all).

To fill out the framework we turn to a pragmatist approach to knowledge that is good enough for some practical purposes. Though the pragmatic is not realist, the framework remains so, and the net view is found perfect in terms of values revealed by the framework.

Note that the approach to foundation just described is neutral to what will be foundational; that what will be foundational is allowed to and will be found to emerge as part of the development.

Received worldviews and their limitations

One standard received view is that the empirical, with science, has revealed essentially all things. Though what has been revealed in this way has truth, there is no justification for views that it is all the truth, or that it is close to the possible truth.

Another kind of view is the way of some religions—that of dogma, which posits ultimates in the real and in value, which may have symbolic value, but which are grounded in authority. Despite their value, the cosmologies of such religions have little empirical or rational ground.

A third way is rational metaphysics, which may be (i) like science in hypothesizing fundamental elements of being and subjecting the hypothetical system to rational and empirical test (such systems have been called ‘speculative metaphysics’—an example is A.N. Whitehead’s Process and Reality) or (ii) grounded in undeniable truth such as the existence of being—‘that which is’, and the universe—‘all being’ (such systems have been called ‘real metaphysics’).

Most speculative and real systems of metaphysics are limited. Perhaps the essential limiting factor is the tendency to model the metaphysics after our experience of the world. This factor may be introduced at the beginning by regarding a kind as the ultimate real, later in the attempt to justify received ultimates such as a god of religion or the universe according to the latest science. If the approach isolates the world (as objective) from experience of the world without justification, that may be a limit.

Overcoming limitations

How may we overcome the tendency to limited metaphysics? If the limiting elements above cannot be avoided, perhaps we can retain them together with neutral kinds, and develop an integrated analysis, and justify the outcome in parallel to the development. Because at least part of the real lies beyond ordinary experience, no idea is too absurd to contemplate; a habit of ‘critical imagination’—imagination subject to empirical and rational analysis—becomes productive. And it is important that the ordinary may harbor the extraordinary.

Approach to a worldview without limitations

We must see the reality of (i) the nature of the world (ii) the extent of the world. The following paragraphs address these issues (small capitals indicate the main concepts).

Should we begin with the nature or the extent of the world? We begin with neither, for to begin with either is to be committed where we may be ignorant. In the next paragraph, we begin with the neutral ground of ‘being’ and ‘experience’. This avoids possible errors of pre-commitment to narrow or distorted foundation (e.g., categories or kinds such as mind, matter, ideas, or process). However, to commit to not going beyond neutrality would also be a pre-commitment. The chosen beginning permits a true picture of the world to emerge naturally. Whether the picture that emerges is actually true will be evaluated in parallel with the emergence.

A preliminary remark on esotericism is appropriate. To begin with being and experience may seem esoteric. However, being and experience are most immediate and neutral. They may seem esoteric because we are used to an approach from kinds. But it is the kinds that are esoteric because they are not truly known; familiarity with the concepts hides the esoteric nature of the objects.

Foundation

We begin with the neutral ground of ‘being’. It may seem natural to begin with the nature of the world. However, the extent, based in being, is placed first, as it enables a neutral and inclusive framework that enables seeing the nature of the world clearly and more completely than otherwise. This is efficient in that if discussion of the nature of the world came first, it would later be necessary to rework it.

Beginning with the neutral ground of being matches the earlier neutrality at outset as to what approach to foundation will be foundational.

The development

Let us now begin to develop the worldview of the narrative. As noted, we shall begin with the concepts of being and experience. Being is ‘the defining property of that which is’ in the most inclusive sense of the verb ‘is’. Experience is awareness in all its forms, including agency. These specify two aspects of the world—being, which is sometimes labeled objective, material, or instrumental; and experientiality, which has been labeled subjective and mental.

The extent of the universe

We now address the issue of the extent of the world or, more precisely, the extent of the universe.

As a preliminary, note that distinctions may be made between being, existence, and objecthood, but such distinctions are not necessary in this treatment (see the little manual for one system of the distinctions).

The core concepts of the worldview of the narrative began with experience and being and are now rounded out with beings (objects that have being), the universe (all that there is), the void (nothingness, the ‘empty’ being, the being that has no parts except itself), possibility (that whose existence is not a violation of the nature of being), and the greatest possibility (logical possibility).

Consequences

From these concepts, we may derive a real metaphysics, which is named the real metaphysics, and which (i) shows the universe and its beings to be limitless in variety, duration, and extension, and in what they realize (from dissolution to peak being)—thus, for example, our cosmos is one of limitlessly many, which are of limitless variety (particularly, the world and the ultimate must be interwoven) (ii) develops pathways to ultimate or peak being. The pathways address issues of pleasure and pain and of what is of value in being in the world and beyond.

The argument

The argument from the concepts to the metaphysics is almost absurdly simple—so simple, in fact, that it may go unnoticed at first and one may need to look back and think “what was that” before realizing that it is the ultimate that has been derived from—found amid—the primitive concepts.

Here is the bare argument—existence and nonexistence of the void are equivalent; therefore, the void may be taken to exist. Natural laws are patterns immanent in being and, therefore, are beings. Since the void contains no beings, it contains no laws. If the greatest possibility did not emerge from the void, that fact would be a law of the void. Therefore, the universe is the realization of the greatest possibility.

Further consequences

It follows—by the way—that the void and the universe are equivalent. Of course, from limitlessness, it also follows that birth and death are real but not absolute.

Formal perfection of the argument

The argument is formally perfect. This is because the concepts in the derivation—being through logic—need be only in an abstracted form, which retains only those features in the concept that do not suffer distortion. For example, the concept of being could refer to being-in-all-its-detail-and-richness, but here need only refer to the fact that there is existence. Similarly, the concept of universe requires only that there be all that there is (there are consistent systems of ‘all that there is’). Also, as the name of our presence to the world, there is experience. Note that a theory of meaning is implicit here.

The experiential nature of the universe

Let us now address the nature of the world. Two aspects—being and experience, the objective and the ideal or subjective have already been mentioned. We will find that the experiential, the subjective, is fundamental, while the material is derivative.

Because we are adapted to the world, we tend to find the objective side more real. But the objective is not more real than the subjective. It is seen that the subjective is most real—that we are experiential beings in a universe that is a field of experientiality (where primitive experience is of the same kind as our experience but lesser or zero in intensity, complexity, and originality).

To consider the essential experientiality of the world, imagine that the world is purely material, and that matter is not at all experiential or mental—this view might be labeled strict materialism. On this view, the universe cannot contain conscious beings. Therefore, the nature of being must include experientiality. Then, from the limitlessness of the world, all being(s) must be experiential (since it is possible), where primitive being may have minimal or zero but not null experientiality. From limitlessness all beings have some interaction—the universe is a field of experiential being in which animal and human beings are centers of bright, layered, complex, and focused experientiality with foresight and agency.

The world is a field of experiential being.

The material or objective aspect of the world

This does not imply that the material side is not real—the reality of the material side is derivative of the experiential in negotiating the world. However, our identity lies in our experientiality, and in seeking the ultimate it is our experiential being that must be transformed.

Supplementing the real metaphysics with pragmatic knowledge

The material side is instrumental. In realizing the ultimate, we may travel across and through cosmoses, ultimately transcending all. Such travel would begin in our world; it may begin with our science and philosophy, which may be admitted to the real metaphysics as a pragmatic complement to the perfect and certain side; the limitations of our science do not introduce real imperfection as it is the only and therefore the best in-process pragmatic or material instrument in seeking the ultimate.

Use of paradigms from science

Though our empirical science is not known to extend beyond our cosmos, and though it must be extremely limited in its range of application (over and above its limit as science of the material), paradigms derived from it are of greater and robust application. Thus, the paradigms of mechanism joined to probability and of variation and selection have application in cosmological evolution. The paradigms are not necessary but are robust in suggesting most likely pathways of emergence and emerged experiential and material forms.

The place of philosophy

From hypothesis formation, scientific theories cannot be strictly empirical. However, if we maintain contact between theory and observation, we may regard them as empirical enough for pragmatic purposes.

In this case, to arrive at the paradigms is philosophical in nature.

As noted above, while this is not deductive, it is not a limit on the real metaphysics.

Logic and science

Logic and science constitute a unity as follows. Given a concept that is intended as a picture (representation, fact, etc) of the world, it may fail to depict. The failure may lie solely in the concept—in that the concept cannot depict any possible state of affairs and it is logic that ensures the possibility of depiction in some possible (and therefore actual) world. The science of a world is what a logical concept must satisfy to depict a state of affairs in that world. Thus seen, logic and science constitute a unity that may be named general logic or philosophical logic.

Two objections arise. First, the ‘logic’ of science is inductive, while logic is deductive. This view is mistaken—and the mistake is a categorial error, i.e., an error of comparing different kinds (‘apples and oranges’). For, the comparison is between deduction under logic and inference to a scientific theory. On the other hand (i) inference to a logical system is inductive and (ii) inference under a scientific theory is deductive. Further, the certainty of logic-in-application is also limited by whether its elements truly represent the real.

A second objection is that logic (deduction) is about inference, while science is about both fact and inference. However, some facts can be brought under necessary inference. For example, that there is one universe and that there is experience are necessarily true facts about the world, which may also be seen as inference of zero steps.

A premise free demonstration of existence of the void and limitlessness of the universe

But those inferences are based on there being a world. Here is a necessary inference without assumption—it will be a deduction (i) of existence of the void and limitlessness of the universe (ii) without any premise. Either the world enters a void state or not. If it does, then the void exists. If it does not, the world is eternal, and therefore necessary. But by symmetry, the only world that can be eternal is one that admits all possibilities, which establishes (a) nonexistence of the void as contradictory (b) limitlessness of the universe. That is—the existence of the universe as limitless is a necessary fact which requires no premise.

Addressing the richness of the world

Received knowledge and wisdom attempt to address all known immediate and ultimate issues—for example, politics in the immediate, and human destiny in the ultimate. Here, we do not address the richness and the detail, which are treated in the little manual and a system of human knowledge.

The unity of knowledge (and action)

Look back and see that the following have been under purview—how things are described (detail and pattern), what is described, in what way and to what extent things and descriptions can be disentangled to result in objectivity, what is of value and how it impacts these issues, how to reason, and implications for and interactions with what we do. Also see that these elements constitute a unity.

A vital element of the unity is reflexivity or reflection on what has been thought and written; this invokes a currently perhaps overworked term ‘meta’. That is, a robust conception of meaning, metaphysics (and metametaphysics), epistemology, axiology (theory of value, especially ethics), logic, metanarrative, and action (agency) are one. Another way to say this is that the recognized vertical and horizontal distinctions among knowledge and its use have artificiality—they have reality but are not absolute. There is further detail on this holism in the little manual.

God?

Our manifestations are not limited to the forms seen in this world but range from primitive to ultimate. In the ultimate, we merge as peak being. That is, if we wish to give realist and ultimate meaning to the term ‘God’, we should recognize God as the world and its beings, especially in their process through peaks and dissolutions of being.

The means of realization

But while the material side is instrumental, it is the experiential side that is being-in-process-peaking-dissolving. Beginning with the tradition but interpreted in light of the real metaphysics, yoga-with-meditation, understood as transformation of experiential and material being, is essential to realization.

The empirical and rational nature of the development

From its foundation in experience and being, the core development is empirical; from the concepts of universe and being, it is all inclusive; from possibility, it is rational. It is argued that the empirical and rational elements are necessarily true. The concepts are deep, yet transparent.

Is the metaphysics paradoxical or self-contradictory?

In saying the void exists and does not exist, there is a seeming paradox. To say something exists or does not exist is to say there is a concept for which there is an object (it exists) or there is no object (it does not exist). To say of an object such as Earth, that it exists and does not exist, would be a contradiction, which, in standard logic is not allowable (i.e., it would lead to all statements to which the logic applies being true and false). However, for the void to exist and not exist is not a contradiction. That is, it is a contra-diction that does not entail a contra-real, which defuses the seeming paradox.

A simple resolution of the logical issue is to recognize that logics may have a limited ‘universe’ of statements to which they apply and ‘the void exists’ is not to be admitted to the logical universe of standard propositional calculus. A parallel resolution is to introduce a three valued logic that does admit ‘the void exists’ to its logical universe (see the little manual).

That there are ‘true contradictions’ may retain at least an air of paradox for readers. Let us therefore repeat how the idea is defused. The term ‘contradiction’ is used in two senses. The first is that of the sense of the term which is contra-diction, i.e., that of two assertions opposing one another. The second is the referent of the two dictions in the world which (i) may be a contra-real (it is raining here and now, and it is not raining here and now) (ii) a real (the void exists and does not exist). True contradictions have been called dialetheia and dialetheism is the position that there are dialetheias.

Are the concepts of the real metaphysics definitive?

What of the concepts of the metaphysics—being, beings and so on? Are they the ultimate realization of the concepts? If a metaphysical system goes beyond direct experience, the meaning and reality of the concepts occur in the context of the system. As the system is ultimate, the present concepts are one ultimate realization. That alternative meanings may be given, either intuitively and vaguely, or in terms of some other system, invalidates neither the present nor alternative meanings. It is the system that has full meaning and reality, rather than its concepts taken individually.

Doubt

Despite this formal certainty, doubt is essential.

From the magnitude of the conclusions above and the fact that the derivation is not directly empirical, it is imperative to entertain doubt. Since core conclusion is that the universe is realization of the possible, its consistency cannot be in doubt—the doubt concerns whether the possible is indeed realized.

Attitudes toward the real metaphysics

Therefore, from doubt, in addition to the attitude of certainty, appropriate alternative attitudes to the metaphysics are also developed.

Three such attitudes—alternative to proof and certainty—are appropriate (i) the real metaphysics as a powerful postulational system (ii) the real metaphysics as an existential principle of thought, feeling, and action—which is interactively functional in realizing a potential ultimate and in improving the quality of meaning (of life) and in that we ought not to only wait for perfection in knowledge to act on what is reasonable (i.e., perfection is a valid ideal but not the only ideal) (iii) the real metaphysics as a conceptual and instrumental framework toward understanding the universe and realization of ultimate being.

The term ‘only’ in the phrase ‘we ought not to only wait for perfection’ above is significant. If we were to wait for perfection in knowledge, it might encourage passivity in relation to the ultimate. If we were not to want perfection at all it might encourage passivity with regard to truth. Inclusion of ‘only’ avoids passivity altogether; and it encourages action with regard to truth and achievement in both the immediate and the ultimate.

Note that though doubt was a motive to consider these attitudes, they have value in themselves, and are significant, even if we are certain about the truth of the metaphysics.

Our place in the universe

The real metaphysics shows the ultimates that may be achieved and a beginning toward their achievement; we are limitless beings but may not have recognized or manifested our limitlessness; as long as we experience ourselves as limited, we will find our knowledge and technology limited and realization will remain tentative and experimental; yet we now know that these limits—as well as the limits of birth and death—will be overcome. The place of the beginning is our world; its time is always now; the seeking values the immediate and the ultimate; there are ways and pathways to the ultimate.

Return to the top