The Way of Being

Home

Contents

Plan

1	The way in

1.1	The Way of Being and its sources

1.2	History and world-paradigms

1.2.1	Secular paradigms

1.2.2	Transsecular paradigms

1.2.3	Myth and dogma

1.2.4	On conflict between secular and transsecular thought

1.3	The Way, reason, emotion, and value

1.4	We are experiential beings in an experiential universe

1.4.1	Introduction

1.4.2	Experience and significant meaning

1.4.3	On use of the term experience

1.4.4	Elements of (an) experience

1.4.5	On concept and linguistic meaning

1.4.6	About meanings

1.4.7	What knowledge is

1.4.8	Seamlessness of the nature and content of knowledge

1.4.9	Unity of method and content

1.4.10	The universe is experiential

1.5	On reading the way

1.5.1	The system

1.5.2	Some meanings

1.5.3	A difficulty of two levels of knowledge

1.5.4	A difficulty of apparent contradiction

1.5.5	The universe at large

1.5.6	An observation on current academic metaphysics

2	Being

2.1	Being and beings

2.2	Validity

2.3	Limitlessness

2.4	Possibility

2.5	A generalized conception of logic

3	Metaphysics

3.1	What metaphysics is

3.1.1	What metaphysics is

3.1.2	Validity

3.1.3	Relation to received conceptions

3.1.4	Metaphysics as the knowledge discipline

3.2	Ideal

3.2.1	Introduction

3.2.2	The system

3.3	Real

3.4	The experiential universe

3.5	The ultimate

4	Pathways

4.1	Enlightened ways

4.2	A balance of emotion, reason, sharing, and action

4.3	Pleasure and pain

4.4	Effective pathways

4.5	About religion

4.6	The place of ways from tradition

4.7	Path programs

The Way of Being

Plan

Center-top – out-down.

Write.

New site.

The way in

This chapter is motivation and groundwork for the later chapters. It is semi-formal—some concepts will be clarified and some tentative claims shown true later. The reason and foundation of the later chapters through ‘pathways’ stand independently.

The chapter on pathways may be renamed, e.g., as realization.

The Way of Being and its sources

The Way of Being is a way of shared discovery and realization of the ultimate. It will be shown that the actual ultimate of the universe is or achieves the greatest possible conception of the ultimate (thus we will call the view to be developed ‘doubly ultimate’).

Consider using the alternate terms ‘ultimately ultimate’ or ‘reflexively ultimate’.

The sources of The Way of Being are in experience, action, and reflection and thought on experience, action, and the history of human thought and endeavor. Its central and demonstrated tenets are (a) that the universe and all beings are limitless—i.e., limitlessly greater than is commonly thought (b) that there is a way for (human) beings, in, for, and from our world to the ultimate (c) that doubt will arise, may be addressed, and has resolution in validating sustenance of doubt, confidence, and action.

History and world-paradigms

The history of human endeavor is a mix of acceptance, opportunity, and endeavor. The endeavor is often in terms of world-paradigms. Two kinds of world-paradigm are secular and transsecular.

Secular paradigms

The secular focuses on the world of experience, saying that that is where the real and meaning are to be found, and that a world beyond is nonexistent, unimportant, or only of spiritual significance that is symbolic.

Transsecular paradigms

The transsecular sees a world beyond common experience, which is as or more real and important than the secular world, may be regarded as salvific, directs worldly behavior toward the transsecular, which it may posit in terms of higher self or, either speculatively or dogmatically, in terms of a higher place and higher being beyond our world.

Myth and dogma

The transsecular paradigms are mythic when they speculate on or posit a higher place and being; they are dogmatic when they insist on their posits. The secular is dogmatic if it insists that there is nothing beyond the world of experience, for we lack experience of its existence or nonexistence; therefore, as far as knowledge is lacking, the valid position toward existence of a beyond is neutrality.

If the paradigms do not make the insistences noted above, they are not dogmatic.

It is, however, an aspect of human nature, perhaps relating to ego and power, that the insistences are often made and hard to overcome.

On conflict between secular and transsecular thought

The coexistence of the insistences is limiting to both secular and transsecular thought.

The transsecular is pushed further into dogma. The secular often reactively dismisses regions beyond experience with the thought that the possibility is nothing but religious superstition.

The Way, reason, emotion, and value

The Way of Being attempts – successfully, as is demonstrated – to go beyond the secular without falling into dogma or myth. That is, the way of being develops a reasoned framework for endeavor.

That the framework is reasoned is not to ignore but rather to include feeling, emotion, and value – particularly, ethics and aesthetics.

We are experiential beings in an experiential universe

Introduction

We argue tentatively that we are experiential beings in an experiential universe, with an explanation of what this means. We note that this will be demonstrated later and explain why the demonstration must be deferred.

Experience and significant meaning

Experience is awareness in all its modes and kinds—perceptual, conceptual, and feeling, and passive and active. It includes consciousness, will, and agency. Without experience we are (effectively) nonexistent—all that is significant registers in experience (later, we will be able to drop the term ‘effectively’).

Note that the term ‘significant’ is in the same family as ‘meaningful’ and ‘meaning of life’.

On use of the term experience

Experience is preferred to consciousness or awareness because (a) the sense as defined above is broader (b) consciousness as animal consciousness is limited in the directions of both higher and primitive consciousness is limited and this limitation will later be found significant (c) the present sense of experience has some common and philosophical use (d) in this work it is not intended to significantly enter the current – 2025 – philosophical conversation on consciousness.

Elements of (an) experience

An experience has the following aspects (a) ‘experience of’ – subjective and as-if of mind, a concept (including perceptual content); (b) ‘the experienced’ – an intended object, real, apparent, or fictional, and as-if material; which are related by or in (c) ‘the experience’. In pure experience, there is no intended object but there may be potential objects.

On concept and linguistic meaning

Given a referential concept, the concept, and its possible objects, perhaps by use, constitute a meaning. If the concept is designated by a symbol, simple or compound, the meaning is a linguistic meaning. In linguistic meaning, the structure of a compound meaning may mirror or stand in for the concept.

Note that we use the term ‘concept meaning’ to distinguish it from ‘significant meaning’, above.

About meanings

We have given definitions of experience and concept meaning. In common use, common terms have a variety of senses and definitions.

Though we do not argue that those uses are invalid, in this work, it is essential to follow meanings as they are introduced here. The system of meanings that unfolds in this work has emerged in iterative analysis and has approached a stable and (as shown) state possessed of (in some ways) ultimacy.

What knowledge is

Knowledge is realized meaning, in the case that the object is real.

Seamlessness of the nature and content of knowledge

Thus, we have conceived knowledge as a mental picture of (something in) the world. Two issues are (i) the validity of a given picture (ii) whether knowledge is or should indeed be seen as a picture, for that too is a picture. To address these issues of knowledge (epistemology) independently of the content of knowledge (e.g., metaphysics, ethics) may promote distortion of the nature of and criteria for knowledge and where emphasis in the study of knowledge ought to be placed. This is because knowledge is in the world and therefore the study of these issues is not just impacted or informed by metaphysics, but the issues are also metaphysical. For this reason, in this work, the study epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics will be interwoven. We may say that knowledge, world, and action are a seamless unity.

Unity of method and content

Thus, method and content of knowledge emerge as one (it follows that knowledge and action are one). It is of course not argued that the discovery side of method is more than suggestive in general; however, it does emerge here that iterative discovery may approach finality in some important and fundamental cases; and that, in this work, the justification side of method has absolute foundation, in the important cases of the ideal and real metaphysics that follow.

The universe is experiential

Just as we are (effectively) nonexistent without experience, that the world always appears to us in experience, suggests that the universe may be (effectively) experiential. To show this would require (a) extension of the meaning of ‘experience’, not to new kinds, but in the direction of the primitive (and perhaps also in the direction of the ‘higher’) (b) demonstration. It will be shown that the universe is experiential, but this demonstration is of necessity deferred till after development of a metaphysics (and associated world-paradigm). Note that world as experiential allows matter and mind at least in an as-if sense.

On reading the way

The purpose of this section is to point out and suggest resolutions to difficulties of understanding that may arise in reading the way.

It is also an informal defense of the metaphysics of the work.

The system

To understand the way it will be helpful (i) to follow meanings as defined here and to understand that while this is not a rejection of other meanings, it limits their relevance here (ii) to see that the meanings stand together as a system – a kind of holism – and that it will take time to build up a picture, intuition, or gestalt of the system (iii) that this system may be seen as alien to the readers explicit or tacit world-paradigms but that this is not a rejection of what is valid in those paradigms—rather, those valid parts find a place in the world-paradigm of this work (iv) that while doubts will be natural, the paradigm of this work is internally and externally consistent, has proofs, and, further, doubt is encouraged as a means of existential living and realizing the ultimate that is revealed in the work.

In that the gestalt and its validity via definition, observation, and proof will emerge on reading, a second reading is advisable to help confirm (or reject) the picture and to address concerns that arise on initial reading.

Some meanings

Some central terms of metaphysics here are being, beings, universe, void, cosmos, law, possibility, logic, doubt, metaphysics itself, and method. A preview of their meanings and reasons for choice of meaning is as follows.

Being

A central concept of metaphysics, generally, is ‘substance’, seen as the essence of things (some alternatives to substance as essence are relation, process, spirit, and trope). Substance as essence has two senses (i) the substance of everything, e.g., matter or mind or both (ii) the substances of particular things, e.g., a horse. Here, we are interested in #i. A problem of substance is that to think either mind or matter or both are the substance of everything or even that there is an (are) unspecified substance(s), is to commit to the nature of things before we know the nature of things, which is prejudicial to truth and knowledge.

The concept of ‘being’ is that of existence – the is-ness of things which, if used, says just that things are what they are and their nature – is-ness – is what it is. That is, ‘being’ says nothing in advance of knowing, is term at the level of substance, but is an empty term in that it says nothing in advance, is non-prejudicial, and above all, is not committed to saying nothing, for it allows the nature of things to emerge. That is ‘being’ is reflexively neutral—it begins with neutrality but is not committed to neutrality. This is its strength. Its potential weakness is that as it says nothing to begin, unlike substance, it will not be able to say anything.

However, as we shall see to use being is immensely powerful.

Some beings

Since the section is informal, in the interest of brevity, we need not be as precise as in the formal development beginning with being.

The universe

Here, the universe is all being.

Some notions of ‘universe’ in common use are that it is (i) all matter and energy over all time and space (or spacetime) (ii) tacitly, at least, ‘all spacetime’ is the spacetime of the big-bang cosmos or, perhaps, the multiverse (which is a collection of cosmoses similar to ours in following the same form of physics embedded in a quantum theoretic matrix) (iii) not spirit.

Note that every one of these notions is limiting regarding what ‘all being’ could be (and that is consistent with what is observed, for we do not know what lies beyond either in time and space or in sub-measured interaction with our cosmos).

Is the universe matter-energy over spacetime or is there a greater background of non-specific nature from which as-if matter-energy-space-time-spirit-if-any emerge? Our conception is neutral to this issue therefore non-prejudicial.

A common issue regarding the existence of the universe is its cause. A theological answer has been that it must be spirit. This answer stipulates, tacitly, universe as material, spirit as something else – another substance, necessity – which creates or causes the universe. If substance, the chain of causation must move back without end. If necessity, what is its justification?

The present notion cuts through these issues. As all being, there is no other being and so the cause cannot be another being, e.g., spirit. The cause is either no cause, possibility, or necessity.

Is the metaphysics to be developed able to resolve the issue of cause? It is and based in grounding in being and universe as all being, the resolution is that the ‘cause’ of the universe, not in time, regarded as all being over whatever extensional parameters there may be (e.g., space and time), is necessity.

Further, those markers emerge as extension-change (i.e., a primitive to spacetime).

Natural law

A nature law is a reading of a pattern in a cosmos or other coherent domain. If we allow the ‘law’ itself to be the pattern, then, noting that the pattern is immanent in the cosmos, it exists, and is a being, so the law is a being.

That is, laws are beings.

The void

The void is the absence of being – the being that contains no beings. Conclusions follow.

As it contains no beings, its existence and non-existence are equivalent, and it may therefore be taken to exist. Note, that we cannot make such a conclusion with conceptions of nothing based in a material world, e.g., as a classical vacuum is not a material thing, and the quantum vacuum is not nothing.

As the void contains no beings, it contains no laws – no laws are immanent in the void. If there is a possible state that did not emerge from the void that would constitute a law. Therefore, all possible states emerge from the void.

Conclusion – the universe is the realization of all possibility.

Possibility

We will find that the greatest possibility is logical possibility. Therefore, all logical possibilities obtain in the universe.

The conclusion is therefore that the universe is limitless, conceptually and in fact. This will of course be counter to paradigmatic intuition.

Doubt

Particular doubts

The doubt regarding paradigmatic intuition is resolved in noting that the universe is limitlessly greater than the universe of paradigmatic intuition.

A related doubt is that we do not see all possibilities. The resolution is that we live in a limited cosmos, which is one possibility, so we should not expect to see all possibilities. On the other hand, all possibilities implies that there are limitlessly many cosmoses or domains, all possible, and their collection is all possibility.

General doubt

This concerns proof of existence of the void and the consequence of limitlessness. The resolution is to note that (i) the conclusions are internally and externally (i.e., logically and empirically) consistent (ii) that there is proof and if doubt remains then ‘the greatest possible universe’ may be taken either as an existential attitude toward being-in-the-universe (or both).

Imagining the universe

It is difficult to see how we can describe the universe in anything approaching our cosmological singularity (big bang) descriptions of our paradigmatic universe.

At minimum it would take exploration of logic, possible worlds, and the possibility of physical law generally.

Though we touch on some primitive but robust possibilities, this remains an open project.

Metaphysics and method

Metaphysics

What have been doing above is metaphysics and we shall call it metaphysics. Generally, there are doubts about what metaphysics should be thought of as, what falls under it, and even whether it is possible.

We will define metaphysics as knowledge of the real and it is evident—

That we are doing metaphysics, and it is therefore possible,

The present definition is strongly related to and includes most of what is received as metaphysics; therefore, we would not say that we should not employ the present definition,

As it will entail examination of its method (already implicit above), knowledge, value, and logic, metaphysics is all justified knowledge viewed as a single discipline (the various received disciplines, as far as reasonable and valid, would be seen as sub-disciplines).

Method

We are seeing – have seen – that metaphysics done properly includes its own method. This emerges from our choice of fundamental concepts and this oneness of method and content is both explicit in parts and implicit elsewhere in the development.

A difficulty of two levels of knowledge

The levels

What has emerged is that there are two levels of knowledge (both to be elaborated in the main development)—

Experiential knowledge of the world or cosmos including science

A higher level regarding both kind and detail. Regarding kind (i) there is neutrality toward kind which (ii) allows both the experiential and the transcendent (and possibilities of as-if matter, as-if mind, and as-if spirit) (iii) while we are limited beings on the experiential level as limitless we must also transcend this level and so birth and death, though real, cannot be absolute (iv) it embeds the experiential level. Regarding detail there are, e.g., the limitlessly many cosmoses and domains and the hierarchy of levels of being to be developed.

The difficulty

It may not be easy to think at both levels. I find that despite the suspension at the higher level of such notions as universal causation (perhaps applicable in our cosmos) I still find myself doubting various conclusions that are contrary to such experiential level intuition.

I am able to temporarily transcend this problem of intuition by reminding myself of the two levels and the embedding of the lower in the higher. But though it occurs less frequently, the primitive intuition returns since I was inculcated into it in my development and intuition. The problem is particularly acute in interaction with others, for community reinforces standard beliefs and world-paradigms. I have adopted the intention to be alert to the problem of intuition pro-actively and suggest that the reader do the same.

A difficulty of apparent contradiction

The existence of two levels above is a seeming contradiction, which has been defused above.

Another seeming contradiction is that the void exists and does not exist.

This is problematic, for in standard logic, a single contradiction implies that all assertions must be true. And since the contradiction of an assertion is an assertion, all contradictions must be true.

How is this resolved? For manifest objects, to exist means that there is a manifest object for the concept, and to not exist means that there is no manifest object for the concept. However, since the void is not manifest, ‘to not exist’ does not contradict ‘exists’. Thus, the meaning of existence has changed – must change to – there is existence corresponding to a concept if (i) the object is not the void and there is a manifest object or (ii) the object is the void.

There are numerous apparent contradictions in the development that are related to this one, including the apparent contradiction of two levels, and their resolution is similar or identical to the present resolution.

For more on such contradictions, see Dialetheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), where the resolution is to accept dialetheia (true contradictions), which necessitates non-standard, e.g., three-valued logic (true, false, and both). Also see dialetheia (this site; also see this, a record of notes while hiking in the Trinity Alps, 2024), where it is argued that (i) while dialetheia are useful (ii) it is almost certain dialetheia are the result of artifacts such as conflation of meaning (as in the case of existence of the void) and insufficient discrimination.

As an example of insufficient discrimination consider a time when it is raining in Beijing but not in Kolkata. Then, the following are true—‘It is raining in Beijing.’ and ‘It is not raining in Kolkata.’ We might therefore say ‘It is raining, and it is not raining.’ This would not be a dialetheia even though it seems like one. The example is of course, not subtle. A more subtle one is as follows. A lamp is turned on and off at an infinite rate (the concern is logical, so physical possibility is not a concern and, in any case, under limitlessness there are cosmoses with physics such that it is possible). The apparent dialetheia is that the lamp is on and off at the same time (this is related to the Thomson Lamp Paradox) – since ‘off’ is ‘not on’, the lamp is on and not on at the same time. The resolution is that there is no situation in which the lamp is both on and off but more than one (infinitely many) situations are simultaneous (the usual intuition that ‘simultaneous’ means ‘same situation’ is now seen to be invalid for an infinite rate of switching and it is this intuition that is the source of the lack of discrimination).

The universe at large

We have seen that the universe is the realization of all possibility—i.e., what is allowed by logic.

This is at least as large as the most inclusive notion of the level iv multiverse (Wikipedia)—“ This level considers all *cosmoses* to be equally real which can be described by different mathematical structures” (‘universes’ in the quotation has been here replaced by ‘cosmoses’).

Here the universe is a (described by) single logical structure. It is important that the language of logic here is not limited to a discrete symbolic system and not even to a ‘language’ whose collection of symbols has a magnitude of the order of the real continuum.

Thinking about this universe defies intuition in a number of ways. It is most likely unimaginably large relative to human imagination. It is not a causal domain – cause arises within some cosmoses but not among the cosmoses or in their formation except, as seen earlier, if we consider necessity to be a cause. Thus when a being or a cosmos returns to potential, that potential is not a being—in a causal domain potential would be a being but causation does not pertain to or in the universe as a whole. That is, ‘potential’ is no more than a way of speaking—a symbol for the possible or the necessary.

We have a range of intuitions as material, animal, human, and cultural beings. To understand the present work it will be important to keep in mind that (i) there are realms of the world in which such intuitions hold (ii) except that the possible is realized, the intuitions fail for the universe at large (iii) there ought to be no conflict between the ideas #i and #ii for the latter includes the former as limited expressions of the real.

An observation on current academic metaphysics

The purpose of this section is to point out how modern academics limits understanding of the universe and, so, how to overcome that limiting nature.

Except for philosophers of a theological persuasion, much modern philosophy and metaphysics have the following characteristics

They are secular in nature, seeking foundation in and limited by actual human experience,

There is a tendency to assume that modern science—especially physics and biology—has discovered the boundary of the universe and of the real and of human nature. Particularly, in thinking of metaphysics, it is often assumed that the universe is the world as originating in a cosmological singularity,

There is an attempt at rigor, informed by careful thought and modern symbolic logic,

The analyses are often ‘micro-analytical’ in nature—i.e., careful and logical analysis of limited domains,

They are in the tradition of rejection of systematic metaphysical pictures of the whole world and the place of experiential beings in it, they forward ad hoc hypotheses regarding their subject matters.

It is important to note that these comments are an over generalization – certainly not all twentieth and twenty first century philosophy is of this nature, yet the characterization above is rather pervasive. Philosophy practiced as above is useful—the analyses in themselves and in relation to one another do count as progress and would contribute toward systematic metaphysics. However, the pervasion tends to retard philosophy and metaphysics that fully understand and further the human endeavor.

Further they tend to dilute philosophy itself which is perhaps the result of too much publication. Note that micro-analysis is not new – there is much of it in Plato’s works where it is in parallel with broad and high level thought.

Those who would understand the present work are advised, not to abandon the modern practice, but to not be limited by it.

Being

Being and beings

A being is something that is the real object of a concept, i.e., something that exists. Being is the characteristic of beings-as-beings.

The universe is all being (over all extension and duration).

Definition does not imply existence. What if everything is illusion? Then illusions exist and the universe is the collection of illusions. That is, the universe exists.

A cosmos is a domain of causation which is temporarily or experientially isolated from other such domains.

A law of nature is our reading of a pattern in, e.g., a cosmos. The pattern is immanent in being and if we understand the law as the pattern rather than just the reading, the law is immanent in being. That is, a law is a being.

The void is the absence of being—the being that contains no beings.

The existence and nonexistence of the void are equivalent. Therefore, the void may be taken to exist (which is the same as saying ‘the void exists’).

Since the void contains no beings and laws are beings, there are no laws of the void.

Existence of the void is the fundamental premise of the way. Therefore, it ought to be doubted. However, it is without doubt consistent with observation. Since there is no contradiction in taking the void to exist, its existence and conclusions from it may be regarded as (i) axiomatic of reality (ii) an existential hypothesis to inform human endeavor.

A proof that is not dependent on the meaning of ‘the void’ will also counter doubt. The proof is as follows. If the void does not exist, the universe is eternal. Therefore, its existence is necessary. Further it is absolutely necessary for the necessity refers to no other fact or being. By symmetry, therefore, there is no reason that one possible state (e.g., our cosmos) should exist and not others. Therefore, the void – and every possible state – exists. In addition to showing existence of the void, this also shows that the universe is limitless in that every possible state exists.

In this sense, the universe is the greatest possible universe – it is ultimate in an ultimate sense.

But since the void may be seen as adjoined to any and every being, all beings are limitless – all beings, including human beings, realize limitlessness. How is this possible – is it not a contradiction that two beings should both realize the ultimate? No, for they (would) merge in doing so. While we are limited beings on timeframes of a human being and even our cosmos, our mergence occurs on greater timeframes and especially in eternity. That transtemporal picture is balanced by the following temporal picture.

There are pathways in, for, and from our world to the ultimate—peak being that sees, knows, and is all. Birth and death are real but not absolute. Beyond concrete being, e.g., in the void, there is potential. Birth is realization of potential and death is return to potential. If we do not see this in our limited forms, we can think it; and we will see it in our higher forms.

More on pathways, emotion, reason, pleasure, and pain later.

Validity

Allowing that even if all is illusion, let us make the validity of the development so far clear. First, it is empirical, for the universe exists as observation (that there is experience of experience is beyond question, for there is no knowing that there is experience without experience of experience). Second the realization of the definitions of being, beings, universe, and void, once the empirical character of the universe is established, is given via abstraction—i.e., those concepts are lacking detail which is subject to distortion. Finally, the inferences are of an elementary analytic nature—i.e., consequences of the meanings of terms.

But how can we address the issue of illusion?

All is illusion is self-contradictory. That there is illusion is saying that something is real.

The entire universe cannot be nothing but illusion.

But how can we argue against the idea that most things are illusory?

If most things are illusory, then there is no conceptual distinction between ‘real’ and ‘illusory’.

Some things that are illusory are pure illusion, dreaming, or hallucination and so on.

However, the meaning of the assertion that ‘our seemingly real secular world is illusion’ is that seeing it as real is (i) an approximation (ii) harbored in a greater truth (of which some examples have been given, e.g., the real but non-absolute nature of birth and death).

To say more let us consider some examples of possible indefiniteness in what we see as real. Prime examples are (i) philosophical solipsism the view that the world is nothing but the content of one’s mind (while the view is rarely held, it has been used by many philosophers as a tool to sharpen their view and analysis of the real) (ii) the example of Bertrand Russell that what I see as the world and its beings may have been created a moment ago complete with apparent history and memories (iii) and extension of Russell’s example in which the world is always created a moment ago, destroyed moment later, only to be created again in another moment. How shall we address such examples?

As earlier, if they are true, then we might as well think and behave, of course with reservation at least until later revelation, that the apparent is the real. In the extended example from Russell, again with reservation, there would be no distinction between the view of the example and our ‘normal’ view.

We accept and think that, in part because the illusory views are ‘bizarre’ and in part because we seem to find our normal view dependable, that, for pragmatic or probabilistic purposes, the normal view is true. Here, it ought to be recognized that the usual normal views are (a) approximate in their region of validity (b) have a limited region of validity, which (c) is contained within the doubly ultimate paradigm of The Way of Being.

Later, in developing the real metaphysics, we will argue that (a) there are bizarre worlds and realities but (b) their real and certainly effective population of the universe is small and cognitively negligible.

Limitlessness

Another proof of limitlessness of is as follows. If a possible state did not emerge from the void, that would constitute a law of the void. But since the void has no laws, all possible states must emerge from the void.

Possibility

Consider a concept that is referential in form and ask how it may fail to capture an intended real object (or being). The failure may be (i) in inadequately or incorrectly capturing the object (ii) entirely of the concept in that it is of its nature (i.e., without reference to the world) to be incapable of capturing any object. The failure in case #ii is one of self-coherence or logic. The failure in case #i lies in the nature of the world and is therefore one of valid experience or its generalization as science. Without logic a concept or assertion cannot be of science. But with logic, it will (since it limits possibility) not be of some worlds but will (by limitlessness) be of some (other) worlds. Thus, science presumes logic and without logic there can be no object at all (unless nonexistent objects are allowed).

Thus, the greatest possibility is logical possibility. However, we ought not to presume that our logics capture all logical possibility (i) because of possible errors in some of our logical systems (ii) because we have not discovered all forms of expression, even discrete forms.

Science, therefore, is an artifact of our conceptual power and immanent in the world. On the other hand, logic is entirely an artifact of conceptual power, the result of our ability to see the world via concepts and correcting errors of coherence in the concepts.

Put another way, science is of the world (and concepts), but logic is entirely of the mind (in terms of concepts).

In the void, however, there is neither science nor logic.

A generalized conception of logic

The scientific method is one of establishing facts, devising theories to explain and to have predictive ability over a domain of facts, and of showing explanation and prediction over within and to some extent without that domain. When prediction fails, old theories are abandoned, new theories sought. Thus, science finds useful but not absolutely true theories (on this model).

We think of logic as necessary conclusions from premises to conclusions and thus different from science in that it is (i) only about inference (and not establishment of primary facts) (ii) about certain inference.

However, that is based on comparison of deduction under logic with establishment of scientific theories. We ought to compare the establishment of logics with the establishment of scientific theories.

If we do that, we find that establishment of logics is by no means a direct process and the results, while certain over domains of expressions in simple cases, by no means certain in general.

But it is still the case that logics are in operation, only about inference. We can enhance the conception of logic to eliminate that difference.

How do we establish facts in science? It is by no means always cut and dried. Immense effort and creativity often go into measurement. Even then, establishment of fact needs corroboration and sometimes errors are found and need correction.

Now consider, for example, knowledge that being refers to something – the property of beings-as-beings, i.e., that being is existence. Although it may be doubted, it was established by abstraction and by noting that experience of experience is necessarily factual—and the result is not just that it is a probable fact, capable of correction, but an absolute fact. That is—there are some certain facts, from which, by logic, lead to certain conclusions.

But now consider that there are some certain facts and conclusions of science (e.g., while exact prediction regarding the solar system seems impossible, some generalities are certainly true) and that, while the elementary logics have limited domains, ‘higher’ logics may be uncertain and corrigible.

Seen in this way, science and an enhanced notion of logic to include fact establishment, may be joined under an umbrella which we may name ‘logic’ (not preferable due to having the term do double duty), ‘general logic’, or some other appropriate name, e.g., capitalized terms ‘Logic’, ‘Science’, or ‘Metaphysics’.

But there is more. While the conclusion above regarding being was contingent upon it being necessarily true from experience being either real or illusion, that we experience (and necessary if given experience), are there any absolutely necessary facts, i.e., ones that are true and do not depend on another fact? We have seen that existence of the void, and some subsequent inferences are examples.

Thus, a notion of general logic is one that bifurcates into logic as usual understood but enhanced by fact and science as usually understood where (i) while logic emphasizes certainty and necessity but also has uncertainty and contingency (ii) while science emphasizes less than certainty and contingency, it also has cases of certainty and necessity.

We have found this situation by reflection and on logics and science and a small enhancement of the concept of logic (to include fact).

But why or how does it obtain? We suggest that a distinction between logics and science obtains because, in disagreement with Quine obtains, the analytic and synthetic are distinct at poles of a semantic continuum, but, in agreement with Quine, merge away from the poles.

Metaphysics

What metaphysics is

What metaphysics is

Metaphysics is knowledge of the real.

As we have been doing metaphysics, it is clearly possible.

Validity

The method so far is abstraction to perfect objects (beings, universe, etc.) and perfect inference.

Relation to received conceptions

The present definition is strongly related to and includes most of what is received as metaphysics; therefore, we would not say that we should not employ the present definition,

Metaphysics as the knowledge discipline

As it covers the entire universe as well as knowledge as part of the universe, metaphysics is the knowledge discipline, covering the academic disciplines and more, and including method.

Ideal

Make limited reference to the earlier sections pertaining to the metaphysics. Copy or redistribute the material.

Introduction

The metaphysics so far is an ideal metaphysics in that it has employed only abstracted concepts of things and knowledge of things.

Let us outline some main conclusions.

It will not be necessary to repeat informal developments of the way in that are part of the material below as they are justified by the development in being.

The system

The universe has identity; its being (manifest, ‘something’), and all the following are necessary (necessity is the ‘cause’ of all being); the universe and its identity are limitless in variety, extension, duration, peak (and peak variety and magnitude), and dissolution; that is, there are cosmoses without limit to number and variety, which can be seen as lying in a void matrix (not the quantum vacuum); individuals inherit this limitlessness, which is not a contradiction as individuals merge in peak being (rather than inheritance, the conclusion may also be reached in noting that the void may be seen as part of all beings); birth and death are real but not absolute—that is in being born, we emerge from potential and in dying we return to it; if we do not see this, it is because we are limited beings, relatively ‘low’ on the hierarchy of being—yet, as the present analysis shows, we are capable of seeing it via thought; there are pathways in, for, and from our world to the ultimate—to peak being.

Real

The ideal above shows that the ultimate is achieved, but not how.

To the ideal system, adjoin pragmatically but not perfectly faithful system of (human) knowledge. The ideal shows the ultimate and illuminates the pragmatic and the pragmatic illustrates the ideal and guides realization. Though the join is not perfectly faithful, that kind of perfection is not necessary, for the join is the best we have in our human form. If we accept realization as an ultimate value, the join is perfect relative to that value. This seamless join is named the ‘real metaphysics’, which we will abbreviate as ‘the metaphysics’.

The metaphysics has a (as-if) material and an (as-if) mental (‘of experience’) side. The material side includes the system of cosmoses, our material world – and its science and technology.

Make limited reference to the earlier sections pertaining to the metaphysics. Copy or redistribute the material.

The experiential universe

Make limited reference to the earlier sections on experience. Copy or redistribute the material. Here focus on showing the universe as experiential and developing a hierarchy of experiential being.

If the universe were a single substance universe, that substance could be either mind or matter as it has both characteristics. It could not be a dual substance universe, for the notion of substance that two (metaphysical) substances do not interact. However, it could be experience itself.

What other kinds could there be? If simple objects are seen as material, then experience is a relation between simple objects, and another kind would be relation of relation which is relation. There is therefore no other kind.

That is, if the universe were a substance universe the substance would be experience.

However, the universe is not a substance universe. The void is ‘nothing’ and the universe is equivalent to or ‘comes from’ the void. There is no substance unless we were to view the void or necessity as substance (similarly, we could view any being as substance, since the being is the void adjoined to itself).

We have seen that we are essentially experiential—without experience we would be as-if dead (at most) and that experience is relational.

Further, from limitlessness, even though elementary objects may seem non-experiential, experience, in some primitive form (relative to our conscious experience), may inhabit the elementary objects.

Thus the universe may be seen as essentially experiential.

There is no need to further explain matter or mind as such (omitting detailed structure, of course). They are necessary.

As there are no further kinds, the universe is experiential.

The ultimate

There is a hierarchy of experiential being; we are on a low or middle rung; the peaks are states which approach knowing and being all; there is a limit of the peaks; our being merges in those peaks. Thus if we would use the term ‘god’, it would not designate something remote, for we are part of it—of its process of peaking and dissolving.

Pathways

This chapter may be renamed ‘realization’.

The following is paste special from earlier and shall be supplemented as noted in the comment below.

There are pathways in, for, and from our world to the ultimate—peak being that sees, knows, and is all. Birth and death are real but not absolute. Beyond concrete being, e.g., in the void, there is potential. Birth is realization of potential and death is return to potential. If we do not see this in our limited forms, we can think it; and we will see it in our higher forms.

More on pathways, emotion, reason, pleasure, and pain later.

Enlightened ways

The aim of an enlightened, healthy, or effective lifeway or pathway is effective realization of the ultimate, beginning with its best form in this world (i.e., the world of the seeking beings).

That is, there is dual focus on quality of life in our world and the ultimate. The effective path recognizes that experiential human being is discrete over ‘ordinary time’ (e.g., lives) but ultimate – peak being – over long enough times or at a level of description above time; that is, birth and death are real but not absolute—locally but not absolutely real.

In this world the individual experience—perception, thought, feeling, will, and action—is the focus of ends – political, economic, moral and other (positively because it is where all significance lies and negatively by elimination of inanimate / non-feeling objects). Groups and institutions are important, but their importance derives from the significance of individual experience. In the universe at large, experience itself is the focus and generator of all ends (and, thus, ‘inanimate objects’ are included because, when primitive experience is taken into consideration, they are not essentially non-experiential).

A healthy pathway (physical, mental, communal, and spiritual) attends to needs and effective action individual, society, and world, in meditative, material, and immersive aspects of the dimensions on a path to the ultimate. A healthy life emphasizes the needs of the individual and society in this world and on the way to the ultimate.

A balance of emotion, reason, sharing, and action

Enlightenment seeks balance and integration of emotion, reason (fact, inference), and action in interest (service) of self, other, community, world, and approach to peak being.

An enlightened path (i) seeks intelligent and shared negotiation (not just following received ways or masters) (ii) results in a replica – typically incomplete – of the ultimate in the being – body and mind – of the individual in ‘this’ life and rarely in the ultimate itself (iii) but is on the way to the ultimate and while realization is given, the enlightened path is efficient in realization of the ultimate as we cross from life to life, from form to form, amid the myriad of cosmoses, while dwelling in nothingness in between.

Pleasure and pain

Pleasure and pain (physical pain, doubt, anxiety) are unavoidable. The issues of pleasure and pain are addressed (i) in that pleasure for its own sake need not be avoided, but paths emphasize pleasure in being on the way—on the path (ii) by shared negotiation of pathways (in which leaders may arise but are not seen as absolute in truth) (iii) with therapy – the best therapy of the time (iv) by the able and fortunate giving aid to the less able or fortunate (v) by attention without obsession to healthy living – physical, mental, communal, and spiritual (vi) and above all that local enlightenment which avoids illusions of ideal perfection but seeks a pragmatic balance of emotion (particularly pleasure and pain), reason, and action on shared paths—i.e., as far as reasonable, seeks process through and not around pain.

Effective pathways

Effective pathways address living in the immediate world on the way to the ultimate—they address the everyday and the universal, (and, as elaborated in the document outline of the way-new.docm), dimensions of being (i) at a high level the pure subject and object aspects of experience (ii) in the world, the pragmatic. Particularly included are (a) meditation, calming, analytic, and visionary (including an attempt to visualize and ways to actualize panbeing) (b) yogic or healthy living directed at individual, family, work, and community – local to global and immediate in time to ultimate.

Thus, enlightenment pertains to being in this world for the ultimate is not in need of enlightenment; in received religion, enlightenment is often thought to be a kind of ideal perfection; however, the real perfection emerged here sees it as a good to best mix of an idealized notion of perfection and the work – even struggle – of being on a path.

About religion

As far as unjustified belief or disbelief are religious, most people who have a position on the truth of dogmatic religion are religious.

The path of the way is open to use of religion though not to its dogmatic insistence. We recognize two approaches in religion—one that emphasizes a relationship with a powerful divine element which may symbolically energize a positive life and another that emphasizes correct thought, speech, and action on the way to realization which may be mundane or universal.

The place of ways from tradition

The mix of (i) the ideal and the struggle vs perfection and (ii) negotiation vs following are two differences between the path described here and common received ways. As the worldview of the present system is ultimate, the paths here frame received pathways. The present system gives preference to those received pathways that see limited being as on the way to the ultimate rather than the ultimate as a remote reward. Still, all systems are recognized for symbolic and community value.

Path programs

The planning focus of an individual-as-individual-as-communal-and-for-discovery-and-realization is a flexible routine selected from options—(i) awaken early – affirmation of being, dedication to realization, meditation on sustaining an attitude of achievement and equilibrium with others through distraction and pain, review priorities and how and when to die; (ii) recognition of ground issues—safety, security, focus on the way, health issues (medications, diet, mental and physical exercise, sleep), and discipline; (iii) morning tasks—medications and treatments, open files to edit, walk – stretch – vitamins – breakfast – fluids, set times and reminders; (iv) developing and foundation for the way—ideas, experience, reflection, study, cowriting and editing, publishing, and presenting; (v) living the way (one’s way)—ideas, attention to self – meditative and physical, immersion in nature and the real, attention to community – social action (political-economic, of laws, technological, and cultural—knowledge development and transmission, tradition, art, religion), attention to spiritual being, relations and networking, acting roles; (vi) pressing and urgent action—being present to the real – emptiness now, security, safety, money, place, and pushing the way; (vii) daily and weekly tasks, lunch, review of plans and planning, preparation and planning for travel and immersion; (viii) exercise—aerobic, stretching, light weights; excursions and photography; (ix) evening rest and review, preparation for the next day, relaxation, social activities, networking; sleep early.

Summary—(i) morning routine and tasks (ii) the way – foundation and transformation, with relationships and sharing (iii) pressing and urgent agenda – emptiness now, security, safety, push twb (iii) tasks and lunch (iv) exercise (v) pm routine (vi) sleep early.