The way of being attempts to go beyond our standard worldviews, secular and transsecular, particularly those grounded in science and religion, and therefore requires (i) careful argument (proof) (ii) highlighting and explanation of what is new, otherwise the reader may not notice the newness or see it so counter to received paradigms as to find it difficult to accept.

At the same time, the essence of the main narrative may be hard to distinguish from the details.

The aims of the preview are

1. To emphasize the essence and leave demonstration and other detail to the main development.

2. Given that most secular and transsecular thinkers are likely to have doubts about the worldview of the way of being, to raise and address doubt (doubt is also taken up in the main narrative).

The essence of the view and its reason

Begin with the void, i.e., nothingness, the absence of all kinds of object. Since a limit is an object, the void and, therefore the universe have no limits.

The universe is the realization of the greatest possibility

That is, the universe is the realization of the greatest possibility.

What kind of possibility?

The possibility of coherence—the greatest system of coherent ideas is and must be realized (this is also called ‘logical possibility’).

The italicized statement is important—we name it the ‘fundamental principle of metaphysics’, abbreviated FPM.

Is the view rationally and empirically consistent?

Coherent (logical) consistency is rational consistency.

However, we do not see all possibilities. Empirical consistency seems to contradict realization of all possibility.

The resolution is that what we see is only part of the universe. There is another ‘part’ of the universe—which we do not see or have not yet seen. The other possibilities, those which are not seen here, occur elsewhere.

Think of our cosmos—it is one possibility. Imagine now, including more regions to our imagined field of view. They may be temporarily isolated from our cosmos (FPM implies that they cannot be permanently isolated). When all regions have been included in the imagined field, the result is the universe, for which the real is all possibility.

What does this imply for our place in the universe?

The main implications for the way of being are as follows.

The cosmoses in the universe and other structures are limitless in number and variety and are in communication with one another and the void; any isolation of the cosmoses is temporary.

The universe has identity; the universe and its identity phase in and out of manifestation; they are limitless with regard to variety, size, age, and peak of being; all beings merge as one in the peaks—i.e., in the ultimate.

Though all beings realize the ultimate, there are effective, intelligent, and enjoyable ways—pathways—to it; if enjoyment of one’s being and the world are important, it is imperative to be on such pathways; to be on a path is not to ignore the immediate world; the paths begin in and enhance the immediate world and its enjoyment; there are traditional ways from which we may learn but to be on a path is to negotiate the way and not just to follow a prescription, as is common in religion and other ways of being (and this is in part why understanding the reasoning of the way of being and complementing it with human knowledge are important); pain is unavoidable and its best address is being on a path in which the fortunate care for the less fortunate and into which the best therapy is built.

About limits and limitlessness

How does this claim of limitlessness mesh with our experience that we are limited? And how, in view of that experience, can and do we realize the ultimate?

We are limited on small time scales—the life of an individual or even a cosmos. However, on larger time scales, birth and death, for example, are not absolute even though they are real in our experience.

Still, though this follows from FPM, it does not show us how death, birth, and other limits are transcended. This is crucially important, for common secular belief is that there is no transcending (in ‘secular humanism’, meaning is to be found entirely in our being, in this world), while common transsecular beliefs are posited either directly or indirectly in terms of a posited view of the universe. Here we give only an outline of the how of transcendence (details are in later sections, the universe and its beings and the nature of the individual). Brevity requires that the explanation here will be incomplete.

The essential idea is that of experience which will be understood as more than just having an experience of something.

Here, experience is awareness in all its forms. Thus, there is (i) ‘experience of’, (ii) ‘the experience’, and (iii) ‘the experienced’. These items can be labeled (i) psychological, intrinsic, or subject (ii) real (for it spans #i and #iii) (iii) material, instrumental, or object.

Thus, the real is experiential (in the extended sense, above). We are experiential beings; and in an extended sense, developed in the later sections, the universe is experiential. It is important that this does not mean that the universe is not material or not of psyche (but it does imply that our use of ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ may partake of metaphor).

The space and time boundary between self and universe is real but temporary; in ‘eternity’ we merge with the peak being of the universe.

How? We can at least specify a beginning. On the psychological side there is transformation via meditation and other activities of the psyche). On the material side there is physical transformation of the body (yoga, exercise, immersion in nature and the world) and world (technology). This is a beginning. It may culminate in this life (rarely) or beyond in travel in the experiential universe, perhaps across beings and cosmoses.

Further implications

There are implications for human knowledge, especially philosophy, metaphysics, and science and other human activities—see the resources, especially the little manual and a system of human knowledge.

Doubt

Naturally, these conclusions should and will be doubted (i) as fact (ii) for relevance to our world.

However, we have argued that realization of all possibility is consistent with reason and our experience of the world. The conclusions are manifestly relevant to our world and beyond.

Therefore, though there may be doubt, it is whether realization of possibility is fact, not whether it is consistent with reason and observation.

Response to doubt is—

1. Existential—it may be energizing to live with absence of certainty. The fundamental principle (all possibility is realized) may be regarded as an existential action principle.

2. Scientific—the principle may be regarded as a postulate rather than demonstrated.

3. Practical—the structure of the universe may be developed further, to see how paths may be forged and negotiated. In the section on the nature of individuals, human awareness is seen to have an intrinsic side and an instrumental side; the intrinsic is the selfhood of the person, the instrumental operates on the world. The nature of these two sides is further developed in the resources. General templates for paths are suggested in the section pathways and programs.

(Doubt—questioning one’s conclusions from all possible angles—is a significant element of reason. Creativity is also significant. Which comes first? Perhaps the question is not important, for creativity is creativity in not just answers but also in questions and doubt is not just applied to what is created but also to doubt itself.)

Introduction

Origin of the way of being

‘The Way of Being’ is a result of my attempt to understand the universe, my place in it, and how I might live my life. I write as a record for myself, to improve the way and its narrative, and perhaps because it may be useful for others, society, and the world.

The idea is not new. Two approaches to understanding and knowing the world are—

1. Experience based—everything important that we know should flow from experience of the world, which includes science and the material world. In this approach, sometimes called secularism, human values flow from human experience. Critics say that its scope is limited; proponents argue that experience shows all that is real or, if there is more, it is all that is meaningful.

2. Reason with and beyond experience—that we can talk meaningfully and realistically about things beyond the material world. This more inclusive approach is found in philosophy, especially metaphysics, and religion. Critics say that religion has no foundation and philosophical speculation is not scientific. A proponent might argue that even the scientific view has speculation (incompletely verified hypotheses) and that not all metaphysics is speculative.

A problem and solution

Here is a problem—if neither approach does so, is there a hope of truthfully knowing the entire universe (everything)?

The problem was and is important to me. It is important to the world because any degree of resolution might illuminate and improve the world.

Here is a solution to the problem, which I hope you will neither accept nor reject without reading the arguments that follow—(i) in our present form we are limited beings that, despite limits, can know some but far from all ultimate aspects of things (ii) together with the universe, we have limitless form, which usually occurs in transcending apparent limits including birth and death (this idea is from eastern thought) (iii) there are ways from limits to limitlessness which are not only remote, but at least begin in and may improve the quality of the world.

Writing the way of being

Science was one base for my early thought. I have always seen science as (i) exciting and having truth (ii) almost certainly incomplete and not perfectly precise even in its own realms (which we know from its very nature and from its revolutions) (iii) leaving open a window, perhaps a large one, the possibility of realms and things beyond it.

One source for the open window was my interest in philosophy. Another was love of the natural world. I am a backpacker which, where I live (America), means spending days in the wilderness. I find being in nature beautiful, healthy, and a source of renewal. But more—nature is locally real and a portal to the universal real. Much inspiration for my understanding and writing—for my life—has been in and of nature. There is a tradition of ‘Beyul’ in Tibetan Buddhism, which is travel to remote natural places, to evoke inner and outer reals, i.e., reality of self and of world.

My thought has gone through a number of major transformations and at each stage there have been many iterations.

It has been exciting. At times it has been difficult. The discipline has been difficult but the conceptual transformations I have gone through have been especially wrought with slow labor toward greater understanding.

Part of that transformation has been thinking on some of the great problems of philosophy, thinking of solutions and methods of solution, and putting all that and more together, to attempt to build a net picture of the universe.

The outcome is that my writing has become technical and may seem remote, even to academic readers and researchers. The technical character is necessary in that the meanings of terms need to be carefully specified and arguments need to be precise.

This version of ‘the way of being’

In this version, I have attempted to make my writing accessible to a general audience—i.e., to readers who are not especially familiar with philosophy and related disciplines. I aim to balance care and precision with accessibility. I will sacrifice wheels within wheels—criticism, response, criticism of the response and so on. I will sacrifice side excursions that I find interesting, but which detract from the key issues.

Sources

My thought would have been impossible without reading and conversations on philosophy, science, and more. Here are sources and readings. The intent of what I write here is to build upon rather than to capture essences of eastern and western thought.

I do not always agree with the sources. I do see the latest versions of scientific theories as having some practical truth but not the whole or perfect truth. Philosophy is often at the edge of thought and so it is frequently in conflict with itself (it is often a productive conflict). I see much religion as having symbolic truth—that is, even though I might not find a given account of the ultimate as factually true, I may see it as pointing to higher truth and as having positive meaning for many people.

I hope no one will see what I write as minimizing to what they hold to be true.

Caution

I have read, thought, and written on the material in this essay. However, I am not an academic philosopher. If your interest is academic philosophy in attitude or content, this essay may mislead you.

Of course, no one will be misled if they approach my writing with a mix of openness and questioning.

Is philosophy something?

It is clear that the narrative draws from the history of thought, particularly from philosophy. This section is pertinent to the development and is good to address the nature of philosophy early. The section may be omitted on the first reading.

Let us take up the question “What is philosophy?” The related question about metaphysics is taken up later.

The question is important because this work draws from philosophical thought and because it has implications for philosophy.

It is generally agreed that philosophy is not easy to define. But why? It is partly because philosophy is an inclusive discipline and also at the edge of knowledge. How may we then say what philosophy is? Let us look to history so as to find our way toward the nature of philosophy.

Western philosophy is agreed to have explicitly begun with Greek thought when Greek thinkers began to criticize religion and myth based in dogma and the supernatural but to a way of thought based in self-criticism and based in the world itself. This enables a preliminary conception—

Philosophy is creative thought which is (subject to and) based in self-criticism (rationality) and the world itself (empiricism); it is neither dogmatic nor merely speculative; it does not postulate or appeal to the supernatural.

As a discipline, especially in the modern academic setting, philosophy retains the creative-critical-empirical characteristic, but is also characterized by foci that have emerged historically—the main subdisciplines (metaphysics, epistemology, logic, value theory), the various schools, ‘isms’, applications, and specialized topics. One focus worth mentioning is that science emerged from philosophy but having developed its own methods and what is considered established if tentative knowledge, science is not conducted under philosophy (but the question of what science is, is a part of philosophy).

It is essential to note that ‘doing philosophy’ (a characteristic of part of the attempt in this work), is not just about reading, understanding, and importing ideas. It is the application of the idea of philosophy as conceived above to the total system of ideas, received, current, and under investigation in whatever undertaking is at hand. And, thus, philosophy is in its very nature self-referential or reflexive—metaphilosophy is philosophy, some current thought notwithstanding.

For similar reasons, the distinctions among metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and value theory are matters of focus rather than of essence. Epistemology, the theory-and-conception-of-knowledge, is crucial to metaphysics, for if metaphysics is knowledge of the real, then metaphysics without epistemology is critically empty. At the same time, as knowledge is part of the world, epistemology must be part of metaphysics.

Doing philosophy ought to refer to the history of thought but not stop there. It ought to be built upon that thought and to seek to go beyond it. At the same time, it ought to (also be willing to) begin from scratch—from no postulate or assumption of fact or method at all. In the end, we ought to (be able to) drop the word ‘philosophy’, for it becomes unnecessary and may even be limiting (if we accede too much to what has been thought before). In any case, every being should—perhaps, for authenticity, be a creation or, at least a recreation or an image, of original being and thought. This is the meaning of the title of this section, “Is philosophy something?”

Here, I will not further consider the nature of philosophy, but see philosophy.

The approach

We will first build up a solution to the problem and tentative solution described in the section, a problem and its solution. The solution is a worldview encapsulated in what is named the real metaphysics, which takes up most of the essay.

The concluding section is on pathways in and from this world to the ultimate. We talk about what the metaphysics implies for our lives and our world. It is common to prescribe ways of behavior and thought. I will do that very briefly, but what I want to emphasize is a scaffold of ideas and principles from which ways can be derived in parallel with shared negotiation of the world and more.

Meaning

This is a preliminary section. It is designed to be helpful in understanding ideas or concepts and how they are used. However, readers could pass over the section and still absorb what is important to realization.

The meaning of words and sentences is definite only in definite contexts. Here, we use familiar words in attempting to go beyond the immediate. So, it is important to be clear about the meanings of the words used and how they fit together to make a complete system. However, to understand word meanings it is also necessary to know what a word meaning is, that is—what is the meaning of ‘meaning’. Most of us have notion of the meaning of meaning as association of a word with a thing. However, there is more to it than that and ignoring this often leads to confusion, unnecessary complexity, and errors of understanding. So, we shall look at meaning itself.

On meaning

Let us begin discussion of meaning with some preliminary reflections. When we learn our first language, we begin by associating sounds with the world. It is only later that we may begin to think about words, sentences, and meanings. So, when we first discuss meaning and meanings, we already have some notion of what common words mean and what the meaning of meaning is. This is also true in the knowledge disciplines, especially philosophy. A philosopher who discusses ‘mind’, for example, already has some conception of what mind may be. Therefore, the discussion of meaning and meanings does not begin at the beginning. Two early sources of meaning are (i) common use (ii) the thought of earlier thinkers. The problem of the meaning, therefore, is clarification, e.g., removal of vagueness and ambiguity, and improvement e.g., with regard to wider contexts, which require words and so on to be related to the world and one another. Sometimes, however, we may want to go as far back to the ‘beginning’ as possible.

We are now ready to begin a grounded discussion of meaning. What is the meaning of a word or sentence? Even in ordinary situations, it is not always clear. And ordinary meaning may and often will fail to extend beyond ordinary situations. Further, if I mean one thing and you mean another our conversation may be confused because we are not using the same meaning but do not recognize it. So, we ought to be careful about meanings.

It will be helpful to ask—What is the meaning of meaning?

Let us begin to discuss meaning with an example. Imagine you are in a remote area in Tajikistan but do not know the Tajik language. Your companion, a Tajik, says “palang” with a look of fear, but you see nothing noteworthy and wonder why the guide looks fearful. His fear is because “palang” is Tajik for ‘tiger’. If he had said “tiger” you would feel fear too, because, for you, the word ‘tiger’ evokes the image of a tiger.

That is, meaning is determined by three things—a word, the image it evokes, and the corresponding object (or objects). One reason we might not see this is that words are usually defined in terms of other words, and the other words in terms of yet other words. But that has to stop somewhere. Even though it may go unrecognized, a dictionary depends on our implicit knowledge of a simple set of words whose meanings we know because we associate the words with images. Now, that is not entirely true—as an example, what is the image for the word ‘and’? Well, though there is not an explicit image, we know it has a function—it joins phrases (clauses). But then there is an image after all—whereas most words have objects in the world, the function of ‘and’ is that it joins objects that are other words or phrases. One can image ‘and’ as a ligament between words and phrases.

Language is more than words—there are kinds of words, combinations of words (according to grammatical rules—and more—that assist in conforming to the world) such as phrases, sentences, and so on. Words, phrases, sentences, and so on are examples of signs, which may be simple or complex.

The meaning of ‘meaning’ generalizes from the example above—Meaning is a sign, an associated image (or icon), and their objects (definitions are marked by small capitals). This concept of meaning is due to the twentieth century philosophers, CK Ogden and IA Richards, presented in their work, The Meaning of Meaning.

Later, there will be examples of the importance of this concept of meaning. For now, let us consider a simple example of how it is important to be careful about meaning. Consider “elephants can’t fly”. Well, you might say “if you shoot an elephant out of a cannon, it does fly”. Here, the issue is the meaning of the word ‘fly’. When we say, “birds fly”, we mean “birds fly under their own power”. When you say, “elephants fly”, you have used a meaning of ‘fly’ that is similar to my use (and hence the con-fusion) but is different from my meaning (and thus a resolution of the confusion). The example is not interesting in itself, but it does show (i) that the meanings of simple words can be indefinite and (ii) if we want clear communication, we have to be at least somewhat definite about the meanings of words. That is, definitions are important for clarity and definiteness of meaning. If the writing that follows is to communicate effectively, a basic set of meanings will need to be made clear (see the concepts for a basic set).

On definition

Definitions are important so that (i) when we think we are talking about something, we are indeed talking about some definite thing (ii) in a community, we are all talking about the same definite thing, so that conversation is not confused and contributes to shared knowledge and action.

Given a system of terms (words) and how to use them (grammar), some words are basic. These words get their meaning from mutual but often tacit knowledge that most language users know that everyone knows that they refer to the same thing. Thus ‘London’ has definite meaning because we all know that we all know that London is a definite place which is more than marked by a word but also by a range of images (repetition of the phrase, ‘we all know’, is intended and significant because it is what makes use of the meaning automatic). The basic words are defined by shared use referring, at least tacitly, to shared images.

When developing a system of thought, we need more than tacit common reference. Thus, we need to be explicit about the basic words. How we do this will begin in the section what the world is made of. Along with the basic concepts, there will be transparent statements about them, and transparent ways to infer new statements, which, for efficiency, will involve definitions of non-basic concepts in terms of the basic ones.

That is, what will be built has the character of what is called an ‘axiomatic system’.

However, it is more than an axiomatic system, for the intention is to have the system describe the real (universe).

Having an axiomatic system does not guarantee that to a defined construct, there corresponds something real. So, it will be necessary to not just define the basic words, but also to show that they are (i.e., correspond to something) real.

What the world is made of

Our aim is to know the universe and act accordingly. We have seen that the universe is more than what science shows and religion suggests. A limitation of science is that it shows a part of the universe, but not the whole. To approach our aim, we ought to begin with an inclusive and non-detailed description, which will avoid coloring knowledge with unnecessary and pre-judiced conception.

We ask—What is the universe made of?

A preliminary observation—as far as the world is ‘everything’ it is not made by anything; asking what it is made of is asking what constitutes (makes up) the world.

A common view is that the world is made of matter. This view is called materialism. It can be incorrect in two related ways (i) our view of matter is inaccurate (ii) there is more in the world than just matter. To see how it is likely incorrect, think about mind and consciousness. They do not seem to be material. So, either (i) our view of matter is inadequate or (ii) the view that the world is matter is incomplete.

An obvious alternative to materialism is that the world is more than just matter. Some examples are (i) idealism in which the world is not material but is made of a substance (a basic kind that is a fundamental nature of things) that is like ideas, e.g., like consciousness (ii) spirit, which is trans-material, is also part of the world; religious people find spirituality in religion, spiritual but non-religious persons find it in their personal or shared experience.

These examples do not exhaust the possibilities. However, they do exemplify a basic source of error, which is to think we can know the universe, when we do not fully know its nature.

There is another possibility. It is to begin by saying that “The world is what it is.” To say that does not mean that we cannot say more. Rather, we say it at the beginning of understanding, with the thought that if we say more, we will need to give reasons, to give what we say some justification. Of course, we ought to justify our way of justification, which suggests a process without end; we will address this concern later.

In philosophy, there is a word that captures “the world is what it is.” That word is ‘being’. Since it is a basic word in philosophy and metaphysics, there is much that could be said ‘being’ but what we need for now is (i) ‘being’ is a common word related to ‘is’, a form of the verb to be (ii) so, talk of ‘being’ roots understanding in common experience (iii) it is a simple word (at least superficially) (iv) though superficially simple, philosophers that find it is hard to pin down in terms of something else because, e.g., that something else will also need to be pinned down (v) existential philosophers have found ‘being’ hard to pin down because they think of ‘being’ as an ultimate idea, one that is a container for all the depth that we are and know (vi) so, the definition we will use for being will be simple and non-specific, which will allow depth to emerge rather than to be pre-judiced by assigning it meaning which we feel but do not know to be adequate to truth.

Though obvious and therefore seemingly trivial the approach from “the world is what is”, that is, the approach from being, is conducive to truth (it does not cut truth off by the error of substance such as matter and mind). The introduction of ‘being’ in philosophy and metaphysics is analogous to the use of letters to designate objects in mathematics. That is, ‘being’ transforms philosophy from a simple concrete talk of what is known into an algebra in which we can talk efficiently of what is unknown or partially known.

Now, let us begin the positive developments. Here are two definitions—

A being is something that of which we can validly say “it is” (in the most general sense of the verb to be). Being is the property of beings which marks them as beings (or, briefly, it is the property of beings-as-beings). It is now rather clear that ‘being’ and ‘existence’ are, at least roughly, the same thing. Rather than investigate that thought, I will use ‘existence’ and ‘being’ as the same and if something is a being, I will say “it exists”.

This raises a puzzle about existence that is not important to the development of the way—you can omit this paragraph if you wish. If we say some things exist, we ought to be able to say that some things do not exist. In fact, we do say that. For example, we do say that the fictional person, Sherlock Holmes, does (did) not exist. The puzzle about something that does not exist is “What is it that does not exist?” That is, in order for “it does not exist” to have meaning we seem to be assuming that it has at least some kind of existence. This puzzle has been seen in philosophy as an important problem regarding the concept of existence (and it has a name—the problem of negative existentials). A simple resolution is via our meaning of meaning. ‘Sherlock Holmes’ is a phrase, a name, which is associated with an idea—the idea described in the Sherlock Holmes stories of the British author Arthur Conan Doyle. If there were a person ‘Sherlock Holmes’, we would say Sherlock Holmes exists; but since there is no person, we say, unpuzzlingly, that Sherlock Holmes does not exist.

What we know

In this section we question what we know. Do we know anything perfectly? We begin to answer the question, leaving a more complete answer to later sections.

But why do we ask this? It might seem obvious that we know some things well, that we are discovering more with time, and that is just the way things are and, so, it is good enough.

The asking is important because we would like to know how dependable our knowledge is. Is any knowledge (claim) certain? Is anything of importance certain? Incomplete and imperfect knowledge may be adequate for immediate purposes. But for ultimate purposes—if, for example, we want to know the ultimate destiny of beings and the universe—we need perfect knowledge, for otherwise small local imperfections may add together to make (claims to) ultimate knowledge or knowledge of the ultimate (real) worthless. Or, at least, so it would seem.

We are going to find (i) some certain knowledge—it will be abstract knowledge of ultimate things (ii) this certain knowledge will form a framework for less than certain and complete knowledge of everyday experience, science, and speculative philosophy (iii) the system of the abstract and the concrete is the best possible for living in this world and to knowing and realizing what is ultimate (iv) though this system is not perfect relative to certain and precise knowledge as criterion for validity, as the best possible for living and realizing, it has perfection.

To fully develop these ideas we ought to examine what knowledge is, but since this essay is intended to be accessible to a general audience, we will not do that here but refer interested readers to metaphysics and vocabulary for the way of being.

Here it is important to see that (i) philosophers often think in pure terms (ii) in this case, whatever knowledge of things is, purism would say that it is all of the same kind and should be subject to the same criteria, e.g., certain knowledge of things (iii) that kind of purity of thought is not productive of the best outcome of the individual and human enterprise but, instead, the best outcome results from mixed criteria.

Questioning what we know

We made definitions—A being is anything that is (in the world); being is the property of all beings (as far as they are beings).

It might seem obvious, then, that there is being and there are beings. However, given illusion and other kinds of error in knowing, we ought to doubt the claim. Perhaps appearances are entirely illusory, so we ought to doubt it (knowledge claims) altogether.

Is everything illusory?

However, if it is all illusion, then the world of illusion is the world, and there is being, there are beings—only, the world would seem to be quite different from the usual view we have of it. But would it really be different? At a most general level, to say all is illusion vs all is real, is to think—speak—differently without making a real difference.

The fact of illusion does not invalidate the assertion that there is being and there are beings.

The abstract and the concrete

That there is being and that there are beings is not reference to some specific thing or kind; it is this that makes it simple to verify, because we have removed from the assertion any specific or detail about which we could have illusion or error. To remove from a concept, as much detail as is necessary to leave only what perfectly known is abstraction. In this sense, ‘abstract’ does not mean remote or not concrete; rather, this kind of abstract thing is definite—more so than what we usually think of as concrete (i.e., what is concrete relative to our perceptual system).

You will notice that in the conception of being, space and time have not been invoked (‘is’ ordinarily refers to time but does—need—not necessarily refer to time or space). Are space and time (duration and place) real; are they the only such reals (generalized location); and is there a more inclusive realm? How might we answer such questions? Should our descriptions be in detail? Or, perhaps, we might talk at a level of detail that is sufficiently abstract that generalized location or its absence are not explicit. That would not involve error and is a power of abstraction. Subsequently, we would endeavor to introduce detail, arguing from experience and reason. There is some discussion of this issue in metaphysics and vocabulary for the way.

There is some illusion

It is more real to say there is some illusion—that some things that we think we know have a degree of certainty or a degree of truth of some kind.

Summary

There is some certain knowledge and some imperfect knowledge. The quantity of certain knowledge—there are being and beings—so far seems limited.

An aim in what follows is to develop the certain knowledge and patch together the certain and the perfect into a perfect and ultimate system—in real metaphysics and the universe as experiential.

What is in the world

Beings

We will make definitions and show that they do define something real—something that exists—that the definition corresponds to something in the world (or to the entire world).

There is being and there are beings—this has been shown.

The universe is everything there is (over all extension, e.g., all time and space). Given that there are things (beings), the universe exists.

A part of the universe has a pattern when the quantity of data to specify the (state of) the part is less than the raw data. For example, a circle has an infinite number of points, but is fully specified when the position of its center and its radius are specified.

Our cosmos has some patterns that are (as far as is known) patterns for the entire cosmos. Patterns that hold for the cosmos are laws (of nature). Given that (as we think), the laws are not imposed, the laws are immanent in the cosmos. That is, the laws exist—are beings. Under a law (or pattern), some conceivable states cannot be realized; and, so, a law is also a limit or constraint.

A cosmos is a relatively, if temporarily, isolated part of the universe, which has immanent laws of nature. The concepts of ‘universe’ and the ‘cosmos’ are different—they are ‘everything’ and ‘everything we know’, respectively. They are often taken to be the same but are fundamentally different. It is possible—consistent with experience and reason—that other cosmoses exist; it is not possible for there to be other universes. Later we will see that other cosmoses do exist.

While all parts of the universe have being, an individual has (more or less) distinct and separate being (existence). A person is an individual. My being seems distinct and separate from other beings, so the question of the existence of persons is not whether they exist but what is their nature (of course, my seeming distinctness may be illusory, but we have already begun a response to this concern and will complete the response later, in the nature of individuals).

The void is the being that contains no beings.

The void is also the absence of being and so it is valid to question its existence. But as the absence of being, the existence and nonexistence of the void are equivalent. So, it is valid to assert the existence of the void.

As the void contains no beings, it contains or has no laws.

Hypothetical beings

The purpose of this section is to imagine in advance some possible beings that may exist.

Imagine that the universe achieved a state that was the highest or greatest possible—an ultimate state. The hypothetical (so far) highest state is peak being. If peak being is indeed realized, it would not be ultimate unless it conferred that character on all beings; that is, all beings would merge in peak being—all individuals, human and other, would merge in peak being. What has been said so far in this paragraph is possible but a claim that it actually held would be hypothetical (and will later found to be real); and if all possibility is realized, the universe would phase eternally between peaks and dissolutions. There would be a hierarchy of being(s) in which we (and other living beings) are not at the bottom rung, but not near the top rung. However, it is characteristic of us, and this will shortly become clearer in the section ‘implications’, that we are able to conceive of the fact of hierarchy (in our present form), though probably not of all its details, and engage in realizing the peak, as hypothetically already noted (really and in our ultimate form). The aware reader will recognize that the Advaita Vedanta is an inspiration for these ideas. We will show the reality of the ideas.

Fiction

The literature called fiction is about stories that are interesting but need not be true. Though a piece of fiction may be non-factual, it may have a realism that says something about the world and our place in it. This kind of fiction may be fantasy but is not mere fantasy. The fiction itself need not be real but is not anti-real (though it may be critical of a theory of what is real). It is often about possibility and what may be real. And if sufficiently imaginative, it may be material for knowledge of the world that we do not yet have but for which we grasp. It could be mundane or esoteric. It is about how the world and our knowledge of it might be. An example of the somewhat esoteric kind is the writing of Jose Luis Borges whose Aleph is a source for the recent Everything and Nothing, by Markus Gabriel and Graham Priest.

Implications—the universe and its beings

Possibility

Given the concept (e.g., description) of a being, it is possible if nothing rules out its existence. If there is nothing in the concept alone that rules out its existence, the possibility is coherent (a technical term is logical in the sense of deductive logic), coherent (logical) possibility is the greatest or most inclusive possibility. If the existence is not ruled out by the form of the universe, the possibility is real. Real possibility presumes and does not exceed coherent possibility.

A fundamental principle

If from the void a possible being did not emerge, the non-emergence would be a law of the void. Therefore, all possibilities emerge from or are equivalent to the void. The sense of possibility here is greatest or coherent.

The universe is the realization of the greatest possibility. This assertion is named the fundamental principle of metaphysics.

Since the void may be seen as associated with every being, all beings are ultimately equivalent to one another, to the void, and to the universe.

This may seem contradictory to our experience of things being different and of limits, i.e., of not seeing all possibilities.

However, the equivalence is at a level of description that is above differences in time and place. In everyday time and place, beings have distinctness.

That we do not see all possibility does not contradict the fundamental principle. Not all possibility occurs in our cosmos in its present form (the empirical 13.8-billion-year-old, 80 billion-light-years-across cosmos is infinitesimal compared to the universe). There are other regions, other cosmoses in the universe. If a possibility does not occur here (our cosmos) it occurs there (other regions). If we start with a given region, it realizes some possibilities. If we then include more regions, further possibilities are seen. As all regions of the universe (over all extension, e.g., time and space) are accounted for, so is all possibility. Thus, it is for the universe and not for cosmoses, that all possibility is all reality, which is not contradictory.

Still, the void itself seems paradoxical in that it is nothingness, yet beings emerge from it (without limit). The (at least apparent) paradox is (i) the void generates something—that nothing does something seems impossible (ii) unless nothing is something which seems to be a contradiction. A response is (i) the void neither generates nor disallows generation of things (which is what might be expected of nothingness) (ii) it is not nothingness itself but eternal nothingness that is contradictory, for eternal nothingness would be a constraint (a law) on nothingness. A takeaway the approach of the universe to nothingness is occasional and no more; that is, the universe phases between manifest and void states. There is an analogy to quantum theory where the minimal state of the universe is not ‘nothing’ but the quantum vacuum which is misnamed because it is not empty but rather a ‘place’ of fleeting quantum fields transiently arising and decaying. However, the void is not the quantum vacuum but underlies it.

Implications

A first set of implications is as in the section, hypothetical beings. What is hypothetical there is, by the fundamental principle, real. Let us remove the hypothetical aspect and add further implications—

We now remove the hypothetical aspect and add further implications—

The universe has identity (self, awareness); the universe and its identity are limitless in variety, extension (duration, spatial extension), peak of being, and dissolutions; peak and dissolution are eternal; all beings inherit this character of the universe—they merge as one in the peaks (thus the assertion that all beings have peak being is not a contradiction); but the process of ultimate realization is neither passive nor the mere following of a prescribed way for, though the lower states of being may be explicitly as if material, the higher states have agency in which beings are agents of realization; thus, we are and have the potential to cultivate ourselves as agents and bearers of ultimate realization.

In all these processes given sufficient time, all beings are in transaction with one another. There are more and less states emerging from the void, no one is in itself eternal. But it is the transactions that make the whole eternal and a unity; and the transactions, perhaps across cosmoses, that make us universally aware despite our present at-least-apparent unawareness.

And—there are intelligent and effective pathways to the ultimate, which require shared and cultivated negotiation(over history), rather than mere following; pain is unavoidable; mere entertainment (and art) is not to be ruled out (for constant preoccupation with realization may be inefficient and mechanical); enjoyment is best, and the best address of pain is in entertainment and therapy, when integrated with (ways of) negotiation toward the ultimate (peak).

If the term ‘God’ is to be seen as having a real object, its best meaning is that of the process of peak being of which we are part. In this meaning God is not remote or other; all beings are part of god-as-process.

Transient worlds

It may seem paradoxical to our sense of realism, but there are cosmoses or regions, perhaps transient, that are puffs of awareness or mere as if material being; and all fictions including the stories of the religions play out in some region (when corrected for coherence). The question of the significance of these occurrences will be addressed below.

Real metaphysics

The fundamental principle has led to a view of the universe. The system of thought and its result is a metaphysics, where metaphysics is understood as knowledge of the real. Although it shows what we will achieve, it does not show how, for this metaphysics has abstraction from the everyday world (even though it applies to the world).

Note, as an aside to the main development, that the idea of metaphysics was introduced in what the world is made of, of which a critique was initiated in what we know—that is metaphysics is (crucially) dependent on our understanding of knowledge (‘epistemology’). In turn, since knowledge is in the world, epistemology is an essential aspect of metaphysics, at least tacitly. Metaphysics and epistemology are implicitly bound together or, said in a better way, epistemology emerges in the study of metaphysics. To be understood and secure, knowledge, especially as it is considered in philosophy, must also turn its focus upon itself—in all disciplines in which truth is critical, the study must be a metanalysis or even a reflexive study in which all relevant elements should be considered, and all elements may inform and interact with one another.

For the means (how we achieve), we turn to human knowledge. This is our knowledge of our immediate world, including our cosmos, and the various aspects of the knowledge, e.g., the sciences (natural, social, and abstract), art, technology, history, religion, and the humanities. It is not intended that the system should be limited to western culture; it is intended that all knowledge should be subject to criticism and imagination. The system addresses natural, social, and spiritual spheres. It addresses living well in this world with ideas of living for realms beyond the world.

For moving beyond our world, some paradigms from knowledge are especially useful. From evolutionary biology there is a paradigm of variation and selection (indeterminism and determinism), which shows how complex systems emerge incrementally from simplicity in a manner that does not have the improbability of mere randomness; from physics, there is a paradigm of mechanism with indeterminism; and from philosophy, east and west, the recognition that we are (at least as if) material and spiritual (in the sense of as if mind that may move beyond apparent human limits). For further discussion and paradigms, see fundamental paradigms for metaphysics and ‘little manual’.

It is these paradigms that show (i) the robustness of the idea that the cosmos as we see it—the big bang, evolution and so on—is real and stable over an extended period of time (ii) the transience and lesser significance of transient worlds. How is this shown? If a being comes into existence incrementally by variation and selection, the variation is the source of newness and the selection the source of relative stability; and that the process is incremental is a source of longevity and greater probability.

What is really implied in (i) above is that the cosmos as we see it is real and stable with pragmatic but not absolute certainty.

In a similar vein, that ‘my world’ is the full world and not just the content of my awareness (that there is nothing but ‘my awareness’ a position called solipsism) is pragmatically certain. There are a number of ‘normal’ positions that are similarly pragmatically rather than absolutely certain. An example is that our cosmos and its history according to big bang theory is pragmatically certain and an alternative explanation that it just happened into existence five minutes ago (complete with human beings and memories) is, pragmatically certainly false (the example is due to Bertrand Russell), even though not impossible. Another example has already been mentioned—that all fictions including the stories of the religions play out in some region (when the stories are corrected for coherence). The question of the significance of these pragmatically improbable occurrences will be further addressed below.

Now consider a join of the abstract and perfectly true or ideal metaphysics to our pragmatic and concrete human knowledge. The ideal illuminates, frames, and guides the pragmatic (and contains it implicitly); the concrete illustrates and is instrumental toward the ultimate revealed by the ideal. The combined system is thus (i) possessed of oneness or unity (ii) instrumental in realization of the ultimate (spelled out a little more in the means of realization) (iii) imperfect by criteria of perfect truth but perfect as the best instrument of realization. The system is named the real metaphysics.

Doubt

The doubts

You ought to have doubt about the development so far, for its demonstration (proof from existence of the void, that laws have being, and so on) seems rather unusual in nature (particularly it is what philosophers call ‘ontological’—based in the nature of being—and does not seem empirical), and its implications do not fit so many of our modern paradigms of what is there in the universe.

However, the proof is not non-empirical for there is a universe (the one universe), and the void may be seen as part of the universe. The usual objection to an ontological proof is that the most famous such proof (due to St. Anselm) is both obscure and non-empirical and thus the objection is not to its being ontological as such.

Some writers assert that an ontological argument is one that concludes the existence of God (as did St. Anselm’s argument). However, the meaning of ‘ontological’ is ‘having to do with being’ as ontology is the study of the nature of being and there is precedent in Kant’s writing for ‘ontological proof’ meaning ‘proof based in the nature of being’. These thoughts, of course, do not exhaust considerations on the nature of ontological proof (see ontological argument).

However, you may doubt the existence of the void, which is foundational to the real metaphysics, and, so, here is another proof—The manifest universe either enters a void state or not. If it does, the void exists. If it does not, the manifest universe is eternal. But an eternal being does not and cannot not exist and so its existence is necessary. However, the manifest is particular (it excludes the void), and therefore cannot be necessary. Thus, the universe must include the void state.

Now, I do not think I have removed all doubt. The earlier objections arise again. However, even though the proof may be doubted, the existence of the void and, so the truth of the real metaphysics and its implications are empirical and rational evidence.

Thus, I find myself in a dual state of doubting and non-doubt and perhaps you will have sympathy with this state and adopt it for yourself.

Response to doubt

Regardless, from consistency, responses may be—

4. Existential—it may be energizing to live with absence of certainty. The fundamental principle (all possibility is realized) may be regarded as an existential action principle.

5. Scientific—the fundamental principle may be regarded as a postulate rather than demonstrated.

6. Practical—the structure of the universe may be developed further, to see how paths may be forged and negotiated. In the section on the nature of individuals, human awareness is seen to have an intrinsic side and an instrumental side; the intrinsic is the selfhood of the person, the instrumental operates on the world. The nature of these two sides is further developed in the resources. General templates for paths are suggested in the section pathways and programs.

The nature of individuals

We saw that there are effective pathways to the ultimate. However, we have said little about the nature of the beings who would engage in pathfinding. Surely, that nature is important (i) to the quality of the process (ii) as instrumental in the process. In this section we see that an essence of our nature is that we are experiential beings in an experiential universe (the meaning of ‘experience’ here will be different from our earlier use of the term).

This section is skeletal but sufficient for the aim of this essay. There is greater detail in metaphysics and vocabulary for the way and the ‘little manual’ which point to other writers and sites.

Experience

We are going to use two new meanings for the term ‘experience’. The first is as follows.

Experience is awareness, particularly consciousness, in all its forms (I prefer the term ‘experience’ because it is sometimes used this way and does not have the—especially twentieth and twenty-first century—limited or contentious connotations of consciousness).

In an experience, there is an experience of something which is the experienced thing (in what is called pure experience, the experienced thing absent or zero in magnitude). The experience itself is the combination of the two in relation.

Without experience, the universe would be inert. Experience is the place, though not necessarily the source, of all that has significance; without it we would be as if mere robots. Subjectively, at least, experience is the essence of our being (and without subjectivity, we would be mere robots with an inner life less than that of a pebble or electron).

If our cosmos were (i) of a particular kind of thing, and (ii) that kind was matter without mind, then there would be no experience. But there is mind (experience of), and so #ii cannot be true. So, if the cosmos is of a particular kind, the cosmos must be an experiential cosmos. Of course, at a primitive level, that experience would not be rich like ours; it would be primitive, but still of the same kind as ours. And our cosmos, as far as it is built or constituted of a kind, as it may seem to be, would be constituted of the primitive kind.

But the universe, being limitless, is not of a fixed kind. Therefore, it is not essentially experiential in kind, for it has no fixed kind. However, as it is limitless, experience—the kind—must be capable of extension to primitive being, which may have little, even zero, level of experience, but not be null in nature with regard to experience. The distinction is that ‘zero’ means not experiencing and ‘null’ means incapable of experiencing.

The universe as experiential

Thus, the universe is experiential in nature in a second meaning of experience which is of the same kind as our experience but primitive. Our experiential nature is the same in kind as primitive experience; its richness results from combination of the primitive kind in form and process.

To say that the universe is experiential is not to deny matter or mind, for the experience of side is mind-like, and the experienced side is matter-like (and experience itself is the two sides in relation). Note that we know we have experience (if we did not experience our experience, we would not be talking of it), which shows that experience is both mind and matter like. More precisely, experience has both subject and object sides (as already seen). And as experience is relational and relation-of-relation is relation, there can be no further kind in the experience – experienced polar continuum.

The universe is experiential in nature, and we are essentially experiential beings. Spirit, as far as we wish to see it as real, is not something beyond the experiential; it is experiential in nature but as yet not apprehended, dimly apprehended, or non-cognitively apprehended (but inspiring).

We have seen that pragmatically improbable cosmoses are rare. Observation of such cosmoses is even rarer, because it requires two improbabilities—the existence of the cosmos and the existence of beings with high level sentience in the cosmos.

Means of realization

Since we are experiential in nature, living and realizing ought to attend to both sides—the as if mental or ‘subject-ive’ and the as if material or ‘object-ive’.

These ‘sides’ can be elaborated (i) inner – of the mind or consciousness, subjective, ‘experience of’, intrinsic, self-change, immersive change (ii) outer – of matter (perhaps as if) or the world, objective, ‘the experienced’, instrumental, other-change, instrumental change (iii) overlap, as the sides are not distinct, e.g., as in experience of experience or consciousness of consciousness and in their interaction and synthesis (and their ultimate oneness).

Objective—nature and society as objects and their sciences, both concrete and abstract; technology; history; study of religion; philosophy. Especially, these as pertaining to the world and as instruments of travel beyond, e.g., space travel, synthesis of human and machine biology and intelligence (e.g., ‘downloading’ human selves to machines so as to effectively extend our lives—see, e.g., rethinking our consciousness).

Subjective—meditation as apprehension of the real and transformation of self; immersive rather than instrumental approach to the objective, above.

Interactive – examples—the synthesis of the two sides in change and realization; immersive approach in politics and economics as in aware and influencing behavior joined to an instrumental approach of taking on roles (the economist, the politician) – engaging in ideas, theories, and controls (which does not mean ‘being controlling’).

Universal—the real metaphysics which frames subjective and objective; see human knowledge.

Pathways

The main subsections of this section are the aim and pathways and programs. Though principles of realization and means have been spelled out, they are supplemented by the design of the programs, which may be passed over by readers who do not wish to read the process of development.

Aim

The aim of pathways is (i) to live well in the world, (ii) to work toward realization of the ultimate, in such a way that (iii) #i and #ii are mutually reinforcing.

Design

This section is about coming up with pathways. It may be omitted by readers whose main interest is in the pathways.

The problem

Given that the ultimate will be achieved, to make the process effective—i.e., (i) to increase the likelihood of early realization for beings (as far as reasonably optimal) (ii) to make the process itself enjoyable, lived in the light of the ultimate (iii) to effectively address the problem of pain.

Meta-design

Elements—principles interact with elements (what we know, issues to address)

Design—formulation and address of elements, organizing, integrating, writing, and editing path programs or templates (‘program’ and ‘template’ are used as equivalent).

Design and planning of design and planning—a reflexive process as is all fundamental reflection and agency.

Approach

The approach to this aim shall be to—

1. Review the real metaphysics and its consequences are pertinent.

2. Review opportunities and obligations in living in the world (the obligations emphasize what is necessary, e.g., work as a way of giving and receiving), cast in terms of normal phases of life.

3. Synthesize these considerations in two templates, an everyday and a universal template.

Principles

The real metaphysics

Balance and integrate the activities (i) immediate (daily) – ultimate (long) (ii) individual – shared (iii) intrinsic (psyche, spirit, immersive) instrumental (agency, material, world).

Simplicity and flexibility

Elements

From the real metaphysics

The ultimate—all beings achieve the limitless ultimate. Detail—(i) grounded and open (ii) limited vs limitless (iii) experiential with intrinsic and instrumental sides (iii) individuals inherit this ultimate character and identity, merge in the peaks (iv) traditional perfection (nirvana, heaven…) vs process imperfection (uncertainty with certainty, pleasure with pain) (v) a project—what the ultimate is like, especially the limitless variety of being.

Pathways—intelligent, shared negotiation of the way to the ultimate in, for, and from the world is effective in realization and address of pleasure and pain (prescription alone is insufficient even if well founded). The way is intrinsically healing but should be supplemented by physical and psychological therapies.

Process—(i) commonly, incremental with agency and learning (ii) less commonly, saltation (iii) living with doubt and existential affirmation.

Knowledge—the ideal side of the real metaphysics is to be supplemented by human knowledge (from earlier, “…our knowledge of our immediate world … our cosmos … various aspects of the knowledge … sciences (natural, social, and abstract), art, technology, history, religion, and the humanities”).

Path issues

Short- and long-term design with options, routine, and plan; retreat and review-redesign (of issues); balance agency-initiative vs prescription and accumulated ‘wisdom’; inner (intrinsic) – outer (instrumental) and their dimensions (see dimensions of being, next); individual – community – sharing

Note—the notions of inner-intrinsic-immersive and outer-instrumental-active, are explained earlier.

Resources—dimensions of being

The following are paradigmatic dimensions of being, which are natural to our world.

Nature—material, living, experiential.

Society—group structure and hierarchy with dynamics, political economy, culture – secular and transsecular (with culture – knowledge, pros vs limits of received ways – secular and transsecular), and universal (trans-limit, as in the real metaphysics).

Universal—defined by the greatest possibility.

Tradition

What we can learn, symbolic and real, from given ways—secular, transsecular, e.g., eightfold way, Christianity.

Phase of life—obligations and options

About the phases (i) they are ideal in that problems of illness, poverty and limited material resources are not explicitly accounted for (ii) not all phases or their aspects are obligatory or necessary, some are options that may be chosen according to preference and situation (iii) they are presented with minimal detail (iv) the phase boundaries are not sharp (there may be phase diffusion) (v) a source for the phases is the asrama system.

Maturation—preparation for independent living—play, discipline, learning (worldly, wisdom, the ultimate, practice), exposure to the world (problems, opportunities, suffering, death), service, retreat.

Maturity—adulthood—phase of relationships, parenthood, work (giving to society)—and play, knowledge, authenticity, retreat, realization (practice and path), giving (to those less spiritually and materially fortunate); ethics and power in genuine living.

Retirement—freedom from the obligations of adulthood, of which some may be chosen for meaning; continued cultivation of play, knowledge, authenticity, retreat, and realization (practice and path); sharing.

Late retirement through death—options are (i) retirement continued according to capacity (ii) special support regarding lesser physical capacity (iii) retreat.

Template and program design

What format should prescription take – list, table, collapsible? The format of the templates, below, is that of a simple list with options; the format in the resources is currently tabular and may be enhanced as in universal template planning.

Pathways and programs

As the principles of realization and means have been spelled out, taking design considerations into account, we present two path templates—programs—below.

The programs are every-day and universal, which, together, attend to the aspects of the means of realization.

The templates here are generic (i) based on the design considerations (ii) adapted from experience. The resources link to adaptations to specific situations with greater detail.

The templates are designed to be adaptable to a range of life circumstances and preferences. The everyday template is adaptable to individuals and relationships, the universal template to individuals and groups. Some personal elements have been included where they might be useful, but the personal aspect is not emphasized.

Though “life is what happens when you are busy making other plans”, adaptable planning accepts this and builds on it; it is a compromise between agency and necessity; it allows that aims and values shall change and emerge naturally.

Outline for the templates

Printable versions

For download

Everyday template

About the everyday template

Planning—realization in the immediate

Becoming—immersive and instrumental

Being in the universe

Planning—realization of the universal

Printable versions

For download

A download is available—templates and dedication.docm (currently in-process).

Everyday template

About the everyday template

The box below shows the structure of the template items.

Main activities

1. Numbered main options

Details of the options

The template is designed to be adaptable to life situation, interest, being at home vs away, and choice of activities.

First things

(preparing for the day)

1. On waking

Set attitude for the day⁺—limitlessness, dedication and affirmation, relationships

Dedication

“We dedicate our lives to (the way of) being,

To living in the immediate and ultimate as one;

To its shared discovery and realization,

Under the pure and pragmatic dimensions of being;

To shedding the bonds of limited self,

So that so the path is flow, relative to force;

To realizing the ultimate in this life and beyond.”

Review the day, life, path of realization

2. Rise before the sun

Greet others

Coffee in nature

Set times for optional activities

Breakfast

Short walk

Realization

(activities especially for the way of being)

3. Foundation

For realization—study, experience, reflect, critique, synthesize, write, publish, advertise

For living—ground, below

4. Ground

Material—finance, place to live, place to retreat

Discipline—balance moving forward with waiting for aware readiness, flexible routine, minimize diversion

Relationships—attention to others, shared attention to all activities of mutual need and interest

Empowerment—self (attitude, meditation), engage with the world, consultation on needs

School—school is a focus, yet energy of youth through early retirement may make it possible to include other activities

Work—see comments in the previous item

Retirement—an opportunity to focus on relationships with persons, nature, society, and the universe

Late retirement through death—continuation of retirement activities at a level that matches lesser capacity balanced with an awareness of the magic of being, awareness and acceptance of death as real but not necessarily as absolute (for those—but not only those—who regard death as absolute, an existential attitude may be adopted)

Adaptability—adapting and learning how to adapt to changing circumstance of self and world, e.g., in relationships, school to work to retirement to late retirement through death, and the losses and gains involved

Note—of course existential and learning-from attitudes to death are appropriate at all aware phases of life

5. Directed realization

The day—physical yoga; meditation – emptying; mindful – on awareness, living, the real, realization

Immersion, home—nature, societies with culture (languages), meditation as portals to the universal

Immersion, away—items above – travel, journey, exploration; solo and shared

Instrumental—science, technology (AI), politics, economics, communal spirituality as universal portals

Other activities

(though labeled ‘other activities’ these, too, are elements of realization)

6. Tasks

Daily—check and resolve needs, cleanliness, lunch

Weekly (plus)—shop, clean, prepare food, appearance

7. Exercise

Excursion, 2 hours—for exercise, exploration, and photography

8. Evening

Review—the day, plan next day next day – items, times, exercise route, review the way, meditate

Network—friends, relationships, share the way; create opportunities for publication, publicity, and funding

Last things—relaxation, snack, entertainment, music, and simple enjoyment

Sleep early

Planning—realization in the immediate

1. Select activities

2. Set up a daily schedule, perhaps in the form of a table

3. Enhance the schedule by introducing flexibility. Given access to software with programming capabilities, automation of the schedule may be introduced (Microsoft Word is just one example of such software)

Universal template

About the template

The box below shows the structure of the template items.

Dimension of being

Dimension or main aspect—activity

Other related activity

The template is designed to be adaptable to life situation, interest, being at home vs away, and choice of activities

Kinds of activity have a basis in the dimensions of being in the way of being.

Being in the world

Pure being—yoga, meditation, immersion , ideas to action

Community—education (general, paradigm, ways of life), retreat to the real, renewal, development-reemphasis of paradigm

Ideas

Relation—knowing as relation to the world, reason, art; acting—effective creation of the real

Means—reason, imagination, meditation and yoga, and the real metaphysics

Becoming—immersive and instrumental

Nature as catalyst to the real

Animal being and devolution—observation, situational empathy, defocus, reason

Society—civilization as vehicle and path to the real

Transformation via psyche—by immersion in social groups as place of being and catalyst to the real

Artifact—civilizing the universe (especially technology as enhancing being in the universe)

Universe as peak consciousness via spread of sapient being with agency

Universal, incompletely known

The common way from self to Being (Atman to Brahman), via the block universe and extended secular worlds consistent with experience of and in the world

Being in the universe

Universal—realizing Peak Being (Brahman) in the present

Said to be rarely achieved in ‘this life’ which is a beginning that is continued beyond death

Outcome of previous items, being in the world, ideas, and becoming—immersive and instrumental

The means are in the previous dimensions, the everyday templates above, and are further open to discovery

The open life may be chosen (or natural to the person) at any phase of life, but may be most natural to the phases of ‘retirement’ and ‘late retirement through death’

Planning—realization of the universal

1. Review phases of life, reflect on possible emphases for life and the phases

2. Asses current phase and select activities of focus

3. Review and plan daily, short, and long term aims and possible activities

4. Include time-frame to execute and then review, assess, renew, and alter plans

5. Build these elements into everyday planning

Resources

Ways—from tradition.

Pathways—derived from the means of realization; see pathways (web version).

See the detailed resources.

The concepts

The main concepts of the essay are—philosophy, doubt, creativity, meaning, a being, being, abstraction, universe, pattern, laws, limit, constraint, cosmos, individual, person, void, peak being, possibility, coherence, greatest, real, agency, metaphysics, epistemology, metanalysis, reflexivity, real metaphysics, experience, pathway, ab initio.

For more on concepts for the way, see metaphysics and vocabulary for the way.

Design and planning for this document

Though fundamental works are often presented as complete and may seem complete regarding their subject, the history of thought shows otherwise.

Therefore, it is desirable for writers to criticize their thought for incompleteness and improvement. This will go toward making the works explicit historical events rather than being presented as facades for finality (of course, it is conceivable that the works may have completeness as, in the present narrative, the ideas are complete with regard to depth but, as shown, as long as beings are limited, ideas must be ever open with regard to breadth).

This section has two main parts—‘The ideas’, which is permanent (though revisable), and ‘This work’, which is temporary.

The ideas

When a work seeks to underly fundamental understanding of the universe, our place in it, and their interacting trajectories, until the work and its aspects are shown complete, its ideas ought always to be open to critical review with imaginative (re-) construction. When one has put much energy and self into such a work, it may be difficult to implement a reconstructive attitude but, if one wants to be true, one ought to be willing to reduce ones thought to zero—again, to begin from scratch, i.e., to begin ab initio.

But there needs to be more than reconstruction of the ideas. The following are important—

1. The ideas.

2. The structure of the main narrative.

3. The way in—an informal introduction that will inform the reader of what the text is about and preliminary elements that will arouse interest and make reading easier than if they were to the main narrative. Though not part of the main narrative, this part is critically important to (i) understanding and motivation for readers (ii) reception of the work.

4. The world revisited—a view of the world, the individual, and their trajectories from the perspectives that have emerged in the narrative. This final part of the narrative may have both formal and informal elements.

5. Supplements—e.g., concepts and vocabulary, index, bibliography, and other resources.

This work

1. Identify main and secondary material.

2. Write the main material in conversational style. As far as consistent with validity of content, use simpler language, divide sentences into shorter ones. Write for understandability of the ideas and for clarity.

3. Make the secondary material identifiable by using indents, smaller font, or footnotes.

4. Perhaps incorporate the main material as part of the table of contents.

5. Regarding the section, ‘Is philosophy something?’, carefully think through the content of the section; shall it be named just, ‘Is philosophy?’

6. The templates, so far, are really templates for the templates and should be firmed up here or in templates and dedication as true templates, possibly with automation. There should be only one version of the ‘template of templates’.

Earlier versions of the work

The present version is modified from the earlier March 14, 2024 version.

The early differences from the previous version are (i) the introductory summary has been replaced by a preview and (ii) the section ‘Is philosophy something?’ from the summary has been moved to the introduction.

Return to the top