The way of being
Questions and Answers

Anil Mitra, Copyright © April 20, 2026

Home

Contents – questions and summary responses
(links are provided when there are detailed answers)

What is the purpose of the questions and answers?

It is a guide to the aim and essence of the way of being and to understanding and appreciating it.

To whom may the way of being appeal?

As it is a way of knowledge and living, it should appeal to academics and those who would go beyond received world culture.

What is the way of being?

Its aim is discovery and realization of the ultimate in, for, and from our world.

It is a way of knowledge in interaction with a way of living that are shown to go beyond standard received ways.

Its approach is discovery (knowledge, method for knowledge) and realization (action) in interaction with one another.

Is the way of being fixated on a remote and inaccessible ultimate? Does it minimize our world?

The ultimate of the way of being is truly ultimate. As ultimate it must be intimately interwoven with the immediate, otherwise it would be less than a true ultimate. To ignore the ultimate would be to the detriment of our world. The approach of the way of being mutually enhances our world and appreciation of and approach to the ultimate.

In the metaphysics and the pathways of the way, both immediate and ultimate are emphasized.

The categories as developed in the way are shown to be complete regarding the dimensions of the ultimate and the immediate (that is, as complete in principle as is available to us while we are limited beings).

Is the way religion, perhaps a religion?

It asks for neither unfounded belief nor rigid adherence to a prescribed way of life.

It does not conceptually divide the world into the mundane and the spiritual or supernatural.

It is about knowledge and action in which knowledge and action are mutually informing.

It shows the universe to be ultimate in realizing all possibility.

It shows that we are part of that realization.

If it is not religion, what is it? Is it a kind of knowledge?

As already remarked, knowledge is involved but the way involves knowledge in interaction with action.

What kind of knowledge? This is addressed just below (action is addressed in above and in detail, later under becoming).

What kind of knowledge does it involve?

It approaches knowledge and its method (i) as a whole (ii) critically in relation to what is empirical and what is rational (i.e., what may be inferred).

It employs what is found valid in traditional disciplines and approaches. It is critical where criticism is warranted and attempts to go beyond what is received.

What is real metaphysics?

It is a join of a perfect framework—the universe as the realization of all possibility—and pragmatic knowledge, which is found perfect-in-transition from joint knowledge (epistemic) and value (beauty, the good) criteria.

Why ‘the real metaphysics’ or just ‘the metaphysics’?

The label ‘the real metaphysics’ is explained above. The label ‘the metaphysics’ is a convenient abbreviation (we may sometimes write ‘TM’).

Why is being emphasized in the way of being?

The concept of ‘being’ is just that of ‘existence’. While the concept is defined and elaborated in the texts, that something has being means that our concept of it corresponds to something real; such things are ‘beings’. One way we arrive at beings is abstraction as defined above. When saying ‘the world has being’ we are saying no more than things are what they are; we are not imputing to them material, mental, or other kinds—kinds that may carry with them error, that may carry an unbearable weight of tradition.

But is not being so conceived trivial? And if so what of Heidegger’s and other’s concept of being is deep and even ineffable?

Here, being is trivial. However, as pointed out above it is the triviality that gives it power. To be sure, by itself, being is trivial. The power is enabled in the way by a ‘ring’ of concepts – see What are the essential concepts of the way of being?. But note that while the power stems from the ring of concepts, it begins with being.

Regarding Heidegger’s conception, note—

Any true depth that Heidegger and others associate with his use of ‘being’ is, here, not of being but to be found within being.

As Heidegger’s association involves a depth and ineffability, it begins with problemacity. Here, we do not avoid any ‘true’ problemacity; however, we do not begin with it.

Is the understanding certain? Is there doubt?

If the proof is accepted, it is certain.

Yet the proof relies upon a formally proven identity of existence and nonexistence of the void (or absence of being or ‘null’ being).

Though this seems contradictory, it is not for, in the case of the void, existence and nonexistence are indistinguishable (which is and cannot be the case for manifest objects while manifest).

Yet there is doubt, for the identity of the void’s existence and nonexistence may seem merely formal; and doubt is forced upon us from the magnitude of the conclusions.

How is doubt addressed?

Doubt is acknowledged.

1.	It is observed that the real metaphysics is self and empirically consistent and that it has proof.

2.	Residual doubt is addressed by regarding the existence of the void, at the foundational base of the metaphysics, (i) as a postulate for a rational metaphysics or (ii) an existential principle for action or (iii) both.

How is the way of being relevant – to my life, to society, to human destiny? And is ‘destiny’ meaningful?

The way asks for no belief without proof. That is, it asks for no ‘mere belief’. The reader who doubts the way is given alternatives to proof. The reader who cannot accept the way, is not asked to stay.

Given this, the relevance of the way is manifest in the foregoing answers and further elaborated in what follows.

From the categories, which are part of the real metaphysics, the pathways address the essential aspects of life, especially human life, of society, and of the world.

Finally, destiny has the meaning that there is an ultimate, but not that the way to the ultimate is linear or easy and not that there is no pain or harm on the way.

Is the way pure joy, without pain or loss? How is pain to be addressed?

Given that all possibility is realized, pain cannot be avoided.

The resolutions to pain are the knowledge that it has an overcoming, that those who are fortunate should give aid to others, that those who suffer meaningless pain is to be experienced as tragic as it occurs but that should not be a detriment to engagement with the way, the right, the good, and with meaning (in the sense of ‘the meaning of life’).

There is no escape or escapism. Pain is given. But that is not to be used to promote disengagement with pathways; it is not an occasion for nihilism or mere existentialism.

What are the sources for the view? Is it original?

The personal sources are in my life, experience, reflection, reading, and synthesis.

It’s sources in world thought, east and west, are significant—see main influences for the way and reading. Though I do not claim to mastery of the material, I have read widely on world ideas from western and eastern traditions. I have drawn much from these sources. I am also indebted to the cultures in which I have been immersed and am not consciously aware of all that I have absorbed.

Is the way original? No work of this kind can be completely original. It is based on ideas absorbed from a wide range of reading. However, there is, unless I am mistaken, originality in (i) content as described in ‘How is it different from our common views?‘ (ii) and in proof and perhaps in the method of proof.

How is the way it different from common views and approaches to ‘understanding, being, and becoming’?

The common views are the secular-scientific, with a particular view of the universe and being, and the transsecular—typically religion and faith.

It goes rationally and empirically beyond the reductive secular view. It goes beyond faith by accepting that it may have symbolic and suggestive value.

Given the significant difference with common views and approaches, how can we understand and live it?

Anticipate the difference—especially that the real metaphysics goes beyond the received in fact and method.

Address difference by

1.	Acknowledging it.

2.	Seeing that the concepts (i) have significant differences from their received use (despite having the same names) (ii) constitute a system.

3.	Accepting that this may be difficult to absorb at once but that this difficulty will be overcome by systematic reading.

4.	By living the way as in the pathways section of the way of being - mini.

Are there problems that expert readers may face?

Perhaps the following—

1.	Just as other readers may be pre-conditioned by their experience and immersion in their cultural views, a trained philosopher may be immersed in ideologies; they may have strived to expertise and are, therefore, resistant to views that are (at least apparently) challenging to their views. The resistance may be subconscious, therefore invisible, and therefore experienced as natural rather than as actual resistance.

2.	Modern readers in the academic fields are likely to be informed by scientific paradigms that present pictures of the world that often taken as definitive of the extent of the real, while the trans-empirical of which nothing is know is definitely -if subconsciously rejected.

Why do we describe the universe as limitless rather than infinite?

To talk of the infinite is to talk of degrees of infinitude and kinds that have infinitude.

Limitlessness is not limited by degree or kind.

Why is it so complex? Is it complex? On its dual simplicity and complexity!

The essence is simple—the universe is (shown to be) ultimate; this has consequences for knowledge and the quality of life; all beings merge in the ultimates (and dissociate in its dissolutions); there are effective and rewarding paths to the ultimate; the paths begin in our world and improve its quality; a few beings realize the ultimate immediately from our world.

What are the essential concepts of the way of being? How were they arrived at?

The summary is of what we want our account to have and corresponding concepts. Main concepts are bold.

We want an account of the world—

1.	That is rooted in the immediacy of our being in the world—experience, awareness, meaning (in the sense of significance, as in the meaning of life, and so on), presence, value, the beautiful, greatness (becoming the greatest one can), a good world, consciousness, quality, intensity, form, concept, relation, object, fictional, as-if, as-if-existent, existent, real, possibility, ethics, living well, value, primary value, derivative value, form, quality, bound, free, personality, ground, choice, projects, evolution, personality-in-formation, sameness, difference, identity, extension, duration, extension-duration, residual indeterminism, field of experience, higher experience, primitive experience.

2.	That is systematic and as far as possible has concepts that enable its generation and justification—systematic, concept meaning, linguistic meaning, knowledge, argument, fact, precise, contingent, necessary, inference, certain, likely. Note—an adequate account of meaning is essential to analytic and synthetic thought using concepts; however, it is not listed as a separate requirement because it falls out of analysis of experience.

3.	That is not rooted in a kind of thing—beings (singular: a being), being, universe, cosmos, law, the void.

4.	That has precision—precision, abstraction.

5.	That is ultimate in two senses, ultimate in knowledge and ultimate in realization—ultimacy (in knowledge, in realization), possibility, logic, god, cosmological possibility, real possibility, logical possibility, argumentative possibility, the real metaphysics (the metaphysics, tm), hierarchy of experiential beings, categories, dynamics.

6.	That shows ways of becoming— pathways, effectiveness, design, enlightenment, attitude (development, balance, integration, death), experience (emotion, pleasure and pain, therapy, direct address, attention – to a path, cognition, integration), programs (being, categories, becoming, daily, home, work, travel, integration, institution), flexibility, adaptability (to a range of personalities, situations, and contexts), negotiation, leadership (role of), resources.

What is the range of possibility under the real metaphysics? What are the significant possibilities?

The range of possibility is what is logically possible. The possibilities are (i) scientific, in that the universe is far greater than is standard in science and this has consequences, especially for physics and cosmology (ii) for our being as greater than the view of human being as traditionally limited, i.e., the universe has limitless variety and peaks in which all beings merge and dissolutions in which beings dissociate. The peaking and dissolving recurs endlessly, with limitless variety.

The way of being
Questions and Answers

What is the purpose of the questions and answers?

It is a guide to the aim and essence of the way of being and to understanding and appreciating it.

To whom may the way of being appeal?

As it is a way of knowledge and living, it should appeal to academics and those who would go beyond received world culture.

What is the way of being?

Summary

Its aim is discovery and realization of the ultimate in, for, and from our world.

It is a way of knowledge in interaction with a way of living that are shown to go beyond standard received ways.

Its approach is discovery (knowledge, method for knowledge) and realization (action) in interaction with one another.

Detailed response

The way of being is—

Not just knowledge or directed action but both in interaction! It is a system of understanding and knowledge of the universe and our world and a way of life in mutual interaction. That is—

Understanding informs living.

What is learned in living informs understanding.

The system is proven, shown self-consistent, and shown consistent with what is valid in experience and our actual and possible knowledge.

The understanding is encapsulated in a metaphysics called the ‘real metaphysics’ or just ‘the metaphysics’ from which—

There are positive implications for the quality of life in our world and for human knowledge.

The universe is shown to realize the greatest possibility. Therefore, the universe has identity.

The universe is limitless in variety, extension, duration, peakings of being (in which all beings merge as one being), and dissolutions.

Thus, a reasonable meaning to attach to terms such a ‘god’ and ‘brahman’ is the process from our world to peakings (across cosmoses) to dissolutions to peakings without limit in magnitude, variety, and repetition. In this meaning, we are part of the process called god, which is not perfect but may approach perfection, and is immanent rather than remote.

Pathways in, for, and from the worlds of beings to the ultimate are developed and presented. The pathways are flexible and adaptable to a range of personality types, life situations, and individual and shared aims.

Is the way of being fixated on a remote and inaccessible ultimate? Does it minimize our world?

The ultimate of the way of being is truly ultimate. As ultimate it must be intimately interwoven with the immediate, otherwise it would be less than a true ultimate. To ignore the ultimate would be to the detriment of our world. The approach of the way of being mutually enhances our world and appreciation of and approach to the ultimate.

In the metaphysics and the pathways of the way, both immediate and ultimate are emphasized.

The categories as developed in the way are shown to be complete regarding the dimensions of the ultimate and the immediate (that is, as complete in principle as is available to us while we are limited beings).

Is the way religion, perhaps a religion?

It asks for neither unfounded belief nor rigid adherence to a prescribed way of life.

It does not conceptually divide the world into the mundane and the spiritual or supernatural.

It is about knowledge and action in which knowledge and action are mutually informing.

It shows the universe to be ultimate in realizing all possibility.

It shows that we are part of that realization.

If it is not religion, what is it? Is it a kind of knowledge?

As already remarked, knowledge is involved but the way involves knowledge in interaction with action.

What kind of knowledge? This is addressed just below (action is addressed in above and in detail, later under becoming).

What kind of knowledge does it involve?

Summary

It approaches knowledge and its method (i) as a whole (ii) critically in relation to what is empirical and what is rational (i.e., what may be inferred).

It employs what is found valid in traditional disciplines and approaches. It is critical where criticism is warranted and attempts to go beyond what is received.

Detailed response

Is that knowledge science, philosophy, metaphysics, value, meaning of life, or argument, or other knowledge discipline?

As the disciplines are somewhat arbitrary (and sometimes seen as in conflict), we step back and look at knowledge in itself (without denying significance to the disciplines).

It is not just about knowledge but about how it is obtained and justified, i.e., about ‘method’ (this the reference to ‘argument’ above).

But how is knowledge as a whole effectively addressed?

It begins without seeing the world as made up of something, e.g., matter, mind, or process, or space, word, trope, or other special kind. Instead, it says, effectively, ‘the world is what it is; as far as there are things, they are what they are’. Thus, it begins without the possible error of kinds such as mind and matter. But is it not trivial? In a sense, yes—it is trivial and shallow. However, this is (leveraged as) a source of conceptual and knowledge power.

This enables a framework, the ultimate framework described in What kind of activity is the way of being? This yields realization of the ultimate as an ultimate value (though not the only value and it is notable that the ultimate and the immediate are mutually enhancing).

The framework is complemented – filled in – by received human knowledge, with its disciplines, which are taken as approximate and in-process.

Given the ultimate and that the proximate (the received) is rough, the entire system has perfection toward the ultimate value and is named ‘the real metaphysics’ or just ‘the metaphysics’.

What is real metaphysics?

Summary

It is a join of a perfect framework—the universe as the realization of all possibility—and pragmatic knowledge, which is found perfect-in-transition from joint knowledge (epistemic) and value (beauty, the good) criteria.

Detailed response

‘Metaphysics’ has a meanings or senses. It has a common use in which it talks especially of the supernatural (as noted above we reject that notion as far as it sets aside ‘another plane’). However, we are interested in its rational use, real or purported—

It has been used to justify religious belief, especially dogma. This is sometimes called ‘special metaphysics’ and it is of interest to the way only as far as it suggests ways of argument.

The real interest here is as follows—metaphysics as the study of the real; two approaches may be recognized—

Metaphysics via hypothesis formation, derivation of consequences, and then subject to rational and empirical confirmation. A.N. Whitehead called this speculative metaphysics and his Process and Reality is an example.

Metaphysics as concept formation that is faithful to the real—this is ‘real metaphysics’. Given that all knowledge may be in error, how is this possible? That all knowledge may be in error does not imply that all knowledge is in (possible) error (and the thought that error is ubiquitous is a pervasive error of thought). The approach is ‘abstraction’—to abstract from a concept all that is subject to error and distortion. Thus, while my knowledge of things may be erroneous or distorted, that there is something is not, for, we know that there is experience (this is essentially Descartes’ Cogito argument). While this is trivial it is the beginning of a powerful development in which the triviality, the shallowness, is empowering.

Why ‘the real metaphysics’ or just ‘the metaphysics’?

The label ‘the real metaphysics’ is explained above. The label ‘the metaphysics’ is a convenient abbreviation (we may sometimes write ‘TM’).

Why is being emphasized in the way of being?

The concept of ‘being’ is just that of ‘existence’. While the concept is defined and elaborated in the texts, that something has being means that our concept of it corresponds to something real; such things are ‘beings’. One way we arrive at beings is abstraction as defined above. When saying ‘the world has being’ we are saying no more than things are what they are; we are not imputing to them material, mental, or other kinds—kinds that may carry with them error, that may carry an unbearable weight of tradition.

But is not being so conceived trivial? And if so what of Heidegger’s and other’s concept of being is deep and even ineffable?

Here, being is trivial. However, as pointed out above it is the triviality that gives it power. To be sure, by itself, being is trivial. The power is enabled in the way by a ‘ring’ of concepts – see What are the essential concepts of the way of being?. But note that while the power stems from the ring of concepts, it begins with being.

Regarding Heidegger’s conception, note—

Any true depth that Heidegger and others associate with his use of ‘being’ is, here, not of being but to be found within being.

As Heidegger’s association involves a depth and ineffability, it begins with problemacity. Here, we do not avoid any ‘true’ problemacity; however, we do not begin with it.

Is the understanding certain? Is there doubt?

If the proof is accepted, it is certain.

Yet the proof relies upon a formally proven identity of existence and nonexistence of the void (or absence of being or ‘null’ being).

Though this seems contradictory, it is not for, in the case of the void, existence and nonexistence are indistinguishable (which is and cannot be the case for manifest objects while manifest).

Yet there is doubt, for the identity of the void’s existence and nonexistence may seem merely formal; and doubt is forced upon us from the magnitude of the conclusions.

How is doubt addressed?

Summary

Doubt is acknowledged.

It is observed that the real metaphysics is self and empirically consistent and that it has proof.

Residual doubt is addressed by regarding the existence of the void, at the foundational base of the metaphysics, (i) as a postulate for a rational metaphysics or (ii) an existential principle for action or (iii) both.

Detailed response

If there were no proof and if the system lacked consistency, it would not just be doubted—it would be rejected. But there is proof; there are alternate proofs, and the system is both internally and externally consistent (i.e., logically consistent, empirically consistent, and consistent with what is valid in our theories; note of course that ‘consistent’ does not mean proven—it means not unproven).

Thus

Doubts may and ought to arise. How ought doubt to be addressed? Recognize that doubt is natural.

It may then be addressed as above, or, since this is not expected to remove all doubt (I still have doubt), the doubt may be accepted.

If accepted, we may:

Treat the fundamental demonstrated but doubted ‘axiom’ of the way—the existence of the void—as a postulate as basis for a science or metaphysics of all being (the universe). This is analogous to the treatment in relativity of the constancy of the speed of light as a postulate.

Treat the fundamental axiom—existence of the void—as basis of existential thought and action.

How is the way of being relevant – to my life, to society, to human destiny? And is ‘destiny’ meaningful?

The way asks for no belief without proof. That is, it asks for no ‘mere belief’. The reader who doubts the way is given alternatives to proof. The reader who cannot accept the way, is not asked to stay.

Given this, the relevance of the way is manifest in the foregoing answers and further elaborated in what follows.

From the categories, which are part of the real metaphysics, the pathways address the essential aspects of life, especially human life, of society, and of the world.

Finally, destiny has the meaning that there is an ultimate, but not that the way to the ultimate is linear or easy and not that there is no pain or harm on the way.

Is the way pure joy, without pain or loss? How is pain to be addressed?

Given that all possibility is realized, pain cannot be avoided.

The resolutions to pain are the knowledge that it has an overcoming, that those who are fortunate should give aid to others, that those who suffer meaningless pain is to be experienced as tragic as it occurs but that should not be a detriment to engagement with the way, the right, the good, and with meaning (in the sense of ‘the meaning of life’).

There is no escape or escapism. Pain is given. But that is not to be used to promote disengagement with pathways; it is not an occasion for nihilism or mere existentialism.

What are the sources for the view? Is it original?

The personal sources are in my life, experience, reflection, reading, and synthesis.

It’s sources in world thought, east and west, are significant—see main influences for the way and reading. Though I do not claim to mastery of the material, I have read widely on world ideas from western and eastern traditions. I have drawn much from these sources. I am also indebted to the cultures in which I have been immersed and am not consciously aware of all that I have absorbed.

Is the way original? No work of this kind can be completely original. It is based on ideas absorbed from a wide range of reading. However, there is, unless I am mistaken, originality in (i) content as described in ‘How is it different from our common views?‘ (ii) and in proof and perhaps in the method of proof.

How is the way it different from common views and approaches to ‘understanding, being, and becoming’?

Summary

The common views are the secular-scientific, with a particular view of the universe and being, and the transsecular—typically religion and faith.

It goes rationally and empirically beyond the reductive secular view. It goes beyond faith by accepting that it may have symbolic and suggestive value.

Detailed response

It is not just a view—it is also a way of action.

The common views are—

Secular, roughly (i) that the world is as it is seen in ordinary terms, everyday experience, and science (ii) values as seen in or derived from this view of the world.

Transsecular—that there is a ‘higher’ transsecular reality. Everyday values are not rejected but corrected and enhanced by the transsecular reality.

Metaphysics is a term that has more than one use. In one use it is purported to be a rational justification of supernaturalism, including religion; here we are not interested in this use. In another use it is intended, like science, to be an extension of common experience via imagination (hypothesis), subject to criticism. This is the use of interest here.

In the method of the way of being

First, there is real metaphysics in which the basic terms correspond to the real (especially ‘being’ as that which is, ‘universe’ as all being, ‘void’ as absence of being, and ‘laws’ as immanent pattern and therefore as beings). A true picture of the real can be derived via logical process beginning with these terms.

Then there is speculative metaphysics which has a range of meanings but here is use of pragmatic human knowledge, including science. How can we use mere pragmatism to talk of the real. We do not. Rather, real metaphysics forms an ultimate framework with an ultimate value which allows error in thinking within the framework and so justifies the use of the ‘speculative’ metaphysics.

In the metaphysics of the way of being

There is one reality which includes but is far ‘greater’ than what is valid in the ordinary views.

The one reality is far greater than the secular. It is the realization of all possibility in (what may be called) material and existential or spiritual terms. The greater reality may be difficult to see but is not other than the immediate. The universe cycles between peaks of limitless quality, magnitude, variety, and extent in space and time. All beings merge in the peaks. And there are effective paths to the peaks in, for, and from our world.

Thus, the work is significantly different from common views. It presents far greater view that the common views and whereas the common—transsecular and secular—are not cohesive the present view is.

Given the significant difference with common views and approaches, how can we understand and live it?

Summary

Anticipate the difference—especially that the real metaphysics goes beyond the received in fact and method.

Address difference by

Acknowledging it.

Seeing that the concepts (i) have significant differences from their received use (despite having the same names) (ii) constitute a system.

Accepting that this may be difficult to absorb at once but that this difficulty will be overcome by systematic reading.

By living the way as in the pathways section of the way of being - mini.

Detailed response

In the first place note that

The present view has similarities to some common views—those that see us as part of the eternal process of the universe.

Two differences are (i) the present view is demonstrated (ii) the means of demonstration is also a way of seeing the true variety of the universe (in some detail).

Let us address the question of understanding—

It is necessary to spend time to absorb the view, first with explicit concepts, then in intuition as a Gestalt or whole view, and finally, for reinforcement, in action.

Though many of the terms used commonly, everyday and in philosophy, their meaning here is specific and often enhanced. Therefore, one must attend to these meanings rather than their received meaning (it is not necessary to discard the received meanings.

The terms (concepts) fit together as a system. To see the system, one may begin by systematic reading. The connections among the terms are part of the development, which helps with seeing and intuiting the system. Living with the system and re-reading will help.

In developing the system of the way, I (the author) had to struggle with finding my way to the new meanings. Similarly, readers may need to put effort into following explanations.

I also had to struggle toward the system as system which I arrived at in iterative process of changing and adding meaning. The system as it stands today was not arrived at in a single step. Readers will not need to go through this process but will need to put effort into seeing the system of the system. This will be enhanced by following and thinking about the text as it develops from start to finish.

Are there problems that expert readers may face?

Perhaps the following—

Just as other readers may be pre-conditioned by their experience and immersion in their cultural views, a trained philosopher may be immersed in ideologies; they may have strived to expertise and are, therefore, resistant to views that are (at least apparently) challenging to their views. The resistance may be subconscious, therefore invisible, and therefore experienced as natural rather than as actual resistance.

Modern readers in the academic fields are likely to be informed by scientific paradigms that present pictures of the world that often taken as definitive of the extent of the real, while the trans-empirical of which nothing is know is definitely -if subconsciously rejected.

Why do we describe the universe as limitless rather than infinite?

To talk of the infinite is to talk of degrees of infinitude and kinds that have infinitude.

Limitlessness is not limited by degree or kind.

Why is it so complex? Is it complex? On its dual simplicity and complexity!

Summary

The essence is simple—the universe is (shown to be) ultimate; this has consequences for knowledge and the quality of life; all beings merge in the ultimates (and dissociate in its dissolutions); there are effective and rewarding paths to the ultimate; the paths begin in our world and improve its quality; a few beings realize the ultimate immediately from our world.

Detailed response

The way of being is not essentially complex. A simple view of the way is (i) received views are typically limited on account of their limited view of argument—i.e., what is empirical and what is rational (ii) we find the universe and our beings limitless (and the limited view is so on limited spacetime scales) (iii) there is a way of transcendence (iv) such ways enhance the immediate and the ultimate (v) all this can be shown via a proper view of the empirical and the rational.

All the complexity lies in the final item #v, which in its bare outline is deep rather than complex.

The work is complex, as far as it is complex, because—

It learns from received thought.

Especially as it gives back to received thought.

Real and temporal limitations of the author.

What are the essential concepts of the way of being? How were they arrived at?

Summary

The summary is of what we want our account to have and corresponding concepts. Main concepts are bold.

We want an account of the world—

That is rooted in the immediacy of our being in the world—experience, awareness, meaning (in the sense of significance, as in the meaning of life, and so on), presence, value, the beautiful, greatness (becoming the greatest one can), a good world, consciousness, quality, intensity, form, concept, relation, object, fictional, as-if, as-if-existent, existent, real, possibility, ethics, living well, value, primary value, derivative value, form, quality, bound, free, personality, ground, choice, projects, evolution, personality-in-formation, sameness, difference, identity, extension, duration, extension-duration, residual indeterminism, field of experience, higher experience, primitive experience.

That is systematic and as far as possible has concepts that enable its generation and justification—systematic, concept meaning, linguistic meaning, knowledge, argument, fact, precise, contingent, necessary, inference, certain, likely. Note—an adequate account of meaning is essential to analytic and synthetic thought using concepts; however, it is not listed as a separate requirement because it falls out of analysis of experience.

That is not rooted in a kind of thing—beings (singular: a being), being, universe, cosmos, law, the void.

That has precision—precision, abstraction.

That is ultimate in two senses, ultimate in knowledge and ultimate in realization—ultimacy (in knowledge, in realization), possibility, logic, god, cosmological possibility, real possibility, logical possibility, argumentative possibility, the real metaphysics (the metaphysics, tm), hierarchy of experiential beings, categories, dynamics.

That shows ways of becoming— pathways, effectiveness, design, enlightenment, attitude (development, balance, integration, death), experience (emotion, pleasure and pain, therapy, direct address, attention – to a path, cognition, integration), programs (being, categories, becoming, daily, home, work, travel, integration, institution), flexibility, adaptability (to a range of personalities, situations, and contexts), negotiation, leadership (role of), resources.

Detailed response

We want an account of the world—

That is rooted in the immediacy of our being in the world. The chosen concept is experience—i.e., awareness in all its kinds and levels.

Experience is the place of meaning in the sense of significance; it is the place of our being in the sense of being present—of having presence and value—in and to the world.

What is meaningful? For me, it is—

The beauty of the world, seeking, cultivating, and creating what is beautiful.

Greatness—discovering and becoming great as far as I (we) can (for Nietzsche’s ‘Higher Man’, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/).

For all beings, to make a good world—one that is good in itself and that promotes discovery of and becoming our greatest accessible being(s)

Experience includes consciousness and receptive and active modes; it has quality, intensity, and form.

Experience has the following aspects—experience of (concept) – the experience itself (relation) – the experienced (object).

Objects may be fictional-existents or as-if-existents, but are otherwise existents i.e., real. Real objects are beings. If either real or fictional-as-if but consistent, the object has possibility.

We are experiential beings.

From experience as the place of meaning in the sense of significance, it is generative of ethics, understood to intersect meaning in the sense of significance and what it is to live well, which finds quality and form of experience to be the intrinsic place of value , i.e., of primary value, and that all other value is derivative value (from experience).

Dimensions of experience—

Experiential dimensions of state are form – quality, bound – free, integration as personality.

Experiential trajectory in time – ground and choice, projects, and evolution, integrating as personality-in-formation.

If the universe were strictly material, the kind that experience is would extend to the root of being (in primitive form that would not be recognized internally or externally as we experience as our experience). However, the universe is not known to be rooted in substance. What are sufficient conditions for the universe to be experiential? This is addressed below.

From sameness and difference within experience, the concepts of identity, extension, and duration, may be generated such that extension-duration is perspectival and immanent in being.

Anticipating the real metaphysics, particularly if the universe realizes all possibility.

Extension-duration-being has residual indeterminism.

The universe would effectively be a field of experience (with higher experience compounded of primitive experience).

While experience may be limitless in variety and richness, there is nothing beyond experience – i.e., no kind of being that has a capability that is higher than experientiality.

That is systematic and as far as possible has concepts that enable its generation and justification.

To be systematic.

As far as possible to be self-generative regarding concept meaning and linguistic meaning, knowledge, and argument (fact – precise or imprecise, contingent or necessary; inference – certain or likely). This is leveraged with experience.

Note—an adequate account of meaning is essential to analytic and synthetic thought using concepts; however, it is not listed as a separate requirement because it falls out of analysis of experience.

That is not rooted in a kind of thing—thus we introduce beings (singular: a being) as existents (we use the term existent so as to avoid connotations such as ‘thing’, ‘entity’, ‘process’, and other limited kinds of existent) and being as existence—the property of existents.

Beings – that also follow perfectly via abstraction – universe, cosmos, law, the void.

That has precision—since we know that there is existence (e.g., by a refinement of Descartes’ Cogito argument), being fits. Essential to the argument is that experience counts as existing even though experiences as-if of some particular things may not define existents precisely—that is, we use abstraction, which is to remove from a concept whatever is subject to distortion.

That is ultimate in two senses—ultimate in knowledge and ultimate in realization.

We have seen that being and some basic beings are perfectly known. But how can we know the ultimate? One approach is via laws as beings, that there are no laws in the void, that therefore the void generates all possibility, consistent with logic (the greatest possibility) and fact (as known). This generates realization as an ultimate value; god as the process of realizing in which all beings merge (as one).

More can be said on logic and argument. Cosmological possibility may be defined as something that is consistent with its laws and extent; real possibility in a limited sense is possibility in a given cosmos or context, while in an inclusive sense it is possibility in some cosmos or context. There are existents that are not cosmologically possible but that would be possible under some laws and extent (which allows for no laws and limitless extent). Such existents have what we call logical possibility. Under TM, the universe is the logically possible. That is given. We may presume with some confidence that our systems of logic are systems of logical possibility but are perhaps, in some cases, not true logics in the sense of logical possibility and, certainly, our logics are not a complete expression of logical possibility. Just as argument extends logic, so argumentative possibility extends logical possibility.

Fit in richness. Therefore, the real metaphysics (that argumentative and real possibilities are the same, the metaphysics, tm) is ultimate; an ethical-epistemic generation.

Hierarchy of experiential beings. While we are limited, we understand TM in principle but not in all that it entails.

Generates categories and their dynamics.

That shows ways of becoming—pathways, effectiveness, design, enlightenment, attitude (development, balance, integration, death), experience (emotion, pleasure and pain – therapy, direct address, attention (to a path); cognition, integration), programs (being, categories, becoming, daily; home, work, travel; integration; institution), flexibility, adaptability (to a range of personalities, situations, and contexts), negotiation, leadership (role of), resources.

What is the range of possibility under the real metaphysics? What are the significant possibilities?

Summary

The range of possibility is what is logically possible. The possibilities are (i) scientific, in that the universe is far greater than is standard in science and this has consequences, especially for physics and cosmology (ii) for our being as greater than the view of human being as traditionally limited, i.e., the universe has limitless variety and peaks in which all beings merge and dissolutions in which beings dissociate. The peaking and dissolving recurs endlessly, with limitless variety.

Detailed response

The full range of possibility is what is logically possible

The possibilities are significant—

As material or logical—with consequences, first, for physics and cosmology, but also for other sciences, especially biology.

A possibility is the way things could consistently have been. Consistent with what? In a limited sense, consistent with the laws and extent of our cosmos, and in a maximal sense, consistent with two constraints (i) known facts and theories in their domain of validity (ii) logic. In the maximal sense, there may be cosmoses or worlds beyond ours—(a) remote in spacetime or (b) not remote, even present, in spacetime but in level of interaction or (c) not (yet) observed in some other way, perhaps an unknown way. This way of describing the possibilities is a ‘one world’ approach.

An alternative is to think of our world—all we observe—as the actual world and that there are other possible worlds (constrained by some principle, which, in the inclusive case, is logic). There are diverging views on the actual v possible worlds—(i) the possible worlds do not exist (ii) the possible worlds exist but are causally isolated from our actual world (they may be the actual worlds of other beings (iii) the possible worlds exist and are only temporarily causally or observationally isolated from us.

A source for the ‘alternative’ possible worlds view is—Possible Worlds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

The third view just above does not seem to be noted in the literature but is a consequence of the real metaphysics (TM). A preliminary exposition of this view is in the cosmology that is consequent on the real metaphysics, of which a beginning is in the following link. Completion of this cosmology is a project to be informed by sources here.

As possibilities for beings with experience—(i) what the possibilities are and (ii) how we may attain them.

What the possibilities are—they begin with experiential being as described earlier in the essential concepts and in this link (the same as above).

How they may be attained is also described in the earlier link, in its part on pathways.