Thursday, February 02, 2006
Dear Robin,
Recently (a few months ago) you have said a number of negative things about me and my situation. At least, they could be taken as negative even though your intent may not have been negative or critical. In any case, as a result of what I have perceived, I have been feeling a need to address some concerns that have arisen. This is not the first version of this letter. I have not been pleased with previous versions. It has taken me a while to realize what I feel (in words) and to be satisfied that what I write reasonably addresses what I feel
One reason to write is out of self-respect. I am unable to assess whether what you have said represents any ‘lack of respect.’ The issue could be made subtle or it could be made complex. I prefer to treat it as simple. I will say this. Where some may see something negative, a loss of confidence, not using my abilities, not realizing my potential, I see something quite different. In terms of what is important to me and in terms of what I think to be the ideal case, I do not personally know anyone who has had as much courage with regard to choices and sacrifices – not just at one time but consistently over many years. As far as use of talent is concerned, I think (given practical realities) that I have used my ability as best as I could and that I have applied care and foresight in the use of that ability. I have strived (attempted to strive) to use my abilities (such as they may be) toward good rather than gain. And, in the end, I think that what I have achieved is quite remarkable. In saying this there is no suggestion of a ‘march toward glory;’ there have been trials, doubts, hesitations, struggles, questions… I am not altogether sure what has sustained me; it has been hope, optimism, vision, and, what I perceive to be the possibility if not probability of success, whose terms may not be measured in any usual sense, in my ambition. Although I will not elaborate on ‘sacrifice,’ ‘courage,’ etc., I will elaborate on what I feel I have achieved subsequently
It seems to me that there has been a trend or tendency of negative interpretation of my situation. When you said that you thought that I had ‘lost confidence,’ you did say that you weren’t sure of what you felt but your argument was more forceful that that of stating a ‘mere hypothesis.’ You have been consistently ‘negative’ about other employment. If everything that you have said were true, a logical conclusion would be for me to ‘give up and accept my gloomy situation.’ Thus far, however, it has not occurred to me to do so
Of course I am not saying that everything is negative and have felt much caring and support from you
It seems to me that there is something missing in your understanding of me, of my situation, and of what I am and have been trying to do with my life. It may be, as you have said, that we have not interacted much over the last thirty five or so years. However, we do seem to talk, say, every two months; but these conversations are casual and not particularly disclosing. Your life and ambitions are, probably, quite different from mine; in terms of what is important to us, and we are different in a number of significant ways. Without doubt our personalities are quite different. I suspect you have changed in some ways over the course of years. You seemed to be somewhat radical when you were younger. It would be natural, given your situation in life and the requirements for self-esteem for you to have become more conservative; I think you have said as much. In your work environment, as in any such environment, there are certain kinds of attitudes that it is usual to express – regardless of whether the individual subscribes to the attitudes. It is a natural tendency though not a necessary outcome that the individual actually internalizes those attitudes. The foregoing factors may predispose you to have difficulty understanding what I am doing and why. Perhaps your views of me are ‘correct,’ perhaps not; it is not clear that ‘correct’ has universal meaning in this context. Perhaps I could supply the necessary framework for you to understand my situation; that is one of the purposes of this letter. Of course, that you lack such understanding (in whatever degree) is an assumption. Regarding the attitudes that you may have, you may also have some presumption regarding their validity and universality. This is perfectly natural; I think that more people are like this than not; I am not criticizing it. I do not know whether you have presumptions of the kind in question (there could be a number of them including the presumption that one’s presumptions are in fact natural, valid and universal) but it is reasonable to think that you might. There is no sense to ‘objecting’ to such presumptions. You might not even be aware (except in moments of reflection) that you have such presumptions. It may seem as though I am suggesting that presumptions are ‘mere’ presumptions – altogether relative. I am not saying this. Every such set of presumptions goes along with and sustains some context (in this case the environments within which you live.) However, even if valid (i.e. sustaining of the context) such attitudes are not universal. And, since there are contexts within contexts, there are degrees of universality. I might seem to be saying that there is no such thing as ‘objectivity’ but that is not the case; I say, instead, that there are contexts within which objectivity is possible, meaning that there may be a universal context, and that there are also (sub) contexts within which truth has no particular independent meaning but remains in the service of the context. I am droning on as though I know what I am talking about, i.e. as though what I say is established, but I am in fact more or less inventing what I have been saying as I write; however what I say seems to make sense to me; it is based in experience; and it is somewhat a synthesis of my reflections and what seems to be valid to me in various accounts of the way in which we hold our views. However the ‘discourse’ is preliminary to the following assertions. (1) Although I might accept some of any presumptions that you may have, this would be on a case by case basis; there is no a priori acceptance by me of the presumptions. (2) There is no a priori rejection of your presumptions. I.e. I do not stand in judgment of you or your choices; however I do not accept, whether you presume this or not, that you stand in any privileged place from which you can make objective assessments of me or my life in absolute terms or in comparison to anyone else or in comparison to ‘what I might have been.’ I hope that what I say is not taken as rebuke. It is not intended that way. In day to day affairs, at least, some presumption toward the world is probably inevitable; however, I felt it necessary to make the assertion regarding the privilege of presumption. Perhaps the correct statement should regard any ‘relatively privileged place,’ i.e. that whatever ‘privilege’ may exist is, in my estimation, neither more nor less than that of anyone else. (3) I raised the question of respect earlier. I am assuming that there is no actual lack of respect. However, there may be both presumption and assumption
If your judgment is not based in presumption it may be based in assumption (or both, perhaps in mutual reinforcement.) If you think that I have ‘lost confidence’ then it is likely that you think that somehow getting a teaching job (for example) is something like ‘most desirable’ to me and that I am something like ‘unhappy’ in my present situation. Neither of those assertions, if made, would be true. I elaborate on alternate jobs later (you may or may not know that I have applied for such work and have been offered some positions applied for that I found undesirable.) As to unhappiness this, too, and its importance to me is elaborated later. There are some aspects of my life that I don’t like from time to time. In my present job, the main undesirables have been the supervisor who I did not like and thought to be grossly incompetent and who is no longer there; I do not like being taken away from my writing and related work but this would much more of a problem in other work; I would like more pay even though my pay is comfortable; I would like more respect but I remember feeling similarly in other situations. However, looking at the total picture, given that I have to have some kind of job to earn money, I cannot imagine a better situation. I am able to work on what I truly like more than I have ever been able to do before. Now I take up your comment on getting American Citizenship. The rapidity with which you concluded something like ‘that’s the same thing’ in making your point about ‘losing confidence’ is one of the factors that makes me think that your thoughts are more than ‘mere hypothesis.’ Even here though, there is probably some assuming going on. As I said I did apply for citizenship; this, however was for practical reasons and not for any intrinsic merit of American vs. Indian citizenship; regarding such merit I have always been and still am ambivalent; therefore, even though there is in fact some practical imperative, I do not feel any necessity to acquire American Citizenship with speed. If it were possible to maintain both citizenships the situation might be different but it is against Indian law to maintain Indian Citizenship and, at the same time, Citizenship of any other country (‘Indian Citizenship Law Does Not Provide For Dual Citizenship and, accordingly, it is illegal for a person to possess an Indian Passport once he/she becomes citizen of another country.’) Your possible assumption here is similar to the possible assumption regarding ‘loss in confidence’ i.e. that the practical and external (this term is explained later) concerns are or should be the only or dominant factors in my thinking. The thinking here is natural enough given that we live in an age where ideals do not mean as much as they have in other times; however, it is not correct in my case; and it is bound to be incorrect if it is thought that it is or should apply to all individuals
In writing this letter I have been addressing concerns that I have identified; and I have also said why I want to address those concerns. I hope that I have not been either offensive or defensive. I may be mistaken in what I perceive of your perceptions; this is a problem that I note that I have had when communicating with others who are not present. In general, though, I have found it better to say something rather than nothing. However, there is a considerable part of the letter in which I have described and attempted to explain what I have been trying to do with my life; I had wanted to do this for some time
It seems to me that regardless of the truth of what you have said it is not a good thing for our relationship to be characterized by the negative trend which may have been revealed. I am not sure how to change the trend (or to change my perception that there is such a trend) but this is one of the purposes of this letter. I could be more accurate about that. Even though I might prefer that your views were different, I cannot change them and should not want to change them. The fact that I cannot change them is a logical point; the thought that I should not want to change them is that any intent to change your thinking would be presumptive. However, I can give you my views of myself and my situation. This is what I am doing in this letter. It is not something that I do often for others although I do it routinely for myself. I have done this for our parents; for one other party; and I am now doing it for you… Actually, there are two possible trends in question. One is what you think. The second is what you say which may or may not be identical to what you think. Another purpose to the reflections in this letter is that I do not want to feel a need to discount or avoid your views so it is probably good to address them
I am not sure why you have or have had the views in question. I have had various thoughts regarding this but they are (at most reasonable) speculations. Although I can understand that someone might view what has been happening as a ‘loss of confidence,’ your response was not to the question that I did ask but to a negative though not equivalent interpretation of it. Additionally, the response was to the negative end of the responses that might be consistent with what you know of me. Regarding the likelihood of getting engineering or other technical work, your thinking is no doubt based in real factors but may have not taken into account my ability to take initiative and the variety of kinds of positions and employers (especially in America where there is a greater variety.) Since I live with myself I could hardly be unaware that your stated conclusion is consistent with the surface data and, as a result of a habit of self-analysis, is of the kind that I have addressed repeatedly over the last twenty years and perhaps more
What I have just said is not my main concern. Whereas I have mostly felt a positive connection with you in our mutual outlook on life, especially since we left India, I now sense gloom from what is to me an important and loved corner of the universe. I may be mistaken but this is what I have been feeling. There is a sense of loss. Mostly, especially since about 1962, I have felt my life to be a wonderful adventure. Of course real adventure requires much application. I have felt much doubt but the process is one of permitting doubt and working with and through it. Whereas I saw you as having a supportive attitude I now doubt this. Where I assumed the adventure was shared (in spirit) I now wonder whether you see the adventure
I used to find dad’s views to be generally pessimistic. Perhaps he found me to be unrealistic. It is not altogether easy to attach objectivity to such views because differences in values (which do not seem to be altogether objective) and differences in attitudes (personality.) Regardless, I would rather not deal with what I see as pessimism unless you were to open up to critique. It is not that I want to ‘criticize’ but that criticism (with intent to evaluate but not to rank) may be necessary to seeing what is true
Perhaps what I see is incorrect, perhaps it is a partial view of the picture, and perhaps it is exaggerated. However, it is good to put it into words for now what I see can be addressed so that you have a chance to see my life from my view point. You will have an opportunity to reassess your position. I cannot of course expect that you will revise your views but if so I will then know where you stand that and live with that. In identifying that I feel some ‘loss’ I have already accepted the fact to some extent and I wonder whether I may have been living under (partial) illusion
Even if my picture of what you think is distorted, it is clear that you have misunderstood some combination of (1) What I am trying to do with my life and thought and (2) the means required to do it. The ‘investigations’ with which I have been involved have required a huge amount of study, ‘research,’ and writing. I put ‘research’ in quotes because although some of it may be labeled analytic and scholarly, mere scholarship has not been my intent and experience has also been necessary. I have been required to plumb the depth and breadth of being (in thought.) (You once asked whether my writing was concerned with religion. In my writing, I begin with no intent that ‘being’ should have a religious connotation. However, once the character of being has been established, such connotations may be inferred; and any such inferences will also depend on the meaning of ‘religion.’ It turns out that there are implications for religion, the religious attitude, and ‘other’ aspects of human life. The present version of journey in being has some discussion of these implications; the version that I am currently writing will have an extended and systematic discussion in which I will attempt to be (somewhat) comprehensive with regard to the meaning, significance and possibilities of religion and its place in the modern world. I will attempt to address the question whether religion is marginal or harmful –as some hold– or whether it is essential, positive and necessary and, if so, in what way. One aspect of religion is that to the extent that the hold of dogma depends on having people accept what seems absurd, a real foundation for dogma may be undermining. This is not the only function of the apparently absurd and another function is to point out the incompleteness of common sense attitudes. These are just examples of what will be included in the next version)
If I knew at the outset what it was, in terms of my understanding of the world, that I needed and what the content of that understanding was going to be, the road to the end –as it stands today– may have been much shorter
However, it turned out that I did not know the ‘end’ and, further, I could not have known it. This is because what I have discovered shows that the modern system of knowledge that is the foundation of (our) modern education reveals an ‘infinitesimal’ fraction of the real. Thus, the amounts of work that I have undertaken and the inspiration required have been huge; just the preliminary to understanding the extent and being aware of the possibility of extending it involved acquiring some grasp of the modern system in its entirety. The extension itself involved numerous trials each of which involved imagining and constructing new entire pictures. The earliest main picture emerged in EVOLUTION AND DESIGN (1985;) after that it required time and reflection to see the fundamental inadequacies of that monumental (in terms of size and effort) work – the earliest explicit glimmerings occurred in 1992; numerous patchwork attempts at a ‘post evolutionary’ conceptual framework followed; an early synthesis was BEING, MIND AND THE ABSOLUTE (1998) which was marked by maturing yet immature thought and marred by an unnecessary idealism (the meaning of idealism used here is that the universe is mental in nature; the framework of Evolution and Design had been materialist in nature.) These attempts at a post evolutionary, post materialist framework were useful and insightful but logically incomplete – intuition substituted for places where reason / logic may have been lacking. The insight that allowed maturity, logic over intuition alone, that allowed me to see and demonstrate that foundation in substance (whether matter or mind or other) or any other category such as process or relationship is unnecessary and limiting of final depth to foundation and productive of many of the artificial problems from the history of philosophy including the mind-matter problem and the problem of infinite regress in foundations, occurred in 2002; the first version of JOURNEY IN BEING appeared in 2003 which required first a working out of the fundamental logic from the insight, then extending a number of major disciplines of philosophy and science and reworking their foundation before incorporation into the main framework; that version also required reworking Kant’s categories of intuition and realizing what needed to be the main phases of the ‘journey;’ the next version appeared in 2004 after two preliminary versions and represented further maturation of the ideas and further study (this is the version that you have and that I have found to be inadequate in the clarity of the logical relationships and exposition;) and a ‘final’ version is due in the first half of this year and is going to require synthesis of a number of secondary projects and significant reduction (of quantity of material) of a number of secondary manuscripts. The completion of the logical framework also encouraged these developments of depth and breadth first because I was hesitant to make developments based in insecure foundation; and second because the logic itself provided new ways of thought, new areas of thought, and interconnections among the ideas. It is very clear that I would have been unable to do this in any position that required more than fixed work hours and required taking work home. There is no job in this county that satisfies these conditions and pays more than my present one (this has not always been true; I am actually paid more than three times my original salary and part of the reason for the increase is that I had documented in the early 1990’s the variety and skill of work that is required; further, the benefits such as retirement, vacation and sick leave are excellent.) At the present time, my economic situation is quite comfortable. That the life I have chosen would involve sacrifice, that the sacrifice would be difficult (the emotional component of the sacrifice has been much more difficult than the economic one,) was something I realized many years ago, something regarding which I made an explicit choice. That is, I am not justifying the choices after the fact even though I continue to find further justification. Living out the consequences of the choice, facing the reality of them, especially the consequences for ‘career’ is something I worked out in the years just after 1985 even though I had thought of the desirability, the need, and of the probable consequences years before
What do I think is true regarding the questions under consideration? Why should I be concerned to recount what I am trying to do? I would like to answer these questions and to address the question of the loss –re: your perceptions– that I have felt
What is it that I am trying to do with my life? This was the question that I had asked you. As I say in ‘JOURNEY IN BEING,’ I am concerned with ‘my highest ideal’ and that ideal is my view of ‘the highest ideal’ which includes an understanding and experience (experience means identity through either knowledge or becoming) of all being. Precisely what that means and various provisos including what it may mean in the life of an individual are addressed in JOURNEY IN BEING where questions of desirability, feasibility and individual choice are also addressed)
One of the thrusts of twentieth and twenty-first century thought has been to question whether there is a highest ideal and whether there are ultimate values; among the sources of these doubts have been nihilism and various kinds of relativism. The THEORY OF BEING (that I have developed) addresses the nihilistic concern. I accept an element of relativism because of ignorance of actual conditions and outcomes. However, this does not mean that the ‘great value systems’ of the past should be rejected. Instead, against their names we may place an asterisk that signifies while we respect them we also (in light of ignorance at least) entertain definite concerns about their final or universal character. However, having doubts about the universality of actual values is not identical to an assertion that there can be on universal values or highest ideals. I have devised a simple solution to this problem; I do not know whether this has been done by others. This solution is to include a (the) search for ideals as an ideal; the highest ideal includes search for the highest ideal – and the nature of the highest ideal; this allows for ignorance without being intimidated by it; it allows inclusion of the ‘great ideals’ without regarding them as either empty or final and absolute; and, regarding ignorance, instead of regarding it as a source of nihilism it involves recognition of the realization that capacity for error and the capacity for right in what is regarded as known are bound together
It might appear that ‘understanding and experience’ of all being is grandiose and, in all likelihood, not achievable. However the precise statement should be ‘all desirable and feasible understanding and experience.’ Desirability includes the general moral dimension and feasibility includes practical concerns (from among the possibilities that remain; further, in addition to the quixotic, an individual or society may make choices, e.g., of self-definition, of aesthetics, of contextual moral character, of style and fashion.) With these provisos, the ambition regarding all being is much more reasonable but now one may ask why it is remarkable at all
It is remarkable because what I have shown is that what is possible is far in excess of what is normally thought to be the case – whether in ‘common, everyday’ thought or in scholarly thought. Having addressed the charge of grandiosity and lack of realism I will now make a claim that may be subject to the same charges. The claim is as follows:
The limits of human being are the limits of all being. I.e., if any being can achieve some knowledge or experience so can human being (and so will every being)
I address the criticisms that this claim obviously invites in terms of a concept, that of the NORMAL, that I have introduced (‘normal’ is of course a common word; it is the meaning that I attach to it in the present context that may be somewhat novel.) Consider what we think to be typical limits from either common sense or science (which are not altogether distinct.) Before the twentieth century, under the influences of Newtonian Science and Church Dogma, the world was thought to be deterministic (the future is determined by the present) and objects determinate (the boundaries of an object are fixed; and distinct objects permanently distinct, identical objects eternally identical.) Therefore, limits were conceived as absolute limits. This idea still informs common sense and much of twentieth and twenty-first century thought. However, twentieth century science has shown the universe (matter in particular) to have an indeterministic character (it is this character that permits origins of determinate form from formlessness; I have shown that this possibility is a very general and necessary characteristic of essential indeterminism and not just of quantum systems. I have also shown that the universe must be indeterministic; and the demonstration makes no appeal to science – its appeal is to logic and to the simple fact: there is being.) Therefore all limits except logical or necessary limits are probabilistic. Philosophy has been slow to ‘catch up’ and there are still philosophers who argue for determinism. However, reason alone (there is no such thing of course and the phrase should be ‘reason combined with some simple facts’ such as the fact of our existence) demonstrates that the universe must be indeterministic. (One of the achievements of my thought is to show how –contrary to Hume and an entire tradition– such demonstration is possible.) I use the term NORMAL to refer to limits that seem reasonable but are in fact only probabilistic. Of course ‘normal’ and ‘probabilistic’ are not identical because the thought and experience (e.g. quantum theory) that goes into the estimation of probabilities is itself limited in universality. There is no logical dependence of the THEORY OF BEING that I have developed on any part of modern theoretical physics. However, physics and other sciences, especially biology, have been especially suggestive for the developments. I have also strived to make sure that the THEORY OF BEING is not inconsistent with the various academic disciplines and when inconsistencies arise, to resolve them (resolutions may involve revision of my thought or of the academic disciplines or both)
Another doubt may have arisen at once, what can it mean that every being can achieve the experience of any being? Does this mean that a stone is (in some sense) identical to a human being? Well even if that were the case it would not be the case in the NORMAL mode. Thinking outside the normal mode, ‘in the grounding of being in the void,’ what sense can be made of the suggested identity? The sense that is to be made is based in the (my) THEORY OF IDENTITY which is not in the version of JOURNEY IN BEING that you have but is in the version that I am now writing. In your version there is a logical proof of the identity but no sense is made of the identity. The next version will provide the lacking sense
Some comments on EXPERIENCE are in order. I have named two kinds of experience – VIRTUAL and ACTUAL. (These names are not final.) An example of virtual experience is experience by EMPATHY; thus, if I can truly know you by actually experiencing your thoughts and feelings then I have some experience of (being) you. In the VEDANTA the claim is made that the self (ATMAN) is identical to the ultimate real (BRAHMAN.) This identity is known in MEDITATION through virtual experience. Actual experience of being1 by being2 occurs when being2 transforms (e.g. physically) into (a form that is identical to) being1. Virtual experience requires INTUITION or INSIGHT; actual experience requires TRANSFORMATION. Obviously, the distinction between virtual and actual experience is not sharp. Investigation of the nature of normal limits, of approaches to bringing the infeasible into the realm of the feasible, and conceptual, contemplative and experimental ‘research’ into virtual and actual transformations are the subject of my ongoing work. One concern I have about this ‘research’ is that many academics and others will be reactively skeptical about it. However, it represents the next if not final step in pushing forward to their actual limit the (my) ideas that began in the realm of thought or intellect
I did not arrive at the foregoing statements at some discrete point in my thinking. Rather, as my understanding of the world grew so did my understanding of what is possible (and desirable and feasible) and the final recognition and statement came late and a significant part of JOURNEY IN BEING is devoted to these issues
What are my inner motives in life? Happiness is not the central moving force. Happiness became a concern when our parents insisted that I was not happy and this became a primary issue in my communication with them; they appeared to obsess over happiness and would not stop doing so regardless of my actual state. For me, however, passion, adventure, ideas, discovery, possibility, and sharing adventure have been what move me most
In addition to what I have just mentioned, friends, love, nature, reading, music, and –lately– videos are among what I enjoy; I enjoy ‘fine food and drink’ (especially that drink permits intoxication with the world but I have a tendency to drink to excess; I use intoxication in its sense, of course, of being in exquisite contact with the world and not in the sense of being poisoned even though the one meaning may be a correlate of the other)
Regarding the positive experience of life, I do not want to suggest that everything is positive. My experience of life has been a balance of positive and negative. Some negative things occur without expectation; it is natural then to try to overcome the negative; if one is lucky one learns from the experience; I have had a good measure of luck in this regard – at least in terms of being equipped to learn. Other negative elements arise from one’s choices. To reach a desired end requires a progression of events. It is nice if the intermediate steps are positive but this is not always the case; the experience of confusion that is sometimes necessary on the way to clarity is not always pleasant. One does not seek confusion; it is latent and in seeking clarity it becomes manifest; this manifest confusion can be very trying because one has the feeling that one is adrift without hope of the desired end; it happens at different levels: regarding intellectual discovery; and in the progression of one’s life; and I have experience this over and over again; ‘growth’ is more like a staircase (a sometimes slippery one) than an uniform slope. If one is lucky, one is sustained by the vision of the end, by passion. I am lucky in having had vision and passion. One of my supervisors (the mean one) said, ‘When I became supervisor, I knew I would be disliked.’ Though it’s true that some effective leaders are not liked by everyone, being disliked does not make you a leader. That one is feeling pain does not mean that one is being creative; the creative process may require the individual to not avoid some kinds of pain
Passion, adventure and so on and belief in what I have been doing are what have sustained me when I would worry about the loss of career, during the long and often cold hours of study and huge amount of research. They are what sustained my intuitions regarding the nature of the world (being) and my continuing search over years for a rational basis for my understanding of being until that basis was found in 2002 and whose (unexpected but immense) consequences have since been my preoccupation
In the end the logical basis provides not only an understanding of the world but also an evaluation of intuition vs. reason (some what different from Kant’s evaluation) and an evaluation of the role of careful rigorous thought vs. action and needs for action when full analysis may be unavailable (shall we invariably avoid reaching for ultimate things because we have only partial understanding of them and just because of the impulse to caution; and, even if the pessimistic view is taken then, on that account, what may there be to lose?)
Although I have talked about engineering and related work, the balance has long been the external factors (salary, prestige, success in something relatively definite in scope) vs. the intrinsic (passion, what is important to me, the possibility of success in something larger than my self despite the possibility of falling short of success; the value of this attitude is that when more individuals adopt it then ‘success’ becomes more probable.) Until more than fifteen years ago, I felt that I would enjoy the kind of thought with which I have been occupied; now I know that I truly know this. Earlier in life I thought I might have and be sustained by a more than mild interest in engineering and other technical work; I have enjoyed engineering but I do not think I could have been sustained by it in any way near the level of my passion for what has become my ideal. I should have known this from my experience at IIT. Now, having discovered what I can be passionate about, I doubt I could have significant intrinsic enjoyment in engineering. As my work progresses to completion of its present phase the distribution of external and intrinsic factors and, so, the balance may change
In 1989 I needed work and I thought about the kind of work that I wanted. One thought was that, since everything else I had done was relatively privileged or removed from the life of a typical person, I might learn something as a ‘common worker.’ (This is not meant to be a negative comment on that worker.) This has in fact turned out to be true in a number of ways. I think that as a result of the kind of work I have been doing an element of reality is added to my life. One thing added is that regardless of how esoteric my thought may be I have a second or third ‘reality’ to relate it to. Growing up in India adds in a similar way. That I work persons who, except for their disturbance, are whole human beings adds even more; in fact, precisely because they are disturbed and in crisis –the hospital is a short stay mental hospital for individuals who are in crisis due to a mental illness– the individual comes to the surface. Here is something interesting. Many of my instructors have remarked that one of my characteristics was that while I was excellent at analysis (mathematics and so on) my ‘feet were on the ground.’ This combination means two things: I can have flights of thought but they do not enter the space of the ‘pure unreal.’ I think that the fear of metaphysical thought in modern analytic philosophy (most of the academic philosophy done in the English speaking countries and Scandinavia) stunts philosophy. The analytic claim is, of course, that metaphysics is not possible and, indeed, Kant and Wittgenstein did demonstrate on certain models of the nature of knowledge that metaphysics is impossible. However, I argue to the contrary, in part because the models or modes in question are not the only ones; in fact, if Kant’s conception of knowledge is given a twist, metaphysics should in fact be possible. The basic argument from Kant is that knowledge and object are in different categories and therefore knowledge of the thing-in-itself is logically impossible. However, this would mean that no knowledge is possible at all. This is the triumph of the critical attitude. However, if a definition of knowledge implies that no knowledge is possible at all it is the definition that may be the problem. Kant’s conception points the way to a proper definition (of one mode of knowledge – the direct mode.) Additionally, my work, when all modes are applied synthetically shows that metaphysics is possible in principle; my work, however, goes beyond the ‘in principle’ or non-constructive demonstration. I have constructed a metaphysics that is ultimate with regard to depth, greatly enhanced though not ultimate with regard to variety; and, even though this may sound paradoxical it is not, that carries with it demonstration of its truth. Also, while science is empirical it is also, especially in theoretical physics and biology, intensely metaphysical; and, while scientific knowledge is not ultimate especially in the most refined of criteria, there is something right about it. Anyway what I have avoided is entrapment in ‘meddling sophistry.’ I should add that, of course why I got my present job was the need for money and the ‘element of realism’ is not why I continue in it (this point has been discussed earlier)
Although the point made earlier that I disagree with your estimate of the difficulty of getting alternative employment is minor as far as this letter is concerned, if you appreciate the point (appreciation does not entail agreement) you will appreciate the sense of freedom that I feel and how and where I live the rest of my life till health should fail. Also, regardless of where the truth lies it is certainly true that I feel that when I put in sufficient effort and initiative I will be able to find other work. (I wonder whether this might be seen as detracting form the realism referred to in the previous paragraph. For, if I am not bound to that work or level of work surely it might detract from the ‘reality’ of the experience – at least in that I might not experience it as others experience it. This is of course not a ‘knock out’ point because no one can experience all kinds of ‘reality’ of life experience in all ways: that one thing is chosen implies that others are forgone)
What do I think I have achieved? An early version of a detailed account is in JOURNEY IN BEING. I believe that what I have discovered has a huge potential for contribution to human thought. What I have said above is some indication of this potential. There are two measures of the extent of the contribution. The first is depth and although there are intimations of the depths that I have achieved, (Leibniz, Wittgenstein, the Mystics, Vedanta) what I have achieved appears to exceed the accomplishments of the past with which I am familiar. Those who have approached the subject through reason appear to have not appreciated the significance of what they have seen; those who have approached it through ‘intuition’ lack in logical foundation; and all lack breadth and depth of implication. I believe that I have taken the logic to its ultimate possibility regarding depth; i.e., while those who approached the subject through logic merely (to some extent) approached it and there thought about the logic was intuitive; my development of the logic was intuitive but has itself become logical (Wittgenstein denies this possibility; however his objection is based on a model or picture that is not final,) and I have approached and taken the subject to its fullness. One measure of that fullness is the depth and a second is breadth, i.e., the second measure of my contribution so far is breadth. The fullness with regard to breadth is and remains ‘in principle.’ I believe that, regarding absolute fullness, it is not possible to have an explicit or constructive specification of it; I may be mistaken but I have not yet seen a way to such specification and I think I have a proof (e.g. that an explicit specification of all possible sentences is not possible; but this proof depends on the assumption that the mind / brain a finite or infinite of definite order system.) However, even though the breadth is limited with regard to what is possible it seems to go beyond anything explicitly and literally realized thus far in human thought. The system that I have worked out includes not only the core concepts and their underlying logic but, especially since 2002, implications for and reworking of (naturally in varying degrees of completeness) the entire range of human knowledge. The analytic (thought) part is close to completion and this may shift my choices in the direction of alternative work. The next phases are experience (as described above) and two secondary phases described in JOURNEY IN BEING
The core logic, even though it took me years to arrive at it, is quite simple. I shall not repeat it here (actually there is a brief and truncated version below) since it is in JOURNEY IN BEING. I was not altogether clear as to its character when I wrote the version of JOURNEY IN BEING that you have. The situation will be much clearer in the next version. The logic, it is sufficiently counter-intuitive that most people have difficulty grasping it; I have had to work and rework it and its implications in a variety of ways – this and time and familiarity have made it less strange to me. Some, less experienced individuals, do not even grasp that anything significant has been said. Since an objective of my thought is to paint a picture of the world (a common objective in philosophy) the main difficulty of exposition is not that of writing down the logic but of motivating it, of explaining it and of fleshing it out
In order to illustrate the core logic, its counter intuitive character and results, and the fact that it is in severe need of fleshing out, I will repeat the ultimate core of the logic. The ultimate (in the sense that it is central to all other considerations and not in the sense that those considerations are inessential) core is as follows. The VOID is the absence of being. In the past, as in modern theoretical physics, thinkers have taken the void to be the absence of things. However to be absence of being, the void must also be the absence of laws and patterns. The logic is as follows. (1) The void exists. Proof: The void is what remains when the universe of being is subtracted –in concept– from itself. Alternatively, the void is that part of any being that remains when the being is subtracted from itself. (2) As ‘absence’ the void should be seen not only as an absence of things but also as an absence of patterns and laws. This is clearly seen to be the case from the proof of existence. (3) If from the void there is any state (more precisely any concept or description of a state,) A, that could not ‘result’ from the void that impossibility would be a law. (The obvious exception is logical impossibility such as an object B that is simultaneously red and not red.) (4) Therefore, any state whose description does not involve a contradiction (logical impossibility) must result from the void. (5) The universe is equivalent to the void. I.e. being is equivalent to non-being (I need to think about the equivalence of being and non-being since I have not made this particular statement before although the equivalence to the universe is not a new assertion in my thought. Also note that the equivalence of the universe to the void implies the indeterministic character of the universe mentioned earlier.) (6) This point is not part of the core and depends on additional considerations (in JOURNEY IN BEING) but I will make it just to illustrate the nature of the logic. Now, I shall consider an important conclusion. Whatever is possible is actual (somewhere in the universe; not that ‘is’ is being used in an extended sense of having situation somewhere in space and time; and also note that I am taking space and time for granted here but this is not the case in JOURNEY IN BEING) and the being of whatever is actual is necessary. Therefore, in the sense in question, actuality, possibility and necessity are equivalent (if you have studied modal logic you may note that there are, here, implications for that logic)
Is it possible to be objective about what I may have achieved? In attempting to achieve anything that is truly at the forefront of human endeavor it is difficult to be objective. For example, it continues to be the case that there is no agreement in the assessment of the significance and the nature of the content of the work of Wittgenstein. In other words, at the forefront, especially in philosophy, there may be no final assessment even though some works are sufficiently insightful and provocative to ‘enter the stream of history.’ Later, it may occur that the advance in understanding is so great that it is possible to look back and make (relatively) objective assessment. I try to be objective when assessing my own work. It is important to use INTUITION (a term whose technical senses are loosely related to its common uses) but I have tried to subject my intuitions to criticism in as many ways as I can think of. Recently, I have formalized these principles of criticism in an essay that is a synthesis of classical thought on the topic and my reflections on my experience in criticism. I have read widely and tried to not overlook the major insights of different emphases and schools of thought. I have found that my system of thought is capable of providing a framework and resolution for many of the major problems of thought; this is a form of criticism. I have applied the system to an evaluation of numerous disciplines which has often yielded new formulations, advances and new results; this, again, is also a form of criticism; these evaluations include the nature of metaphysics (the study of being or existence,) of knowledge, and of logic. I have thought and re-thought the logical foundation of the THEORY OF BEING that I have developed. I could write out my attempts to make my thought objective. One of the key points is that application to and extension of systems that already exist is a contribution of the system and a criticism of it; and that consequent modification may occur in the system that is applied (in this case, mine) and those systems to which application is made (in this case the disciplines of knowledge.) As an example, I have provided resolutions of a number of problems in the theory or philosophy of mind –some major, some minor– and in doing so the THEORY OF BEING has been refined and extended. A full criticism would require reading and evaluation of JOURNEY IN BEING which I have been in the process of rewriting. This has proven to be difficult since in addition to the version that I sent you, I have had such a profusion of ideas that managing them has become difficult. Many of the ideas are revision, criticism and extension of the logic and its application. Others ideas are for new applications. Yet other ideas are for improvement in the presentation. Another difficulty is that I have wanted, perhaps over-ambitiously, to write for academic and general audiences. I am pleased that, recently, I have seen through and resolved these difficulties
Despite the difficulty of objectivity of self-assessment in the present case I will attempt to support my assertions with arguments whose truth, should anyone choose to look into the matter, would be easy to assess. The core claim that I have made is that the (my) THEORY OF BEING (in my work, being is defined as that which exists or has existence and has no intrinsic religious or spiritual connotations; any such connotations are consequences of the basic concepts and theories) is complete with regard to depth though not with regard to variety. The details of the argument, its elaborations and permutations, and its fleshing out in terms of application may be found in my writing. However, the statement with regard to depth is equivalent to the earlier statement that ‘The void and the universe are equivalent.’ Also note a final point (7) that since any state whose description does not entail a contradiction must be an actual state, the empirically known universe (that is frequently and incorrectly referred to as the universe) must be an infinitesimal (I have not proven that the use of this word may be taken literally but it should follow from the fact the empirically known universe is finite and that the fact that the number of states should be infinite) fraction of the size of the universe that is treated in the THEORY OF BEING. If we consider some high points in the history of philosophy –Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Wittgenstein– it may be seen that the THEORY OF BEING has gone far beyond their thoughts in terms of depth (as noted shortly what they thought to be limits to knowledge was faulty and so vast –even infinite– domains of what they thought could not be known can be and is known as shown in the theory.) In addition much more can be said than may have been thought about the variety of being. The fact that any possible state must be an actual state (whose proof I have not come across anywhere in my reading and study although there are intimations of the idea e.g. in Leibniz’ thought) gives us some grasp on the (infinite) variety of being; and allows the actual consideration of kinds of being hitherto not assessable and to construct varieties hitherto at most imaginable. Furthermore, regarding the high points of critical thought, Kant and Wittgenstein, I have shown their theories of limits to human knowledge (though extremely instructive) to be based on faulty conceptions or models of the nature of knowledge (this point is not new; Russell said something along these lines; however the ‘typical’ academic philosopher subscribes to such limits as absolute limits in a manner that approaches religious belief; and, finally not only have I shown the ‘relative’ nature of the limits but my positive constructions have gone far beyond the putative limits.) As a simple and simplistic example of my argument, consider that Kant asserted the impossibility of metaphysics based in the notion that knowledge must begin in experience. This is normally taken as saying that the character of all knowledge must be the character of experience; this in fact is a logical consequence of Kant’s position. However, the THEORY OF BEING requires but one fact, the fact that there is being, for its foundation. Just yesterday one of the psychiatrists at work was talking of the difficulty that he had had with developing a philosophy until he read the work of George Mead. One of Mead’s arguments was that true philosophy is impossible because must suppose that we have a complete understanding of the world (a metaphysics) which ‘the human mind can never approach.’ Mead goes on to analyze the great metaphysical systems – materialism, idealism, dualism and naturalism and finds them wanting. This kind of thought –regarding the limits of philosophy, the limits of the human mind, the limits of the great philosophical systems– is quite commonplace and I had been familiar with it and developed my thought to include such thought in my overall understanding (but in balance with other possibilities.) I recognized early, however, that there is something counterfeit about the idea of materialism or idealism and so on. For if we say that the universe is made of matter, the question arises ‘What concept of matter?’ Perhaps you see the circularity in the assertion that the universe is all matter; this is something that I have never seen acknowledged. Since the understanding of the nature of matter has evolved –from ‘pre-scientific’ times with their varieties, to the Newtonian idea, to Einstein’s thought, to quantum theory– and since there is no reason to suppose that the evolution is complete, ‘materialism’ has no definite meaning. The same argument could be made about idealism (the idea that the universe is made up of mind.) Perhaps, in the limit, when and if the ultimate understanding of matter is found it may be seen to be identical to the ultimate understanding of mind. So my thought went until I was able to see and develop the THEORY OF BEING. What has the theory shown regarding these concerns? It has shown that there are no ultimate substances such as mind or matter; instead being is equivalent to the void; therefore mind and matter as we know them and as we may know them have origin in the void; i.e., the fundamental understanding is neither monism such as materialism or idealism, nor dualism but does not involve substance at all. In other words, the history of metaphysics has come to an end with regard to depth (just recently I have been able to incorporate Meinong’s seemingly paradoxical notion of self-contradictory concepts as objects into my theory but I do not think this is a significant material advance although it introduces some conceptual symmetry and is somewhat pretty.) In other words, I have proven that the depth that I have found is ultimate; and, I have successfully resolved a number of deep quandaries of the past (not all of which are mentioned above.) How did I do this? It seems that most thinkers have approached the question of the foundation of metaphysics with presumption: the world is matter; the world is mind; and so on (together with the implicit assumption that matter and mind are definite and definitely known.) Well, why should anyone be surprised if such approaches run into difficulties, are unable to be completed, and generate paradoxes such as the mind-matter problem; the problem of atomism and so on. Yet, this is the approach that has reigned for millennia. Some philosophers have started with one a priori commitment e.g. materialism and ‘converted’ to e.g. idealism. That is, they have traded one counterfeit for another; a lateral step at best but not a step forward. Thus, Bertrand Russell started his philosophical career as an idealist. At the time that he was a young philosopher, idealism was the vogue in Britain. It might seem that idealism is absurd but one motive to it is the problems of materialism. Additionally, if ‘mind’ is interpreted broadly enough it may be seen to include matter; however, to hold to idealism because it continues to ring of the absurd (despite the fact that the absurdity may be overcome) requires conviction, and in the face of ridicule, even courage. Russell was reaching the height of his powers at about the same time that Planck and Einstein were making their remarkable discoveries in science; and it was the same science that was in part responsible for the encroachment of technology in to just about every aspect of ‘civilized’ human life. (My use of quotes to describe civilization is not critical; it is intended to avoid prejudice toward societies that are outside the pale of our civilization.) Earlier, Newtonian (and Darwinian) science had ‘triumphed’ over wider and wider domains of phenomena; then, in the early nineteenth century the pressure of scientific thought must have seemed overwhelming; religion was, under this same pressure, no longer the force that it had been; capitulation to materialism may have seemed to be logically necessary even though it was not so. However, under the various pressures academia and general common sense underwent a transition from idealistic, religious and spiritual modes to a materialist mode of thought. Thus Russell was able to convince himself that he was a materialist. Overcoming pre-judice is clearly extremely difficult – or so it would seem. My approach has been, effectively, to not start with some a priori commitment to any substance (or other mode of being such as process or relationship.) Instead, even though I was not fully aware that this is what I was doing, I was working toward (fumbling around) with the idea that not only do I know what the fundamental substance is (substances are) but I do not know whether there are any. This is why the idea of ‘being’ turned out to be so important. For me, at least, ‘being’ entailed and entailed no a priori ontological commitments. This is part of the tradition of the use of the word ‘being’ even though the realization regarding ontological commitments has never been altogether absolute and has waxed and waned; however, as Heidegger noted, the dominant tradition in Western Philosophy has been substance ontology (also known as the Philosophy of Presence.) Use of being thus allowed the freedom within which I developed the foundation as a consequence rather than a presumption of my reflections and arguments (proofs.) I have written that my use of ‘being’ is rather like the introduction of the named but unknown (the famous ‘x’) in algebra. And just as algebra entails enormous empowerment in mathematics and symbolic logic, my use of being entails enormous (perhaps even infinite in the direction of depth) empowerment in thought generally and metaphysics in particular
It is not true that these ideas are altogether new. Wittgenstein, Kant, Hume, Leibniz, have come close in some ways as has Vedic, Upanishadic, and Vedantic thought. However, I have not encountered the thought in as complete a form as I have developed it; and I have not encountered at all the development of system of ideas based upon it. 0ne such development is a theory and description of mind (psychology) that is in a number of ways an advance in terms of fundamentals and a number of basic problems; some of these advances are a result of the THEORY OF BEING and others are a result of insight that has come after years of study and reflection. One relatively small result –in the cosmic scheme– is a demonstration of the intimate and necessary relation of cognition and emotion that I have shown to follow from the nature of the concepts of cognition and emotion for a being that lives in a world that is not fully deterministic; this intimate relation has been shown by others from neuroscience and argued from human values. What I have described here gives only some hints about the development; a primitive version is in the book that you have
Of course I have doubts about the system. The main doubt is that I may have conflated logical and existential arguments, i.e. that I may have mistaken logic for metaphysics. However, I have traced and retraced my arguments carefully for this and other errors. Additionally, I have argued (the argument is not altogether new) that at root logic and metaphysics are identical. (Logic, here, is conceived as the study of necessary or constitutive form. Here, I am using the term ‘logic’ formally. Elsewhere in this letter I have used the term in a number of informal senses. In this formal sense, logic is not identical to how it is conventionally studied as the ‘art of argument,’ as ‘deductive inference,’ and so on. It is a rather different sense that includes in its scope the conventional senses.) However, this does not remove all doubt – especially because so much seems to come from so little. It is almost as though, just as the universe is shown to be equivalent to the void, the ‘proof’ proves so much from almost nothing. Actually this is not the case for, what is proved about specific aspects of being (mind, then human mind) comes from adjoining the general THEORY OF BEING with what is known (what I know and have further developed) about the specific aspect. Thus while the theory is very general and abstract, what is known about our part of the universe should fit in to the general theory. This has shown to be the case. While our phase of the universe seems to have causal and somewhat deterministic features and while there are semi-determinate objects in it these are not general features of the universe as a whole. Yet, I have been able to show how, at least in outline, how the specific features arise from the general. One thought that I have not yet developed is that it may be possible to find a foundation for quantum theory and the local nature of space and time from the THEORY OF BEING. I have, as noted above, been able to make significant advances regarding mind. Additionally there is excellent application to many traditional problems and disciplines within philosophy such as the (Plato’s) theory of form (the competing Aristotelian substance theory having been shown to be untenable,) logic, general cosmology, and ethics. There is also extensive work on social action and theory and political philosophy that requires further thought before I may be satisfied with it. The (theory of) evolution of life has been a source of ideas for the development of the THEORY OF BEING and receives clarification and context from the theory. The nature and possibilities of religion have also been illuminated and I have written down some constructive thoughts on the future of religion Anyway, I do not want to tax you with the entire system as developed, but the entire system of human knowledge is ‘incorporated’ and there are smaller and larger advances in many areas. You may ask, ‘How can you talk of the entire system of human knowledge and experience?’ The simple response is that I have studied the ‘entire’ system in a number of ways. Many years ago I made a study of the history of encyclopedias and the structure of a number of them – especially the Britannica; I studied both structure and content (of course not the entire content.) Additionally, I have spent at least some effort toward studying a number of disciplines, especially those not emphasized in my education. It has been a goal to study at least enough to acquire a good overview; but I think I have gone far beyond overview to being able to grasp the form and structure of the whole thing. And, yet I have doubt about the THEORY OF BEING. For a number of reasons, I feel that I must ‘forge’ ahead but not without admitting the doubt because that is the path not only of truth but to improvement. Secondly, I feel that the potential for contribution and criticism is huge. Criticism can only improve my thought. Finally, part of the way I see knowledge is this. Knowledge, I used to think, does not stand in isolation even though we have institutions of knowledge (universities…) and the intuition of knowledge. Instead, knowledge is not ever ultimate but stands in relation to action. This is not pragmatism where knowledge is ratified in action. Instead it is being said that action and knowledge are intimately and logically bound so that there is no absolute separation. Of course, my THEORY OF BEING questions this earlier view but I am resorting to the earlier view in order to address my doubts about the same theory. In line with the earlier view, even if I have only good reasons, intuitive reasons to hold the THEORY OF BEING, it is imperative to forge ahead because the expected value of the outcome may be high even if the probability of its truth is not (expected value = probability of outcome x value of outcome and the high value may outweigh low probability.) This fits in with other plans for ‘action’ outlined earlier
I plan to distribute the next version of JOURNEY IN BEING widely. It will be interesting to see what (kind of) reception(s) it receives. I can picture a range of responses from complete silence to hostile reaction to understanding and appreciation. However, if my estimate of my accomplishment is valid then what I have done is not only a significant contribution but is revolutionary. A pertinent comment in this regard, illustrated earlier, is that the THEORY OF BEING furnishes a conceptual scheme within evaluations of such theories is possible
In writing this letter I have not intended to be ‘offensive.’ I may have said some things, both personal and philosophical, that are rather strident or strong in sound; in doing so I have not intended to be disrespectful of person or reason; I have said such things because I felt it necessary or useful to do so in order to be clear rather than vague about what I felt it necessary to say. I have written because I felt uncomfortable – the sense of loss and a sense that I have not shared sufficiently to provide an understanding of my situation (and having written, I feel that I have accepted the feeling to some extent.) I wrote it to share my life with you and as I wrote it and previous versions I found myself reaffirming choices that I have made and even understanding them in new ways. I did not write it to figure out some aspects of my thought but that did occur as I wrote, especially since I have finally begun the next version of JOURNEY IN BEING and it has taken (thus far very satisfying) form (the core logic above has been in my thinking since 2003-2004 but every re-thinking results in refinement; in the next version of journey in being the seven points above have become eleven;) this, too, may be seen as sharing even though it was unintended
I have explained what I have been trying to do with my life over the last twenty years. I have allowed myself digressions into my thought (1) because they arise naturally in my mind and show the somewhat seamless character of how I experience life, (2) I enjoy the process and hope it is not a burden on you, and (3) I have learned something about my thought (and myself) as I write to you. Although the detail has not been great I hope that there is sufficient information to provide a full picture rather than a partial one based in occasional and casual conversation. I see my life as an adventure; I hope that that you see this as well and that you will share in its spirit
What do I expect in writing this letter? I expect nothing. I do not expect that you will understand or not understand what I am and have been trying to do (in my life.) I do not expect that you will or will not see the endeavor as important. I do not think it is important in any sense that others must see even though I see it as vital. I do not expect that you will or will not revise your views of me. I do not expect that you will think that I am doing or have done great things or that you will not think that or that you will think the opposite. I do not think that you will or will not care to understand what I have been trying to say – either about myself or my thought. What I might hope is different from what I expect; but even what I might reasonably hope should be based on what kind of person you are and I must admit that the ‘inner realm of Robin Mitra’ is, likely and in large measure, terra incognita to me. Perhaps that inner realm is terra incognita to Mr. Mitra himself; this of course I do not know but it would not be unusual. Perhaps I might hope to hope… I have written the letter for two reasons. The first is that, since our relationship is truly important to me, I should perhaps attempt to give you an opportunity to know me; and the second is that in doing so some greater degree of connection to self and other may open up
What I said in my recent response to Susan’s email remains true. I have always loved you and continue to do so. I also want to say, and should have said so long ago, that I am and will always be grateful to you and Susan for all that you did for mum and dad. There are other things that I appreciate about you that shall at present remain unsaid
Love