|
About Journey in Being Anil Mitra © 2010 About the author Anil Mitra—I am the author of this website and its essays. I live in Northern California. My passions are ideas and transformation, the world—especially nature, and people. Click here to contact me Home | About: detailed version CONTENTS Origins of the idea of a journey ‘Everything has changed and nothing has changed’ Logic, theory of objects, and mathematics Thoughts on the future of science and Logic Journey in Being—is a journey of transformation in being and discovery in ideas. It is also the name of this website and its collection of essays and other information about the Journey (my writing has conceptual or technical and narrative elements.) Journey in Being is presented as an original contribution to the human endeavor in the areas of ideas and transformation of being (except where noted, all essays of the site are original) Outline of this article—The outer range of the work is set up in Origins of the idea of a journey through Framework, and made explicit in Metaphysics and cosmology—there are no ultimate limits to (human) being: the limits of our experience are real (physical, biological...) but not ultimate. Range of the journey defines the envelope of the journey. Some accomplishments in ideas and transformation and progress so far in transformation are outlined in Implications and contribution through Science, Religion and Faith. Faith is followed by sources of Inspiration which are integral to the journey and its narratives. Finally, in An open life, there is a brief statement of my attitude in light of my experiences and discoveries Origins of the idea of a journey—The origins of Journey in Being are in my ambitions, passions, and interests. However, discoveries have revealed universal aspects of possibility and actuality and journey as a universal way of realization for individual and community. The word ‘journey’ is used to emphasize that (a) many paths or ways are tried and many abandoned, (b) process and experience are significant and not all process is oriented toward an end, (c) ends or goals are not fixed but emerge with process. The word ‘being’ is used because (a) the process concerns the entire individual or group and (b) it is instrumental in developing the metaphysics (below) that illuminates the process The aim of the journey—to discover and experience the highest in ideas and being that is available to human being. The meaning of ‘highest’ is not given in advance; nor is it merely assigned; it is part of the discovery and creation. Although this meaning is not given before discovery, it is easy to conceive some general frameworks for it. The immediate world is essential to the journey as ground and inspiration; achievement of the ambition cannot neglect this world; however, the common conception of ‘this world’ is not definite and it is seen in the metaphysics below that what we commonly consider to be this world is an infinitesimal fraction of the Universe and that there is no essential boundary between ‘this world’ and the ‘beyond’ Framework—one framework is the envelope of all human possibility—the journey will lie within this envelope; naturally this is not known in advance but naming it is a first step in discovery. A second framework is the envelope of possibility of all being; this envelopes the first framework and the journey. What is the relation between the two frameworks? In the beginning I was inclined to think that human possibility must be significantly less than that of all being. Later reflection showed this thought to be wrong. Why? Does not this mean that in some sense the individual transcends all death? How can that be? The study of the outer framework is metaphysics; therefore my thoughts turned to metaphysics. I use metaphysics as knowledge of things as they are: in this sense metaphysical knowledge is immediate rather than remote. The very possibility of such knowledge has been questioned: an immediate reason that it may be in doubt is simple: knowledge and object are distinct; the issue is addressed below. The metaphysics that I developed concerns metaphysical knowledge of the Universe as a whole (rather than in all its details) and reveals that the two envelopes are identical and that there is no limit to the extension, duration, and variety of being; and it shows an approach to answering the questions just raised Metaphysics and cosmology—in the history of thought, speculative metaphysics and even the possibility of metaphysics have been doubted and even claimed impossible. However, in the developments (1) It has been shown that metaphysics as knowledge of being-as-being is possible in the case of the Universal Objects: Universe-as-a-whole and the Void and others, and that there is one metaphysics (the idea of being is, roughly, ‘what is there’ and is instrumental in the development because, unlike use of matter or mind or other definite substance, it allows the deep nature of the world—and whether the world has a deep nature—to emerge with study: it avoids the potential error of commitment at outset of study.) (2) The metaphysics has been demonstrated and shown to be ultimate in depth and implicitly ultimate with regard to extension, duration, and variety of being; and that the extension, duration and variety is without limit (3) Here are some examples of variety. Our cosmos is but one: a speck (a speck that, in our imagination, takes on the role of the Universe.) Cosmological systems without end: identical to, similar to, different and immensely different from ours. Every concept that we have has a realization somewhere (except that Logic cannot be violated by the concepts.) Karmic places. Biblical realizations (all of them except the issue of Logic; this gives no support to Biblical realization in our cosmos.) Vedantic places: individual identity = Universal identity and therefore death is not absolute; peaks and dissolutions (subject to Logic.) Unicorns; every bestiary. Unending adventure... (All subject to Logic which means that there are no actual limits but that some things that we imagine are unrealizable; further, however, we do not know what these limits are in their Universal sense) (4) Thus the metaphysics implies a new general cosmology. What has been presented here is a small fraction of the actual developments. (5) What we regard intuitively as real, e.g. everyday behavior of things and the laws of physics, are ‘normal’ in that we live as part of a small phase of the Universe where this ‘real’ is a local and contingent but not necessary pattern. In fact, there is Universal interaction over sufficient time, the only Universal ‘law’ is Logic, there is Universal interaction over sufficient time, and the idea of a boundary between ‘this world’ and ‘beyond’ is artificial and contingent. There are local and contingent patterns of behavior that, rather than ruling out miraculous exceptions to local physics, makes them improbable. An example of the idea of the normal is that death is final only in a normal sense (6) In consequence, individual identity participates in universal identity which realizes a sequence of peak forms without end in time or variety and that peaks are followed by dissolutions (7) The individual will experience adventure without end; this adventure and its enjoyment is immensely enhanced by intelligent trying and experimentation in thought and being; there will be pain; pain cannot be avoided and while pain is not sought, and some pain should be avoided, attempts to avoid all pain are counterproductive and even worsen pain Everything has changed and nothing has changed—a metaphorical statement of the revelation by the metaphysics that the Universe is eternal, infinite in extension, and of unlimited variety while preserving valid knowledge of the local world Range of the journey—the metaphysics and related topics which are expressed as ideas show the necessity of the journey. However, ideas are incomplete realizations and do not show the how of realization. Therefore (1) Transformation of being (and identity) is essential as realization and (2) Experiments in ideas and transformation and their interaction are essential to effective realization. The ground of the journey is this world and the ideas include those of others as well as experiment (3) I have started a set of experiments that is designed, first, to begin in this ground, and second, to be in process toward the ultimate. Some remarkable achievements have been made but the journey so far remains very much in ‘this world’ and, of course, in-process. (However, ‘this world’ is not definite and depends on knowledge: today we achieve the alchemist's dream of transmutation.) Examples of what have been achieved include personality transformation, charisma, healing, mystic vision, and the demonstration of the ultimate metaphysics Implications and contribution—(1) The ideas and transformations described above. The metaphysics is momentous in a number of ways: it stands against two hundred and fifty years of doubt; and it restores metaphysics to prime philosophy (epistemology is found to be an aspect of metaphysics.) The metaphysical achievements include resolution and illumination of all significant problems of metaphysics including the fact-nature-and kinds of being, mind-matter, space-time-being. As an example, one of the ‘classic’ problems of metaphysics is Why there is being at all—i.e., why there is something rather than nothing? This remains a puzzle in modern thought; Heidegger called it the fundamental problem of metaphysics. Since the variety of the Universe is without limit it must enter ‘Void’ states; similarly, it cannot remain in such states and therefore whenever there is nothing there will be something (and vice-versa.) The metaphysics renders the ‘fundamental’ problem trivial (2) Clarification that philosophy, has a subject matter in the world but that this does not reject the more recent ideas of philosophy as clarification of ideas, as edification, as more about the how than the what of thinking and other ideas such as philosophy as challenging readers to think, examine their conduct and their lives (and providing immense insights without instructing in the manner of a recipe) (3) A new concept (one that subsumes the prior) of Logic (4) Light and suggestion regarding the human endeavor including the nature of religion and science and every significant division of the academic disciplines—implications for science and its nature, Logic and mathematics, and religion follow (5) A map of human possibility and actuality that shows that there are no limits to human being or to being (except Logic; and that the ‘normal’ limits are not true limits but difficult barriers) Logic, theory of objects, and mathematics—You will have noticed that I capitalize the term Logic because I employ a different concept: Logic is what concepts must satisfy so as to have reference in the world (it is shown from the metaphysics that the definition is not circular, that it is not trivial, and that it subsumes logic as deduction, and that Logic is the one Universal law.) This concept of Logic is perhaps the ultimate and most mature. It turns out that except simple cases (propositional, predicate calculi...) Logic is empirical: it is important to note that it is not simply empirical in the way of natural science whose object is the material world but it is empirical in that its object is the relation between concepts and the world (but: it is empirical after all in that it must experiment with symbolic systems and that the relation between concept and object is in the world; note also that it is shown that this subsumes traditional notions of logic and traditional and modern logics.) Thus, with the exception of trivial cases, Logic is not certain but is perhaps the highest of certainties. It is important to emphasize, that this notion of Logic includes the older and does not detract from the necessity of those logics that are certain. Discussion now turns to the notion of ‘object.’ The idea of object is that it is the ‘actual thing.’ Since our knowledge is not the object, the establishment of what ‘things’ are objects is not trivial. Because Heidegger's fundamental problem has been rendered trivial, I regard the question What exists? to be the fundamental problem of metaphysics. The problem is resolved non-trivially by dividing ‘objects’ into those that are perfectly known (the Universal objects above: demonstration of perfect knowledge is in the developments) and those that are adequately known (and that cannot and therefore need not be known perfectly.) There is a modern problem of objects: some objects such as bricks are concrete (or particular) and others such as numbers are abstract. Objects such as number are regarded in modern thought as not ‘residing’ in space and time—i.e. as not being spatio-temporal. The problem is What is the nature of abstract Objects? Since, excepting ilLogical concepts all concepts have reference, even the abstract objects must exist in the Universe (in space and time: it is not that abstract objects are not spatio-temporal; rather their spatio-temporality is suppressed; incidentally shows that there is at root one kind of object and that there is one world—the world is not divided into a world of tangible things, a world of mental things, and an ideal world of Forms.) Are there implications for mathematics? Regard mathematics as the study of possible form. Today the dominant approach to mathematics is to regard it as an abstract study expressed symbolically. First, it is obvious that no symbolic study can be guaranteed to capture all aspects of a (mathematical form.) Second, because objects and therefore forms (Forms) reside in the one Universe, even if vast tracts of our mathematics are symbolic necessities, there is no guarantee that mathematics shall ever transcend the empirical and the uncertainty of the empirical Science—A dual concept of science as tentative-and-universal and local-and-factual (integrates the early and the recent views with support from the metaphysics.) As empirical and detailed, science can never achieve complete knowledge of the universe but achievement may be without end. The theories of science are necessarily conceptual; to be practical they must also be empirical and local; therefore, science is a beginning of truth but not the truth (truth does not imply perfection but the capture of patterns.) Perhaps the first comprehensive and systematic scientific theory was the mechanics of Isaac Newton. That theory was so successful that it came to be regarded as universal and necessarily true. It is clear that even if the nature of scientific theory has not changed since Newton, our views regarding it have changed Thoughts on the future of science and Logic—the discussion of science in this paragraph is about scientific method rather than the content of some future physics, biology, or psychology; and it is a look at some reasonable possibilities rather than an attempt to predict some definite future for method. Early in the history of science, some thinkers spoke hopefully of an inductive method that would derive theories from data as firmly as in deductive logic. Present views of scientific method emphasize the making and testing of creative and conceptually formulated hypotheses which do not receive universal confirmation but may be disconfirmed by data that does not agree with prediction. Here, however, it has been revealed that if scientific theories are intended to be universal then they will almost certainly be disconfirmed—this follows from the metaphysics; on the other had if they are regarded as local then they may be true—they reveal actual local patterns even if imperfectly and this follows from simple reflection (e.g. the significant though not infinite range of application of Newton's mechanics.) In the views just discussed—the early and the recent views and their synthesis—science is a conceptual system designed to conform to some part of the world. It is not clear that this model fits the field of sociology: this is because of difficulties in formulation of concepts and because of the irregular behavior of social entities. I have suggested that the ‘study’ of society may overcome this problem by partially withdrawing from the idea of a removed theory and by participation of the ‘analyst’ in the field of application (which implies that objectivity will lack clear meaning.) This approach has been used by ethnobotanists working with ‘native’ peoples: however it has been argued that the approach would not be applicable in our modern complex world; I have given arguments to the contrary (What is participatory democracy?) Since even the ‘mature’ sciences are likely to reach some limit at which theory may be too complex or computation to unwieldy, perhaps this model may emerge for all science (natural, social, and psychology) at some time in the future. Discussion now turns to Logic. If, regarding the earlier paragraph on Logic, a reader should have sensed that it is suggested that Logic is more, perhaps infinitely more, than the traditional and modern logics, that reader will be correct (the trivial cases are certain in that they do not produce new knowledge but only what is implicit in premises; and trivial does not mean insignificant because what is implicit may be hard to see or make explicit.) I do not, however, have any notion of what this field may be beyond the fact that it seems that there is a field and that there are suggestions that the field is infinite and labyrinthine; and there are suggestions that the division between Logic and science (between necessary truth and contingent truth) is not clear-cut—this suggestion comes from realizing that Logic has an empirical side of a certain kind though not in the way of natural science and from Logic as Universal law. It is important to emphasize that these suggestions or tentative conclusions are not the imposition of some intuition but even though seen in intuition, they also flow from the metaphysics. Again, it may be emphasized that (1) Regarded as local, the laws and theories of science have truth (2) Except the trivial cases where conclusions are implicit in premises Logic is perhaps the highest of factual certainties and (3) The boundary between science and Logic is not sharp Religion—The metaphysics shows that there is an unending adventure in truth and being (because of the absence of true limits and that being can and will access every possible as actual.) This adventure does not distinguish the sacred from the mundane, the spirit from matter. The individual can undertake the adventure as a private enterprise. The enterprise can be shared in communities and cumulative learning recorded. The shared adventure may be labeled ‘religion.’ This religion is not dogmatic and is not defined by the practice and envelope of the traditional religions and related practices; it is a conception: the experimental search through ideas and being, for all being, and by being in all its aspects and ways of being and knowing. The concept recognizes that traditional religion has significantly aborted the true (and that, such abortion is perhaps the rule.) It is not only about the ultimate but also the present. How to live now is illuminated by the ultimate. The issue of pain is addressed. The particularities of human nature and psyche are addressed. There is celebration of joy, sorrow, work and overcoming of self, love and relationship; and exploration of depth and variety of psyche, being, and morals. The address is both abstract and iconic and metaphorical (so as to reach a wider audience.) The address is literal and metaphorical-symbolic (so as to reach all wo/men.) It is calm and angry. It advertises itself. In this meaning, religion may include science; the boundaries of science do not define the boundaries of religion. In order to be practical, religion must include proximate knowledge which includes science but is not limited to it—e.g., morals and ethics are part of religion but these are practical and while these may be our best, it is nearly certain that they are capable of improvement and that the ethics of a much ‘higher’ phase of being might be quite different from ours perhaps even to the point of having elements that are difficult to appreciate. Our proximate science and ethics will be tentative rather than dogmatic; our explorations of Universe and psyche via science and story will be similarly tentative and experimental. If we expand our view of science to the one discussed above in ‘Thoughts on the future of science,’ then the scope of science may approach that of the scope of the concept of religion just presented Faith—it is clear that I am using common words with uncommon meaning (which meaning is made necessary by the metaphysics.) This is one source of difficulty in understanding of this work. Other sources of difficulty in understanding and acceptance are (a) the magnitude of the developments—not a logical concern but a reason to explore doubt (b) apparent violations of commonly accepted views of the world and (c) doubts regarding the proof of the metaphysics. It is shown that there are no violations of what is valid in the common views. In the development of the metaphysics it is demonstrated that the Void (the absence of all being including entity and law) exists; I have given a number of alternate proofs but doubt remains. The main consequence of the existence of the Void is the limitless extension, duration and variety of being—every concept that satisfies Logic has reference. Here is a plausible argument: the contingent limits of our experience and intuition concern the entities of the world; however, there is no reason that they should apply to the absence of entities which, therefore, can generate any conceivable entity—provided that Logic is not violated (this is not one of the proofs.) It is essential to note that even if the proofs fail, the result regarding absence of limits results in no actual contradiction of the facts, common views of the world, science, or logic. Since the conclusions are so momentous there is a case to regard the theorem regarding limits as a hypothesis upon which to base action. Then, Faith is the attitude that is productive of the greatest outcome (different persons will interpret this attitude differently; my interpretation is that it is of immense value to devote some energy to action under the hypothesis; clearly this is not the common meaning of faith) Inspiration—the first source is the Universe itself, in all aspects that I know: especially as a source of wonder. The Universe is all being and if a creator is external to what is created there can be no god-creator of the Universe: but one part of the Universe can be creative in the process of another (even in imperfection.) We, even if mortal and imperfect, are the result of creation (I regard evolution as creation) and have acquired creative powers even if they do not (yet) come close to the intrinsic power of all being... it is a mistake to think that our power, whatever its magnitude, is other than the power: the liberal thinker who rejects the God of Christian faith continues to live in the humility that is inspired by belief in a God who is infinitely more powerful than man, who is our ruler, and who demands obedience and reverence and humility in His presence (this is of course not an argument for false pride.) Any gods, mythic or real, are not absolutely remote but of a higher but accessible power. The mythic gods of Greece were not: all powerful, perfect, all graceful: they had human and superhuman powers; they lived in a dangerous world. A great God all powerful creator, a supreme fiction of dogmatic faith, supreme abortion of truth, encourages fictitious submission and acquiescence in humble love. These provide metaphor and anti-metaphor for our power: not all powerful, we partake of the power of being (source of contrast between Hellenic, Judaic and Christian worlds.) Nature has been inspiration—it inspires me every morning; and my best ideas and intuitions owe to time in forests and mountains. The human tradition of ideas and transformation inspires and channels my thought—the creation of language in the remote past; the great ideas: although I conceive metaphysics, logic, faith, science... in different and enhanced form than in prior thought the root ideas are the same; these root ideas were not created in my thought; therefore, even if I have gone beyond and sometimes to the limit of thought, the process is channeled and inspired by prior thought. Interaction with others is an inspiration: sometimes a random idea in passing, the fact of interaction, other times a pointing to a source of ideas, other times criticism; even attacks have spurred me to improve my thought; but humanity is an inspiration in that my labor is, in part, for them: not for nothing. I have my share of talent or ability but I do not refer to this when I say that there is some power within that has driven my process; I do not quite know the name of this power but it has two sides: first, to not accept any thought or position as final (unless manifest in the thought itself and even ‘the manifest’ remains in question) and, second, and of course related, to ever want to go beyond what I may have achieved so far. I am part of all being; therefore I must partake of its power; I may abort that power but, still, I am part of it and it of me An open life—I live under the idea that the Universe is limitless; that I have no certainty regarding my knowledge of its laws and contents; and that the adventure of discovery is ever open
|