PLAN

The main objectives are to cover (a) the present meaning of being (and how it pertains to other meanings), (b) the significance of this concept of being, and (c)various aspects of being, especially experience and meaning (meaning may be in a separate file meaning and method) including issues such as being in itself versus being in relation, the significance of meaning as defined, and paradoxes of existence.

Incorporate and eliminate introduction to being and experience and introduction to being. Possibly incorporate and eliminate neutrality of being.

Develop the following material

PRELIMINARY MATERIAL

Being

The concept and reasons for its present definition.

Neutrality is key. See neutrality of being (incorporate either here or there the distinctions contemplation or thought versus action, whole versus domain, a special emphasis on substance versus accident).

There is importance in classical western or Abrahamic theism of the notion of divine simplicity—the idea that God is non-composite or without parts. What is this importance? It is the intent to identify by the term God the concept of the ultimate source, cause, or explanation of things. Now why do I mention this point here? The essential reason is that I want to be familiar with this side of careful philosophical thought and its potential relations and implications for my thought, especially on being and the universe. But why? Here, it seems that there are deep reflections of powerful thinkers and it can only benefit my thought even if all I get out of it is another way to see the essence of my own thought (but what is ‘my thought’). The core idea seems to be that ultimate causes and so on must be ultimately simple. Perhaps, then, this idea of the ultimate simple is just another term for the substance of the universe. In any case I should be familiar with it (here is a source article by Edward Feser taken from the First Things journal: Why Is There Anything At All? It’s Simple). My comment: if being = that which is manifest and that which is not, is this not ultimately simple? And does this not lead to necessity of the manifest?

I believe I have already addressed this issue in regard to substance (clearly, the source above is discussing God as substance). The point I make is that the notion of substance as simple is an imposed notion and the imposition ought to be replaced by an observation ‘if simplicity is what we seek let us let reality tell us what is ultimately simple’ (and the result is that it may variously considered to be the void or any ‘domain’ provided properly understood—i.e. not in its normal or proximate sense but, rather, in the ultimate sense that flows from reality to concept rather than from concept to reality).

Inseparability from experience.

Power of the concept.

Stages development from neutrality through metaphysics: universe, law, void, metaphysics (universal and practical), and realization.