NEW CONCEPTS AND IDEAS FOR
THE MOST RECENT INTERNET AND PRINT VERSIONS
AND THE PROLOGUE
ANIL MITRA PHD, June 2003 and after
HOME | CONTACT | SUPPLEMENTS
Introduction
In July 2003, with the completion of the essay Journey in Being, the knowledge foundation for the Journey in Being Project was also substantially complete
This was marked by revision and maturation of the foundations, synthesis and revision of almost all areas of my thought and writing
As a result, I embark upon the remaining phases – outlined in Journey in Being – of which the first is Dynamics and Experiments in the Transformation of Being
Of course, nothing is finally complete; new ideas are recorded below. For further plans for the Journey itself, see Design for a Journey in Being
The new content may be directly incorporated to Journey in Being or noted in Design for a Journey in Being
Supplements
The purpose of the SUPPLEMENTS is to avoid the need to repeatedly revise, upload and reprint the present document
Planning details for the Prologue and Journey in Being are in the sections for those documents. For remaining documents, minor changes may be done at any time but major changes that are not part of the ‘Journey’ are deferred until ‘after’ it
1. JOURNEY IN BEING AND FOUNDATION
Journey in Being and Foundation: New Concept, Concepts, Organization and Outline
2. MATHEMATICS AND ITS FOUNDATIONS
3. WORDS / BEING AND METAPHYSICS: A LEXICON
4. DESIGN FOR A JOURNEY IN BEING
5. HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
On Future Development of the History of Philosophy
CODE
§ = section | p = page | c = column | ¶ = paragraph | s = sentence | w = word | - = counting from the end | Links in grey or sky blue may be unavailable on the Internet
1. JOURNEY IN BEING AND FOUNDATION
JOURNEY IN BEING: CORRECTIONS
Corrections may also distributed among the general comments
No corrections at present
JOURNEY IN BEING AND FOUNDATION: NEW CONCEPT, CONCEPTS, ORGANIZATION AND OUTLINE
The first run through was: 1.26.04 – 2.17.04
OUTLINE
Modifications to the Overall Structure | Foundation | Prologue | Metaphysics | Transformation | Variety | Action
CONTENTS
POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF JOURNEY IN BEING
Plan. Combine the present document with Journey in Being and Foundation
Free and Bound Elements in Process and in Mind
Truth, falsity; possibility and necessity
The Order of Topics in the Metaphysics
Task. Consider the Overall Structure
Task. Develop Charismatic Format
Plan. Implementing the modifications 2.19.04
Task. Planning the modifications 10.29.03
Top®down, Universal®local, and Universal®personal emphasis
Importance of Presentational Form
Journey in Being is about All Being and Therefore about All Knowledge
Metaphysics is Universal and its Treatment is prior to that of Knowledge
Task. Consider the Logic of the Development
Task. Collect and Consolidate Considerations of Interaction Among the Parts
Task. Therefore, consider multiple arrangements
Task. Change section ‘Human Being’ to ‘Human Being and Community’
The structure of the sections on ‘ethics’ and ‘politics’
Motivation, ‘Excite’ –poetry, language, charisma– especially in the Prologue, Structure
Main Concepts and Points: Logic, Interrelations, Consolidation
Tables of Contents and Locations
Nature of the Personal and Related Issues
How the personal is significant
Consideration of the present version of Journey in Being
Implications of the New Foundations for [Theory of] Being
Task. Placement and Development of Theory
The following considerations arise
Import to Division 1 of Fundamental Theory
Task. Import of Theory from Division 2: Experiments in the Transformation of Being
Preliminary Task. Integrate with Experiments in the Transformation of Being
Theory from the preliminary section
Theory of the Dynamics of Being
Theory of the Variety of Experiments
Task. Import of Theory from Division 3: The Variety of Being
Task. Import of Theory from Division 4: Action and Influence
Plans for the document. After placement
Changes and Additions in the Prologue may also need to be made in the Introduction
… and may also have implications for the main text for Journey in Being
The sense of the following may go to the Prologue, detail to the main text
Horizons and Mileposts | 9.14.03
Improve in the Prologue and in the Main Text of Journey in Being
Meaning of Nothingness | 9.14.03
Logic and Flow of the Prologue | 9.14.03
Use of ‘Being’ in Modern English | 9.14.03
On the Use of Probabilities in Relation to the Void | 9.22.03
On the ‘Local / Universal’ Distinction | 9.28.03
1 POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO DIVISION 1 ON METAPHYSICS OF JOURNEY IN BEING
Plan. Significant distinctions to be maintained
Issue. The Values of Metaphysics, Especially of the Present Kind of Study
1.1 Theory of Being or General Metaphysics
Preliminary: The Place of Epistemology and the Treatment of Knowledge
Treatment of Knowledge Deferred
… and Why the treatment of knowledge is now deferred
The Primary Purpose for Inclusion a Treatment of Knowledge
Preliminary: The Significance of Epistemology
Introduction: Some Thoughts on What ‘Theory of Being’ May Include
As far as possible make the development Universal rather than parochial
On the Approach to Understanding Through the Void | 8.20.03
[More] on Nothingness… and on Law | 9.2.03
The Nature of Nothingness and Possibility; What is Possible is Necessary; Analytic Proof | 1.1.04
Analogy with other Disciplines
Plan for Logic… and Logic & LOGOS
Wittgenstein’s Tractacus. Plan to use in the study of language
The Plan is to Include Mathematics
A Synthetic, Necessary Proposition – ‘What is possible is necessary’ | 10.05.03
Alternate Statements of the Principle of Being | 11.20.03
Task. Analysis of Possibility, Necessity and Logic and Metaphysics | 2.18.03
The Constitution of Being is a Result of its Becoming
The Fundamental Problem of Metaphysics
Planning: Function and Location for the Fundamental Problem
The Logic of the Foundations: Its Development
The Logic of the Foundations: Issues: From “There is no universal law,” anything can be derived
Task. Review logic of the Theory of Being
On Criticism, Construction and the Ultimate |2.1.04
On Criticism – Further Comments; Radical doubt | 11.28.03
1.1.3 Characteristics of Being
Introduction: On Selection and Proof for the Characteristics
Introduction: Kinds of Characteristics – primary, derivative, existential, possible, and fundamental
Plan: A Brief [Re-] Formulation of Fundamental Characteristics
Characteristics and Categories of Being
1.1.3.2 Absence [derivative and perhaps primary]
1.1.3.3 Accessibility and Identity [derivative]
1.1.3.4 Process, change: Time [existential]
Becoming; Being and Becoming; Atomicity
1.1.3.5 Extension: Space [existential]
1.1.3.6 Indeterminacy [derivative]
1.1.3.7 Community and Interactivity [derivative]
1.1.3.8 Meaning [existential and, perhaps with generalization of the meaning of meaning, primary]
1.1.3.10 Experience [existential]
1.1.3.11 Presence [existential and primary]
1.1.3.12 Matter or Material Nature and Other Properties [existential]
1.1.3.13 Actuality [existential and primary]
1.1.3.14 An Infinite Number of Attributes? [possible] [existential – in Cartesian philosophy]
Task. Review Descartes and Spinoza
1.1.3.15 Recurrence [derivative]
1.1.3.16 Fecundity [existential]
1.1.3.17 Good and Evil [existential and perhaps primary]
Ethics Requires an Interplay between and Action of Free and Bound elements
Human Being, Mind and Society; and History
Symbol; Art, Religion, Artifact [Technology]
Task. Develop the Considerations of Ontology. Determine Placement of ‘Ontology’
Plan. Catalog the Distinctions among Categorial Systems
Plan. Criticize the Distinctions among Categorial Systems
Plan. Analyze what First Principles may imply for Categorial System
Plan. Use Archie Bahm’s ‘Introduction to Philosophy’
1.1.5 Entities in Being and Becoming: Brief Characterization
Task. Review content; combine with, especially, Ontology and Human Being
Task. Develop a symbolic calculus for collections of entities on a trt metaphor
On a Mistaken Distinction: Wide and Narrow
[Task. Determine the placement of this section]
1.1.6 The Being of All Being and The Elements of Being
1.1.6.2 The Being of The Elements of Being
1.1.6.3 The Being of All Being
1.1.6.4 The Being of All Being as A Community of The Elements of Being
1.1.7 Existence and Modes of Existence
Issue. Topic to Incorporate: Aristotle [and Others] on Being
Issue. Note or topic to Incorporate: Theory of Being is closely connected with General Cosmology
1.1.8 The Fabric of the Universe
Task. Placement of the parts of this section
1.1.9 The Range and Variety of Being
Task. Placement of the parts of this section
Principles of Articulation of the Variety of Being
A Theory of the Variety of Being?
Task. Placement of the parts of this section
Whitehead and ‘The Human Soul’
Possible topic: The Range of Knowledge
1.1.11 The Possibility of Knowledge and Realization of the Real, of All or of Ultimate Being
Task. Placement of the parts of this section
Task. Review and re-determine titles for the sub-sections for ‘General Cosmology’
1.2.1 Development of the General Cosmology
Task. Review content. Task. Whether and how much to combine with The Theory of Being
1.2.1.1 Outline of a General Cosmology
1.2.1.2 The Categories: Immanent or Imposed
Alternatives to the Immanent and Imposed Interpretations of the Categories
1.2.1.3 A General Metaphysics of Space, Time and Being | 3.8.04
Relativity and quantum mechanics
Prototype pre-quantized theory:
Plan of Development: Developments so far
Plan of Development: Additional Topics
Plan: the Article Time from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
1.2.2 A Foundation for a Physical Theory of Space-Time-Matter
1.2.2.1 The main ideas for A Foundation of a Physical Theory of Space-Time Matter
Foundation of being and uni-verse in the void or nothingness
Development of the concept of the void
Foundation of being and uni-verse in the void
Notes on the physics of this phase-epoch of the uni-verse and uni-versal law
The nature of the quantum vacuum
What then is the relation of the quantum vacuum to the void?
Origin of the present phase-epoch in the becoming from the void
1.2.2.2 The Philosophy of Time | 9.17.03
Plan: Extend the following to space-time-matter; incorporate into Journey in Being [/outline below]
First, some Principles of Understanding and Explanation
Now, comments on the Philosophy Time and its Place in Cosmology and the Theory of Being
1.2.3.1 Actual and Physical Cosmology
On Cosmology and the Foundations of Physics | 8.20.03
Foundations of Physics | 9.2.03
1.2.3.3.1 Adaptation versus Evolution | 8.2.03
1.2.3.6 Human Being and Human Society
1.3 Mind, Individual or Person and their Metaphysics
1.3.1 The Metaphysics [Nature] of Mind
Some Comments: Mind / Body; and Atomism | 8.29.03
‘Eliminating’ the Concept[s] of Mind | 12.24.03
1.3.3.2 Categories and The Mental Functions
Task. This is the point to include the treatment of mind from the current version
1.3.3.3 On Mental Functions | 8.26.03
1.3.3.4 Additional Areas of Function Needed
1.3.4 A Finite Number of Modalities of Knowing and Being
1.3.5 Other Significant Aspects of Mind
1.3.6 Using the Developments in Mind and Categories to Elaborate and Improve the Treatment of Being
1.3.7 Some Further Topics and Issues
1.3.7.2.1 How to Define the Kinds
1.3.7.4 Side topic: Development
1.3.7.5 Side topic and Application: Mental Disorders and Creativity
1.3.7.6 Problems in the Philosophy of Mind | 9.21.03
1.4 Symbol, Language, Logic and Mathematics
1.4.2 Add Topic: Communication
1.4.3 Using the Developments in Logic to Elaborate and Improve the Treatment of Being
1.4.5 Language and Freedom; concerning natural language
1.4.6 Language and Reality | 10.4.03
1.5.2.2 Gettier Problem and the Nature of Knowledge | 12.24.03
1.5.2.4 Two roles for knowledge
1.5.2.5 Modes, Kinds and Distinctions
1.5.2.6 What is the Status of the Modes, Kinds and Distinctions
1.5.2.7 Two aspects of knowledge
1.5.2.8 Analysis of Belief, Truth and Justification… and of Knowledge
Epistemology Remains Important
Significance of Epistemology and Knowledge
1.5.2.9 On the Synthesis of World and Idea | 12.17.03
1.5.2.11 Knowledge as a form of Being
1.5.2.11.1 Metaphysics and the Possibility of Knowledge and Logic
1.5.2.12 On the Possibility of Knowledge
The Nature of Science | 9.3.03
1.5.2.13 On Platonic Argument | 1.21.04
1.5.3 Possible topic: The Range of Knowledge
A Consideration on Artistic Genius
Possible location for topic: Technology
1.5.4 Using the Developments in Knowledge to Elaborate and Improve the Treatment of Being
1.5.5 Knowledge and its Role in Journey in Being | 9.25.03
1.5.6 Noumenon and Phenomenon, The Problem of. Discussion and Plan | 2.21.04
The Theory of Being in the Analysis of The Problem of the Noumenon
Kantian Synthesis of Knower and Known | 12.8.03
Supplementary Discussion: The Inferred Character of the Noumenon | 11.11.03
Plan. The problem of the noumenon
The Mental Axes: Experience, Attitude and Action | 10.14.04
Revised Mental Axes: Attitude, Idea and Action
On Assumptions in Inductive Inference | 3.1.04
On Presentationism versus Representationism | 10.1.03
On Representational Theories of Consciousness
Plan. This discussion may go to §1.6.6.2 of Journey in Being; see bookmark ‘representation’
1.6 Theory and Approaches to Group Action and Value
Task. Integrate with Social Theory
1.6.1 Ethics; ethics versus Ethics; Axia or Ethics? Organic Unity of Axia, Knowledge and Being
1.6.1.2 Using the Developments in Ethics to Elaborate and Improve the Treatment of Being
1.6.1.3 Are Human Beings Ethical in Nature? | 8.27.03
1.6.2 Political Philosophy and Theory
1.6.2.2 Political Philosophy and Ethics
1.6.2.3 Politics and Ethics | 8.27.03
1.6.2.4 On the Possibility of Theory. Additional comments | 9.11.03
Task. Include: Economics, History, and Law?
1.7 Classical to Current Problems in Metaphysics
On Relations between Philosophy and the ‘Disciplines;’ especially Science | 8.20.03
1.7.1.3 Contemplation and the Value of the Great Questions
1.7.1.4 The Question Does not Exist to which there is no Answer
1.7.2.1 Some Comments on Systematic Metaphysics
1.7.2.2 An Apology for Systematic Metaphysics
Task. Determine where to place Systematic Metaphysics
1.7.3 The Range of Being, Experience and Knowledge
Encyclopaedic Formulations: Britannica
Encyclopaedic Formulations: Modified Britannica
The Modified Britannica System
1.7.4 Possible topic: The Range of Concepts
Task: update the following summary
2 EXPERIMENTS IN THE TRANSFORMATION OF BEING: POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS AN OUTLINE
Experiments: Nature and Role in Journey in Being
Role of Experiment / Transformation in Journey in Being
2.1 Dynamics of Being and Becoming
Task. Consider the addition of ‘and Becoming’ in the title in Journey in Being
2.2 Classic Systems of Experiment in Transformation of Being
The first set of experiments is in ‘Awareness or Experience’
2.2.1 Perception and Vision-Quest
Task. Consider eliminating ‘and Vision-Quest’ though retaining the material
Task. Consider combining ‘Perception’ and ‘Meditation’ and, possibly, ‘Dreams and Hypnosis’
Task. Documents to review and integrate
Task. Review, incorporate significant ideas from Thich Nhat Hahn The Miracle of Mindfulness, 1975
Task. Consider separating ‘Dreams’ and ‘Hypnosis’
The second set of experiments is in ‘Being’
2.2.4.1 A note on the Yoga of the Bhagavad-Gita
2.2.4.2 A note on the System of the Bhagavad-Gita and Tantra
Task. Consider Alternate Classification to the Distinction: Experience / Becoming
Task. Purposes a section on a ‘System of Experiments,’ separate from the Classic Systems, include
3 THE VARIETY OF BEING: POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS AND NEW OUTLINE
Task. Consider Possible New Title and Reorganization of Topics
3.2 Actual, Potential and Hypothetical Being; Chain of Being
Plan: Review A. O. Lovejoy’s “The Great Chain of Being”
3.3 Computation and Networking: Theory and Experiment
4 ACTION, CHARISMA, AND HISTORY: POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS AND NEW OUTLINE
Plan. The following theoretical topics or parts of them may go to Division 1
Plan. Possible New Title and Reorganization of Topics
4.1 Introduction: Purpose and Function
4.2 Action, Influence and Change
4.2.2 The Culture of Fear | 9.28.03
Plan. Here, I note some points unsystematically
The Possibility of Theory i.e. Ideas | 10.7.03
Modern Political Philosophy: Analytic and Continental | 10.11.03
Issue. Adam Smith and Karl Marx – a comparative study
A Note on the ‘Possibility of Theory’ and the despair of Continental Philosophy
Political Philosophy: Two Theories | 10.7.03
Divorce of Politics and Theory
Institution of Integration of Politics and Ideals [and theory]
The Death Penalty as An Example of Ethics, Politics and Rationality
Task. Integrate §4.6.5.3: Political Systems of Journey in Being with The principle of the forms
Plan: Incorporate the principle of the following forms:
4.4 Theaters and Platforms of Influence
4.5 Results, Applications, Plans
Example: The being of an entity is constituted by its becoming
The being of an entity is constituted by its becoming
Variation and selection is the fundamental dynamic of becoming; it is variation or variation and selection; as variation it includes all possibilities; as variation and selection it ‘channels’ realization along stable paths; selection is a phase of variation; it includes the principle of organization from quantum mechanics; and the dynamics of classical physics; it includes Whitehead’s concept of history as ‘force’ and ‘idea;’ it realizes all possibilities potential within the womb of being; and is an expression of that potential from the void; it is the dynamic complement to the resting state of all being outside time or change
[Integrate variation and selection, force and idea into History]
A free organism has both bound and free elements; and, it is this that is required by and that generates ethics, genuine care, knowledge and potency in the world; the becoming [stability, bound] and transformation [free, mutability] requires them to be atomic in both extension and duration: and thus meaning is a project
…somewhat analogous to the distinction bound / free:
fixed / plastic
memory / processing
The different things that are done in being logical; the different notions and concepts of logic; the different ‘kinds’ of logic
Gather, unify
Sources for logic: Journey in Being, History of Western Philosophy and the present document
True, false; possibility, necessity – necessary truth is ‘truth in all possible worlds,’ an idea due to Leibniz
Sources:
Mind in Journey in Being
Cosmology in the present document and in Journey in Being, Philosophy of Time in the present document
…search others
Theory of Being with general concept of mind and knowledge or knowing -> cosmology -> mind -> knowledge -> symbol -> group action; or
Theory of Being with general concept of mind and knowledge or knowing -> cosmology -> mind -> symbol -> knowledge -> group action
Consolidate all material on concepts / slack
Is “slack” the best word to use? Alternates: partially determinate, free / bound, vague, open, fuzzy, fluid, dynamic, evolving
What is it for a concept to be slack? Generally, the idea corresponds to the concept for an object that does not have the concreteness that we usually associate with material objects [but note that even objects that seem concrete are not so – almost regardless of how the metaphor of concreteness is interpreted] and often associate even with non-concrete things such as time, self, government, knowledge and so on. Here are some specific ways in which concepts are slack:
It is not true that all objects either do or do not fall under the concept
It is not true that the concept as understood is validly capable of projection to the universal; in this case it is the ideal concept rather than the actual one that is slack
Not only that meanings are not precise and do not need to be i.e. that [the illusion of] precision is imprecision but also that meanings are unfolding… that a systems of meaning are unfolding and, for Wittgenstein, there is no ultimate clear light at the end of a single tunnel
In various ways of give and play among concepts of a system. Concepts do not exist in isolation from one another or from some framework. Such frameworks may be precise and formal but I am not thinking of precisely defined systems; rather ever ‘theater’ of use constitutes a loosely connected, partially determinate, open ‘system’ where I use quotes to de-emphasize the idea that a system need be systematic. There are, then, a number of ways in which a concept derives slackness from being with in the system: indefiniteness of the system itself –and of its elements– and of its application; and, give and play among the concepts within the system
And, tentatively,
During development of understanding, concepts that may later become precise are allowed slack and this encourages progress toward what precision may obtain
Appropriately understood ‘vague’ concepts are precise
In some ways, it is superfluous to have a Prologue and an Introduction. However, the functions are different: the Prologue is an overview that is intended to present an accessible and brief sketch of the whole picture including the main landmarks; it is intended for all readers – professionals who want an overview before deciding to read the whole work or parts of it and others who may not be interested in or inclined to the lengthy technical development of the main text. The Introduction covers those general and personal motivations for the work, describes those aspects of my development –of My Journey– that are pertinent to The Journey, motivates the structure and contents of the work and points to the locations that the major developments can be found. Thus the Introduction contains the essence of the Prologue and perhaps there is a way to reduce the redundancy
Perhaps there could be two parts… in the following example the titles are tentative: Part I The Elements of A Journey in Being would contain the first two divisions; Part II would be titled Projects in Being, or Applications, or Contributions Toward a Journey in Being and would contain the third and fourth divisions
Another possibility – three documents: 1. Prologue, 2. My Journey – narrative of highlights, the essential ways in which the personal and universal interact; functions also as the introduction, and 3. Journey in Being
Charisma and action; essence, brief, stark, visual, courage… put it out there…
I
speak to you – the individual; I show you life and light
Poetry and simplicity – speaking from and to the core
Brevity | crystal clear logic | bold statement
Force from my person and action
The Journey: Possible! And necessary!
Speaking
directly
to the being of the individual in a way that places him or her immediately,
fully, essentially, and
starkly in the stream of the dynamics of all being
“As
far as knowledge and ideas are concerned, I must again turn away from what
clear light I have seen
and toward intuition and diffuse light to sense and seek what further truth
there may be”
1. Get the main structures down. [a] Outline of the new version of Journey in Being, [b] Structure of the section Characteristics of Being, and [c] Relationship between Theory of Being and subsequent sections of Division 1 [d] continue this list
2. Identify and mark all task and planning points; collect / structure them
3. Before making global change [a] find placement, [b] review literature and sources for ideas, key thinkers, experiments, variety / machines, social action, [c] collect items on the main points, [d] review and improve such main issues as void –> being and underlying logic / language, philosophy of the categories including space-time… [e] continue the list in item d, and [f] do some implementation of Divisions 2 – 4
4. May make corrections, incremental changes as the occasion arises but only if the time needed is moderate
The development of Journey in Being thus far has, significantly been detail / local first; of course not to the exclusion of the universal whose consideration was significantly intuitive in the process but became formal
The approach to subsequent versions must necessarily have a Top-down and Universal-local emphasis; this is what I am doing here but not to the exclusion of details
It is important, however, to not get involved in details until the overview has received sufficient and repeated attention from numerous points of view: new ideas had, the now clear deficits in structure of Journey in Being, the new perspectives from the definitive foundation that –finally– manifested only in the 2003 version of Journey in Being
…and what can be shown but not said
…i.e. what cannot be said in factual language but can be said indirectly by talking around it i.e. e.g. in presentational form
During transition, Journey in Being will be the current version; Journey in Being 7.3.03 will be maintained as a record; a new version of Journey in Being will be established
‘Corrections’ will be made in Journey in Being; and New Ideas will be incorporated to the new version
When the process is complete, Journey in Being and Journey in Being 7.3.03 will be consolidated as ‘old,’ and the new version will replace Journey in Being
Not exclusively, but it is important to keep this point in focus
It has been shown that this is necessary and good; keep this point, too, in focus
Overall: Prologue, Introduction, Main
The phases: and interactions
The sections and subsections: duplication – to remove or retain case by case, placement and order of topics and sub-topics
The anticipation of later sections by earlier ones without circularity
Anticipation of the nature of ‘experience’ and its non-distinction from the actual [material]
Give and take among the parts
That the disjunction into separate considerations [sections] is neither unique nor precise
Topical
Alphabetic
Other: see Evolution and Design and related material for arrangements
This may be separate, may be part of cosmology, may combine with ‘mind’
This has implications for the treatment of ethics and politics and where they go
Where they go
How they interact with other sections such as ‘Theory of Being’, ‘Human Being, Experience and Community’, ‘Life…’
This is very important and a base of communication and advertisement and deserves careful revision: natural and simple with some sections marked as advanced; complete with regard to the main issues; as general as possible
The concepts: being, existence, nothingness or void, knowledge, language, logic, mind, cosmology…
The logic: think it through and clearly state it; whole ® part
Consolidation: at the main logical point; some details at other points as convenient – repetition possible but only when essential
General
Short TOC for prologue at its head?
Add the distinctions: representation versus presentational nature of knowledge; formal versus intuition; innate versus acquired
Make a tree / matrix of kinds of knowledge
‘Journey in Being’ is used in two meanings. One meaning concerns being and its paths from through all its possibilities including the void – and what regularities and accidents constitute the paths: this implies a general theory of being and knowledge and their varieties… make that explicit. In the second meaning ‘Journey in Being’ is an account of my understanding of and experiments in the actual Journey of Being and includes those parts of my personal journey that I deem significant to my success and failure in understanding and experiment
Consolidate the personal story in one place; distribution of information among the personal story, the Prologue and the Introduction
See pertinent places Journey in Being
Variety of paths; contribution to my experience
Persistence, sustenance of belief
My psychology; how it contributes
Reasons to acknowledge motivations; motivation does not invalidate ideas – that appears to be true with regard to content but not with regard to significance of the ideas... however, acknowledgement of motivation makes for awareness of the issue of significance and its evaluation
Significance of straddling academia and the real world; although there is a certain artificiality to the academic world it is nonetheless important and the distinction from the ‘real’ world is also somewhat artificial. What is important is [a] that being at large in the work-economy adds a dimension of experience, of truth, and of connection to the world of the individual – I have experienced its unsheltered aspect; and [b] that the academic world and the work-economy balance one another
The primary sources for Journey in Being are linked in the Site-Map under the heading JOURNEY IN BEING and sub-headings
The Journey in Being has a Prologue, an Introduction, and four main divisions – Division 1, Division 2 and so on: 1. Metaphysics with Theory of Knowledge and Being, 2. Transformations of Being, 3. The Variety of Being, and 4. Action, Charisma and Change. The logic to the organization is as follows. The concept of Journey in Being is that it is an exploration of being in all possible modes. The primary modes are conceptual [Division 1] and experimental [Division 2.] On the assumption that the conceptual exploration is foundational to the system of experiments, the conceptual is placed first. This is of course a simplification for the conceptual and experimental are interactive. Since the exploration is of all possible modes, an attempt has been made to make the first two divisions comprehensive with regard to, at least, the human history of experience in the relevant areas. Thus, Journey of Being, includes an account of the Journey of Human Being in its dimensions of possibility. Additionally, there is an attempt to weave all strands together and, in a personal contribution, to go beyond what has come before; this is in fact the nature and tradition of contributions to the Journey, to civilization or to history. Thus, I have attempted to found, unify, generalize and universalize; in Division 1, one main approach to this is through the theory of the void and its relation to possibility, necessity, being and becoming; in Division 2, a central approach – based in fundamentals and the nature of being rather than merely in ritual or prescription – is what I call The Dynamics of Being. There is some elaboration of the basic ideas and some research projects, plans, ongoing work and results are described in the first two divisions. The future includes a continuation and elaboration of these; and of course ongoing review and – as occasion – modification of the fundamentals. Additionally, Divisions 3 and 4 of Journey in Being are different in nature and scope to the earlier divisions: the two final divisions are [relatively] specialized projects in realization of the earlier divisions – research and experimental projects in aspects of being; additionally, the latter two divisions aspire to be / include both conceptual and practical contributions
The foundation of being[in the void and other considerations below and in Journey in Being has implications for overall concept and structure of Journey in Being and its divisions; some of these are discussed in Journey in Being and some below; this consideration is merely begun: I must further consider and apply what the implications are, what modifications in concept and structure are entailed
In general I will place theory in Division 1; this includes the theory associated with the remaining divisions
The theory of Division 1 should be fundamental and fit together coherently
Some theory may remain in Divisions 2 – 4 when it is clearly connected / interactive with the objectives of those divisions; some repetition may be good
… and integration into and enhancement of the theory [theories] of Division 1
…and reorganization / restructuring of the conceptual basis
…and enhancement of the developments
Especially the sub-sections:
Purpose and Nature of the Experiments
What is a Transformation of Being?
The Value of Transformations of Being
The Discipline of Transformation
…integration into nature of being and experience [mind]
… integration into theory of mind [experience and, more generally, presence and being]
…integration into variety of experience and being
Dynamics: Elaboration of the examples
Becoming: Concept of becoming. Topics: Vision-Quest, of Dreams and Hypnosis, of Yoga and Meditation; Basis in and implications for Nature of Perception and Cognition
Journey: Concept of the Journey – inspiration, vehicle, being and becoming e.g. becoming adapted to a not over-civilized environment – body and perception. Topics: Effect of Journey on Perception, Cognition and Mood; upon Discovery; upon Journey of Being
The System of Experiments: Basis of Variety of Experiments in The Variety of Experience and Becoming
Establish the essentials of the system
Basis and elaboration of the experiments
e.g. the mental functions: perception, cognition, mood and emotion
e.g. the basis and elaboration of the experiments in personality in theory and concepts of personality and personality in being
e.g. experiments in becoming, transformation and arching
Theory of the complete, minimal set
Currently [February 17, 2004]the details of the tasks for Division 3 are in The Variety of Being
Currently [February 17, 2004] the details of the tasks for Division 4 are in Action, Charisma, Influence and Change
[Collect together with all related commentary and with metaphysics lexicon.html and words, language, metaphysics.html]
Observing gender is necessary but becomes cumbersome: he / she, man / woman / human; and poetry is lost
Need: a way to preserve poetry and brevity; and introduce respect
Possibilities: the old German ‘man,’ ‘wo-man,’ and ‘wer-man’ scheme; solution to non-specific gender words he/she, him/her, his/hers – invent words, use e.g. Latin words, or use a randomizing scheme
This new foundation has been germinating as a maturing of the foundation of being in the void established in Journey in Being by July 2003 and was written April – May 2004 in the document foundation
Strengthening the concept of the void; improving the foundation in the void; general consequences from the logic of the void
A new concept of logic that includes the traditional concept; a working out of the concept; showing how the traditional concept of logic fits in
An analysis of the system of ‘Problems of Metaphysics’ to develop a complete set; resolution of the essential problems in terms of the logic: the place and working out of the concept of the absolute idea and the dialectical concept of history; enhancement of the earlier analysis of existence; analysis and solution of the problem of universals and forms; deepening and resolution of what Heidegger called the fundamental problem of metaphysics ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’…
An approach to the foundation of the understanding of space-time and the foundation of quantum mechanics in the void; this needs to be worked out
Reworking and improving various aspects of my thought and their interconnections: the nature of being and existence; cosmology; the nature of mind and the mind-matter problems; symbol, language, logic, mathematics and knowledge – natures and relationships; ‘The Theory of Group Action and Value’ as a join of aesthetics [ethics] and political philosophy; foundation of the system of experiments including the variety of being, the being of machines, social action
Elaborate the following general and specific plans with considerations from the design, journey and foundation documents
General Plans
Combine the present document, foundation and Journey in Being; abridge to essentials [keep old versions]
Rework the three experimental sections as the work is done; abridge to the essentials [ " ]
Improve and integrate all topics especially those in the above section What’s New: Some Topics
Perhaps incorporate History, History of Western Philosophy and other major documents
Considerations from major experimental-experiential [Yoga, Shamanism, Dynamics and Logic, Mysticism, Exploration, Political Action…] and systems of thought including Indian and Western Philosophy; reworked; implications
Specific Plans
Continue to develop the concept and the formulation of the Journey and its Foundation – the first two sections of foundation
Logic
Cosmology, theory of space-time-being, quantum mechanics
Topics such as knowledge and belief
Collect actual and implied additions and changes from the Prologue
No corrections at present
Further detail for ‘mind’
Articulation and treatment of the twin problems of ‘Physical ¬ ® Mental Causation’ i.e. ‘World/Action ¬ ® Consciousness’
… in listing problems there is, perhaps, one fundamental problem which is the twin problem of: signal ® sense organ ® nerve impulse ® brain and integration ® processing, thought, judgment, decision and will or volition ® unpacking –the reverse of integration– to constituent physical actions ® nerve impulse ® muscle fibers ® physical action
I.e. none other than the classic mind-body problem which includes the problem of mental causation
In Contact: A Novel, 1985, Carl Sagan wrote, “Think of what consciousness feels like, what it feels like at this moment. Does that feel like billions of tiny atoms wiggling in place?”
Of course not. But, what billions of tiny atoms wiggling in place feel is what it feels like. I.e. / in as much as you are those billions of atoms… in the unity that makes them you
This is more or less what is said in Journey in Being
In The Analysis of Matter, 1927, Bertrand Russell suggested that, “In consciousness a fragment of physical reality is being apprehended from within”
Or, conscious is –an aspect of– the apprehension of reality by reality
Or, simply, in mind the real apprehends the real
But this is on the model of relationship or knowledge as distinction… but when relationship is acknowledged as being as in e.g. photons as interactions then, consciousness is –an aspect of– reality
The reality of perception is the perception of the real
The meaning of nothingness; the comments are needed to assert the actual meaning used and to avoid confusion with other use
It is not the nothingness of Sartre which is an existential emptiness
Nor is it physical nothingness… it is especially not the vacuum of quantum physics which results in the absence of things without the absence of laws or the behavior of things
It is an absolute nothingness…
The logic and flow of the prologue is extremely important; for it has the following functions
Introduction, outline, definition and mini-Journey in Being; setting the stage
Advertisement
First impression
Less technical introduction for general readers
Defining the Journey in Being
One modern use of “being” is that of conscious entity. This is not the use here; rather, the use here is the philosophical sense of to be or exist that has been extensively discussed in the main essay, Journey in Being. Further, the distinction implied by being as a conscious entity is parochial in nature: although this is not, of course, self-evident it the point has been elaborated in the essay
As examples, I talk of the probability of the void manifesting as some state, or I talk of the probability of the void that we consider to be associated with a particle annihilating that particle...
Some times, the use of the concept of probability is valid. The void will manifest as every possible state; the probability is 1. However, what is the probability that the void will annihilate a particle or the current phase-epoch of the universe? In order to annihilate a particle that will have to be done during the lifetime of the particle so it makes sense to ask what is the probability of such annihilation in a given amount of time and I have talked of such probabilities being small…
However, I do not have a basis to make that assertion. Therefore, in order to talk of probabilities something like one of the following is needed:
We agree to use the word probability loosely. This is the most undesirable of the suggestions and is a last resort; it should not be necessary for we could replace “probability” with “ignorance;” and we would then need to distinguish what cases involve ignorance and what cases involve probabilities 0 or1
We would find some underlying logic. This is hinted at in the previous paragraph; this is the most desirable
We would find some datum above the void but below the physical stratum of the object of discussion e.g. a phase-epoch of the universe; this would be satisfactory and valuable but would not be a substitute for the underlying logic of the previous paragraph
Add an emphasis that while it is necessary from the immediate perspective to include a focus on the local, that such focus illustrates and, certainly, does not suppress or diminish the universal; rather the local brings out and supports the universal; and the universal illuminates the local; they are mutually enhancing and supporting. This is consistent with the principle of meaning where an emphasis should be added that, not only are the local and universal both important but they are each empty [or, at least, incomplete] without the other. There is a hierarchy of localizations from phase-epoch of the universe to my immediate here-and-now and even parochial environment. Work out these considerations for the prologue and the main essay
The purposes of the present comment are [1] to ensure that the [discussion or treatment of the] local and the universal support each other rather than be in a detracting relationship, [2] that the narrative encourage clarity on this point, and [3] to separate what is local [though not essentially parochial] and important to human or animal experience or to the experience of an era from what is lasting and universal
Comment on local / universal | 12.2.03: in the Prologue and elsewhere I use the word “our” in relation to the world e.g. “our universe,” “our world” or “our experience.” This rather goes against the distinction between local and universal phases of the narrative and somehow suggests that the local is in fact the universal. A better construction is to refer to the local phase-epoch of the universe or to human or animal experience
Truly, modern knowledge seems to be wonderful in its depth and scope and, especially, its grip on reality. Through modern knowledge, we see the limitations of the past of our civilization and the superstitions of primitives. Modern knowledge penetrates with rigor and reality into the depth of being… But, no: the gap between the deepest knowledge of the theory of space-time and the quantum and its vacuum and the absolute: void is infinite; and, we use our picture, bolstered by our ‘dominant economics’ to evaluate the relativisms and superstitions of others but we have no picture other than ours we cannot get outside it. Our ‘dominant economics’ destroys the world; and our tendency toward positivist vision is crass compared to the awareness of even ‘savages.’ Our knowledge is paper thin in the dimension of being: the shaman binds his being to the being of the cosmos. It must be accepted: however deep we actually go there is below it all a lurking infinity with which all may have some acquaintance by letting go of scientific and ego positivism, by accepting the finitude and the magnitude of our body which is none other than the mind
In the following, ‘Topic’ refers to a main sub-division of the Division under discussion. Distinctions between being as we experience it and all / universal / being or being-as-such are made by referring to being and Being. Similar considerations apply to ethics, knowledge… In the case of being, of course, there is a paradox in distinguishing being from Being since being is the essence of the entity; still there may be a distinction between Being and knowledge of it and there is such a distinction in some metaphysical frameworks but not –essentially– in others
Thing / essence i.e. entity / being; the distinction or its lack
What is the present kind of study? First, a metaphysics at the highest [or lowest] level I can think of – the attempt to understand this phase-epoch of the universe, often taken as the universe, as a speck in the ultimate; then, an attempt to develop this metaphysics and to place all understanding in that context; search for other contexts; systematization as far as is reasonable. Obviously inasmuch as the universe is ‘systematic’ the same has an appropriate place in metaphysics; it is then a problem as to what kind, what, how, and how much system?
The actual value[s] will depend upon the perspective of the individual. I allow ‘value’ to be plural because I do not want to insist on a monistic value system. However, perhaps there is room for monism and again the questions arise: what kind, what, how and how much?
The question of ‘what value’ is not so much a question of what is practical as of perspective although it can be seen as one of practicality
From a ‘practical’ perspective the values would become apparent after or during the study – at least after sufficient thought to reveal what kind of results may be possible. For example, the fact that we can conceive of being part of higher being with ‘pan-awareness’ and we can conceive of, if not fulfilling the possibility of that being, then at least of fulfilling that awareness. Then, much of our struggle becomes moot though not pointless. Thus the awareness may affect choices in a very practical way. It is the practical but not impatient or self-centered person, then, who would want such studies to be undertaken – though it does not follow how much energy ‘should’ be devoted
From the perspective of someone who values ideas, the value of the study is natural. But what is the value of ideas? First, the practical value just noted. Then, the history of ideas is that there is often a significant gap between the idea and its practical fruition – and the connection is often not originally apparent; yet the pursuit of ideas has resulted in so much of what is valued in civilization even by grossly practical persons. Finally, ideas are not flimsy things but connections to all being; this may not appeal to ‘practical’ persons but it is probably the real reason for the appeal to those who value ideas ‘for their own sake’
We see then that the way in which the value in question is held and what value depends on the perspective – especially the immediacy of perspective. For me, all such perspectives are significant in appropriate but not fixed balance. It is only for the impatient and the narcissistic – i.e. individual or cultural narcissists – that there will be ‘no value’ to real metaphysics
In Theory of Being, later results e.g. from cosmology, mind, knowledge… may be anticipated. This is done in such a way as to avoid circularity i.e. the results as abstracted here can be derived independently from general principles – this anticipation, then, is not a logical dependence but is suggested by the later, concrete, development; or, when the present development is derived from facts regarding the later concrete development that are arrived at independently of the present development. I.e. there is a two way logical relation that avoids circularity
The purposes of the anticipation is twofold:
To make the Theory of Being more complete and to have that complete development more efficient as follows, [a] it is not necessary to expose the reader to the iterative development although it is good to be aware of the iteration, and [b] to keep the development in one place
To have the form of the development such that the later developments naturally fit into the scope of the Theory of Being
The deferment refers, primarily, to ‘epistemic’ considerations – the nature of knowledge, nature of and criteria for validity or confidence in knowledge. The content of Division 1 is [part of] the content of human knowledge. Thus, of course, knowledge is present from the beginning; and, thus, a simpler, alternative, title for Division 1 could be ‘Knowledge’ rather than the relatively cumbersome ‘Metaphysics and the Theory of Knowledge.’ In other words, Division 1 is concerned with the Range of Knowledge especially in its most fundamental aspects. In so far as the limitation to ‘human knowledge’ is necessary, it is implied; the reference is allowed to remain tacit for, while truth requires it, truth also requires that its [putative] limit not be overstated...
There is also a place for a definition for the entire range of knowledge; this could be placed in one of the following topics: Theory of Being, Knowledge, or The Problems of Metaphysics
I devoted a number of ‘preliminary’ sections of Division 1 to Knowledge: its nature, the idea of justification – its nature and whether justification would be better replaced by some other concept e.g. one based in analogy to natural evolution such as the ideas of Karl Popper. One original purpose of the considerations on knowledge was to provide a foundation for a Theory of Being. Thus, the sections on knowledge were placed before than those on being
However, the developments showed that the foundation in theory of knowledge was not as crucial as expected
The objective will be to develop the Theory of Being without reference to the nature of knowledge and ‘conditions for validity’ within the domain the reference is unnecessary. Such considerations will shed light on the nature of knowledge which, despite some common views, is not at all given. Then, understanding of the nature of knowledge may be developed which sheds light on the nature of human-animal ‘anchoring’ in the world; one of the points to the development of the understanding of knowledge will be that it is illustrative rather than generative of the anchoring. It is a common view that knowledge is generative and in this guise, knowledge is knowledge-of or knowledge-about the world. However, this view finds a place within the more comprehensive view that knowledge is an adaptation or that it is an interactive phenomenon; which is the root out of which the more discrete-like knowledge as knowledge-of may have grown
As noted elsewhere, the interaction between the development of the general theory of being [metaphysics] and the concept of knowledge may add to each but should be done so as to avoid circularity; which may show up in the form that the general theory has an illicit foundation and may be developed in a form e.g. that is more concrete than warranted
Therefore, I currently plan to begin the division on metaphysics with an account of being and especially the general characteristics of being and its foundation in the void; what reference to knowledge is necessary will be made as the need arise… and, while the topic is important, full treatment will appear later in the division
Why inclusion of considerations of Knowledge remains important
A second, and more important, original purpose to the inclusion of a discussion of knowledge is the intrinsic interest and importance of knowledge. What is knowledge? What are the kinds of knowledge? What is its importance? What is the role of knowledge – science and so on – and symbolic expression in [human] history? What are the extents and limits of human knowledge? What confidence do we have in our knowledge and what is the basis of that confidence? To what extent does human [animal] knowledge form a paradigm for Knowledge in general? What is the relationship between knowledge and being? How may this question be answered? Is there a place for Knowledge at the most abstracted / general / fundamental level of Being? These questions are currently addressed in the preliminary sections of Division 1; they would properly be placed in later sections and, in fact, there is currently a later treatment of some aspects of knowledge. All these considerations will be placed together; that will serve the purposes of unity, coherence, and natural progression of treatment
Since the reaction to the enlightenment that culminated in the critical idealism of Kant, the question of validity or confidence [epistemology] has at least rivaled the question of the content of knowledge [metaphysics.] In Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy, epistemology has often taken center stage; i.e. how we know became more important than what is known. Today, neither epistemology nor metaphysics is fully ascendant and perhaps this is good for the purpose of knowing is not merely to be correct but also to have knowledge
Here, I reverse the post-Kantian trend – of course without claim to be the first to do so. However, I do claim that the reversal here is profound and, at least in its positive statement in terms of fundamental content and depth and proof, perhaps without precedent. It is not necessary to repeat, here, the claim regarding profundity, content, depth and proof
The post-Kantian trend balances the pyramid on its apex
Simply, the reason for the reversal – for placing metaphysics first – is that, even contrary to my initial expectation, epistemology is not necessary to the development. Such epistemological considerations as may assist understanding and address anticipated questions may be given, piecewise, as occasions arise; to this extent the work is naturally unfolding or pedagogical. However, the full development of epistemological issues, as necessary and good, is deferred to the relevant topical sections; to this extent the work is not naturally unfolding. However, to make a work naturally unfolding without exception would make it unnecessarily long and, in the end, counter to the needs of pedagogy. I.e. the needs of understanding require active effort from the reader and, as Arthur Schopenhauer demanded of his readers in the introduction to Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, “no other advice can be given, than to read the book twice.” I allow the later considerations on knowledge [and other topics] to influence the development of the Theory of Being and especially implicitly but have taken care to avoid logical circularity
In the later sections it will be shown that, not only is preliminary treatment of knowledge not necessary but, also, that it should not be preliminary
However, consideration of the how [epistemology] and the nature of knowledge is crucially important from some perspectives; see the section on knowledge
Kant’s philosophy may be seen as having three parts: a critical part – knowledge cannot exceed the bounds of possible experience; an existential statement that within this limit knowledge is possible and actual; and a constructive part – the theory of perception [intuition] and the theory of the synthetic a priori or the theory of understanding that includes logic, mathematics and science
Even within the Kantian framework there has been much advance – in part necessitated by the revolutions that overturned much of what Kant had taken as given and a priori
In the present development the critical aspect of Kant and post-Kantian philosophy is overturned; the existential statement freed from the Kantian limit; and, the constructive aspect modified, accepted and placed within a more encompassing framework
“Kant wanted to prove in a way that would dumbfound the common man that the common man was right: this was the secret joke of his soul. He wrote against the scholars in favor of the common prejudice, but for scholars and not popularly.”
…from Nietzsche’s The Gay Science as translated by Walter Kaufmann
To summarize, the first topic in Division 1 will be Theory of Being and will include, in addition to the topics in the main section on being from the present version of Journey and those in other sections, sub-topics such as What is Being? Can we specify “the being of an entity is what it really is” in a positive or explicit way and must the answering of the question be iterative? Why and how is there being – the fundamental problem of metaphysics? What is the range of being? What is the universe? What is [the essence of] human being? What are the possibilities of being? What is the relationship between what is possible and what is necessary? What forms of being are open to any given being e.g. human being? What forms are accessible and what forms have an access that is feasible and good? How is the access possible? What is the foundation of these questions in the void? What is the relationship between being, matter and mind or experience? Why are these questions interesting or useful to consider? Should the abstract theory of being be placed first? Perhaps not but it is economical to do so and also important in that it is perhaps the fundamental topic and foundational for others; elaboration and understanding come later and, as with any fundamental and interwoven development of interdependent ideas, two readings may be necessary thus making a more pedagogic and less efficient approach less effective
The parochial is important but comes later
Distinguish universal versus local application
[This is 1.1.3 of Journey in Being]
The deepest nature of BEING [and of our being] is un-given
The theory is continued in the following sections on Characteristics of Being, Existence and Modes of Existence, Aristotle on Being and others
Detailed in Journey in Being and elsewhere in this document: see Nothingness et. Seq. and related sections
[The first application being to the general theory of Being]
An approach through which any culture, civilization or age can embed its special forms of knowledge, art, science, religion and magic in the absolute and the universal
A way of seeing or showing / an intermediate device to see or show that all / almost all actual laws and forms of being are contingent even if most interesting and most relevant to the phase-epoch of the universe… for any system of laws for a datum from the present phase-epoch of the universe, there is an infinity of other laws that agree on the datum but that are wildly different outside the datum and that includes being outside the phase-epoch. Thus, foundation in the void, too, is supported by some of the laws. This is a trivialization and is by no means a justification of the theory of the void including the principle of identity whose justification is otherwise
Laws as objects e.g. in defining the quantum vacuum as what is left when objects are [conceptually] taken away, the richness that results is due to not taking away quantum behavior [laws] itself…
If a miracle is an exception to the laws of the present phase-epoch of the universe, the present cosmic epoch, then miracles are possible; this is an obvious consequence of the nature of the void and its equivalences
Relative to ALL BEING º THE VOID, there is no miracle; there is not only an absence of any ‘need’ but also no concept of the miraculous – for, relative to ALL BEING there is nothing exceptional, nothing transcendent. ALL BEING includes anything that might be labeled miraculous as common place. But the miraculous is not at all common place to individuals in a cosmic epoch which is infinitesimal in comparison to ALL BEING
What word should I use: void, nothing, nothingness, emptiness…? [see Words, Language, Metaphysics]
It is important that nothingness not be understood, merely, as the absence of things. For, if things are absent, it may seem that laws are still present – reflection may show the idea to be absurd – waiting to apply to anything that were placed in the void
However, what is a law? A law – in science and physics – is not something over and above the being of the entities of the universe. A law is not something that the entities of the universe “obey” or even follow even though we may see it that way with much good effect in use and application of the laws. A law is part of the being of the world or universe – or of a phase-epoch thereof – as much as is the material nature of being. A more accurate statement is that a law is part of our expression or formulation of the being of the world – of the patterns of being and becoming. Thus, “taking away” the matter of the universe [phase-epoch] does not leave the laws behind. This explains what I have said elsewhere [e.g. here] regarding “taking away” i.e. that the laws, too, must be eliminated for there to be nothingness. We think, sometimes, of laws as artifactual but they are not. True, laws and theories are overturned and therefore seem artifactual but it is not the true laws that are artifactual in this sense but only our expression of them
We have been talking, then, of law as immanent versus law as imposed
But, here in the Theory of Being and the Void, we go beyond that distinction. There is no universal law; there are laws of this or that phase-epoch or other distinction of the uni-verse. Out of the void comes a ‘coherent’ phase-epoch where law is its coherence; is that law immanent – for that distinction it would seem so; but, it does not project beyond the phase or beyond the epoch and thus has an imposed character: our expression of the law will have an approximate and imposed aspect within the phase-epoch and when projected beyond the phase-epoch it would be not only imposed but wrongly so. However, in considering the origin of a phase-epoch, its laws may co-evolve with its elements i.e. immanent; or its laws may be a [partial] function of the rest of the universe i.e. have an imposed character [even if not exclusively so]
General comments | 11.20.03: Still more on the void
The Void = ‘emptiness’ = ‘without differentiation’
1. Consider N = Nothingness, S = some state of being, and E = eternal everything. To say [A] that N must transform into S is in contradiction of the idea of N. The contradiction is not that N will become S but that it must. What if S is N itself or, better, ~E? Then, that N must transform into S means that N will remain N which is a violation or contradiction of the concept of nothingness. I.e. N will become something – sometimes and immanently rather than compulsively and eternally
2. [In the following, N +> S reads ‘N will not transform to S;’ similarly N -> S reads ‘N will transform to state S;’ C[N] reads ‘the concept of N;’ and => reads ‘implies.’] Consider N +> S; this violates C[N]. But ~[N -> S] => N +> S; therefore ~~[N -> S] which => N -> S; i.e. for every possible [e.g. imaginable [without contradiction] state] S, N -> S
3. There is an obvious logical contradiction above that raises questions about logic or its application – or applicability in as much as it is implied that the raw idea of N contains contradiction
4. What is N? It is not empty space but space-less-ness. It is not the quantum vacuum which contains quantum laws or quantum like behavior and is therefore not N. It is not and does not contain LAW [of which our expression is law] or CAUSE or PATTERN for the presence of any of these contradict C[N.] Law, cause, pattern, extension, duration are not distinct from thing and it is not possible [logically] to take away things and leave behind law, cause and the rest; when all things are removed, the quantum vacuum does not remain – nor even the classical vacuum which is so much less than the quantum vacuum
5. Regarding the foregoing concern about a logical contradiction there was an equal concern as to the applicability of logic to N. The previous points will directly show that the latter equivalent concerns are paramount
6. We simply say that since N admits not only nothing but also of no necessity [law, pattern…] that from N, every S [whose description is without contradiction – it seems impossible to imagine an object that is entirely green and entirely red simultaneously but it is easy to describe one] must be possible. But in the one universe the only measure of possibility is actuality and therefore every non-contradictory S will occur. [The other meaning of possibility that something ‘could’ occur implies a population of worlds of which this world is one; and the idea of such a population contradicts the idea of the one universe which has been shown to be necessary]
7. Most generally, since N, from its definition, co-exists with the universe [and equally with all of its elements] the one universe will [with a little logic be seen to] phase in between N and S
8. The meaning for analyticity is [1] performed in a vacuum of actual things, entirely symbolic logic is empty; and, [2] the conditions of analyticity and logic are never finally determined but evolve together with their application
1. The concept of nothing is not the same as that of no thing
2. ‘No thing’ is both green and red. This does not mean that nothing is both green and red or green or red. The point is that green and red are ‘contraries’ and it is for this reason that the idea of nothing as that for which contraries –the concept of Peirce– are true is not the present idea of nothing
3. It is true that if I think of a meaning of ‘nothing’ as a compound of its roots I find that nothing is green and red
4. But if I think of nothing as an elementary term then ‘nothing is green and red’ does not follow
5. The difficulty is with the idea of thing by which we usually mean some actual [e.g. material] thing
6. The idea of ‘nothing’ that I want to grasp is the idea of what remains when all things are removed – not just every thing in some specialized or reduced meaning of thing. This problem with ‘thing-hood’ is part of the problem of the secularization of language; it leads not only to metaphysical poverty and, so, for a metaphysical / linguistic animal to actual poverty
7. The concept of ‘nothing’ in #6 is not the same as in #3 or of ‘no-thing;’ but if we disallow the truncated meaning of ‘thing,’ no thing and nothing come closer in meaning
8. It is no-thing, the nothing of #3 or ‘not a thing’ that is the literal meaning of the nothing of #3 that satisfies the concept of nothing of Peirce as that which possesses contrary attributes
9. I.e. the nothing of #3 can be red and green, here and there, can exist and not exist even as a classical “ ”
10.
“ ”
“ ” “ ”
“ ” “ ” “ ”
…
11. If nothing #3 exists no-thing exists
12. Nothing #3 is not a well formed concept
13. #6 is the concept of nothing that I use
Logic is the science of the possible, or
Logic is the science of possible states of affairs
Science – the term is not important, do not be derailed by it; alternative terms for ‘science of’ are ‘study of,’ ‘way of determining,’ ‘art of determining’
States of affairs – here and in the following, in this section on logic, ‘states of affairs’ may be abbreviated to ‘states’
When logic is so conceived, language is a chapter in logic
Actual, potential, relation to ‘necessity,’ the seeing, sacred and profane, esoteric and mundane, the awful and the mysterious; states of experiencing – attitude and action… idea and will; relation to language and its ‘unending’ variety of use
While logic is the art of determining what is possible… Dynamics is the art of the possible
I.e. dynamics is the art of actualizing or creating what is possible; or, dynamics is identical to the Dynamics of Being and Becoming
Whereas physics is the science or study or determination of possible physical states of affairs in this phase-epoch of the universe, logic is –simply– the study of possible states
A typical problem in physics: given some conditions i.e. information about the actual physical states in this phase-epoch of the universe and under its laws, to determine further data about actual physical states
Similar analogies with other disciplines are possible, see Mathematics and The Disciplines
Determine all possible states consistent with some facts or conditions regarding the states
Determine all possible states – seemingly a particular case of the previous problem for it can be formulated ‘Determine all possible states consistent with no conditions;’ however, given all possible states, it is possible, in principle, to map out territories corresponding to various conditions
An example of a proposition is, ‘It is raining.’ ‘It is raining,’ ‘It is true that it is raining,’ and ‘‘It is raining’ is true,’ are all propositions and have the same meaning. ‘Come here,’ ‘What is that?’ are not propositions [though ‘I said ‘What is that?’’ is one]
‘It is raining’ is an assertion that a certain state of affairs obtains. If every ‘picture’ of the world could be described in language or linguistically expressed i.e. in a sentence, then every assertion that a state of affairs obtains could be expressed in a sentence. We could then say that a proposition is an assertory sentence. In absence of the knowledge that every ‘picture’ has an [equivalent] linguistic expression, we should go on the assumption that not all assertions that states of affairs obtain can be explicitly stated in sentences
A proposition is the assertion that a state of affairs obtains
If ‘A’ is a possible state of affairs, then ‘A obtains’ is a proposition. Thus all propositions can be expressed in sentences but the expression may not be explicit
The proposition ‘A obtains’ may be abbreviated, as is natural in natural language, as ‘A.’ Provided care is taken, this will not lead to confusion
It is common and convenient to let the letters ‘p,’ ‘q,’ ‘r,’ ‘s,’ and so on stand for propositions
A proposition expressed as an explicit sentence may be called a sentential proposition. If it is the case that all states of affairs can be described in sentences, all propositions could be expressed as [explicit] sentential propositions. This depends upon whether there is a ‘picture’ for all states and what is language; in some meanings, ‘description in language’ and ‘picture’ are identical. At present I make no assertion about the equivalence of ‘picture’ and ‘description.’ And I make no assumption regarding ‘picturability.’ Thus I leave the definition of ‘proposition’ in its general form; the understanding remains that some propositions can be expressed explicitly in sentences and that, on assumptions just stated, all propositions will be [expressible as] sentential propositions
A proposition true if the asserted state of affairs actually obtains; otherwise it is false
A proposition cannot assert of itself that it is true [Wittgenstein] for, then, there would be no state of affairs whose obtaining could be asserted
If the truth of p entails the truth of q i.e. if q is always true when p is true then the truth of p is said to imply the truth of q. This may be abbreviated as ‘p implies q ’ or in symbols ‘p Þ q,’ or ‘p É q ’
An example of ‘logical implication’ is: ‘p & q É p ’
An example of ‘material implication’ is: ‘given p and (p É q) then (p É q) É q ’
The distinction between logical and material implication is not fundamental but subsists in the manner of statement; the two are given as examples: in the first case of implication where the premise contains the conclusion or logical implication; and the second where some material fact ‘p’ and a law ‘p É q ’ are given and another material fact is deduced. The significance of ‘logical’ implication, the tautology, is threefold: the concept, the use in long chains of derivation, and that complex tautologies are not obvious even though trivial
For a system of the propositional calculus, see Kinds of Knowledge; which contains the following cases where propositions have form: the categorical propositions, the syllogism, and the predicate calculi
Complete the foundation; elaborate up to a certain point of adequacy
The notions of state of affairs, possible state, obtain, picture, picturability, describable, language, sentence, proposition, sentential proposition, truth
Relation to the traditional view which is what is left over when the special disciplines i.e. of this phase-epoch of the universe [this world] are subtracted out of the science of the possible which =? what is possible in any phase-epoch [any world] =? the science of relations among truths…
The possibility of states of affairs is an ‘assumption’ behind the possibility of propositions and truth; this leads to the possibility of propositional logic
Systems of logic: propositional calculus…
Elaborate the systems especially the propositional calculus and its derivatives e.g. the categorical propositions, the syllogism and the predicate calculi i.e. re-found the systems in Kinds of Knowledge
Clear up some distinctions
Confusions of ‘A’ standing for ‘A obtains,’ propositions [sentences] A, B, C… vs. propositional variables p, q, r, s…
Also see logos1, logos2, and logos3; if logic is the study of the possible, the world it studies is LOGOS – especially its forms
…and logic1 [Analysis of Possibility, Necessity and Logic and Metaphysics,] logic2, logic3 [Metaphysics and the Possibility of Knowledge and Logic,] logic4, logic5, logic6, logic7
…is obviously in the ‘background;’ develop its use, avoiding its limitations e.g. those pointed out by Wittgenstein himself including the ‘later’ Wittgenstein of especially Philosophical Investigations
Even if the detailed foundation, e.g. picture-reality isomorphism, is not valid, the idea of picture-reality relation and the thought that all language forms [games] bear some relation –to even if not propositional– and are in reality is significant. Further the idea –from speech act theory– that every linguistic form is some combination of illocutionary force and propositional content is important; and its validity is very much worth considering; additionally the generalization from propositions to propositional attitudes –considered in the Tractacus– is useful in attempting to bring language under a propositional umbrella. This is not at all necessarily a reduction but rather an expansion of the idea of ‘proposition’ together with the idea of an analysis of ‘what is language’
Now, Wittgenstein might have difficulty with the variety of language games but where has he demonstrated that the idea of the proposition cannot be generalized as suggested in the previous paragraph?
Nature of mathematics especially in consideration of the above, the theory of mathematics and its relation to logic and form developed elsewhere in Journey in Being, the present and related documents; and the ideas Frege, Russell, Hilbert, Brouwer, and Wittgenstein
Mathematics are the branches of logic in which mathematical systems are elaborated and their theorems deduced; this does not define the nature of mathematics any more than did the previous item define geometry. We should look to mathematics to characterize it e.g. mathematics is the study of form and structure or mathematics is the study of invariants under classes of transformations… The ‘definition’ here would appear to support the Logicism of Frege and Russell but this is not so for the logicist thesis requires that no new axioms or terms be supplemented to those of logic; and it would appear to exclude intuitionism but this is not so for there is also an intuitionist interpretation of logic which yields intuitionist mathematics by the addition of mathematical intuition
Physics is the branch of logic in which the laws, theories, conventions and other considerations of physics hold
Geometry is the branch of logic in which the axioms of geometry apply to geometrical concepts introduced as undefined terms
Common sense is the branch of logic of everyday life
None of these pseudo-definitions is an actual definition; the objective was to show the pervasiveness of logic
The ‘definition’ of physics was more applicable to its subject for it said something material and physics is a science of the world
The significance is twofold:
That What is possible is necessary is significant – generally, and in establishing the Principle of Being of Journey in Being. Alternately, What is not a logical contradiction or what can be described is possible. Here, ‘can be described’ implies that an inconsistent description is not a description e.g. ‘The bird that is completely black and is also completely blue’ is not a description
That there is some significant, necessary proposition is also significant for it might seem that the only necessary propositions are analytic
The analysis follows
1. There is a synthetic, necessary proposition
|
Take an analytic proposition to be one whose truth-value follows from its meaning; this covers both subject-predicate and possible worlds formulations of analyticity. A synthetic proposition is one that is not analytic and therefore proposition statements are either synthetic or analytic Thus ‘All ravens are birds,’ ‘Ravens are eagles,’ and ‘This sentence is false,’ are all analytic. The first sentence is true, the second is false – it is assumed that ‘raven’ and ‘eagle’ are defined so that no eagles are ravens, and the third is neither true nor false – G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form, 1972, would call it “imaginary” A necessary proposition is one that is true under all possible circumstances or, alternately, in all possible worlds; a contingent proposition is defined as one that is not necessary and therefore holds only in some circumstances. True analytic propositions are necessary and thus it may be supposed that the only necessary propositions are analytic ‘All ravens are birds’ is necessary but, in contrast, ‘All ravens are black’ is contingent because it holds in some circumstances e.g. a world in which all ravens are black Consider: |
[A] |
|
‘The only necessary propositions are analytic’ The statement [B] is either true or false. It will be shown that [1] follows from the truth as well as from the falsity of [B] and, therefore, [1] must be true If [B] is false then [1] follows from [A] If [B] is true, it follows that there are no universal laws. Therefore anything that is possible is necessary or else there would be a law prohibiting it |
[B] |
|
Therefore all possibilities will be realized [actualized] in the one world [universe.] Alternatively, ‘What is possible is necessary’ The proposition [C] is clearly synthetic whose necessity follows from the truth of [B] This completes the demonstration of [1] |
[C] |
2. What is possible is necessary!
Since there is and can be only one world, the only possible measure of possibility is actuality and, so what is possible is necessary. On this necessary view, that what is possible is necessary is a tautology
There is an apparent contradiction. ‘What is possible is necessary’ appears to be synthetic but its truth follows from the meaning of ‘possible.’ The resolution is that in a ‘floppy’ view of reality [many worlds are possible,] ‘possible’ has a ‘floppy’ meaning according to which [C] is synthetic. However, on a proper view of reality, the true meaning of ‘possible’ is revealed and [C] is analytic and necessarily true. Further that there is a synthetic, necessary proposition has been demonstrated only on assumption of the floppy meaning of ‘possible’
Thus [C] is synthetic and necessary on the floppy metaphysics but analytic and necessary on the real metaphysics. The proposition is logical and factual on both metaphysics
3. The [con-]fusion of the analytic and synthetic is implicit in the Principle of Being [of Journey in Being] and the logic of the void and begins to occur at this level of generality. Is a statement analytic… or is it more correct to say that it is analytic-over-a-universe-of-discourse? At the general level, [C] is analytic and factual
4. The [my] original reason for considering [B] is that it is an analytically expressed equivalent to the Principle of the Void i.e. that the void is equivalent to every state of being. This equivalence, which I felt to be true, has been demonstrated – it is precisely what has been proved
5. Task. Incorporate to Journey in Being: logic of the void. Possible: make a new section ‘for logicians and metaphysicians’ in JIB and its prologue. Generally upgrade the discussion of analyticity etc. especially in footnote 32 of JIB. Possibly include an additional distinction: universal versus existential
The following are equivalent [which follows from reasoning in Journey in Being and in A Synthetic, Necessary Proposition:]
The void [nothingness] is equivalent to every being
Every being is equivalent to all being
What is possible is necessary
What is not a logical contradiction, what can be described is possible
There are no universal laws i.e. there are no laws e.g. ‘laws’ of physics laws of this phase-epoch but not laws of the uni-verse i.e. not laws per se
The previous section suggests the following lines of inquiry:
Different meanings of possibility and necessity: including material versus logical; and relationships between possibility and necessity. E.g. in ‘if an event is possible it is necessary’ means [on a many worlds metaphysics] that if it is possible it will occur in some world or [on a one universe metaphysics] that if it is possible it will occur [with eternal return and, additionally, is occurring in infinitely many places]
And, as suggested by the previous paragraph, that logic and the analytic-synthetic distinction can depend on metaphysics
…obviously
Alfred North Whitehead in Process and Reality, 1929, p. 23 of the 1978 Free Press Edition: from Category of Explanation (ix), “That how an actual entity becomes constitutes what that actual entity is; so that the two descriptions of an actual entity are not independent. Its ‘being’ is constituted by its ‘becoming.’ This is the ‘principle of process.’ ”
Buddha, “You are a result of all that you have thought”
[The link points to the document]
The traditional fundamental problem has been Why does anything exist? I.e. rather than nothing. But this problem has been rendered trivial by the foundation in the void i.e. ‘nothingness’
Therefore, asks What is the fundamental problem of metaphysics?
Argues that the fundamental problem is Why is there presence? I.e. Why is the universe present to itself in the sense of awareness or conscious experience of itself [as when one part of it – a sentient being – is aware of some part of it]
The response, in brief, is the same! Or, in elaboration, given sentience we know its possibility; or, existentially, the universe contains the possibility of sentience… and therefore must
And, again, the argument must be that some universe will contain sentience but rather, that, there will always be phase-epochs of this universe that is the one uni-verse that contains sentience [and in the generalized meaning presence is present to itself]
But according to the argument from the void, even though we know of the conceivability from the possibility we do not need to use the possibility; conceivability is enough
I.e. the deepest problem is the most trivial. The analytic depth consists in seeing the triviality behind the screen of metaphysical confusion and the profusion of being, life and ‘science.’ Science in quotes because, here, it connotes the profusion of factual and conceptual information regarding our phase of the universe
It is life that presents ‘truly difficult’ problems; and this is, partly, the wonder of this being
Careful development of the logic – fundamental and perhaps difficult problem whose difficulties are not an indication of an imperative to reject the theory but to question both the theory and the nature of description and logic
Carefully analyze the meaning, logic and implications of the statement that “There is no universal law”
Analyze the possibility for elimination of paradox; how may one deal with “essential paradox” i.e. the idea that paradox cannot be eliminated from any attempt at full understanding: minimizing contradiction, positive versus negative law
Distinguish sources and placement of related reasoning: [1] existential and [2] theoretical – including theory of the void
Note the recent development 3.4.04: On Logic
It is a consequence of some serious critical points of view, when taken to the extreme i.e. when regarded with purity e.g. the in the style of Wittgenstein as in Philosophical Investigations, 1953, that positive philosophy is impossible. The details could be spelled out: just as that, given the foundation in indeterminism from the void, being is open – what has been seen concretely by a concrete individual or collection is not a clue to the entire range of concrete possibility – so, knowledge is never final. Of course every absolute contains its own contradiction; thus some forms of knowledge are final and this includes the non-finality of knowledge. But we want to focus on the absolute non-finality. And, in consequence of the openness of being, there is a similar openness of knowledge… and similarly, also of language. And, further, while the openness of knowledge and language follow from the very nature of being they also follow from the incompleteness of our particular being for this limit would be experienced even before the openness of being came into question or were experienced. And so the critical points of view e.g. of Kant and of Wittgenstein
Is this all we can say?
What of the great constructions of science does not their very success –the way in which a Newton, a Maxwell, or an Einstein has that epiphany of system that suddenly sheds light, that brings entire worlds of phenomena in from the darkness of ignorance to the light of clear understanding– does this not address the possibility of positive –i.e. actual but not at all in the sense of logical positivism– construction? For each light of understanding, however, there is also a shadow world which we do not see especially because it is not in the beam of the light. We do not see it because it is not illuminated and not because it is not there. That is in the nature of the great encompassing theories. But a more sane view i.e. more sane than either the great critical ‘systems’ or the great constructive ones when viewed as ultimate is, in analogy again to the becoming, that the actual is on the border between the concrete and the potential
And, more to the point, the great Theory of Being of the Journey. Follow the train of thought just a short way. The void is the absence of ‘everything.’ That is almost a contradiction for it seems to imply that in the void there is also the absence of absence. Such contradictions have been dealt with in Journey in the analysis of the concepts of ‘everything’ and so on. In the void there can be no LAW for LAW is not nothing; the void cannot remain forever empty for that would be a PATTERN or LAW. Paradox can be removed in analysis but paradox remains. But in accepting this we accept also, in our incompleteness, our reaching for BEING. I.e. the acceptance by accepting the possibility of paradox is the grasp of the ultimate in the finite. Think it through: paradox is the shaking of the foundations the crumbling of the system but the positive inversion is that through accepting paradox we also accept infinity; or, given the correspondence between paradox and in the destruction of thought and death as destruction of the concrete individual: in accepting our death and ruin we become open to the ultimate. The building of empires [civilizations] that would last forever is empty; so for empires of thought [metaphysics;] but we continue to build civilizations without which the criticism of a Wittgenstein would never come to be: it is the antithesis of Wittgenstein that makes Wittgenstein possible and it is his charisma that makes for generations of sycophantic followers as much as the real penetration of his thought; we build metaphysics even while we know the foundation is insecure and this is true for every building, every being and every individual. Every paradox can be resolved or leads to a ‘shaking of the foundations’ that is an opening to reality, to becoming. Paradox is paradise lost but ‘paradise lost is paradise regained’
And, again: based upon an historical view of either being [evolution] or ideas [hypothesis-deduction-correction or, simply, selectionism] we may conclude that there is no absolute in being or knowledge or that even if there ‘is’ it is unattainable. However, this is based upon history and has contingency but not necessity and in no way at all does it rule out the possibility of the absolute-ultimate or its un-attainability. It may be attainable within the scope of the present argument and as shown in Journey in Being all being is accessible to every being. It is further of interest that ‘evolutionary epistemology’ has come under criticism in philosophical circles because it does not give ‘timeless results.’ This is an incredibly self-serving and ignorant view: it is exactly the way in which knowledge is attained in any field; the approach to the timeless need not be timeless and since knowledge does not spring from some fountain in its full maturity the approach must often be through the temporal to the timeless
Think of everyday life – yours or mine or that of an individual of another species; this is not other than the esoteric including science. Knowledge is a part of this: where is the best grass, why grass not rocks, estimating the width and depth and turbulence of a stream to decide whether to ford it; and conceptual knowledge
Everything can be in error but at the same time if all knowing were unfaithful, knowing would not have arisen. I.e. error and faith on the one hand and knowledge on the other are at one level categorically distinct; at the level the appropriate category of knowledge is adaptation and the relevant particular is ‘sufficient adaptation.’ Fact and error lie within the same categorial field; but, in essence i.e. at an appropriate level, knowledge is in a different field of which there is a sub-field that is isomorphic to the field of fact
To repeat, if everything is in error knowledge cannot arise
Therefore, radical doubt cannot be a way of life; it is at most an acquired system of belief which the radical doubter abandons in the gloom of his own mind. As a make believe way of life, radical doubt is an ego-clout – an arrested stage of development. Radical doubt receives a form of resolution from Kant who first accepts it and then shows it to be the fabric of knowledge and not ignorance
True radical doubt is a phase of knowledge; it is neither beginning nor end. From the fact that every element of knowledge may be subject to criticism, it does not follow that there is no knowledge. Adaptation is the categorial field of knowledge but not precision or certainty; the latter are adjunct values in the categorial field
But still, criticism is essential in the conceptual-factual process of knowing:
To improve degree of confidence; this is the category in which certainty lies
Advance
Distinguishing obvious falsehoods; dogma
On the Possibility of Science and on the Origin of Dynamics: “in the beginning” there is the void where there is no causation, no pattern, no law, and no necessity other than logical necessity. Then: the chaotic and fluctuating origin of being. The requirements for more than transient existence are: [1] becoming which means that absolute stability is not possible for absolute stability allows no becoming or decaying or change; [2] symmetry for sufficient stability but, by the foregoing, not absolute symmetry. The requirements for variety include an interactive population of “elements” i.e. a system of particles in interaction or, in other words, a field with singularities. Note, of course, the non-distinction between the particle-field and field-singularity descriptions; and also note that “particle” can be replaced by “concentration” and by m-dimensional manifold, m < n, in n-space. Elementary dynamics is possible due to lack of complete symmetry: dynamics is created in origins. Aggregate dynamics is possible due to interactivity of the populations and is just elementary dynamics for populations; this since the interactivity is created in origins. However, this makes clear that the aggregate and the elementary are distinct only for certain purposes that are local even within a phase-epoch. In the foregoing lie the origin of physics and a hint about the possibility of mathematical description of physics [symmetry and its incompleteness.] With sufficient variety, structure may be built upon structure; here lies a hint about the descriptive and conceptual rather than mathematical nature of biology; of course, the distinction is not complete and the possibility of a fundamentally mathematical biology or social science is not excluded by the argument. The origin and creation of time: I have used this paradox like phrase before; however there is no paradox: the details of the discussion are in Journey in Being. There are multiple transient times associated with every elementary instance of manifestation from the void; when a stable, interacting population occurs it has or may have a single dominant time in its phase. This does not mean that there are no other times but that they are vastly subordinate. If the unitary aspect of a phase-epoch spreads it may subsume the transient times of the shadow existence at the borders. What of two phase-epochs, each with its own time? That appears to contain the seeds of paradox but it does not for the two phases may interact weakly or even if they do not there is the potential to interact at some future time; and if they do not then each phase-epoch has no relative existence for the other
On the Effectiveness of Mathematics: mathematics is the science of structure; effective mathematics will be about basic structure while mathematics of complex structures will be possible but not necessary [to finite minds.] Fundamental structures are symmetric; hence the effectiveness of mathematics in the elementary structures of nature i.e. in physics. Recall, here, Wittgenstein’s comment that form is the possibility of structure; and, from Journey in Being, Logos is the science of possibility or, alternately, the collection of all forms; mathematics is a symbolic but incomplete representation and the universe [being] an actualization of Logos
It is not necessary to posit a separate world – LOGOS; but if it that is done then realize that LOGOS is omnipresent like the void
Being exists, is what is – as it is; the being of an entity is ‘what it truly is.’ This ‘algebraic’ approach is ‘solved’ below
That being exists implies that the being of an entity is ‘what it truly is.’ How? Since any being can be expressed b = Σ bj where all bj exist i.e. existence implies constitution
Power – in Sophist, Plato says, “and I hold that the definition of being is simply power.” Plato explained power as the ability to affect something else. This idea leads as above to the idea of disjunct universes such that any object in a universe can affect any other object in the same universe but cannot affect any object in another universe. As before, we conclude that there is only one uni-verse and every object can affect every other object.
A discussion of all being would be appropriate here but is deferred to The Being of All Being and The Elements of Being
The elements and characteristics are not a priori given to us. They are to be discovered. In some measure we know being in our inner being [body;] difficulties arise because discovery is possible the mode of clear description and rationality
Distinguish what is true of all being and what is true of some beings; all being exists, some being is material…
Here, when later developments are anticipated, the dependence is sufficiently abstract or general to avoid circularity
The ‘logic’ is in two parts: choice of the characteristics and proofs
Two considerations govern the choice:
Characteristics that bring out and elaborate the nature of being and the void e.g. the derivative characteristics [below]
Characteristics that anticipate the structure of the present phase-epoch of the universe and our world e.g. the existential characteristics that anticipate: cosmology; life; human being, experience and society
While care is taken to avoid circularity, there is a give and take between developing an understanding of being and the understanding of this world; this mutual process heightens the significance and improves understanding of both. As an example, the selection and understanding of the characteristics below may develop in interaction with The Range of Being, Experience and Knowledge and associated encyclopaedic formulations
The proofs are trivial consequences of, equivalently:
The properties of the void or nothingness
That there is no universal law
What is possible is necessary; if a thought does not involve a logical contradiction it is possible
While these principles are my re-discovery, they are not new and were familiar to travelers in remote continents of ideas and especially to Leibniz who also subscribed to the idea that what does not involve a logical contradiction is actually possible. The full articulation and strength of the ideas is, I believe, new with my work
While the propositions have absolute truth, remember that such truth may be remote e.g. while all being is accessible to every human being the access is ‘normally’ colossally remote
Example:
The characteristic of community / universal-interactivity follows from the NO-LAW property of being [i.e. of nothingness.] Show that non-interaction would be LAWLIKE [alternatively, devoid of meaning] whereas interaction is a realization of possibility
For any two objects, their interaction is a logical impossibility only if they are in ‘distinct, non-interacting universes.’ For, if two objects cannot interact it immediately follows that there must be at least N systems of objects, N > 1, such that no object of any of the systems in question can interact with any object of any other system and the two original objects are not in the same system. But each of these systems constitutes a separate universe. And as we have seen there is effectively one universe of being which is the one universe or the uni-verse
Therefore we may say that for any two objects in the uni-verse there is a possibility of their interaction – for, unless it is logically impossible, it is possible; and that they will interact in some phase of the one universe. Or, any two objects can and will interact: Being Forms a Community
Complete this for other characteristics
Primary: existence itself and, perhaps, absence and presence and good and evil
Derivative – deriving from the primary: e.g. absence, accessibility, identity, indeterminacy, community, recurrence
Existential – deriving from the world-as-we-know-it: time, space, meaning, experience, presence, matter, mind, good and evil; these are characteristic of some being but, without showing it, are tentative for all being. Although presence is derivative, it is a ‘generalization’ of experience and this brings it closer to being a characteristic of all being: all being above a certain level is present to the universe – at least to the local environment; some higher being is present to all being; and all being including ‘lower’ being is present by the argument for community / interaction
Possible: for consideration
The following list may form the basis to select from the characteristics of the immediately following section
And may be a basis of reordering the treatment of being e.g. ‘mind’ replaced by ‘presence’ and the logical aspects of the treatment of ‘presence’ – categories; free versus bound – included under being…
The analysis of mind and matter in Journey in Being resolves the mind-matter issue but leaves two points open
Perhaps the deepest viewpoint: That the mind-matter formulation of Journey in Being can be generalized to presence-actuality. Presence is the generalization of experience [mind] and actuality of the material aspect. However, the kind of argument in Journey in Being, can be used to show that the universe can be viewed as [1] presence or, alternatively but equivalently, as actuality; [2] as presence, with actuality as a phase of presence; or [3] as presence-actuality which is somewhat analogous to Schopenhauer’s die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. In each of the three alternatives the meanings of ‘presence’ and actuality acquire different aspects and shades while the total metaphysics is also shaded differently and these distinctions require careful attention before either selection or demonstration of equivalence
The double aspect issue: in the mind-matter formulation of Journey in Being, I have sometimes written as though my resolution is a [similar to] double aspect formulation. That statement is not quite true because the ‘experience’ side is not a description of the world but is the experience of the world while it is the material side that is a description [although that, too, could be seen as a phase of experience or abstraction of that.] However, the double aspect arose only as I was experimenting with trial formulations and in the final formulation there is no double aspect. Rather, experience and matter are identical in their overlap but their secondary treatments may form a double aspect; and, at least in the generalization to presence-actuality, the non-overlap should be empty
Fundamental: significant and general. The fundamental system of characteristics are existence; accessibility and identity; community and interactivity; presence; actuality which implies extension, cause and change; meaning i.e. being is the result of becoming from which it derives significance; indeterminism – at least of proximate form and within time; recurrence –a form of determinism outside time– and fecundity; and good and evil
In the title, ‘Characteristics’ may be preceded by the adjective ‘fundamental,’ ‘basic,’ ‘important,’ ‘significant,’ or ‘essential…’
Note the similarity between characteristics and the concept of categories
Note the un-necessity of ‘substance;’ ‘being’ is sufficient
All being exists. Does nothingness exist? The lurking contradictions are not real but rather a con-fusion of concepts
Existence is dealt with in further detail below
Void ≈ absence
Do I want to consider ‘absence’ to be a characteristic? In two senses:
The void is equivalent to every being and to all being
Every being or element of existence has its own void ‘associated’ with it
All being is accessible to every being; this is known as The Principle of Being or The Principle of Accessibility
The idea of being in time is important. Becoming is essential to being; and the [semi-] stability of being is a not other than becoming. This implies the possibility of ‘time’ as a mode of description of the progression of becoming or, in the stable case, of the progression underlying being. Is time ‘real’? If, by time, we understand the process / progression then time has reality. However, the idea of time flowing independently of the world within which the world is located does not follow except as a mode of description with a domain of utility. While becoming is essential to being and implies the possibility of time as a mode of description, the ways of description to which we are accustomed in day to day life or in science do not follow either as inherent or as universal. In the idea of being as in-becoming the idea of a single universally coordinated time does not follow [relativity]
Further, some being transcends or is not in time; some [lower] being is in fragmented time; at the base of being is a fragmented aggregate of particles of time i.e. there are multiple times that are not fully coherent. This is distinct from the issue of time in relativity; aspects of these ideas including ‘the’ concept of time are developed in Journey in Being under ‘Cosmology’ and in the present document
There is a sense in which ALL BEING is out of or transcends time
The becoming [stability, bound] and transformation [free, mutability] requires them to be atomic in both extension and duration: and thus meaning is a project
Also see The Constitution of Being is a Result of its Becoming
The concept of space or extension and its connection with time will be developed later
Being is indeterminate in time and in form
Indeterminacy in time is the source of creation in time
Indeterminacy in form is the source of being as superposition and compounding: INDIVIDUAL-BEING-AS-IT-APPEARS º ALL BEING
There are phases that are determinate-like and causal-like; these are or appear to include being-as-we-find-it. The determinate is fundamental in this way but also derivative from the primary; as possible, it is also logically necessary; and it is clearly existential
There is a sense in which ALL BEING is determinate
Being exists as a community in that all beings may actually interact
J = Σ j
Higher being transcends community
For lower being, community is transient and tenuous
Communal interaction is essential to the constitution of individuated being; the meaning of community is an abstraction from the communities of particles and of life
Refer to the discussion of power in The Nature of Being and to the conclusion that there is only one uni-verse and every object can affect every other object. It follows that Plato’s notion of being is equivalent to the idea of being as community. But, following what is by now a standard train of logic, being as being [existence] and being as community are identical
Every element of being has the potential to interact with every other; every product of the void stands in intimate relation to every other. This is original knowledge which underlies every other knowing
Lower being has sense of meaning-as-we-experience it; higher being has no need of this
Our form of being may ask, What is Being? – Heidegger
Meaning entails
Discovery / self-discovery
Creation / self-creation: development of meaning requires Journey in Being
General comments are similar to those under matter
Because there are objections to the use of ‘mind’ we may refer instead to ‘experience’ which generalizes as ‘presence.’ This is discussed extensively in Journey in Being, the present document and others such as The Fundamental Problem of Metaphysics
Although not all experience is like our experience: Experience as Presence is Fundamental
The ‘experience’ of lower forms is not the form [‘like’] the experience of human beings; perhaps the lower forms do not deserve the label ‘experience’ but the point has been developed at length and rigorously in Journey in Being. Some writers have difficulty with this point and invoke reference to absurd or odious pan-psychism. However, if it is pan-psychism it is not at all a pan-psychism as is usually understood. The usual approach to the issue of pan-psychism is through seeking a foundation in matter-as-we-know-it combined with materialism; we eschew that combination and refer to being as such and its elements or elementary forms
The fundamental aspects of experience are attitude and action. ‘Pure experience’ may be thought of as attitude on idle
The ‘experience’ of higher forms must be interesting:
Attitude: e.g. knowing without [need for] perceiving; and perceiving all without need for inference or construction of theory
Action: willing = doing
A friend stated ‘consciousness’ is not the limit; there is something that we do not know and cannot know that is far beyond mere consciousness
[The principle of access reminds us that the ‘impossible’ is merely colossally remote or even appears so]
I developed the concept of presence in response to the friend’s anti-humanism
Human experience or consciousness is an example of the presence of a being to the universe – including itself
The form of being; the nature of its presence; and so on can infinitely exceed the apparent human actuality. However the fact of presence is not on a qualitative or numerical continuum; there is no going beyond presence and the infinite characters of being of Spinoza, when taken as being above presence, is a categorial mistake born of uncritical unmooring language from its tether
Presence is a re-formulation [generalization] of experience that emphasizes the ontological function of experience
[In classical metaphysics, presence has another meaning – it is really another symbol that looks the same – that is completely distinct from the present meaning]
Every element of being is present to other elements of being [the principle of community would have it that every element of being is or may be present to every other element.] This presence, in general, is no more like human or animal experience than the material aspect, i.e. the actuality, of every element of being is like the usual material objects of our everyday environment. Regarding the presence of elements of being to other elements of being, Leibnizian Monads may come to mind but I would not burden these ideas with Leibniz’ considerations. It is true, however, that Leibniz was attempting to address the interconnections of things especially in their at least occasional subjectivity that becomes a secret under the materialist inquisition. It is precisely this that is one of the functions of and a purpose behind the introduction of ‘presence.’ It should be remembered, however, that the actual and the present –even though the present is not emphasized– are combined in the idea of elements-in-interaction as in modern science that is frequently de-emphasized under the metaphor that sees the elements as ‘points of light’
The spiritual is more whole, more complete presence to and being-in
Combine with space and time?
Being is not essentially material and not all being has a material character
Logically, the material [or mental…] could be co-extensive with being but not super-extensive
But the at least co-extensivity of being with the material [or the mental or any other property or form of manifestation] requires no [further] argument beyond specification of the nature of being: being exists
But co-extensivity of anything else [material, mental…] requires demonstration. Breadth, depth, familiarity do not count as demonstration but are often, perhaps tacitly, taken as such… hence materialism, idealism and so on
In another era, the following commentary might be out of place. A suggestion that every thinker should, in reflection on materialism, occasionally think of it as ‘that absurd doctrine called pan-materialism’
Just as presence is the general form of experience, so actuality is the general form of the material aspect our world
In actuality as capable of actualizing in community, we see that so much of the false divide between ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ is not just in the dividing but in the false reduction of each to its gross form or properties
The soul endures; it is the thread of continuity in eternal recurrence; it is a function of the self, of its recognition of self as Atman and equivalent to Brahman
I have considered this elsewhere in these notes; what is the significance of the considerations?
On consideration of ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ as two attributes of being the idea of additional attributes arises; but it should not for mind and matter are not attributes of being in this way, rather they are objectifications of presence and actualization
Your life is possible. ‘Proof:’ What is actual is possible
Therefore, your life is but one in a ‘chain’ of an infinity of exact repetitions. Proof: what is possible is necessary
“The greatest weight. -- What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your live will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence--even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!’ Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: ‘You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.’ If this thought gained possession of you, it would change, you as you are or perhaps crush you.”
Nietzsche, The Gay Science
So, Nietzsche finds ‘eternal return’ to be horrifying and paralyzing
Or, recall the Vedantic ‘Atman = Brahman,’ which also follows from the principles of Proof above. One may glory in this thought; but think of someone you consider most repulsive, most vile: you are that. But, the thought may even be comforting: you can accept your worst self – your dark, your shadow
Take up the possibilities of recurrence and identity:
The eternal return of your life in every infinite detail – this has no particular significance for on the assumption that you are unaware of past and future identical lives you never, in those lives, have any awareness [you may have glimmerings on account of the principles of accessibility, of necessity and possibility, of identity, and of eternal return] and therefore it is as if you have only one present life even though ‘you’ have an infinity of them. And even if there is an eternity between manifestations, it amounts to nothing
Similarly, parallel non-interacting but identical universes have the significance of a single universe
‘You’ will return as a rock [you ‘are’ a rock]
…or as a piece of foul slime [you ‘are’ slime]… Before getting carried away with the grandiosity of the principle of being remember this… and that you will return as that person or thing who you despise most
…or a sunset [you ‘are’…] … but these, too, have little significance because the content of the ‘experience’ is, if not nil, then close. The infinity of such manifestations amounts to nil…
But there are also higher manifestations, possible and therefore necessary:
Brahman; the ‘logic’ that even God cannot know God’s self is inapplicable and falls before the principle of access
Small variations that are possible therefore necessary: a human being aware of other lives. I have always found claims to actual past lives “the German peasant who knew the Upanishads in Sanskrit without ever having being exposed to Sanskrit or to Upanishadic thought” to be fake; what is fake is the defense of sublime truth by an example that is trivial and remote. However, the possibility is not false –the next manifestation of Christ and the Buddha might be an adulterous, psychotic but otherwise banal used car salesman– but it would more reasonably [while we are reflecting on this phase-epoch] expressed as the conscious access of the sub- or remote consciousness; or as a principle of logic: language brings the shadow into light. Conclude: Human Being is on A Cusp of Awareness… Heidegger’s Dasein is that Being that can ask “What am I?”
‘Higher’ variations: ‘over-being’ that subsumes e.g. human form as a phase through which it ‘cycles.’ And in the over-form it has access in its experience, access to all sub-forms. This is the anti-thesis of the love of questions, of ignorance, of the minuteness and parochialism of human beings… the belief that questions are more profound than any answer for, without the possibility of an answer, question has no meaning or sense and is senseless. The exclusive preoccupation with questions is a disease that is distinct from a sense of mystery or wonder. But, question-and-answer in balance e.g. 1000 questions to every answer is quite right… and the limit of the higher variations from any human or other approach: Brahman
While true becomings necessarily have an indeterministic character, recurrence points to an indeterminism outside time i.e. the possibilities of will be realized; but this is a consequence of the character of being as derived or seen from the nature of the void – recurrence is one of the possibilities
There is also repetition in extension i.e. the repetition of all objects and processes over and over in different parts of the one universe which, necessarily ‘exist’ in some of its phases
These considerations lead to the idea of fecundity
The considerations of this section also find a place under ‘cosmology’
Look at the uni-verse through the lens of science. We see elementary particles and forces in huge numbers i.e. repetition; these combine – elements and so on – accumulate into massive regions: the cosmos, galaxies, stars and stellar systems; but are also, through the elementary, capable of ‘infinitely’ varied forms: molecules, crystals, the vistas of a planet, life and its forms; and mind or presence – reduction etc. not implied
I call the infinite variety ‘fecundity’ and ‘proliferation.’ It may be fruitful to ask, “What can be learned from this about being?”
Brahman is beyond good and evil – and contains, without exception, all that is good and all that is evil
Without metaphysics, understanding of ethics is not impossible but meaningless. The anti-metaphysicians forget that hu-man is essentially a metaphysical animal even in his-her rejection of metaphysic. That hu-man is metaphysical refers to the categorial system of understanding that is part of his-her intuitive apparatus i.e. pro- and para-linguistic and at the core of his-her being. Those theoreticians who claim to exalt the ‘common man’ forget that there is no such object and to the extent that there might be they are equally ‘common.’ I.e. the labors of the metaphysician or of the analytic philosopher are no more esoteric than those of the carpenter and no more esoteric than the life, joy and pain of the leper with exposed and rotting limbs. I think that the reference to the common man is a manipulative device for those who, ensconced in ‘professionalism,’ have forgotten their nature as being; and I think that they secretly despise the common man of their fictional imagination; which amounts to a hidden despising of all being. Far more potent than “common sense” analysis is Wittgenstein’s analysis of use and his division of ‘uses’ of language into language ‘games.’ But the ‘games’ are not watertight as might be thought; and the idea of use as ‘arbiter’ is also an argument against any meta-discussion: Wittgenstein was not at all silent on “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
Atman = Brahman; and in this sense the individual is beyond good and evil
But, the individual is not only Brahman but also his-her concrete individuated self and it is in his-her nature to act. Ethics are what guide action; it is implicit that being action e.g. human action involves choice – without choice there is process or motion but no action. The entire system of feeling, thought and will that guides action is ethics
What can it mean that all being is ethical or that being is ethical at the core?
For human being to have the ability to be ethical means that [1] The individual has a degree of choice regarding some of his or her actions. I.e. there are [sometimes] options and the individual can select or influence the outcome; and [2] The individual has a sense of good and evil, right and wrong. Ethics is not passive for actions include the creation of options – sometimes a lifetime occupation; and the sense and judgment of good and evil, right and wrong is never fully given and may require development by the persons – this may require the engagement of the deepest faculties of the individual
Any being that has the required constituent abilities, exists in an ethical dimension. For ‘higher’ being, it may be expected that the possibilities of ethical action are greater and that a greater proportion of action will be ethical; this is not against ‘enjoyment’ or passion for the ‘higher’ being will be also possessed of greater creative faculties
Brahman is the realization of ethical perfection; or the ethical is realized in Brahman. All ethics or morals are in Brahman which is beyond and has no need for them. This is an experimental statement. What sense does it make?
When it is realized that Atman is Brahman, that the individual is all individual – Ask not for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee – then it is seen that we are beyond good and evil. This means that the judgment of individuals is, in one way, without sense; at the same time, and paradoxically, the ‘unethical’ requires a response regardless of judgment; or, the response to unethical behavior is best when the threat is recognized without judgment of self or other. At the same time, as realized by Schopenhauer, this identity is the reason for intrinsic morality
What does it mean for lower being to be ethical? It is not ethical-as-we-know-it. Rather it has some of the elements e.g. indeterminism that is one of the bases of choice
… and hence the importance of both ‘feeling’ or emotion and ideas and cognition to ethics and real ethical behavior… and genuine care
…similarly, both bound and free elements are required for knowledge; the bound for grounding, the free to build upon…
…and, here the connection: ethics determine or enter into the determination of what may be counted as knowledge! For: if the object [value] is certainty then knowledge is judged by some criterion e.g. ‘justified true belief;’ but if knowledge enables action, remains in the loop with action, then what is knowledge is determined by what makes for ‘good’ or successful action… rather, there is, in the end no determination even though there is intermediate determination and at the intermediate level both ‘determinations’ or criteria of knowledge are valid and interact
… are what may be understood from being-in-the-world [ours] including our system of knowledge and its disciplines: symbols, sciences, history, art, religion and artifact
In the following, -> points to what may be learned for being; => points to learning across disciplines and among levels of understanding [this phase-epoch <-> all being]
Material -> Actual
Quantum mechanics -> quasi-atomicity of entities that follow from quasi-stability in indeterminism => form of life
Ergodic aspects -> recurrence => death
Becoming [evolution] => recurrence
Form of life => the categories and their nature
Death
[Society and history fit well here even though they might be separate; similarly symbol, art, religion and artifact are also aspects or products of mind and society]
The nature and possibility of intuition
The nature and possibility of symbols
Freedom of ideas and will
The categories e.g. space, time, cause and ‘chaos’
I hesitate to use ‘chaos’ due to its recent use; however it is briefer than ‘indeterminism.’ The intuition of chaos may be labeled humor
Communality
A priori elements of history: the fact of history, the facts of interconnection and separation, the fact that we interpret
A posteriori elements: the contingent facts that are sometimes interpreted as necessities or indications of present greatness; that we must interpret
[Consider as aspects of mind, society]
‘Ontology’ is The Theory of Being but here the meaning is more specific; I am referring to kind or choice of ontology e.g. substance ontology; or as an alternative an ontology with ‘process’ or ‘relationship’ as fundamental or e.g. Whitehead’s ‘Philosophy of Organism’ in which includes among other things, substance, process, and relationship as equally fundamental and [my position] non-absolute
At this point at this general level of discussion it is not possible, desirable or meaningful specify a definite ontology
It is possible, however, to describe a variety of possible ontological positions and to discuss the distinction or lack of true distinction among them. It may be possible to discuss distinguishability and ‘isomorphisms’ of the conceptual fields; to the extent that isomorphisms exist and the distinctions are only what is emphasized or superficial, there will be [1] an advance in the nature of metaphysical system and [2] advance in understanding for the fact that the systems are not truly distinct reduces the number of ontological possibilities and therefore confidence in the residual variety
One reason for the distinction between ontological systems is as follows. It is sometimes argued that substance ontology is deficient in not admitting ‘relation’ and ‘process’ either as fundamental or at all. This is based in [1] generally on a metaphor of substance as monadic in nature but more specifically e.g. Aristotle’s monadic concept of substance, and [2] a defect of language in that it does not capture the dynamic reality of the world. Thus Whitehead posits the ‘Philosophy of Organism’ that includes on the side of substance, substance itself and form and subjective form, and on the other side both process and relationship which, in a way, overcomes the defect. This enhancement brings ontology in line with modern physics in that the latter has substance which however is not eternal, relationship e.g. force, and process which is what substance undergoes under the mutual interaction that is force; this is a dynamic system and it is possible to ‘compute’ the dynamics with mathematics i.e. after the substance-relation-process has been expressed in mathematics. Now mathematics may be regarded, in this context, as a structure overlaid upon language and so the apparent defect is not absolute… but neither is it altogether removed as metaphysics for mathematical physics is not known to be capable of representing all of physical reality
The distinction between ontological systems is therefore in some respects a defect. Substance, as originally formulated, that enduring object that underlies the actual thing is poorly conceived; better to think in terms of categories of existence rather than a category: non-eternal substance, relationship, process; and the experiential side can be included by noting that physical reality need not be merely ‘physical’ reality and, perhaps, with the aid of abstraction
It is not clear that the categorial system needs to be posited for it may fall out, wholly or partially, of application of the principle of the void perhaps in combination with the possibility of this-world-as-I-know-it e.g. the discussions elsewhere in this document that being requires becoming [process] and that individual being partakes of all being [relationship]…
It is not necessary to specify as detailed a system as Whitehead’s; much of the detail should fall out of the principle of the void [i.e. the principle of being] combined with obvious principle that this world, the world-as-I-know-it, is possible
The system that I might develop here will be another [possible] bridge between the Theory of Being and General Cosmology
This book has a useful collection of systems of metaphysics, of theories of origins and epistemologies
In the present section I review some aspects of the being of entities in relation to their being as becoming, their actuality, and presence [recall that actuality is abstraction from material nature, presence is abstraction from experience]
…level of concrescence; ‘concrescence’ is borrowed from Whitehead
…modality of transaction; constituted in part from level of concrescence
Entities are quasi-stable concrescences in transition; transition is constituted by transaction
The being of concrescence is constituted by its becoming
A ‘better description’ is on a T-R-T [trt] i.e. transaction-mutuality-transition metaphor... or model. Special cases are entity-relation-process, state-dynamics-process, particle-force-process, being-interaction-becoming, species-interaction [competition-cooperation]-evolution…
Concrescence and transaction are ‘faces’ of TRT
…or model; on analogy from the state-dynamics-process description
A symbolic calculus may be both under specified [inadequate] and over specified [concrete] relative to an open description and, yet, useful in the development of understanding and, perhaps, of possibility and therefore of some actuality
[Presence and actuality ‘reside’ within being; this section is not outside Concrescence and transaction; Whitehead may use ‘actual’ in a different sense]
Level and modality
Free – bound
Free: variety and quality [modality] and their integration in concrescence; intensity is secondary
Bound: intensity and quality [modality] and their integration in concrescence; variety is not secondary but of a different character – its different locus in the organism, its development over time and relations within the bound, and the contribution from the free
Free and bound are on a continuum and mutual; mutuality may show up as mutual conditioning
Internal – external
[The idea of a fixed externality is spurious as there is no fixed internality; the distinction, even for a quasi-stable organism, depends upon the occasion; he internal – external distinction is related to ‘local / non-local’]
Internal: entity
External: other
A ‘wide’ mental state is supposed to depend on the physical state of the environment and not only on the physical state of the organism; a ‘narrow’ mental state is defined in its dependence only on the physical state of the organism. The mistake behind this distinction is that there are alternate modes of description: a direct one in which the mental state is a constitutive function of the physical state of the organism and, since the physical state of the organism is also causally related to the environment an indirect one in which the mental state includes causal dependence on the environment. Thus given a mode of description in which a ‘wide’ mental state can be expressed as a function f(organism, environment) there is at the same time a ‘narrow’ description. Therefore, it does not follow that ‘wide’ and ‘narrow’ define a proper distinction; and it does not follow that individuals in identical physical states may have distinct experience… rather the reverse is true
An analogy may be made with the description of physical systems whose state is constitutively dependent only on its configuration but which may also be written as causally dependent on the environment
A better expression of the intended distinction is free versus bound; both find their interpretation in the organism without constitutive reference to the environment
Elaborated in Actual Cosmology where TRT becomes E-R-P or entity-relation-process [spatial configuration-force-process in physical cosmology where ‘force,’ ‘spatial configuration,’ and ‘process’ have concrescence-transactional interpretations]
The modality for ERP depends on the level of concrescence but the ‘body,’ ‘force,’ ‘process’ and related modes of description may be preserved in the integration [concrescence, interaction] of lower into higher levels; and in the ‘classical’ realm the transactional character of entities may become less apparent
Elaborated in Human Being …and Human Society, the sub-sections of Actual Cosmology starting with Life, especially in Mind and Its Metaphysics and some subsequent sections
The free / bound distinction exists at all levels
At higher levels [of organization] there is greater variety and freedom of presence
Afferent-free: ‘attitude’
Afferent-to-efferent and free: ‘higher’ cognition, thought, ‘higher’ emotion
Efferent-free: action
[Above: the source of ‘sense’ and ‘reference’]
The topics implied are:
The Being of All Being i.e. What is the being of the one uni-verse?
The Being of the Elements of Being i.e. What is the being of the elements or constituents of the uni-verse?
The Being of All Being as A Community of The Elements of Being
‘Community’ is significant; it is not mere collection or aggregation. It includes interaction but not the interaction of characterless particles; instead the interaction involves and may affect the character of the ‘element’
Some years ago, I wrote a since marginalized essay ‘Being and The Elements of Being.’ I felt uncomfortable about ‘The Elements of Being.’ What were they? Were they atoms – literally, the atoms of physics; were they elements of mind-stuff; were they individuals; were they Leibnizian Monads? The discomfort was twofold: what were the elements, any of these either alone or in combination and why… and what is the Being of the Elements?
Since then I have somewhat overcome the discomfort – or accepted it! If you are an a priori atomist or materialist – if you are not you are open to questioning atomism and materialism – you will have the same discomfort. It is a discomfort that remained for me even after I had gotten over my explicit a priori atomism but, no doubt, implicit a priori atomism remained
The resolution is that ‘What are the elements of being?’ and ‘What is there being?’ not immediately regarded as immediately known. Instead, the approach is ‘algebraic’ i.e. from various considerations understanding of Being progresses from explicit dark to light –the various topics above– and it is important that the ignorance is allowed and accepted; there is an analogy to physics where over the time that it has been reasonable to talk of atoms the understanding has advanced
What are the considerations that allow understanding of being? Two primary considerations used here are: the logic of the void and its relation to all being; and the facts, conditions and experiences of our own existence – from the facts of our being e.g. the unarticulated experience of the body to the articulated experience of perception and thought to the descriptions and theories of science and the various systems of philosophy and metaphysics taken as ideas rather than given. There is no reason to suggest that there are no other considerations
It is not necessary –nor is it possible for me to currently– specify the elements with completeness and precision
There is no pressing need to standardize the elements e.g. the atoms or elementary particles of physics. When I use the words ‘elements of being’ I may occasionally think of the particles of physics but, here, I am not attached to that view; instead I shun it –despite its temptations– as premature and immature
Some possibilities for the elements are: the elementary particles; the elementary particles interpreted as monads i.e. possessed of presence; individuals or persons. Any thing that possesses power in Plato’s sense is a candidate
It is not necessary to require that the elements be fixed especially as elements of understanding but also as elements of being per se
What are the characteristics of the elements: primarily actuality, presence, power, determinacy/indeterminacy and community; extension and process may also be considered
An element of being e.g. an elementary particle has feeling – presence? This begins to sound absurd. But it is not. It is perfectly valid question, ‘What is the feeling of an element of being?’ Where it is understood that the ‘feeling of an elementary particle’ is nothing other than its interactivity, its power – the capacity to affect and be affected as inherent in the element [immanent] rather than as imposed or merely external, its communality. The word ‘feeling’ is chosen in its meaning as the simplest of our experience but in its application to all elements of being it is not assumed to have the character of our feeling unless the element in question is an individual. However, inasmuch as I am constituted of elements my experience is a result of the community of feeling elements
This is characterized by the foregoing sections of Division 1, the present division
Equivalent to nothingness, to the void [which is not the quantum vacuum but underlies it]
Existent, possessed of power; for all being, existence is equivalence to nothingness, power is its manifestation in unending infinity of form
Actual, present, eternal, recurrent, extensive, repetitive, communal, determinate in balance with indeterminacy of form and process, fecund, and possessed of the elements of good and evil
This is the subject matter of General Cosmology
The following anticipates later development but is not circular
What is common to all being; a tautology
What must and what does exist
See discussion above
Does matter exist? As being-as-such, no for matter is essentially a concept or objectification of being. However, we can think of being as matter provided we accept the corresponding concept of matter as provisional in the history of ideas and science. In this sense we can regard matter as a mode of being
Does a property exist? It exists as a property but not as material… on some accounts of matter but on account of the history of what counts as material properties may exist
Do experiences exist – yes, clearly. Are experiences material? Not on all accounts of mind / matter but on the theory in Journey in Being and with matter appropriately understood as the actual, then, perhaps yes!
Symbol
Does a symbol exist? The sign for the symbol exists. But as a symbol i.e. as referring to something? On the above kind of account [experiences,] yes!
Do Mathematical Objects Exist
A mathematical object may be said to exist in its own way if it can refer to some actual object. For this sense of existence, the logical coherence of the mathematical system that contains the object is required – thus the number ‘one’ exists in this sense. [A system can also be an object]
Is ‘one’ a material or actual being? Yes, again in the foregoing sense
Does ‘one’ exist in any other senses? [a] As a form or concept. A form exists in the sense of form if some actual object can have the form. And forms can exist as material in the foregoing sense. [b] If ‘one’ is defined by the property of ‘one-ness’ or if ‘one’ is defined as the class of collections that contain one object [this is not circular since ‘one’ is used in different senses in the its places]
What could it be, what is it?
There is one absolute object – the noumenon?
… in which noumenon = phenomenon?
On the knower-known intuition, the idea of perceived-object being in-itself is not error but without meaning
I do not consider this section important but it may turn out to be useful. Statements are made “as is” and need to be thought through, pared, improved
For Aristotle, a category of being is a way of being; the categories are the most general classes of things that can be said to ‘be’ in one of the various senses of the word
Aristotle’s categories are generally rejected because of their basis in Aristotle’s notion of substance which is also rejected. Aristotle’s categories begins with an attempt at a general and exhaustive account of things that there are [ta onta.] Aristotle lists ten categories of which substance is fundamental and upon which the others depend. Aristotle’s categories, then, are: substance, quality, quantity, relation, space, time, posture, condition, state, activity or cause, and effect. See History of Western Philosophy for a brief explanation of the nature of these categories and their basis in the concept of substance. Also see Aristotle's Metaphysics at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Kant and Schopenhauer re-worked and re-deployed Aristotle’s system into a system of categories of intuition [in the Kantian sense]
Here are some categories: physical objects, minds, classes, properties, relations taken from the page Categories of Being from Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia
Theory of being is concerned with the nature of things or entities and cosmology is concerned with what entities there may be and what relationships and extents they may have; this is general cosmology. In contrast, physical cosmology concerns the physical things, relationships and extent of [this phase-epoch of] the uni-verse
The threads of the fabric are the ‘individual’ journeys; thus the Universe is not one continuous cut of cloth and not a cut whose individual threads traverse its entire ‘width.’ … with ‘j’ for individual journeys and ‘J’ for The Journey of Being, we write:
J = Σ j
It is not necessary to show all details [all being and knowledge] but to demonstrate the range in principle, with illustration and according to the principles below
This topic is already in Division 3 but the theoretical aspects may be selectively placed here / repeated there. Some good reasons for placement here:
Foundation in the void is developed here
Principles of generation are treated here
The range of human experience and knowledge are considered here and these constitute the [best] knowledge of the range of being; and this is extended by the Theory of Being developed here; here, supplemented by Divisions 2 – 4, we find adequate examples
…and from the foregoing points we may be able to develop a Theory of the Variety of Being
Also: Human Being and Human Society
Objective: the nature and possibility of human being. The question has a universal side that will derive from the theory of the void; and a local side that will derive from studies of ‘man,’ of mind [below; in the details of the study mind is considered broadly;] additionally Heidegger’s ideas may be useful
Implications for the previous point
Implications for BEING in general
Source: Alfred North Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 1933
As noted above, this sub-topic could appear in one or more of the following topics: Theory of Being, Knowledge, or The Problems of Metaphysics; the point may be repeated in the stated topics; note that if it occurs in more than one of the topics, different aspects may be treated in the different section
Issues include:
Showing the entire range in principle without completing in an Encyclopedic way
Showing that the stated range is the entire range. Or, answering the question as best I / we can, “To what extent is the given range complete?” Of course, completeness will not be regarded as not obtaining on account of gaps of fact and detail
Question of human knowledge versus knowledge
In the first place, it is the Theory of Being that shows this possibility
But what if we did not have my theory of being? Any individual who says ‘There is no universal law’ already knows the possibility;’ for that is the essence of the theory. That is one who believes in the primacy of his or her existence over ideas
An alternative is to approach the ultimate through analysis of actual being and knowledge and the idea of the ultimate; actual being and knowledge has [partial] ordering and the idea requires to use the ordering to point to the ultimate; done intelligently, the process is one of given and take between study within the actual, study of the idea of all being. This is my process; and even though the theory of being shows the possibility of knowledge, realization of the ultimate it does not provide the fullest account of the ultimate. That may be unattainable while in human form but the process described leads to a fuller account
Therefore the second topic in Division 1 will be General Cosmology which will include the novel account of time and origins supplemented by an account of space / space-time and of creation i.e. of space-time-matter; that applies to but is not restricted in its application to the present phase-epoch of the uni-verse… and to the ‘physical uni-verse’ even though it is not clear, without specification, what the physical uni-verse is [relatively, it is clearer what the physical aspect of the present phase epoch of the physical universe is.] But, the theory of time-creation is one of time-matter and, therefore, should include space-time-matter or, at least, its foundation. In Journey in Being –and immediately above– have alluded to the fact that, here, in cosmology is a place for a foundation of a physical theory of space-time-matter such as in the general theory of gravitation [relativity] and quantum mechanics [the mechanics having something to do, perhaps, with an ongoing relation of the elements of creation with their near-stable existence that includes a foundation in the void.] I have been reflecting on a development of such a foundation in concrete terms and the section on cosmology might be an appropriate place to place such a treatment
Topics in this section will be
Development of the General Cosmology
A Foundation for a Physical Theory of Space-Time-Matter
Topics from Journey in Being
Topics from the section on The Theory of Being
Topics suggested by A. N. Whitehead’s 1929 Process and Reality
Other topics needed
Some elements of the Theory of Being
Abstraction from Actual Cosmology with details of origins eliminated and replaced by the concept of ‘accident’ which includes in its conception the notion of indeterminism contingently in balance with pseudo-determinism; and ‘generalization’ to include experience
Space, time, cause, law… are these immanent or imposed?
Considering the [one] uni-verse which is everything –including our understanding, everything there is immanent, even God... regardless of the relation of God to this phase-epoch of the universe. And although everything is necessarily universal it is not necessarily universal. ‘God’ has many meanings, and in the relation of this phase-epoch of the universe to the whole it is possible to conceive of a remote God who imposes his law; but that God would still be immanent though not universal i.e. not pan-immanent in the uni-verse
Here is a vast field for the confusion of the type I have criticized so often: sophistry about partially formed concepts, concepts taken out of their field of coherent connection and regard piece-wise, and confusion of different uses of words; the confusion that Wittgenstein, in his internal conflict between his own creative force and his intensely critical attitude that may have arisen from the very creativity applied to criticality, also noted but then turned into an entire philosophy so that he is often regarded as having said that there is no such thing as a substantive philosophy of which we can talk
Regarding time in this phase-epoch a number of possibilities arise. Remember that every particle –either discrete or an element in a continuum– may be regarded as having its own time; and that phase-epochs may arise in which there is more-or-less coherence of kinds of particles in communality of a local common origin or seed and more-or-less coherence of their times; that within such a phase epoch there may described time coordinate systems that, from some perspectives appear to be an absolute grid. It is possible for the ‘intrinsic’ and more-or-less coherent times to be either immanent in or imposed on the phase-epoch depending on its relation to the whole uni-verse. Further, regardless of the actual nature of the intrinsic times it is possible to take them as immanent and then to interpret the time-grid as imposed when regarded as fixed; similar comments may be given for space. It remains, however, that whatever time and space may be in the uni-verse, they are immanent in that universe even when local and even when created; i.e. even when time and space are the impositions of sentience, they correspond to something that is immanent: everything real is immanent but it or its appearances may be interpreted as imposed; but not all appearances will have a proper universal immanent interpretation even if there is a locally valid immanent interpretation
A. N. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 1933, elaborates “four antagonistic schools of thought regarding the analysis of the notion of Law, The School of Immanence, the School of Imposition, the Positivist School of Observation, that is to say, of mere Description, and finally the School of Conventional Interpretation.” [My italics]
A general metaphysics of space, time and being may fit here
It is important to consider space, time and being together; consideration e.g. of time alone, though interesting is necessarily incomplete
Any theory of space, time, being fits within a theory of being; i.e. in the particular theory certain fundamental features of being are being considered
Alternative concepts that could be the focus of attention: for space – position, extension, situated object or aspects of object; for time – process, duration, change
The following observations from The Categories: Immanent or Imposed are relevant and applicable here:
The vast opportunity for confusion arising out of confusion of different concepts [one sign, multiple symbols;] partial concepts taken as complete; concepts taken out of the contextual field regarded as concrete and complete in themselves
…accordingly alternative interpretations of categories especially of space, time, cause as immanent or imposed according to whether a phase-epoch or the whole is considered, whether the concept or a grid is being considered, what special relation between the whole and the phase-epoch and among phase-epochs obtain
These points could appear in A Foundation for a Physical Theory of Space-Time-Matter, below, but it is also of more general application at least inasmuch as that foundation is to be applied only to this phase-epoch of the universe. See the discussion in The Categories: Immanent or Imposed for the preliminary to the following developments:
That the conceptions show how a moving clock may have a different rate than a grid of ‘stationary’ clocks; to show how requires a dynamics
That a moving continuum may have a length contraction relative to a ‘stationary’ continuum; shows space-time grids to not be universally decomposable into space grids and time grids; to show how requires a dynamics
That two ‘particles’ may have different intrinsic time rates; to show how these time rates become coordinated in a coherent phase-epoch and to show under what circumstances and how much variation from the coordination may occur [the twin ‘paradox’] also requires a dynamics
We see, then, how relativity might obtain and that the fixing of the details and law-like behavior requires a specific local dynamics. Quantum theory and the theory of the quantum vacuum might arise from considerations of the indeterministic nature of origins; while specific stable dynamics and the possibility of stable systems within the dynamics might arise through selection rather than deterministic process
ė[τ, α] = f[e, τ, α]; e = entity [vector of dimension n;] τ = time [vector of dimension n;] α = attribute [n x m matrix]
Preliminary hypothesis: the quantized form is identical to the pre-quantized with a different interpretation
Combine with the sections on cosmology in Journey in Being and Journey in Being: Foundation and the section on Physical Cosmology in the foundation
The foregoing completes present considerations for development. In the actual development I may use the following sections
Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
Essence of quantum mechanics
Quantum vacuum
Calculus of propositions
Further Needs
Logic from LOGIC
Quantum mechanics & the vacuum developed from LOGIC / void / cosmology
Journey in Being begins the discussion of the origins of being, of a phase-epoch and its time and space and ‘matter’ from the void – or alternatively it begins the discussion of the equivalence of being and the void
In this document Mind / Body and Atomism, The Philosophy of Time, Concepts and Slackness, On the Possibility of Science and the Origin of Dynamics and the Effectiveness of Mathematics, On the Synthesis of World and Idea, Eliminating Concepts of Mind, Noumenon and Phenomenon, On Assumptions in Inductive Inference
From the new outline of Journey in Being in this document: Process, change: Time, Extension: Space, Indeterminacy, Matter or Material Nature, Aristotle and Others on Being, Human Being and Human Society, the present section General Cosmology, A Foundation for a Physical Theory of Space-Time-Matter, On Categories, Mental Disorders and Creativity
The following considerations are pertinent but are to be generalized to consideration of space-time; I have added comments without distinction as to source
What should a philosophy of time do: develop the concept of time in a systematic theory or class of theories; address various issues of immanence, universality, whether time is real or a grid and if the latter what real underlies the idea e.g. process or intrinsic time or intrinsic process; reveal or provide understanding for the latest understanding from physics – in general and special questions such as time travel and the twin ‘paradox,’ the continuum issue, the coordination question of the relation among instants, places and events; understand the relation between the perception-conception of time and time itself; address various philosophical and related issues such as various paradoxes of time, absolute versus relational theories of time, the direction and arrow of time, the question of the flow of time, reality of past-present-future
It is imperative that real problems be distinguished from those arising from confusions of concept and meaning…
Technical problems e.g. temporal indexicals and essentially tensed facts; the symbolic logic of time and relation to modal logics
This topic straddles Theory of Being and General Cosmology
May generalize to Foundation for a Theory of Nature
These are brief, telegraphic notes on the main and recent ideas with already developed concepts details in Journey in Being and some supporting documents and future developments outlined in notes. In, Journey in Being; this sub-topic will be placed under the topic on General Cosmology, below
Note that the concept of the void, here, bears little relation to the ideas of Sartre whose work I have searched fruitlessly for suggestive thought on the nature of the void; and, while, Heidegger –and recent thought up to the present– have the same root concept of the void as mine, I have found that work to be conceptually impotent. I am leaning toward use of a term other than ‘nothing’ or ‘nothingness’ e.g. ‘void.’ A preliminary to the foundation sought is
What is the void or nothingness? The idea is well developed in Journey in Being; here is a recapitulation with some recent improvements and refinements. The first thought is that nothingness is what obtains in the absence of things. But nothingness seems to be more [less] than the mere absence of things e.g. in the absence of things do the ‘laws of nature’ remain [we should really refer to the natural laws of the present-phase epoch which is really all that physics knows; this has a logical dimension for the present phase-epoch is or has some congruence with the domain over which the ideal laws of physics apply] and does space-time remain? The answer to the question depends on what is meant by ‘thing.’ In its most common meaning, the absence of things allows that law [cause or, at least some degree of causation] and space-time remain. But on a more general meaning of thing, the meaning includes reference to laws or law [and pattern] and to space-time as ‘thing.’ In Journey in Being the logical nature of void or nothingness was considered. Nothingness is not the mere absence of things – that is no-thing-ness. Instead, nothingness is the absence of everything. Of course logical difficulties and contradiction are close to the surface as soon as we talk of everything / nothing in the most general sense where the stem ‘thing’ refers not merely to material object but to anything that may exist. These logical issues were considered in Journey in Being and therefore will not be repeated in detail here. But consider: can / does nothingness exist? If it exists then, in the void, it must not exist. This apparent contradiction points, to the subtlety rather than the impossibility. I.e. in seeking the concept of the void, how far can we go? Logically, from Journey in Being, if complete absence were to obtain and to remain then that state of permanent nothing would amount to a pattern, a law, a determinism which would contradict the state of void. This points to the creative potential of the void and the relation of this to the idea of zero point energy and the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Again, instead of the logical approach and its dependence on language and concepts consider what happens when we look at the universe and begin –in thought– to take away things. When this operation is complete, what is left? To think that law, pattern, space-time are left is to think that these are something over and above the collection of things. It does seem that human expression of the known laws, human perception of patterns, and the human coordination of space-time are over and above mere thing-hood. However, in themselves, law and so on is inherent in the accumulation or collection of things – we may want to refer to LAW, PATTERN and to SPACE-TIME rather than law, pattern and to space-time to emphasize this idea.
Details are in Journey in Being where it is pointed out the following meaning of universe is necessary to the development; without this meaning e.g. there is a tendency of erroneous projection of local properties to all being; however, it follows from logic of the discussion of the void, that the very idea of the local as universal is not merely a projection but involves logical contradiction. The main point is that ‘universe’ which should most appropriately mean all being in its accumulation or interrelatedness is often used to refer to the present phase-epoch; or used as in “this universe is but one of infinitely many bubble universes.” All being in its interrelatedness was the most appropriate meaning in the development of a general cosmology – from the void or otherwise – and while the parochial meaning is not with out sense, I refer to the one universe, the one-universe or to the uni-verse to emphasize to refer to the most inclusive meaning
This is developed in the general theory of being [not yet labeled as such] and the general cosmology of Journey in Being. The logical necessity of becoming follows from the fact that its absence contradicts the concept of void. Becoming from the void is similar to local becoming from the quantum-vacuum except that the laws of quantum production [pairs, laws] do not obtain so that original becoming is ‘floppy’ and what becomes is not at all restricted to the entities of the physics of the present phase-epoch of the uni-verse. As far as modern physics is concerned, while an original singularity is not proven, the assumption of a singularity and physics permits explanation of most of the general features of the evolution of the physical universe after 10-43 seconds or the Planck time. Events before this time are shielded from current science and from experimental observation [elucidate the paradigmatic assumptions behind this putative theoretical fact.] However, foundation in the void or nothingness as developed in Journey in Being provides some foundation from before 10-43 seconds; elucidate the nature of the foundation! Some of the developments here and in Journey in Being are pertinent to this…
To be developed further as needed. In general, the becoming of LAW, PATTERN or the POSSIBILITY of pattern and SPACE-TIME is coeval with the becoming of simple thing-hood; the logic of this is laid out above. Thus, the quantum vacuum cannot be the ultimate foundation of becoming even though it can be a useful local stand-in for becoming. It seems that uni-versal law, the womb of all law, is and must be no law. To what extent are the laws of physics founded in the quantum vacuum and to what extent in what came before?
To be developed as needed
We may think of the quantum vacuum as what is left when all objects are removed from the universe, leaving the vacuum fluctuations and the space-time matrix. Within the quantum vacuum, virtual matter and anti-matter particle pairs are continually being created and destroyed. This is both a consequence of quantum mechanical law; and of the Heisenberg principle [a consequence of the law;] that requires the quantum vacuum to be a minimum energy state of quantum potential; the creation-destruction fluctuations violate energy-momentum for periods and lengths less than the Planck time and length and thus has no effect on macroscopic laws. This quantum mechanical vacuum, due to continual creation-destruction, exerts a pressure on material objects – the Casimir Effect predicted in 1948 by Hendrik Casimir and confirmed recently. The quantum vacuum may provide the fabric of space-time in the present phase-epoch. In modern physics, the quantum vacuum is often referred as to the actual ‘nothing’ but it is not and rather it probably has remote foundation in the void which is SPACE-TIME-LESS, PATTERN-LESS and LAW-LESS. Some physicists believe that the universe [this phase-epoch but not generally stated or recognized] and the laws and properties of Nature [again limited to this phase-epoch but not generally stated or recognized] emerged from the quantum vacuum. But, to repeat the question from two paragraphs prior: To what extent are the laws of physics founded in the quantum vacuum and to what extent in what came before?
The quantum vacuum is not the void… as noted above
The quantum vacuum is ‘on the way’ to the void; i.e. conceptually, the quantum vacuum stands between this phase-epoch of the uni-verse and the void. More accurately, if the quantum mechanics of the present phase-epoch were projected to the uni-verse, the validity of which projection implies logical contradiction, then the quantum vacuum would stand conceptually in between the uni-verse and the void
Option 1: origin of –the quantum properties or description of– the present phase-epoch in the becoming from the void
Option 2a: origin of the quantum vacuum – of the present phase-epoch – from the void; and, Option 2b: origin of the present phase-epoch from the quantum vacuum. Option 2b is part of modern quantum theory – or its consequences – as developed in by Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac and others in decade 1920-1930
Plan: Extend the following to space-time-matter; incorporate into Journey in Being [/outline below]
First, some Principles of Understanding and Explanation
The use of the idea of slackness in concepts corresponding to an underdetermination of being
The tension between science and philosophy
Now, comments on the Philosophy Time and its Place in Cosmology and the Theory of Being
Physical time and its relation to psychological time
Relational vs. absolute concepts of time
Relational vs. absolute concepts of time again
Incorporate: Time from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [local copy,] Philosophy of Time on John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart’s arguments for the non-existence of time [local copy,] Quentin Smith on the philosophy of time, Links from Google on Time and Timelessness [in the Philosophy of Science > Philosophy of Physics > Time and Timelessness directory,] Philosophy of Time [Google Search,] Philosophy of Time [AlltheWeb Search]
We would not actually expect to have an independently standing philosophy of time; rather we will have a philosophy of being, of cosmology or of physics and so on out of which would fall and be created an understanding of time… this does not mean that everything interacts to the point of indistinguishability but [a] we should allow, in advance, for interaction and [b] we expect additional insight from co-consideration of all the concepts in the field
What do we need to do to separate out [and do we so need to make separation of] our enmeshment in the world or, rather, our local environment? Remember the nature of concepts, the forms of intuition and symbolic expression – their interaction and advance
We modify the idea that metaphysics is impossible to “things may not be what they seem to be in the intuition including art but focusing on the in-tuition and symbolic expression i.e. in science and analysis puts us on the way to truth that is not limited to the forms and capabilities of the intuition – which limitation is the fundamental one that is assumed in positivism, empiricism and Kantian idealism… ” and, therefore, review of ideas and their history / community is important but not all ideas or considerations will remain in the end and few, if any, will remain untouched or unmodified
Too many, though not all writers today do just what was implied in the previous principle – they review current thought and the history of thought regarding a topic and leave it as one or a number of grand mysteries along with the impression that enough has been said i.e. construction, though eschewed, is implied and implicit… we must also build even as we exalt in the contemplation of mystery. And, examples of universalization have been set in – in Journey in Being – the construction of cosmology and the understanding of mind – these can serve as paradigms; further, principles of universal construction have been considered that include the transcendental analytic and transcendental logic along with the synthesis of symbolic conception with intuition subject to critical comparison against the world
As has been noted such slackness in concepts is a virtue when the being in question is underdetermined. Now, the idea that a being is undetermined is without meaning until it is pointed out that the underdetermination is relative to what thought, intuition or convention may ascribe to the being of the entity in question. Thus, time may be thought to be a continuum and infinitely divisible and debate may ensue including reference to, e.g., coarseness due to quantum effects… however, it may be unnecessary and uninformative – even misleading – to suggest that time is or is not a continuum or coarse at small enough intervals… and, instead, given the origin of a single, dominant and universal-like time in the coalescing or common origin of a stable universe such distinctions [continuum vs. discretum] may be locally practical to consider but universally irrelevant. Note that I when refer to a local scene I may be referring to our causal or quasi-causal phase-epoch of the entire universe of being that we sometimes refer to as “the universe” when we are, in fact, referring to the phase-epoch in question. Especially in going from the local to the universal, the concrete gives way to the underdetermined and indeterminate, the singular to the plural and the existent to the potential. Note, however, as in the case of mind as discussed in Journey in Being, the indeterminateness in object and incomplete determination of concept is not restricted to the universal but to [many of] our most immediately apprehended objects or forms of being e.g. mind and matter
This gives way to a communication between concept and object [concept includes theoretical consistency and object focus includes the empirical i.e. the need to be real.] The distinction between science and philosophy of nature, between scientist and philosopher which has been exalted into a sometimes antagonism is recognized to be a blurred distinction with poles but no sharp division that corresponds to academic custom
Such principles have been enunciated elsewhere e.g. in the discussion of mind in Journey in Being – all such principles should be gathered together and applied uniformly to all cases. Uniform application means tailoring according to need; and use of a field of concepts as necessary and efficient. Additionally such codifications will apply not only to the study of nature [mind, matter…] and ideas [concepts, knowledge] but also to institutions that include science, the disciplines… and to the more general study of society including politics, economics and their institutions [here, law is considered to be part of politics]
I.e. of the philosophical, especially the analytic approaches. A simple observation: in terms of actual understanding – especially since it requires a balance among intuition, action and analysis which includes imagination – there can be too much philosophy especially analysis or too much science. This is not meant to be a critical statement although there are implied criticisms of certain endeavors and it is emphatically not intended to be a repressive proscription for there is a place for all kinds of activity and kinds of individual [within reason] and including the purely analytical and the purely critical i.e. understanding itself benefits from a plurality of kinds of persons and attitudes and the forward motion, in general, is a function of the interplay and does not come under the rule of any one kind; and, the actual process of guiding the balance of analysis, experiment and intuition is itself experimental with trial and correction coming in to play. A further reason for my not wanting to be insistent is that understanding is not the only goal of philosophy and, especially, of science – the values of science and philosophy are multimodal and include the tacit and the implicit… I have written on this elsewhere. Regarding my orientation I find that I there is a balance between intuition, experience and analysis – not a fixed one but a dynamic balance that changes with time and the need of the occasion and my cumulative experience and, no doubt, my personal orientation at the time. So, then, where does or should the balance between intuition and analysis lie? In the first place, although the philosophical spirit must be to include a critical attitude toward all things [in principle, and as a way to move forward – to relate the known to the unknown… and, not in general, merely or even primarily to be critical even though is the valid orientation of some individuals] it is also important to be secure in and at least accept that we know what we know. And, although there will be friction between the intuitively and the analytically known, it is at the border between the synthetic or the intuitive and the analytic that the dynamic balance lives and must play. Often, we here from someone talking about some important concept that “We all know what it is but when we come to describe or define it then we are at a loss.” Generally, the knowledge referred to in saying that “we all know what it is” is, roughly, comprised of two interactive aspects – the intuition and tacit knowledge of correct behavior regarding the concept e.g. time. Naturally, it does not follow that analytic expression of the concept in a universal context is easy or even possible; note that the difficulty is two-fold: analytic expression and universalization. Now, it does not follow that the intuition / tacit knowledge is inferior or should be abandoned or that individuals should stop behaving as though they know of what they talk; but this in turn does not imply that the intuition is universal with regard to context and precision. The limitations on the tacit do not require that it be replaced by the analytic. It also does not follow that the analytic is useless or should be avoided although it is understandable how the reaction against the analytic may come about especially when some analyst assumes a superior attitude or when someone else mistakes the analyst’s enthusiasm for superiority. Often in the history of ideas, what may start as esoteric analysis is found to be useful, to extend the intuition and becomes part of common intuition. Properly seen, the intuition and analysis interact and inform each other in the forward movement of understanding
The intuition of time is more than just the perception of time or the feeling that one is living in time or that time is passing or flowing. Here, intuition is used in Kant’s sense: it is not mere sensing, it is not anything like a hunch nor does it have anything to do with the rigorous vs. non-rigorous distinction and it is not a special sense that some develop especially well to see or sense things that others do not. Here, intuition is not any one of these valid but distinct meanings of the word “intuition.” Intuition in Kant’s sense are forms, primarily of perception, that structure or – speaking non-structurally – that give the world its special form or color as it appears; thus intuition here does not stand against thought, reason, description or science or logic but is continuous with them. The intuition of time is the sense of time that is required for the perception of time as it is perceived. What is the pure intuition of time? It is not clear that it is pure if that means that it is not influenced by mood, conception, pre-conception and that includes individual and cultural factors in addition to the biological ones. We may refer to the intuition of time as psychological time
This appears to have a number of features that are felt with more or less strength or conviction according to individual and culture. The features include the flow of time; the existence of past, present and future; a sense of unidirectionality [the arrow of time] associated with time e.g. that although it appears that most of the fundamental laws of physics i.e. excluding thermodynamics are reversible in time, events such as the scrambling differently colored sets of beads is irreversible… note that the sense of flow of time from future to present to past of the previous point is another but distinct arrow of time that is not referred to in this point; the feeling that time is linear or circular – which senses depend on the important phenomena of the life and culture of an individual and of which a special case is timelessness or the suspension of time… of course, sense of linearity, circularity and suspension may occur in the same individual and culture depending on the occasion or kinds of events that are held as important… and, further, the proclamations of an individual – even what the individual thinks about his or her experience – are distinct from though interactive with the actual experiences… while timelessness and circularity of time are more common in hunter-gatherer communities, even in modern societies there are the philosophies and attitudes of karma and of the eternal return; the sense of continuity or disjointedness of time; the common intuition, at least in western culture that time and space are distinct and are vehicles or containers for events and objects; finally, there is the intuition that prior events cause future ones [this is not only notion of cause even in physics as in e.g. force causing motion]
This is the time of the physical world. In order to have a coherent concept of physical time it is necessary to have a coherent and self-contained theory of physical processes and it will help if the theory is universal… of course, a number of the great dynamical theories of physics have been held to be universal and that is natural because it is part of the greatness of the theories that they are more or less co-extensive with the universe of the known with the natural exceptions that regard phenomena whose level or mode of description is alien to the mode of the physical theory even if all objects are physical objects… note that it is this very co-extensivity that encourages the implicit belief that all objects are physical but this is illicit since it is the same co-extensivity that makes it impossible to see [clearly] beyond the universe of the conceptual and the empirical of an era… clearly not all objects are physical in the classical sense but regarding the modern sense [quantum and relativistic] there is no way to clearly and positively see beyond that from within modern culture. The first coherent and self-contained theory of physical processes was the mechanics of Isaac Newton. Newton provided a metaphysics of time and space as independent and absolute containers for objects and events: I refer to the Scholium of Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy where he begins with the famous words, “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from is own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external… ” Newton continued with a discussion of relative time that is not “true” time and continued to describe absolute or true space and relative space and absolute or true and relative motion. Although he was criticized by Leibniz, Newton argues cogent reasons for his pronouncements. The concept of time of Newton lends to conceiving time as absolute [which has two meanings: independent of observers and independent of events,] flowing, linear, continuous and reversible. It is in common observation and then in classical thermodynamics that time has an arrow: cream is mixed into coffee but is never seen to un-mix. The theory of statistical mechanics [developed largely by Boltzmann and based in Newtonian Mechanics] explains this in molecular terms: if the velocities of the molecules of the universe were reversed events would “go backwards” but finding the world in such a state of reversed velocities would imply that actually highly improbable distributions are highly probable… however, there is a result of Henri Poincare that suggests that dynamical systems will ultimately return [sufficiently closely] to their original state and the resolution of the paradox is that the theories that rule out such return are probabilistic – the probability of return is staggeringly low in “typical” amounts of time but not so given unlimited or very large amounts of time… thus, in a sense, and given the assumptions of Poincare’s result, time is circular. Is there causation in the sense of a prior event causing a later one, or of a force causing change? Such ascriptions of cause are possible but not necessary in physics; the notion of cause can be eliminated from physics but is also a useful heuristic principle. Thus the intuition of cause is not inconsistent with physics but is important to the individual due to the importance of agency that is not part of the language of physics but is validly part of the language of individuals – provided that the individual does not want to universalize [project] his or her experience. Is time a continuum? It is known that modern physics does not tell us what happens at intervals less than the Planck time of about 10-43 seconds and so it cannot be asserted on the basis of modern physics that for sufficiently short intervals, between every two instants there is another [a necessary condition for a continuum.] Is time independent of observers? From the theory of relativity it is not. However, in the theory of relativity, each “particle” that is sufficiently localized appears to have its own time that, within factors that depend on the forces, i.e. the effect of the entire universe, on it, is synchronized with every other particle [this permits, consistent with modern physics, a form of “time travel” that is measurable for particles but not practical for most significant effects for the lives of human beings.] Does time flow? Modern physics describes no flow of time. However, it appears that there are at least two metaphors for or intuitions of flow [1] as in the flow of a river and [2] as in the passing of time; and perhaps the latter is secondary but not therefore “invalid.” Much confusion is generated by conflating the metaphors; beyond that, intuition of the flow of time is indistinct from the intuition of change but this distinction is sometimes made in use. The intuitive argument that there is no flow of time but only a sequence of instants applies also to the flow of a river: there is a sequence of positions but no actual flow; however, the equations of physics that are formulated in terms of states can usually be reformulated in terms of “fluxes.” The question of “flow” is not as interesting as other issues of time
According to Newton time and space are absolute. Even in classical physics, however, that time and change are or seem to be inextricably interwoven; it is true, though, that in classical mechanics arbitrarily stretching time makes the equations of mechanics more complex. In Einstein’s theory of gravitation space, time and matter are bound together as dynamic variables suggesting that the existence of spacetime is precisely as contingent as the existence of matter. This lends to the idea that spacetime is relational and not substantial; however, an interesting aspect of the history of physics is that often what starts as a descriptive or mathematical device is later found to have or becomes imbued with physical reality. A problem for a relational concept of spacetime [I am not sure why the term relational theory is used] is the putative existence of space and time where there are no actual objects without which even though there may be time there is no sign or measure of it. This is countered by positing possible objects or events. However, it is consistent with the notion of slack concepts / indeterminate objects that there are indeterminacies in spacetime; however, given how tightly woven our world appears to be such indeterminacy in our phase-epoch of the universe seems to be unlikely except at distances and times less than the Planck length and time. However, the absence of obviously material objects in a region of spacetime does not imply an absence of physical things: there are ubiquitous fields of force; there is the quantum vacuum… Below the Planck length and time or outside our phase-epoch there may be indeterminacies and discontinuities in spacetime [1] at least consistent with modern physics and [2] as real: this possibility is founded in the general cosmology of Journey in Being
“General” is distinguished from “physical.” In Journey in Being, the cosmology conveniently starts with nothingness that is an actual nothingness and bears little relation to the nothingness of Sartre or the no-thing of Heidegger that are word plays, psychological ploys and very superficially artifactual. Alternative terms are void and nothing – since in the state of nothingness there is no distinction between object and property but note the distinction between nothing and no-thing; other terms are the emptiness, the abyss of being [a little too metaphorical to be sufficiently neutral,] the Greek letter f pronounced “phi,” and the zero-state. In the void there is no being, no causation and no law. This follows if causation and law are thought of as modes of being but also since in the presence of law and causation there is not nothing. The vacuum of quantum physics is understood by removing objects in a thought experiment but not the laws themselves; the void is obtained by removing, similarly, not just objects but also the laws. That is rather artificial if we think of law and object as interwoven. We may distinguish Law and law; Law is what obtains e.g. the patterns and relations among events and objects; law is a reading and expression of Law. Incidentally Logos may be thought of as the possibilities of [forms] of being i.e. of Law. Now, clearly, Law is not at all like the laws of the statutes and of courts that are imposed. Law is not imposed but is, rather, as much the being of the universe or a phase-epoch thereof as its events and objects; Law is as much object as concrete objects. Therefore in removing all things to obtain the void we must also remove law and causation. This is not the vacuum of quantum physics in which the potential to become is based in the laws of quantum physics. There are, however, similarities. Since the void has no Law, no causation there are no limits except logical limits. Therefore, at once the void is equivalent to every possible state of being. Can the void exist? Provided care is taken to avoid contradiction it is not ruled out by logic. Thus the void exists is present with every particle of the universe [particle & void = particle] and, being without, limits may annihilate the particle; the entire phase-epoch, the entire universe may be annihilated. This is not an existential problem since being as we know it [and as we do not] is equivalent to and shows from the void. It is not a practical problem either for the being of our phase-epoch has the stability that makes it continue to exist; of course, annihilation is possible but from stability it is extremely improbable. However, there must be shadow worlds whose existence is ephemeral – worlds that do not even interact with ours [the probability of interaction is extremely, even colossally small] but that pass through ours and are passing through ours; and there must “be” worlds and forms of being that integrate forms [perhaps we are already integrated as we breath parts of the universe in and out.] We saw that the void co-exists with the universe and is also the residue when there is no being. Paradoxes arising from there being no being but there being the void are word play. Starting from these origins, Journey in Being shows how a world [phase-epoch] such as ours may arise from the void i.e. from within the heart of the universe as it exists. The integration of a phase-epoch and the coalescing of multiple disjointed times into one dominant time [that is the basis of thermodynamic and psychological time] is shown. “Time” in the foregoing may be replaced by spacetime or space-time-matter. Thus physical time may be linear, continuous [at scales above Planck’s,] and primarily singular in our world but is circular and more complex, disjointed and plural in general i.e. in the universe-at-large from which our world comes… In general spacetimematter [being] is slack/indeterminate-in-degrees but receives relative determination in a phase-epoch such as ours
I.e. of spacetimematter… we have not made specific reference to the philosophy of spacetimematter but have already covered as much of it as we need to provide a platform for a more detailed and tighter development
There are various paradoxes associated with the idea that time is continuous. Most of these are associated with the Greek philosopher, Zeno of Elea c. 445 BC. The paradoxes are interesting and significant to the development of western thought especially the concepts of the continuum and of the limit process and summation of infinite series in mathematical analysis [calculus.] I will not discuss the paradoxes here because they have long since been resolved with exacting rigor using the ideas centering around those just mentioned
Given the filling of the universe with being, even in the laws of our phase-epoch, spacetime may be thought of as material [regarding process as material] i.e. a parametrization of being. However, given that all being-as-known begins, in the life of an individual as distinct from the life of his or her population, everything-as-known [there is no ultimate distinction from everything] is projection [individual to world / world to individual] and any distinction of relational vs. absolute, of description vs. actual must break down. We have gotten away with discussing things without defining them
The foundation is the history of my own thought as recorded in Journey in Being where I have, I believe, gone significantly beyond anything that I have read. I have spent much time immersed in the modern culture of ideas. The excellent article, Time [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy], has been a source of some of the major topics of concern in the modern philosophy of time
…or Cosmology of the World
As noted in Characteristics of Being, ‘Actual’ is a generalization of ‘material’
The purpose of actual cosmology is to bring remote truth within practical access. Thus, while all being is ‘normally’ colossally remote to e.g. an individual human being, actual cosmology would make the ‘colossally remote’ merely ‘accessibly remote’
Actual Cosmology includes physical cosmology and the physical sciences – for physics and cosmology are not ultimately separate. An approach to actual cosmology may be through physical cosmology or some point on a continuum between general and physical cosmologies
[See The Constitution of Being is a Result of its Becoming]
Creation from the void, perhaps together with the trivial but powerful, existential principle that what exists is possible implies
Constraints on dynamics
An array of possible dynamics
Conversely, dynamics may give us information on creation; more specifically, the dynamics of this phase-epoch may give clues as to its creation
From the foundations in nothingness does it follow that all actual being will be material even if matter is rather different than in our phase-epoch? The question is not fully intelligible! From the notion that matter is a slack concept and a mode of description it appears likely that in any actual phase-epoch of being, there will be a material phase [of description.] Similarly, there will always be a mental phase… but [1] the mental and physical are alternate modes of description of the same object and do not refer to different objects or substances and [2] existence of high level matter and mind e.g. animals or higher is not guaranteed. What is prerequisite for the higher levels? Does high level mind necessitate some minimum material form, complexity, variety and so on?
What is intermediate between the void and actual [manifest] being? Form! It may be useful to review G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form, 1969 and © 1972
The foundations of physical science: the following levels of generality / abstraction [ordered more to less] interact
Nothingness
Form
Laws of Form [form of form]
Range of cosmologies and physics [plural]
Physics of this phase-epoch of the universe
In the prologue I assert that the foundation of being in the void also provides a foundation for cosmology and physics. The nature of the foundation needs to be clarified somewhat. At minimum, it should be explained that the foundation is in principle
How would a foundation for the physics of this phase-epoch result i.e. what minimum information / assumption would result in our physics?
Consider adaptation as mutually sustainable relation
Add a section perhaps after §1.6.13 Cosmology, called “Adaptation and Evolution” [or something similar] that will include a discussion of life and, perhaps, incorporate Life in the title of the section. The following topics and ideas will be included:
Every entity or system is – as it is – in mutual adaptation with its environment. The entities and systems under consideration may be elementary particles, galaxies, solar systems, suns, bacteria, animals, organs… The environment of a system or entity includes all other systems or entities with which the original system or entity interacts [and with which it can enter into interaction?] The fact that I may identify my environment as including other human beings and animals rather than a set of eyes, arms, legs, organs and so on will have to do with the level of description and interest. Adaptation does not necessarily include any notion of perfection
As I have noted elsewhere, the idea of evolution is [among other things] an organizing principle: considering the environment as it is, evolution [along with the idea of common origins] gives us understanding of the environment and its various systems
To what degree can a considered account of mutual adaptation give understanding? In the account, adaptation will replace “evolution” and mutual interaction will replace “common origins.” The purpose of such an account is not to eliminate evolution or common origins as principles of understanding but to enhance understanding with additional principles. The account may be useful in providing an additional way of seeing; a way to avoid using the term “evolution” and its problematic connotations; and, therefore, a way of justifying evolution – since / if evolution and adaptation provide the same results. Regardless, it seems to me that a complete adaptational account will require reference to all characters: physiological, behavioral, mental, molecular and to all levels of grouping: particle – molecule, tissue and cell, organ, system, individual, group, species… and, likely, in the end, will require introduction of an ordering parameter that will be the basis of comparison of the different characters and groupings and that will turn out to be [equivalent to] time and the groupings along the axis of the ordering parameter will be not other than those found in the evolutionary series
The section will be the representative of Evolution and Design and Evolution, Design and the Absolute in Journey in Being
Whereas the section on human life emphasizes the physical and biological, this section emphasizes experience or psychology and society
Sociology
Social groups and peoples, society as community, populations, distributions and nations
Culture and its components; symbol and communication – language and languages of the world, names, speech and writing
Social organization and change
…and basis in the nature of human being… and the world i.e. In freedom and limitation
Political philosophy, political theory and institutions
Relationship between individual aspiration and freedom and society
Also see Technology; Machines
While these eight topics deserve separate treatment from the human centered view, they are properly placed here from a metaphysical-cosmological perspective
The reasons for placement here are [1] to include a brief treatment of the most basic fundamentals and the logic of their place within cosmology and metaphysics – this rounds out the metaphysics and is suggestive for it; [2] as part of the intent to show where the various elements of an encyclopaedic formulation may be placed
Mind and Its Metaphysics will be placed at some point after the sections on being and on cosmology –tentatively, it will be the third topic of Division 1– and will contain all developments on mind and consciousness or experience. I will note that it is not necessary to refer to mind show how reference to experience [and, perhaps, will or attitude] is sufficient and how that might be an advantage in light of the history of counter-productive associations of the idea of mind e.g. mind as object, mind-body dualism; it will not be necessary, however, to eliminate the word “mind.” Additionally the treatment of mind will be enhanced by setting it in a categorial framework
This is well developed in Journey in Being, in the present document [including notes to be incorporated]
The interest is conceptual and not merely actual atomism; and the application here is to atomism in mental function
Wittgenstein wrote on this, especially in Tractacus Logico-Philosophicus
What are consequences of atomism versus anatomism? For and as inferred from
Neurological development
Integration in society and world
Add comments on atomism to §1.6.13.8 Item 3
In a continuum, every element may contain structure. Therefore, every element may have some time associated with it; and, every element may have interactions with other elements that are due to the structure of the element and require no interactivity pasted on in an ad hoc way
Every appearance of atomism can be the result of a continuum – as is known by analogy from the theory of eigenvalues [a particular case of which is the theory of vibrations in continuous media] and quantum mechanics. Similarly, cannot every appearance of anatomism be the result of an atomism? This is not clear for the essence of atomism is in two parts [1] discreteness which can be the manifestation of a continuum, and [2] the existence of a smallest material unit which stands in contradiction to anatomism. It is possible to give up [2] and conceive material reality as a system of particles where every particle has sub-particles
However, the continuum description seems to be most fundamental because, first, it requires no special assumption of sub-structure and, second, it is more general and includes atomistic descriptions and manifestations as a special case
Especially clarify the distinctions: continuum vs. discretum | atomism vs. anatomism vs. holism | and the nature of interaction
On reflection, the distinction between continuum and discrete distributions is false for an atom can be seen as a distribution with zero-density in places where the atom is not. Thus atomism per se is not a particularly enlightening or interesting hypothesis i.e. in a given phase-epoch of the universe it may turn out that there are true “atoms” i.e. indivisibles but that is a posteriori rather than a priori. If therefore, we think of atomism as the existence of possibly compound elements of matter there is no fundamental distinction between atomism and continuum for within each atom there may be sub-atoms
The existence of fields and laws is a form of holism co-existing with atoms. We thus begin to suspect and see the falseness of the distinctions noted above
Generally, in Journey in Being, any dependence on one form of the distinctions or on some mythology or on modern science or theoretical physics is, as far as general or universal considerations are concerned, only for purposes of illustration or for heuristic derivation of conclusions. The universal conclusions, however, are not dependent on the particular “assumptions” for they would go through without them. The easiest way to see this is from the falseness of the distinctions
§1.6.6.6 | 8.29.03: add comments on mind / body and atomism
Clarify the discussion as it stands especially with respect to its not being dependent on the completeness or completability of physics i.e. that the use of a hypothetical complete physics is an artifact of argument; add a comment to the effect that although the discussion emphasizes atomistic physics, it would go through in the more general material case of anatomism / continuum and even a holism
The purpose of the quotes is that I want to talk about the possibility and values of such elimination and that we will find that after all it is not necessary to eliminate the word provided that certain misuses are avoided. It is also interesting to show how, theoretically, the concept may be eliminated even though such elimination does not at all mean that mind does not exist. The value of considering such elimination is that it sheds light on: the nature of mind, certain [egregious] errors – especially the dualistic cut in the chain of relationship and causation – that arise from the use of ‘mind,’ the relationship between / root identity of mind and matter