Journey in being—powerpoint presentation
Anil Mitra, © 2008
CONTENTS
Ideas as the place of appreciation of being—of our being, of the world…
Ideas as the instrument of negotiation
Incompleteness of ideas as expression of possibilities and potentials of being
Identity. Transformation of being—of identity—completes realization
The finite, the here-now is important—in itself and instrumentally
In the finite there are Normal but not ultimate limits
The boundary between the finite and the infinite is not absolute
The Journey is in and bridges the finite and the infinite or ultimate
We are already in and remain in being…
The outer reach of a journey in being
Possibility. What is possible for human being, for the individual?
The Good. What ends are desirable, aesthetic, ethical?
Feasibility. What is feasible?
Paths. What ways may we conceive, choose?
Journey—the way from the immediate to the ultimate—transformation in ideas-identity
Being—what is or exists… key to the way when immediate-ultimate distinctions are abstracted—to a ‘new’ and ultimate view of the Universe
Any view or metaphysics is unlikely to be entirely new. Aspects of the present view have been seen before. What is new consists—in addition to some novel features—in the choice of elements that are put together, the logic that binds them, the demonstration of the view and of its ultimate character, of the development and application of the view, and of the extent of domains of previous thought and action that are included in it and illuminated by it
These domains include philosophy—metaphysics, logic, theory of objects, ethics; science and mathematics; the study of human being and society; and faith and religion
The view that is developed is a picture of the nature of being and of the magnitude and variety of the Universe (use of capitalization is explained later.) I.e., it is a metaphysics and a cosmology
The view is ultimate and novel. There can be no greater view; in its outline the view is equal to the general features of the Universe which is revealed in its greatest and hitherto at most vaguely seen aspect; therefore, there is no need for a greater view. Although there are intimations of this view in the history of ideas, the following are novel: (a) the variety of elements that are subsumed and the coherence of their arrangement and connection, (b) that the view is demonstrated and not in the least posited in terms of premise or axiom, (c) that—simultaneously—the concept and method of demonstration are developed, and (d) the—demonstrated—finiteness and ultimate character of the depth of the view, and the demonstrated infinite variety of being revealed by it
Later it is seen that meaning varies according to context. Therefore the meanings of many terms, even common ones, depend on world view, context or metaphysics
The important terms of the discussion include being—the more important concepts are italicized, journey, existence, idea, transformation, foundation, intuition, object, experience, concept, percept, reason, reference, abstraction, universe, possibility, actuality, necessity, logic, substance, determinism, metaphysics, philosophy, rationality, depth and breadth of understanding, method, form, particular object, abstract object, grammar, meaning, mechanism, causation, human being, society, culture, institution, civilization, faith, religion, science, knowledge, ideational form, and dynamics of being
Many of these terms have multiple common uses and within each general use may have shades of meaning
However, on account of the fact that the metaphysics developed here is ultimate and novel, almost every term assumes a new meaning. Consider abstraction which is occurs when only those features of a concept are ‘abstracted’ that make the concept necessarily faithful. Thus the result of abstraction is not abstract and is strictly empirical andor Logical
Special uses of Capitalization here are (1) to indicate a meaning as used here and (2) the immanent form of a concept. Since these two uses coincide to a large degree the dual special use of capitalization is not inconsistent
The new and ultimate meanings of terms may give audiences difficulties, first, in distinguishing the present from common meanings and, second, in recognizing that an ultimate meaning is employed. The scheme of Capitalization will assist the audience in the crucial task of paying attention to the present meanings
It is not unexpected that the view may appear to clash with scientific and common views of the world. However, provided that ‘scientific’ and ‘common’ are adequately understood, there is no clash; in fact, with these provisos, the scientific and the common are—shown to be—necessary
Although there are criticisms of science, the function of these criticisms includes showing the place of science and not rejection of it. There is no anti-scientific intent or sentiment to the present work. A critical view is an understanding; it shows truths and limits. Provided that it is understood that the understanding of the nature and method of science may evolve andor capable of alternate interpretation, it is revealed that the final ideal form of understanding may be that of Science—distinguished from present science by capitalization
What is shown here is that the only Law—Laws—of the Universe is Logic. This is to be understood with the proviso that it amounts to a concept or definition of Logic whose specification is to emerge rather than to be posited at outset—hence the capitalization that distinguishes the present concept, Logic, from logic and the classical logics. Two difficulties of understanding arise immediately. First, is the traditional view of logic being rejected? No—what is valid in logic and the traditional logics lie within Logic. A second difficulty is that if the only Law regarding what obtains is that of Logic does this not imply that the Universe is infinitely more varied than as understood, for example, in modern theoretical physics? The answer is ‘yes.’ For those for whom modern physics defines the universe there may be a clash of the view from physics with the view from Logic. This clash or jar of views has been experienced by the author
The resolution of the apparent clash is via the—introduced—concept of the Normal. Given Logic, it emerges as necessary that there are contexts or domains such as the local cosmological system that may be labeled Normal domains and that have Normal behavior. The apparent physical necessities, then, are Normal or very probable; the apparent physical impossibilities are very improbable
The progression from the Normal to the Logic-al view is analogous to progress in science. In the transition from Newton’s mechanics to Einstein’s theory of gravitation—general relativity—the very concepts, e.g. of space and time and matter are changed and the large scale behavior of the universe is vastly different. However, Newton’s mechanics had been vastly successful within its own domain of validity. The newer theory is able to show the limits and the reasons for the limits of the older and, naturally, there is excellent agreement between the two theories within the domain of validity of the older theory. The view from Logic is in agreement with the Normal view in the latter’s domains of validity; however, outside the Normal, the Universe as revealed by Logic is vastly different than it would be according to the Normal—including modern science
The audience may find the explanation from the Normal to be plausible but not necessary
The following are demonstrated. (1) The Law of the Universe is Logic. (2) The existence of Normal domains including that of this cosmos is necessary
This world, this cosmos—i.e., our world, our cosmos—are Normal concepts
Additionally, the nature of ‘demonstration’ is clarified, grounded and advanced. Since a system of thought cannot found itself it is often thought that no absolute foundations are possible. However this is the foundational fallacy—the idea that only thought can found thought. A founding or grounding in—our—being is demonstrated or shown
Although the present view is ultimate, it is shown, e.g. via the Normal, to necessarily harbor the immediate and the necessary connection between the immediate and the ultimate
From an instrumental view, ideas are means. Transformation in being-identity, without which ideas are seeds, is—essential to— journey
Ideas are essential in conceiving, mapping and appreciating the journey (being.) There is normal but no ultimate distinction between idea and identity
General—meaning which includes understanding and significance; transformation of being and identity; state of the world, analysis, value, choice, charismatic and rational influence and action
Technical—the natural and social sciences; an understanding of technology, the arts, history and religion; philosophy and its nature, meta-disciplinary studies e.g. ‘What is philosophy’ and “What is the nature of questions such as ‘What is philosophy?’?,” metaphysics, study of the meta-Object, and the theory of transformation; symbolic studies, logic and mathematics; desirability, feasibility, choice, design—planning—and action
What influence do I want to have?
The influence of resonance—of selective listening, understanding and use… not copying
The ideas present a system of understanding of the Universe and, simultaneously, a method of that understanding
Naturally and inevitably both system and method inherit much from tradition. In fact one aspect of the central concept of Intuition is the—more or less obvious—point that the certain abilities are significantly innate and non conscious, i.e. pre-reflective. These include the ability to see in terms of common categories such as space, time and cause and to think in terms of images and language. That the abilities have some innateness, i.e. that the innateness is a template, allows both biological development and ‘nurture’ which is not merely passive enculturation but includes development that results from the exercise and incidental as well as intentional and reflexive nurture of the abilities. The fact of non-consciousness refers to the ability and not the exercise of the ability—the development of the ability is significantly outside our control; the exercise of the ability lies on the boundary between control and autonomy; and the content may lie on the conscious-unconscious continuum
Although much is inherited, both method and understanding have been developed. The development is ultimate in ways that are described in what follows
The foundation for the system of ideas occupies much of the sections Intuition through Objects. The development of method is interwoven with content but is encapsulated and consolidated in Method. The dual development starts with an analysis of the idea of Intuition which is, roughly, the cognitive-affective apparatus with which we negotiate the world. There is discussion of the ‘limits’ of Intuition. Since ‘objects’ as experienced are at least partly the result or creation of intuition it is not given in advance what the meaning or significance of limits and faithfulness may be
With the broadest meaning of Intuition that is used here, there is no getting out of it and it is therefore not clear that ‘limit’ has the common interpretation of error or deficiency. Perhaps ‘limits’ can be transcended and the process of transcendence is one of vital and intrinsic significance in living. This point is clarified and affirmed in the development and it is important that the meaning and nature of limit and transcendence be carefully thought out and understood
The fact that we do not get outside of Intuition means that there no external mooring or foundation for understanding. It was suggested in the previous paragraph that this is a source of opportunity and adventure. The lack of external mooring does not mean an absence of foundation. The fact of our ability to negotiate the world, i.e. of a degree of adaptation implies that the Intuition has some validity even if it is only implicit
Analysis of Intuition will allow the construction of a foundation for understanding that has some ultimate characteristics. The understanding will take the form of an ultimate ‘Universal metaphysics.’ The ultimate character lies in the facts that no actual Object of the universe lies outside its scope, that the explanatory system is finite, and that the foundation is absolutely demonstrated. Thus the foundation is ultimate in breadth, depth and necessity. It will be seen that the foundation is explicit with regard to depth and necessity but implicit with regard to breadth. I.e., even though every actual Object lies within its scope, the system does and can not generate a description of all Objects… which—if living in a Universe of ever-freshness is a value—is good
While a preliminary variety of Objects is developed together with the understanding of Objects, variety is taken up in detail in Cosmology and Normal worlds
The Journey is one of transformation in Ideas and in Being-Identity—from the immediate or contingent or Normal world to the ultimate world of the Metaphysics through Cosmology
The purposes of this section include (1) displaying the structure of some aspects of the arguments, (2) improving the flow of the main discussion
The main text will have fundamental as well as some minor objections
These are important topics to which a contribution has been—is felt to have been—made. This contribution, however, is secondary primary objective of transformation in Ideas and Identity. Primary contributions that are immanent in the developments are not emphasized in this section. The contributions include (1) the nature of metaphysics and philosophy, (2) the problems of metaphysics—illumination and resolution of the famous problems as well as new problems and resolutions, and (3) a system of knowledge in light of the new metaphysics
Primary contributions that are immanent in the developments are not emphasized here
The purpose of the section is to show the contributions and the power of the new metaphysics
The body, this section and Journey, will contain (1) Illuminating comments, (2) Theorems—propositions—and hypotheses, and (3) Truths
The idea of Intuition used here begins, roughly, with that of Kant and is enhanced to all cognition-affect
Introduction of the compound term ‘cognition-affect’ is explained later and, with greater detail, in the essays—Home
a. Intuition is the sum of the individual’s capabilities to know and relate to self and world. The Intuition includes feeling, iconic, and symbolic capabilities
Although we have the ability to see in terms of space, time, and causation, an explicit analysis of the ability is difficult if at all possible. Although such perception is conscious, the perception is presented in consciousness and its formation is not conscious or constructed out of symbols. Rather, the perception remains at an iconic level (which is not at all to say that an analytic-symbolic superstructure cannot be integrated with or implicitly subsume the structure of the iconic.) The perception is, on analogy with computation, ‘hardware’ and the symbolic analysis is ‘software.’ The analogy is of course very rough for it is not the case regarding cognition (let alone cognition-affect) that there are but two layers ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ or that the continuum of layering is decomposable
In Kant’s time Euclid’s geometry and Newton’s mechanics were regarded as the final description of space, time and causation. Therefore, Kant held that the Intuition, even though it is capable of improved precision, concerned—is of—the very nature of the world
The later development of science showed (1) profound limitations to the picture of the world revealed by the Euclidean-Newtonian science of Kant’s time and suggested strongly that (2) no scientific picture so far may be taken as final
It is sometimes thought that the progression of science has revealed that no scientific picture can be final. Although the likelihood of a final picture may be questioned, what is truly in doubt is how such finality might be demonstrated. This doubt was emphasized by Hume’s thought. The analysis of the present development shows directions—which directions are not subject to Hume’s critique—in which finality is actual and is demonstrated. One aspect of seeing the necessity of the various necessary claims that follow is that they are not subject to Hume’s critique
Kant’s analysis of Intuition remains fundamental in showing that what faithfulness Intuition has is part of our constitution without regard to analysis of it. We now know that the source of Intuition is adaptation (which does not require evolution even though we may think that Darwinian evolution and development constitute by far the most reasonable explanation of it)
Human knowledge may start with Kant’s Intuition but this is built upon by symbolic analysis. However, the capacity for such analysis is itself Intuitive although the area of intuition is not identical to that of the more ‘primitive’ intuition, e.g. of space-time-cause
b. The Intuition is sometimes regarded as restricted to the innate or partially innate pre-conscious capabilities that make possible the more or less conscious categories of the world, i.e. space, time, cause… Since there is no getting outside of these capabilities, at least in their own terms, they have no intrinsic but explicit measure or meaning of faithfulness. It may be thought that there is some getting outside in science or by symbolic means. The precision of some areas of science and the discrete character of the symbol lend to the idea of a getting outside of the nature of knowing. However, there is no a priori reason to suppose that relations among symbol systems (e.g. logic) precisely mirror Object (world) relations. Therefore, symbolic knowing (including logic) is also assigned to Intuition. (Limits and the nature of such limits of science are discussed later)
Here, then, we think of the extension of Kant’s Intuition by symbolic analysis (language…) as Intuition. We do so because symbol and icon have common origins and because the assignment of absolute character to the symbol lies in Intuition. Although there may be some ways in which symbol transcends the limits of the icon, there is no universal way and what ways there are should be demonstrated and do not lie in the final nature of the symbol even though the assigned discrete character of the symbol and the development of logic encourage a view of universal transcendence of icon by symbol… Then, Rationality refers to the processes we have available to us for the valid development of understanding. Rationality will initially refer to reasons that are valid (a) on the observation side, i.e. empirical and (b) on the symbolic side, i.e. logical
Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason included an extension of his concept of intuition by symbolic analysis. This was to have been the perfect analysis of the perfect object of—Kant’s concept of—intuition. We will find logic to be empirical, as later logicians found, logic to also be limited
However, we will find directions in which there are perfect objects of perception and Logic. These will frame the Universal or ultimate metaphysics that will be developed below which will, in turn, frame the analysis of contingent or Normal objects and worlds
There is a ground level at which the organism is bound to the environment in primitive action. We will see later that this and even lower levels involve a primitive intuition—that will involve an extension of the concept of intuition
Idea and action in interaction—higher level experience but not of the Object
At a ‘higher’ level there is Intuition of Objects, i.e. there is the concept of the Object. Faithfulness, such as there is, may be implicit
Intuition of the Object shows the Object but is not necessary for it
There is no final external measure faithfulness or final meaning of explicit faithfulness. However, adaptation—ability to negotiate the world—implies at least partial faithfulness
There is a sense in which we do not ever get completely outside Intuition to be able to verify its faithfulness—this raises the question of the meaning of faithfulness and suggests that, in general, there is no final measure or meaning to it. There is no a priori reason to suppose that even logic is capable absolute faithfulness
However, adaptation implies that Intuition must have sufficient if implicit faithfulness. We will see that, in general, there is a sense and value in terms of which sufficient faithfulness defines the objects of our world. These general considerations do not imply that there can be no areas of high precision. Physical science is an area of high precision
c. We will explore and find directions of limited faithfulness and of limitlessness. There are some areas in which faithfulness can be given absolute meaning. These directions will form, roughly, a metaphysical framework for the entire enterprise of Intuition
Some absolute Logical limits will be found; note, though, the distinction between Logic and logic that will be developed later. The contingent or Normal limits may be negotiated and it is herein lies adventure
d. All Intuition has an Object
The purposes to the introduction of this assertion, its meaning and significance are roughly those of the corresponding statement for experience in what follows
…from the presentation slides
How we experience the world, e.g. in terms of space and time and cause and properties, occurs outside experience
Why we see in certain terms—space and time, red versus blue and so on—may be explained by adaptation
That we see in such terms has been labeled ‘Intuition’
We understand the world in certain terms but it does not follow that we understand the understanding; therefore the terms in which we see the world are appropriately labeled Intuition
This sense of Intuition was used by Immanuel Kant (philosopher, 1724-1804)
In this sense, Intuition is the ability to perceive and concerns subjective experience of and is ‘bound’ to things
Reasoning regarding things involves free images and symbols
Detail for the notes on Intuition …with comments on meaning
‘Intuition’ has a variety of meanings or uses
A term, e.g. Intuition, may have, in use, a single core meaning or, alternatively two or more core meanings. The core meanings may be closely or loosely related… or even unrelated. The lack of relation may be due to divergence of related meaning or ‘convergence’ of signs of unrelated ideas
Often when there is debate about the meaning of a word, such debate carries on at a futile level because different core ideas are being compared at cross purposes. What is required, then, is, first, recognition of what is happening and, second, separation out of core ideas which are the real focus. Because use and definition remain meshed, this separation out is not always going to be a clean process brought to termination. However, having a framing system of thought is a context in which such separation can be done. If the framework should happen to represent reality or a portion or abstract of it then precision of meaning may be possible for the relevant domain. As will be seen, the ‘Universal metaphysics’ is perfect for an abstract of the entire Universe. Here, it should be noted ‘abstract’ refers to empirical knowledge of general features and not a removed concept of all features
The core sense of Intuition here is touched by the idea of knowledge that precedes analysis, e.g. the Intuition of space, time, and cause. Even though the Intuition of space, time and cause is distinct from the idea of intuition of events occurring without clear and direct knowledge of them (due perhaps to the presence of knowledge of features at a sub-conscious level) the two uses are related in being cases of knowing whose process is not wholly within consciousness
Kant may have used Intuition as, roughly, perception and not reason under the idea that reason is explicit and has a precise and perfect symbolic foundation at least in logic. However, as we have seen, even the foundation in logic is not perfect, logic is synthetic and not entirely analytic and even logic lies in Intuition. Therefore, the approach here is to regard the entire scope and mechanism of human knowledge as lying in Intuition and to ask what portions, if any, of this scope is perfectly faithful
Here the meaning of Intuition is extended to cover perception and reasoning
Conception—having mental content—is perception and reasoning. Then:
Intuition is the ‘faculty of conception’ or, in modern terms, ‘the ability to have conceptions’
Perception—the empirical side of Intuition—is perfect for the simple objects being, all being, and absence of being
The reasoning or thought side of Intuition has been held perfect for logic. However, logic itself is experimental
A new concept ‘Logic’ will be found to be perfect logic—non-empty and powerful
Thus far Intuition is the dual that is roughly perception and reason
Perception is bound to the Object; reason is free and occurs via recollection as icons and symbols
Alternately expressed, reason is remotely or loosely bound—even pure experience has a remote and a potential Object
The origin of—the capacity—reason is in perception
Though Normally bound, even perception has freedom—this freedom is not fundamentally pathological but lies in the nature of being (see Metaphysics)
Perception and reason constitute an original unity
This unity also lies within Experience
e. The necessary aspects of Intuition—perfect perception of the simple objects and Logic are the two pillars of an ultimate metaphysics… that lies within intuition
f. This metaphysics is foundation for the depth and variety of being and, with particular disciplines—e.g. the sciences, understanding of specific areas of being
The sciences do not—initially—lie within Intuition. However, the possibility of science lies within Intuition and, as will be seen in Metaphysics, the sciences have a mode of necessity whose character will be developed
g. ‘Experience’ is the subject side of Intuition. ‘Experience’ connects our being to being. These thoughts emerge as truth in what follows
Experience may be characterized as what is felt when there is awareness—this is the meaning of ‘experience’ as used here. This meaning is used extensively in the study of mind. In the following, the audience should exclude all other meanings of ‘experience’ except when they are explicitly used
In the subjective awareness of a shape, a quality such as fragrance, a thought, an emotion, an intention to act, and in the feeling of one’s body in motion—in all these there is feeling—primitive and compound, iconic or distanced from the object—symbolic, bound as in perception and free as in thought whose icons and symbols are, roughly, ‘memory traces’… In the present sense, experience is synonymous with feeling
h. All experience has an object
Exceptions—pure experience. The Objects of pure experience may be seen as a potential Objects. However, it will be seen in Metaphysics that every experience has an Object
Objection—solipsism—the idea that experience alone exists. Response—see the section on Objections and counterarguments—Experience and existence—for this and further objections
The concept of an Object is the sum of experience of it—enhanced by the capacities of experience
Since we never get fully outside Intuition or experience, the concept defines the Object. Except when the distinction is significant, e.g. when attempting to understand the nature of Objects, it is convenient and valid to conflate concept and Object.
While we read law and form as concepts, what is read, Law and Form are Object-like and are immanent in being. Later, Law and Form may be seen as Objects
Critical objection—since we never get outside experience, the meaning of faithfulness is in question. Response. Adaptation—that we negotiate the world with some success—implies that there is at least partial and sufficient though implicit faithfulness and, further, that there is no universal logical wanting or desire of anything beyond this. In fact, of course, there are common and scientific cases of ‘extreme’ accuracy. The discussion is taken up again in Experience
Since the foregoing is a very condensed form of Kant’s argument—and includes both perception and thought—such Objects may be called ‘Kantian’ or Intuitive
Intuitive (Kantian) Objects include the cases of concept in inseparable interaction with process and ‘immersion’
Exception—illusion, hallucination and delusion. These cases may be subsumed under—group—process and trial and error
We will see in Metaphysics that, despite reservations associated with subsumption under process, there are immensely important cases of absolute faithfulness—the necessary Objects. The necessary Objects are also Intuitive; to distinguish those Intuitive Objects that are not necessary; they will be called Contingent Intuitive or, simply, Contingent—or Normal
While the necessary Objects are important, most Objects of our world that we deal with on a practical and day to day basis are Normal. While these cannot be absolutely faithful, they may be sufficiently faithful. It is necessarily the case, from adaptation, that there are sufficiently faithful Normal Objects. It is revealed in Metaphysics, that this practical necessity lies within Logical necessity. The sufficiently faithful Normal Objects include cases high precision as in common perception and action and immense precision as in physical science
That is, whatever the limitations of experience, intuition and the Intuitive Objects, there are very significant ways above in which these limits are peripheral to our being and other very significant ways that follow in which the limits are absolutely overcome
With regard to faithfulness, Objects are either necessary or Normal. Later it is seen that the Normal Objects have a kind of necessity but not in the immediate way of the necessary Objects
Exception—contradiction. The problem of contradiction is taken up briefly in the discussion immediately below and in detail in subsequent discussions, Objects and On Logic… The problem of contradiction, i.e. of Logic, is already implicitly though incompletely accounted for in symbolic and iconic Intuition. Consequently, concerns about contradiction need not cast their neurotic shadow on every practical moment. However, Intuition is not at all a priori complete with regard to Logical concerns and therefore Logic and the logics are topics of importance to be taken up subsequently
Although illusory ‘Objects’ do not exist in this cosmological system, it will be seen later that every consistent concept has an Object
For the Object of reference to lie in a specific context, every ‘atom’ of the concept should have reference in the same context. If all such atoms have reference in a context, the concept has reference in that context
Experience in itself exists—as demonstration of the existence of Objects of experience this is of course ‘sophistry’ even though true (since, as will be seen, experience is capable of being its own object)
The Object of the concept exists. Applicable objections, especially solipsism, are stated above and resolved as noted
The Object is Capitalized. Capitalization at the beginning of a sentence is shown by an altered font. Capitalization is also used for Special Meanings. Since, as will be seen, such special meanings are often ultimate, the two uses of Capitalization are mostly consistent. It is not necessary to be entirely consistent about this use or to maintain it invariably
Objection. Various concerns regarding ‘existence.’ These objections, some well known, are stated and resolved in Objections and counterarguments—Experience and existence
i. Thus existence is a proper concept; there is existence
From the discussion of the Objections, it is seen that the proof lies in what is given in experience and analysis of the name ‘existence.’ This ‘proves’ by example the possibility of Demonstration—proof that requires no unproven axiom. This concept is further developed below
Since we never get outside experience, the idea of precise and final lexical meaning is without ‘meaning.’ Meaning incorporates Intuitive—Normal—and implicit as well as necessary and explicit objectivity; this means that meaning has no final mooring in general; however, this is good for that is the way it is and stands at the beginning of and allows discovery; and, it shows, that meaning is already empirical
j. Being—that which has existence in its entirety. There is being
See Objections and counterarguments—Being—for observations, objections and responses
Description may be local or over all space and time. Since space and time or space-time may perhaps not be the only ‘coordinates’ of difference, we use the distinction global versus local (rather than spatio-temporal.) It is not at all clear that there is a universal coordination. Thus description may be patchy, i.e., limited with respect to large and small
The words ‘is,’ ‘exist,’ and ‘being’ may be used globally andor locally
‘Metaphysics’ has rough meanings as (1) the study or science of existence, and (2) as the study of the occult. Here, it is the first meaning that is used
In the present development, ‘method’ emerges in parallel with ‘content.’ It is found that this is necessary in that method and content are fundamentally related. It is consistent with this finding to allow the precise sense and subject matter of metaphysics to emerge rather than attempt to make specifications at outset
k. The metaphysics that is developed, the Universal metaphysics or Metaphysics of immanence is demonstrated below to be ultimate in depth and breadth
The senses of ‘depth’ and ‘breadth’ will emerge as part of the development
l. Being—existence—is a necessary Object
Consider ‘all being.’ If this refers to ‘everything’ in all its details, it is not empirically known. However, if ‘all being’ abstracts all distinction, it is empirical and, trivially, precisely known
m. Therefore, all being is a necessary Object
Similarly, difference and therefore part or domain is necessary
Since complement is defined in terms of domain, complement is necessary
n. Here, we see the dual origin of empiric-logic (sense and symbol) which will receive completion below in consequence of the fundamental principle to be established under Void
The dual use of sense and symbol lies in Intuition; however, since sense and symbol have common origin the use is unitary. Since the use here is valid it is Rational
The Universe is all being, i.e. all that exists
o. The Universe exists; there is exactly one Universe; the Universe has no Creator; the Universe contains all Objects—all Ideas, all Forms, all Laws, and all Creators
A God that created the Universe makes no actual or explanatory sense
It will be seen later that Ideas, Forms, Laws are Objects
There is no measure of Possibility other than Actuality—whatever is Possible is Actual. The common concept of possibility is a local (contextual) concept that assumes another world, universe, or context. It is trivial that what is Actual is Possible
p. Therefore, the Possible and the Actual are identical
Note: Logic begins to be seen as immanent in the—idea of the—Universe
The Universe contains all actual ‘kinds.’ If there is mind then all mind is in the Universe. If there is matter, all matter is in the Universe
From the given character of experience, mind exists and is fundamental; the concept of mind starts with experience and not somewhere else. Some textbook examples study questions ‘what is mind’ beginning with a list of characteristics that appear to be ‘of mind.’ While that approach is not entirely useless, it is not especially useful. It is perhaps less than useful if the initial list is regarded uncritically. This narrative is not a textbook and the audience is not treated as caricature schoolchildren… Later, it is seen that all being may be associated with Mind—Mind is universal even though mind is not
The being of matter is a theoretical concern. This does not imply that matter does not exist but that precision is required regarding the term ‘matter.’ For example is there an Object of the concept of matter from modern physics? In the present cosmological system, that concept of matter defines an Intuitive object with great local precision. It does not follow that this precision extends to the Universe and we will see that it does not
There are no separate universes of matter, of mind or mental Objects, of Forms
We may talk as though there are separate worlds of actuality or matter, Form and Mind. However, there is exactly one world
There is one and only one Universe
This assertion is logical. The Universe will be later seen to be more than a merely logical unity
q. Universal space and time are coeval and relative (meaning is later given to ‘origin of space and time’)
Relative: immanent in rather than—absolute—framework for
It will be seen below that local space-times may be as if absolute even when fundamentally—i.e. in relation to the Universe—relative
‘Universal space’ refers to what spatiality there is in the Universe and the reference is not intended to suggest that this space is Universal in ‘extent’
There are domains
See Domain for details
Domains may create other domains
Creation, Form and Law may be imposed by one domain on another. Mind may be imported from one domain to another
A limited god may make actual and explanatory sense. This argument gives no support to a literal god of this cosmological system except perhaps to remove some sense of absurdity to such a god
Thinking metaphorically yet still concretely there is no reason to not think of the sun or the creation of the cosmos as god; and there is a legion of somewhat reasonable metaphorical interpretations of ‘god.’ It may be interesting though not a new idea to seek the essential psychological meaning of ‘god.’ However, the present development, especially that of the next section, Void, may give this line of thought a fresh slate
r. Local space-time may be absolute in relation to its region of immanence
The Void is the absence of being, i.e. the Void can contain no Object—no Idea, no Form, no Law
The Void is the complement of the Universe in itself. Therefore the Void exists
This proof and assertion constitute the cornerstone of the ultimate Universal metaphysics that is emerging and, therefore, scrutiny and criticism are paramount and considered together with various objections in Objections and counterarguments—Doubts about demonstration of the nature-existence of the Universe and the Void
s. The Void exists and contains no Objects—no Ideas, no Forms, no Laws
The system of understanding that is being developed is called the Universal metaphysics or Metaphysics of immanence
The ‘Universal’ character of the system lies in—the demonstration of—the results that the Actual Universe could not be larger than it is and that every Actual Object is at least implicit in it
The system is a Metaphysics of immanence in that it is not ‘entities’ that count as Objects but the Objects of the metaphysics include Form and Law—i.e., Form and Law are immanent in being as are what are called the abstract Objects. In some systems of thought the real is made of a number of worlds, e.g. the world of matter, a mental world, and a world of Platonic or ideal forms
In the system to be developed here there is exactly one world, one Universe. It may be useful to think as though there are distinct worlds; however, such thinking will be seen to be based on misunderstandings
The cornerstone of the emerging metaphysics is the fundamental principle of the Metaphysics of immanence
The principle will be the most important result of the metaphysics—it will be pivotal in showing the ultimate breadth and depth of the Metaphysics of immanence. The principle will be called the ‘fundamental principle’
If there is a consistent concept whose Object does not manifest, that is a Law of the Void. Therefore, the following preliminary statement—
Every consistent concept has an Object (fundamental principle)
‘Anything is possible’
That, of course, sounds absurd therefore consider, more precisely but still roughly, that all consistent concepts have Objects, i.e., subject to logical requirements there are no impossibilities. Conversely, inconsistent concepts have no reference or, alternatively, inconsistent concepts have empty reference
For doubts and responses see Objections and counterarguments—Formal problems concerning the fundamental principle and Adjusting the fundamental principle and its consequences to realism
t. Principle of reference—all consistent concepts and only consistent concepts have (non-empty) reference
The detailed essays——have some experiments with logics that suggested this principle and the importance of reference. The proof of the principle, however, was not at all dependent on the suggestive arguments
Provided that the concepts contain no contradiction, Intuitive Objects are necessary in this sense
u. The only restriction on actual states is that of Logic (final and most precise form of the fundamental principle)
This defines the concept of Logic—as distinct from logic and the logics
We saw earlier that the Universe contains all Objects
Concepts that violate Logic have no Object
Alternatively, the Object of a concept that violates Logic is the ‘zero’ Object
The Void is equivalently the absence of Objects and the system of zero Objects, i.e., the zero Object
With the extended meaning of Object, i.e. allowing the zero Object which is contrasted to actual Objects, the Universe contains all actual Objects
Even though the assertions ‘Concepts that violate Logic have no Object’ through the previous one appear to be little more than word play, they may turn out to have significance. In any case, the flexibility of thought cultivated in these assertions may be useful
It is of no consequence whether the Universe is regarded as containing or excluding the zero Object or the Void
Objection. Immense conclusions are made here from the concept of Logic. However, since ‘The one Law of the Universe’ or of all being defines Logic, how is it now possible to conclude anything at all from the ‘fact’ that Logic is the one Law of the Universe? Response. The motivation to the ‘definition’ was not definition per se, i.e. not the introduction of a new concept, but the possible contradictions arising from ‘the set of consistent statements…’ and the extension of Logic is at least some large set of consistent statements, i.e. the immanent and ultimate realization of the idea of logic
v. A principle of reference—a logic is a system or grammar that ensures that all sentences of the system have reference (or, in a context, be capable of reference)
The definition of the concept of Logic is implicit; it is the principle of reference that permits its realization as logic or logics. The principle of reference will be the measure of the principles of logic which include, for example, the principle of non-contradiction
w. The Objects and the Logic of the Universal metaphysics are both necessary consequences of the analysis of Intuition
Project. Develop this thought further
Objection. The following claims have been made. (1) The fundamental principle is derived from Intuition (experience.) (2) The Logic of the derivation is also derived from Intuition. Is it not circular that Logic can be so derived? Response. The kind of circularity in question is the derivation of logic from logic. There is no such circularity. However, there is a problem. It does seem absurd that Logic can be derived from an analysis of Intuition. This appears to contradict the later discussion of the bringing of logic from the realm of the absolute to the realm of the contingent or Normal. However, here a very simple logic is in question. The logic necessary for the developments above is the simple one of set inclusion, i.e. the sentence or propositional calculus. It is known that this logic is consistent and complete, i.e., it belongs to Logic. Now, another problem arises. Are not the Objects to which the sentence-Logic applies normal Objects? I.e. is there not uncertainty about their status as domains? No there is no uncertainty because their Object status has been established as necessary. When the Logic is applied to an arbitrary domain that seems to contain another, there may be doubt about the fact of containment but there is no doubt that there are containments and this is all that is necessary to the discussion for the conclusions that are being derived
x. A principle of reference—a logic is a system or grammar that ensures that all sentences of the system have reference (or, in a context, be capable of reference)
The definition of the concept of Logic is implicit; it is the principle of reference that permits its realization as logic or logics. The principle of reference will be the measure of the principles of logic which include, for example, the principle of non-contradiction
y. Cosmology begins in Logic—there are no fictions except Logical fictions
Subject to Logic, every fiction, every story, every myth, every scripture, every legend, every novel, every science, every imagination, every truth implicit in an affect or in a work of art, architecture or music is real
What is actual is necessary. This—our—cosmological system is necessary. Every individual is necessary; and their identities are necessary. The non-fictions include infinite recurrence of every limited domain; every part of the Universe may interact with every other part—stronger version of the unity of the Universe; Karma; ‘Jesus Christ rising from the dead’ occurs in countless cosmological systems—this does not at all imply its occurrence in this cosmos although it may remove some of the sense of absurdity surrounding the rising from the dead; the manifest Universe may be subject to annihilation at any time; the identities merge in Identity
Limited gods are necessary. This gives no support to the idea of a god of this cosmological system except that it shows that that idea is not absurd
z. The Universe must pass through both Void and manifest states—this explains why there is—must be—something rather than nothing which has been called (e.g. Heidegger) the fundamental problem. As will be seen, this implies that the fundamental problem of metaphysics is ‘What exists?’
There is no limit to the extent of the Universe. Objection. It should be equally true that there is a limit. Counterargument. The presence of a limit is a law; the absence of this limit is not
The fundamental principle and its consequences have the apparent absurdity that they violate common sense, science, and our common pictures of the universe
These appearances of absurdity are resolved in the concept of the Normal
There are contexts in which the possibilities of the real are limited and take on apparent necessity. These limited but apparently necessary ‘realities’ are Normal
aa. The Universe is one of limitless actuality. Contexts or cosmological systems in which behavior is apparently limited by ‘Laws’ such as the laws and theories of science are termed Normal
The behavior of this cosmological system is Normal
An explanation of Normal behavior is possible; see Mechanism below. However, explanation is not necessary
bb. The existence and necessity of Normal states follows from the fundamental principle
cc. The fundamental principle resolves its own apparent absurdity
The idea of the Normal in relation to science and this cosmological system casts serious contingent doubt on but is not a logical rejection of the idea of a god of this cosmos—at least in the literal interpretations of the standard scriptures (so far as they have internal consistency)
What is this cosmological system? What lies at the edge of its putative spatial boundary, at the edge of time, at the threshold of its very small? There is a positivism that answers ‘Nothing!’ However, the putative edges are the edges of our contingent or Normal sciences and even those sciences admit some warp in validity—some warp in space, and time and magnitude—that is a window beyond the putative boundary… which of course is required by the fundamental principle
Substance arises in the search for explanation—explanation of the complex in terms of the simple. The pertinent meaning of substance is that of substratum of the world or Universe
From simplicity, substance in this sense, must be simple—uniform and unchanging; and its manifestation as the world must be deterministic—else there is no explanation; finally, substance must be of the world—else it is mysterious rather than simple
dd. Clearly, from the fundamental principle, the Universe is not merely indeterministic but absolutely indeterministic—all states are accessed from every state. Substance, therefore, is untenable but also unnecessary
ee. Substance and determinism would be explanatory duals. If substance were tenable, determinism would be its explanatory dual. Each is empty without the other. Together, however, they crumble
Heidegger’s critique of substance metaphysics stopped short at critique of determinism
The Void or any state fills the ‘void’ created by the denial of substance. However, on account of indeterminism, the Void is not substance in the classic sense (above.) Yet, the following is shown
The emerging Universal metaphysics is a non-relativist metaphysics, i.e. it is founded in a terminating scheme of explanation (the Void.) However, this is accomplished without substance—in contradiction to the strong tradition of thought that only a substance metaphysics can have a foundation, i.e. a terminating system of explanation
I.e. the Universal metaphysics is ultimate with regard to depth in that it provides a Rational (empirical-logical) foundation for being in being itself, i.e. without substance or need for substance. That is the depth lies in ‘superficiality.’ In a sense this is not a true depth but a clearing away of confusion regarding depth explanation
The metaphysics is ultimate in breadth in that its Object contains every Object; the breadth is implicit in that this does not imply that the metaphysics can be used to specify every Actuality
ff. The Universal metaphysics is a non-relativist metaphysics of ultimate depth and breadth
The Rational system began with primitive experience. It is completed in the demonstration of the ultimate character of the system
Form is immanent in being and requires no explanation—there is, however, explanation of Form in Mechanism, below
Normal laws that are not Logical are ‘contingent’ or at most very probable in some contexts. Similarly the contingently or Normally impossible is at most very improbable or infeasible in certain contexts
gg. The only limits are Logical limits. The Logically impossible is the only true impossibility and, in the Universe, the only non-Actuality
Our ‘common reality’ including science and even logic may be experienced as necessary; this, however, is a Normal necessity; i.e., it is very probable. The necessity of Logic, however, is absolute
The theory of objects is implicitly established. It remains to make the theory explicit, to re-verify and elaborate it
The development so far has identified necessary and Normal or strictly Intuitive Objects
Form is an object. Entities are Objects and may be thought of as ‘concrete’
Since every concept has reference, process and relationship are Objects
Being, Universe, mode of Difference (space, time, other,) Domain, the Void are necessary Objects
Entities are the prototype for Objects. In classical thought a property such as redness was contrasted from a red Object. While the red Object is particular, redness is common to all red Objects and therefore a Universal. A Universal is, at least intuitively, rather abstract. This is a source of the particular / abstract distinction. Entities are the prototype for particular Objects and thus, Universe, Domain, complement, Void are necessary particular Objects
Do mathematical, logical, and ethical ideas define Objects? Since number, for example, is not apparently in the actual world, such objects are thought to be abstract—if they are Objects at all. The abstractness lies in their conceptual and apparently intangible insensible qualities; in that they do not appear to lie in space, in that they appear to be timeless
hh. Since every consistent concept must have reference, the distinction between particular or concrete and abstract objects breaks down, i.e., while there may be distinctions such as partial and full (Objects,) and genera and instance, there is no categorial distinction of particular and abstract
The reference of number, for example, may be taken to be an aspect of what is common to classes of entities
Character of particular and abstract Objects. What is called ‘particular’ is suited to empirical study; what is called ‘abstract’ is suited to symbolic study
Number and Euclidean Geometry, for example, begin as study of particular objects, i.e. early in their history or intuitive pre-history, but it is then found that they are most powerfully amenable to study in symbolic terms—they ‘become’ abstract; the non-absoluteness of the distinction is underlined by the bringing back of mathematics into the semi-empirical domain by the computer assisted proof of a number of fundamental theorems. Logic is an Object; that is, Logic is defined by the principle of reference
These reflections make analysis easier by clarifying the conceptual side of various abstract mathematical and logical objects; however empirical problems remain regarding, for example, actual infinities and the meanings of actual infinities… and other abstract concepts
This shows that abstract objects do not exist outside space (or time) but, rather, that their being in or outside extension is, according to the case, partly or totally irrelevant to their being. Similarly, the immanence of reference shows that abstract objects are not characteristically intangible. It is only the incomplete prior understanding of abstract objects that renders them apparently intangible and apparently not resident in space (or time)
Sources of abstract character. Mathematical Objects are those whose form is simple enough to be capable of symbolic study and sufficiently universal to be usefully applicable. It is sometimes thought that mathematical proficiency is a fortuitous result of other proficiencies that are adaptive. It is not clear that this is altogether true, first, because, as the principle of reference reveals, mathematical and physical intuition are not disjoint and, second, especially though hypothetically in that even though mathematical ability is not universal it may have been selected for in cultural adaptation. Universals have an abstract character in that they are generalizations of aspects of particulars; in fact, universals now appear to be a cross of particular and abstract aspects. Values are abstract in that they are not present actual Objects but preferred potential Objects whose preference is determined by some combination of adaptation, adapted-ness, and intuition-symbolic process
Being, the Universe, Difference, the modes of difference, Domain, Complement, Entity-Process, the Void… are particular objects. Relation, property, form, mathematical objects, value, morals, ethics, truth… may be regarded as abstract; however, even in abstractness the abstract have an aspect of the particular, e.g., the particular relation. An Entity as entity—as distinct from entity-process—is abstract. The Jesus Christ of this earth is particular; but this particular defines a recurrent particular Object that is also an abstract Object that may also be called ‘Jesus Christ’
Every particular Object defines a variety of abstract Objects. The set of all identical Objects recurrent over space at a particular time is abstract; this abstract Object may have temporal features. The set of identical Objects recurrent over all extension and duration is another abstract Object. This Object may be thought of as atemporal or, perhaps more precisely, as one that is not atemporal but one whose temporal features are not of any relevance to its nature
Although a simple emotion may be seen as referring to the body, its Object may be regarded as an action or the outcome of action. An emotion may be experienced as vague; however, if the outcome is a simple polar continuum such as move closer or further away, then the emotional Object may be regarded as capable of precision. Whether this line of development is interesting is left for development. More interesting and even profound is interaction between cognition and low level emotional-feeling in which cognition without feeling is empty even if present and emotion is a function also of cognition is developed in the detailed essays—Home
ii. The Object emerges as perhaps the fundamental concept…
The foregoing thoughts show the immense and profound depth of the fundamental principle
The logics and what is constant in grammar may be seen as the requirements on concepts (including conceptual systems) in order for them to have the possibility of reference and no impossible reference (and therefore actual reference)
Thus Logic and Grammar have meaning
The ultimate depth of the metaphysics shows final meaning of the associated necessary terms. Experience with the system shows that even in this final case, ‘meaning’ can be distributed in various ways among the terms
In the implicit breadth there is of course flux of meaning without finality—this infinite flexibility lies within the final meaning described above
Generally, meaning is immanent in use-in-context; even lexical meaning lies in system and not words alone; the system of meaning and therefore particular meanings is