The development of the way begins dually with imagination and criticism. In reading the literature, in imagination, in attempting to understand the world, imagination and criticism have stood in balance, neither dominating the other.

Though arbitrary or ad hoc certainty is generally rejected (i) it would be dogma to reject certainty where it may be found (ii) we do find directions of both certainty and uncertainty (iii), yet we maintain doubt (in balance with doubt about doubt).

Readers are encouraged to read and understand the way. No reader is expected or encouraged to ‘believe’. Some readers will have absolute doubt. They may go their way with encouragement, without opposition. Some readers will agree with the arguments that the way is consistent with experience yet doubt the demonstration—the later discussion of doubt may address such concern.

Pathways are suggested, not prescribed; as suggested, the pathways are generic, which enables adaptation to specific situations and interests. Above all, the way is not prescriptive—it is designed as shared negotiation of pathways and their discovery.

1.1.2.3 An evolving document

1.1.2.3.1 The evolution

1.1.2.3.2 Design

Comment 1. The section is not temporary but some of its content may be.

Comment 2. A telescoped document.

Eliminate repetition between this chapter and the others.

All problems should be listed in the problems of metaphysics.

Sub-documents?

Comment 3. Phrases “it is seen”, “we see”, “we are seeing”, … , are to refer to discussions that may not yet have been developed and will be linked later.

Edit phrases such as “it is seen” vs “we have seen” and “I have shown” vs “we have shown” for consistency.

Use single and double quotes consistently. Eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate quotes.

Edit for brevity, poetry, precision.

Introduce pictures / graphics?

1.1.2.4 A self-contained system and document

1.2 Origins

1.2.1 Seeking, the world, experience, study, and imagination

1.2.2 History of ideas

1.2.3 Criticism

1.2.4 Paradox

1.3 Content

1.3.1 Preview

The following will be shown.

1.3.1.1 An ultimate universe

The universe is ultimate in that it is the realization of the greatest possibility (naïvely, the possibility of coherence, or, formally, logical possibility—which guarantees consistency of the view).

The universe has identity; the universe and its identity are limitless in extension, duration, variety, peak and dissolution of being; all beings inherit limitlessness and merge in the peaks.

We do not see all possibilities in our cosmos, which is but one possibility; the other possibilities are realized beyond our cosmos, i.e., in other cosmoses, the void, and more. Realization of the ultimate—of the limitless—begins in our world but is realized beyond, trans-cosmologically.

1.3.1.2 Paths to the ultimate

Though it is given that all beings realize the ultimate, if enjoyment is a value, there is an imperative to develop, share, and negotiate intelligent (effective) pathways to the ultimate for, beginning in, and from our world. While there are received ways (philosophy, religion), shared development and negotiation are essential to effective realization; and they are realization-in-process while in our world.

Pleasure and pain are unavoidable; there is pleasure in being on a pathway (this is not a rejection of simple joy); the best resolution of pain is use of the best available of therapy while, as far as possible, being on a path on which the fortunate give aid and assistance to the less fortunate.

1.3.2 The main ideas and their significance

1.3.2.1 Primary

The primary ideas begin with being, beings, experience, agency, concepts, and objects.

1.3.2.2 Metaconcepts

Knowledge of the world and so knowledge of knowledge, nature and problems of knowledge, narrative, action, method, and reflexivity.

Representation, abstraction, and pragmatism.

Metaphysics as the overarching discipline, which includes meta-metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and theory of value.

1.3.2.3 Concept template

Nature, definition, and significance, of the concept.

Relation to received meanings and reasons for differences.

Place in the hierarchical structure of the concepts.

1.3.3 Logic of the outline

1.3.3.1 On the choice of the ordering

The order of the chapters is plain enough. Into the way of being paves the way in. The formal development is in the world, which develops a foundation, and realization, which is about action based on the foundation. The concluding chapter, return, is about living in the world on the way to the ultimate from a new perspective.

Of the four chapters, the structure of the second, ‘The world’, is in especial need of explanation. The following account touches on the key issues of the chapter.

The world is really metaphysics; however, it is informative to begin it with metaphysics as such, followed by development of the metaphysics. The section, worldviews and personal metaphysics is a way into the metaphysics. What metaphysics is defines metaphysics, explains how and why the present conception differs from the received, and reiterates the fundamental significance of metaphysics. Meaning and knowledge, a topic critical to clear thinking generally, is an essential preliminary to the main development of metaphysics.

The development of metaphysics, proper, begins with being, beings, and agency, which is on the essential subject and foundation of metaphysics. But why should we begin with foundation? Would it not be better to begin with the immediate—where we are and from there, to develop foundation and its application? That is—ought we to begin with ‘ground’ or axiomatically with being? It is possible to do both. This is because the immediate, our experience of things, is already but implicitly built into the previous section, meaning and knowledge. We could have begun explicitly with experience, but that would have made the development cumbersome as we would have to rework it to account for the implications of the study of being for experience. Though experience is essential to the development, it is effective to defer its explicit treatment till after a basic metaphysical framework is in hand—and the foundation for the framework is in being, beings, and agency, while the framework itself is developed in ultimate metaphysics. The ultimate metaphysics is where we show the universe to be the realization of the greatest possibility, which is far greater than received views, secular and transsecular. Then, experience develops the concept of experience, its importance, the experiential nature of the ultimate, and instruments for and ways to the ultimate.

The remaining sections of the world are now discussed briefly.

Is the truth of the real metaphysics certain? The question is raised and addressed in doubt.

Logic, method, and content has the following functions. It extends the concept of logic to (i) fact and inference (ii) the certain and the less than certain cases (in a manner that is a definite enhancement over what is sometimes called ‘argument’). It fills in the range of metaphysics. It shows logic and metaphysics to be the same. It shows metaphysics (and logic) to be self-contained (as far as possible and in what sense).

Epistemology, ethics (value), and cosmology are treated and developed as part of metaphysics. Epistemology is part of metaphysics because knowledge is part of the world, and it is important in metaphysics as founding. Ethics is part of metaphysics as agency is part of the world, and it is important to agency, choice, particularly the question “what should we do”, generally, and in relation to realization. Cosmology is a working out of the metaphysics, especially in relation to the question “what is in the world and what is its nature?” Here, cosmology includes but far exceeds classical philosophical cosmology and modern physical cosmology—which is a consequence of the demonstrated real or ultimate metaphysics.

Many classical and modern problems have been treated to this point—but the treatment is not for its own sake – the problems are significant to the purpose of the way of being. To catalog and treat the problems of metaphysics would be useful as (i) a contribution (ii) potential utility in the way and in life (iii) showing the power of the real metaphysics. This is done in the problems of being, where the problems are extended, rationally arranged, and addressed in light of the real or ultimate metaphysics (emphasis is on those problems not addressed in the main development).

1.3.3.2 Dynamic reorderings

1.3.3.2.1 Introduction

Before the state of the evolving narrative arrived at understanding the world in its own terms (being) rather than in terms of something else (e.g., substance, process, and so on), it (the narrative) experimented with the physical (matter) as fundamental and then with experientiality (e.g., consciousness) as fundamental.

Questions arose—“Which is fundamental, matter or experience? Are they equivalent?” To help answer these questions I constructed two databases of the system of concepts, in one of them matter was the highest-level concept, mind was highest in the other. Comparison of the two databases suggested what may be expected—with sufficient flexibility in the concepts of mind and matter, the two are equivalent.

That is, there is something more fundamental than mind or matter. What is that something? At the highest-level it would be property free.

It would be being itself—i.e., the world as the world, not as something else or something within it (and, further, this will be found to be significant rather than trivial).

But being is not property free, comes a response for it distinguishes between existing and non-existing things. And a counterpoint is, but is not the concept of ‘non-existing thing’ a contradiction? It turns out that a proper understanding (theory of) meaning is the key to resolution and that the idea of a non-existing thing is not self-contradictory (see dialethic logics).

1.3.3.2.2 Foundation vs pragmatic beginning

Axiomatic systems begin with what may be called foundational to the subject matter (they may of course have further foundation).

In seeking foundation for metaphysics, which is about the world, it may be better to begin with ‘where we are now’, e.g., with (our) experience.

This is addressed in the previous section, on the choice of the ordering, and we find (i) that dynamic reordering suggests being as fundamental (a little bit of artificial intelligence, which suggests that what is fundamental is a higher order category than mind or matter) (ii) with being, foundation and pragmatic beginning are both possible.

1.4 Understanding and living the way

1.4.1 Reading the way

1.4.2 Shared pathways

2 The world

As metaphysics is ‘the overarching discipline’, the title of this chapter may well have been ‘Metaphysics’. However, it is convenient to unpack the entire discipline as ‘metaphysics proper’ and other topics.

Except for the last section on the problems of metaphysics, the chapter is part of the main development of the way. The section on the problems is placed at the end of the chapter because (i) it is not part of the main development (ii) it treats only those problems not addressed in the main development.

2.1 Metaphysics

Comment 4. See the resource, metaphysics. Use it to improve structure and content of this chapter, especially the development of the real metaphysis and the section, problems of metaphysics.

2.1.1 Worldviews and personal metaphysics

Comment 5. Has some discussion in the first chapter.

2.1.1.1 Worldviews

Persons may ask themselves—what do I want to do in my life, what is the best or greatest thing I can and ought to do.

Comment 6. See Kant’s three questions in Kant’s Account of Reason—Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/).

Whatever their answer, it will be framed, at least in part, in a view of what the world is like—what kind of world is it, what is in it, what kinds of processes are there, what is the future of the world, what kind of person am I.

The framework may of course be implicit, based on personal experience, absorbed from culture (which may provide more than one framework, e.g., secular vs transsecular).

Such frameworks are worldviews.

2.1.1.2 Personal metaphysics

As the question of worldview has relevance to individual choice, the person may, seeing its importance, seek to make their worldview explicit. And in making it implicit they may question it and seek to improve it.

That is, they may seek to formulate a personal metaphysics. And they may turn to the history of thought as a resource.

2.1.2 What metaphysics is

2.1.2.1 The concept of metaphysics

2.1.2.2 The importance of metaphysics

All knowledge is metaphysical in some way (this is brought out later).

Most fundamental issues in life and to many pragmatic concerns are vague in their formulation and resolution without metaphysics (worldview). This is true of action issues “what shall I do”, “what is our social endeavor about”, as well as knowledge questions such as “what is knowledge”, “how is knowledge acquired and justified”, “what is meaning”, and “how are knowledge and action interactive”.

We are seeing that metaphysics is the overarching discipline.

2.1.3 Meaning and knowledge

2.1.3.1 Concepts, language, and meaning

2.1.3.2 Knowledge

2.1.3.2.1 The concept

2.1.3.2.2 Kinds

Knowledge by acquaintance, knowledge-that, knowledge-how.

2.1.3.3 Problems of knowledge

2.1.3.3.1 Abstraction and perfect representation

2.1.3.3.2 Pragmatic knowledge

2.1.3.3.3 Union

2.1.4 Being, beings, and agency

A being (beings), being, universe (all being), the void, cosmos, pattern, possibility (logical, real), agency

2.1.5 Ultimate metaphysics

2.1.5.1 The fundamental principle

2.1.5.2 The real metaphysics

2.1.6 Experience

2.1.6.1 What experience is

2.1.6.2 We are experiential beings

2.1.6.3 The universe as experiential and agentive

2.1.6.4 The nature and form of the ultimate

2.1.6.5 Dimensions of being

2.1.6.6 Paths to the ultimate

2.1.7 A vocabulary for metaphysics

Comment 7. Placement?

Comment 8. See vocabulary for metaphysics.

2.2 Doubt

2.3 Logic, method, and content

2.3.1 Received conceptions of logic

2.3.1.1 Deductive logic and its kinds

2.3.1.2 Standard and non-standard logics

2.3.1.2.1 Standard

The standard logics are usually taken to be (i) standard two-valued propositional calculus (with principle of non-contradiction) (ii) first order predicate calculus built on a scaffold of propositional calculus (with identity theory).

2.3.1.2.2 Non-standard

2.3.1.2.2.1 Extended logics—logics that fit into the standard schemes

Modal logics, second order predicate calculus (sometimes seen as standard), and more

2.3.1.2.2.2 Deviant logics—logics that extend the standard schemes

Many-valued, intuitionist, quantum, free

2.3.1.2.2.3 Logics that do not fit into the standard or extended schemes, e.g., dialethic logics

Dialetheic logics are logics in which the principle of non-contradiction does not hold.

In standard logic, a contradiction leads to explosion—i.e., that every statement is true (and false).

To avoid explosion, some change from the standard machinery is necessary and one possibility is a three-valued logic—see the little manual (Dialetheia).

A first question is—are there dialetheia, i.e., are there true contradictions? An example is that to say being is ineffable is to state an effability of being; the resolution is that being is highly but not entirely ineffable—the example is not literally dialethic. Many examples of dialetheia in the literature are non-literal in some sense. However, there are literal examples—two will be mentioned below.

Questions arise—(i) are dialethic logics possible (i.e., are there logics with contradiction that are non-explosive) (ii) do they make sense (are there true contradictions) (iii) are they necessary (can they be replaced by more discriminating standard logic) (iv) are they useful.

Responses are—(i) the three-valued logic mentioned above is not explosive (ii) there are true contradictions (a trivial example is that the sun is shining and not shining) (iii) they do not seem to be necessary (the sun is shining in San Fransisco but not shining in Mumbai) (iv) they may be useful when we wish to ignore the greater detail that makes them unnecessary.

Note—though the example above is trivial, non-trivial examples can be given (see the link above) of which one is the Thomson Lamp Paradox (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ), and consideration of a range of examples suggests that while dialethic logics may be useful, they are not necessary).