What do human knowledge and experience tell us about the ultimate? Traditional views from myth, religion, and philosophy have laid claim to final knowledge. A modern view is that these fields, while quite distinct, are severely limited. Science does not claim final knowledge but is sometimes thought to approach truth; this view is held by many—it has some rough and intuitive strength; others have criticized the idea of science as even laying claim to truth. Here we allow that science has valid claims as truth but will find that as detailed and empirical it can pertain to a local cosmos—the extent to a physical cosmology may obtain is may perhaps be infinite—but not the entire Universe

In this narrative we construct an ultimate view of the Universe from experience and reason; the ultimate character of the view consists in (a) demonstrating that that there is essentially one Universe which has no limits—it could not be greater, (b) in developing this knowledge as a metaphysics—knowledge of the world as it is—that is self-contained in its foundation and principles of demonstration, and (c) in demonstration of directions of ultimate depth (foundation) and directions of ever openness (the variety of kinds and things in the Universe is known only tacitly)

The point made in item (b) of the previous paragraph is in contrast to modern views of metaphysics. A dominant view of the modern and recent eras is that metaphysics is not possible; here we demonstrate a system of metaphysics. It is also the main modern view that metaphysics must be relative, i.e. refer to further foundation which in turn refers to another foundation and so on or that metaphysics may be non-relative but only if it refers to primitives, axioms, and methods of proof—i.e., to substance. Here we provide a non-relative metaphysics that does not depend on substance. How metaphysics is possible and how it is non-relative without reference to substance and how such a metaphysics is developed is referred to the first main part of the narrative on Ideas

Unending experiment and engagement in living and transformation of Being are necessary (and sufficient) to bring the ever openness within experience and realization. Journey in Being is a name for the unending engagement and transformation

The canons of human culture, primal through modern, may be defined as (a) religion and imaginative art, (b) Experience, science, reason, humanism and critical art

Religious accounts of the ultimate are limited by their dogmatic form. Religion and the imaginative arts are immensely limited by dogma and the absence of critical form. The religions of man, while often dogmatic, have moral and symbolic meaning that in a secular way of life is often finds expression in secular art

Experience, science, reason, and critical art appear to be ‘good as far as they go’. However, as understood today these modes of knowledge are inherently silent on the entire region beyond their borders. In other words, even though their exponents may claim otherwise, they allow that their ‘shadow regions’ beyond their borders lie in a range from infinitesimal to limitless

All these disciplines tend to suffer from a characteristic distortion of method—i.e., the fact that perception and reflection are sometimes subject to error leads to the thereby unfounded conclusion that all human knowledge is tinged with error and therefore the immensely productive scientific method is necessary for reliable knowledge of the world

At the same time they make excessive claims that have been pointed out above

The narrative points out and addresses the deficiencies of the canon. Where the canon is valid, the system of the narrative goes beyond it. Where it may be held invalid, a new interpretation finds validity provided that principles of conceptual realism are satisfied

The account that has been developed has not been anticipated in prior thought. While the account draws from the history of ideas, it is the system, its articulation, demonstration, development, application, elaboration, and power that have not been anticipated. It is found to be ultimate and definitive in the direction of depth or foundation. In the direction of variety and extension and duration of entities and kinds it is shown that definitiveness cannot obtain—it is limited and therefore the variety is ever in a process of realization. This is existentially freeing

Doubt is expected. An aspect of the development has been an ever present critical component, subjection of argument to criticism and proof to strict requirement. Numerous objections are raised and addressed. There is no appeal to dogma or mere belief. Since demonstration is provided, it may be understood and accepted or rejected

Doubt remains. However, the system is not inconsistent; and the proofs (as well as plausibility arguments) are at least strong. And it appears that despite doubt while the system has yielded to proof it is not capable of disproof. In such a situation, doubt may be regarded as an existential positive to accompany the material positive of the unending journey in unlimited variety. Death is found to be real but not absolute: this is a good thing toward freshness of the spirit in ‘this life’ and after. Faith is introduced not as truth without proof and not as dogma but as an attitude that is maximally productive of enjoyment and outcome

The system of ideas referred to above is called the Universal Metaphysics. The demonstrations show that contrary to the modern canon there is a demonstrable and constructible positive metaphysics and that there is essentially one metaphysics that covers all being—the Universal Metaphysics. This metaphysics is ultimate in its demonstration, in that it is a non-relative (absolute) foundation without substance, and in that it shows the Universe to be ultimate in variety, extension, and duration

The immense power of the metaphysics is matched by its range of application. First, it is a metaphysics; this metaphysics is not posited; as noted above it is built and shown. Its application falls under two broad categories (a) Human endeavor—immediate and ultimate, and (b) Academic—it has application to and immense consequence for essentially every fundamental academic discipline from the sciences to the arts, humanities, and study of religion

This account has origin in experience. It has origin in personal experience which, though not emphasized, has the following significance (1) The individual has the following resources—primary or personal and secondary which includes direct instruction and the literature (2) Although the significance of the tradition is great there is no part of it that is not brought down from the a priori to the realm of the empirical; particularly, method and logic to not transcend content or knowledge of the world: method is an aspect of content—it is the aspect of content that arises when knowledge and its process are recognized to be part of the world

The idea and grounding of a Journey in Being is this. Human cultures reveal pictures of the universe: science is a picture of the physical universe and religion / art a picture of an aesthetic, moral, and symbolic universe. The Universal Metaphysics developed in this narrative reveals a Universe that is immensely larger and more varied than the canons of culture. The metaphysics shows that realization of the Universe may and will occur for all finite beings and the way requires ideas and transformation

The narrative now turns to its content, (1) The First Part of the narrative: Ideas, and (2) The Second Part: Journey. The idea of a journey originated in the Ideas as well as in personal experience. Journey elaborates the idea, discusses ways of transformation, the process so far, and vision for the future

Ideas

Introduction to Ideas

Knowledge, emotion, passion, feeling, understanding are all forms of idea. Here, IDEA is used informally to refer to ways of knowing the world and ways of relating to it via psyche or mind. Thus all the academic disciplines, all planning and design, all dreams, all human hopes, and much else falls under the rubric of the idea. Ideas are important a way of understanding of self and world. They are therefore instrumental in transformation of self and world; another way of transformation is that of direct transformation of self and world; however the direct way requires ideas for its appreciation; and ‘the’ way may be optimal when ideas and direct transformation work together. Direct transformation may be a simple attempt to change something or be guided by or interact with ideas. This suggests that having an idea is not a transformation. However, ideas and psyche are part of the individual and changes in ideas correspond to changes in body states. Therefore ideation is transformation but, at least on the common notion of idea, not all transformation is ideation

As knowledge, ideas are instruments of negotiating and transforming our being, our lives, and the world. As understanding and feeling, ideas condition knowing and transforming; and they are the medium of enjoyment and appreciation of being, life, and world. In the usual meaning—I have an idea rather than I am an idea—ideas are an incomplete mode of transformation

Experience

‘Experience’ has a number of meanings. A professional architect is likely to have had a number of years of experience in architectural design. Here, experience has a more immediate meaning. The sensation of the odor of a rose is experience. The feeling of the warmth of the sun on my skin on a winter day is experience. In having a conscious thought I may think, for example, that ‘seven times seven is forty nine’. There is a subjective feeling that accompanies or is an aspect or part of the thought; that is experience. Experience is primitive but, from the example of thought as experience, it is not without structure

In this meaning, experience is what is had in being conscious. Experience in this sense has been called ‘what it is like’. But it is more than just that in that ‘what it is like’ is not exclusive of structure, form, symbol and so on. We begin to understand experience by pointing out its primitive forms. This does not imply that the forms of experience are primitive

As used here, the concept of experience may be roughly explained as ‘what things are like’

There are people who doubt that there is experience. Others reject it. One motivation for this doubt or rejection of experience is scientific. The doubter may ask rhetorically ‘How can the brain which is made of particles of matter have experience? Mere matter has no experience as part of its constitution.’ The argument is not valid. There is nothing in the constitution of matter (certainly, even from our best science, we do not know it perfectly) that rules out experience. And the idea of ‘mere’ matter is the idea of what we may associate with matter regarded implicitly but without basis as complete

Another motivation for doubt is philosophical. The philosopher may ask ‘What is in the world?’ The motive is to have an account that is reliable and not merely good-enough-for-some-practical-purposes. Consequently philosophers have the right regarding any existential claim to expect proof of existence: they may demand proof: prove that there is matter… prove that there is mind… prove that there is experience

Let us examine the demand. I say ‘I am here.’ I add that the claim is so basic that it cannot be doubted. The philosopher points out, validly, that the concepts of ‘I’ and ‘here’ are not clear. The argument is then modified. I claim that ‘there is something’. The philosopher says ‘prove it’. I respond: either we are or are not having a discussion. If we are then my point is made. If we are not then there is the illusion that something—a discussion—is going on. Again, the point is made: there is something—the illusion (or the illusion of the illusion and so on). I.e., there is something: the thing or the illusion of the thing

Thus it is not invariably valid to demand proof in the sense of proof from premise to conclusion. In this case something is a name for what is there and there is something there even if I do not know what it is: it is either a discussion or an illusion of a discussion (or an illusion of an illusion…)

It seems that most reports of doubt regarding experience are not doubts of experience but are doubts or rooted in doubts that experience has basis in the dominant materialist-scientific paradigms of the time of this narrative. Perhaps there are people who do not have experience; these would be examples but cannot be paradigmatic of the no experience idea. I have something that has feeling to it and whatever it is I call it EXPERIENCE. Those who doubt or reject experience often let it back in by using the same word to refer to something else, typically the material correlate of experience; in rejecting experience these doubters admit it. I know that others have or report experience and their reports are remarkably similar to mine

Although the world does not (logically seem to) require experience for its existence, experience is a name for our handle on the world. There may be a world; but without it we have nothing of it—not even talk or doubts of it, not even talk or doubts of an imaginary or illusory world

Now, however, the solipsist philosopher argues that, yes there is experience but perhaps that is all there is. Perhaps that is true but it does not negate the fact of experience

There is experience

We see in the next section that experience is recursive in that there is experience of experience. It is of course not claimed that all experience is experienced

Thus, at outset we find an essential combination: metaphysics (what is there) and epistemology (knowledge of the fact)

Experience is a perfect object

The idea of perfect object is explained later. The above assertion means that experience is a definite object that is perfectly known

External World

The solipsist argument is one source of doubt regarding the existence of an external world. What is the ‘external world’?

The external world is not outside anything. The word ‘external’ is figurative in this use

The idea of the EXTERNAL WORLD is that there is an actual world that exists independently of its being known, perceived, or experienced—i.e., independently of mind

Whenever the phrase ‘external world’ occurs the reader may read ‘world-whose-existence-is-independent-of-being-experienced’. We use the phrase ‘external world’ because it is suggestive and in common use. However, it should not be forgotten that the term ‘external’ is not used literally

The philosopher has the right to expect an argument for an external world. That right is based in the demand for a robust philosophy. In everyday affairs, we do not need to be sure that there is such a world: it would be an impediment to demand it and it would be neurotic or simply silly to doubt it. However, the philosopher sets up a shop one of whose products is reliability of systems of ideas. The philosopher says to philosophers and others—you can have rock solid dependence on what is here being said

Actually, we do not need an external world even in much of philosophy. Much of the argument in this narrative depends only on the existence of some world, e.g. a world of experience. However a motive to arguing for an external world is that it is more than just comforting to know that there is an external world that is independent of but contains our experience. This existence confirms our way of conducting our experience and gives substance to our being-in-the-world. We can proceed about our business without having to wonder whether we are mere phantasms. Without an external world we may feel responsibility, morality, purpose, joy; with an external world we know that there is substance to those feelings. And demonstration of an external world gives substance to our idea of the kind of world in which we live. It gives something of the lie to fantastic accounts such as occur in many traditional religions

How can we demonstrate the existence of the external world—of a world that exists independently of being perceived and is more than perception or experience?

Our notion of the external world derives from experience. Even if it is there, we know that it is there via experience. But we know of experience via experience. Experience, which is given, is recursive in this sense

There is an external world

At minimum, ‘external world’ names experience; the fact of experience requires and is logically but not causally or relationally dependent on experience

When the philosopher asks for proof of the existence of the external world there may have been no demand for proof a robust world that is more than just experience. However, a robust notion of external world was likely to have been part of the expectation and was probably part of the motive for the demand

The argument from experience to an external world is valid but does not satisfy the desire for robustness

Here is a way to see that the external world is as robust as we normally think it to be

Assume that there is only experience. Perhaps I do not exist and the idea of ‘my’ experience is an illusion. However, within experience there is something labeled ‘my experience’. Within ‘my experience’ there is also something labeled ‘your experience’ and the ‘experience of seven billion other human beings’ and perhaps ‘the experience of many other sentient animals’. ‘My’ experience includes that ‘I was born in 1947 and have a rich life story. I have done many things. I am moderately good at mathematics—my PhD in engineering emphasized use of mathematics. I have long had an interest in pure and applied mathematics. But there is also the experience of others. Some of these others are brilliant at mathematics and my mind can grasp some understanding but not reproduce this brilliance (or if it can it has not yet done so). What is more there are people who know German, Chinese and so on. A billion people know some kind of Chinese. And there at least eighty million people who speak and think in German. There is all that experience going on in the billion Chinese minds and millions of German minds. And while ‘I’ can think about that experience I do not have it: it is not within ‘my experience’. Next, there is the entire Universe of science—physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and the sciences of mind and society…’ that are there but not in ‘my’ experience

Now there are two possibilities

(a) An unconventional account in which there is just experience. In this case ‘experience’ / ‘my experience’ is an alternate labeling of the (an) external world

(b) ‘My experience’ is my experience of: my experience and an actual external world

In either case there is this robust external world, that is:

The external world is robust in that our sense of it is substantially valid even though vastly incomplete

Concepts

The word ‘concept’ has a number of meanings

In this narrative the primary sense of the CONCEPT is that it is any experience in the sense of mental content

It will be pointed out when the word ‘concept’ is used in other senses

Meaning

Language forms including words do not have definite meaning except via use and, secondarily, by agreement as in general and special purpose dictionaries (or conventions, or learned or other societies…). Since every word in a dictionary is defined in terms of other words, dictionaries do not fix meaning. They depend on our common knowledge of some set of basic words whose meanings we know via enculturation

Many words have more than one meaning or shade of meaning. Sometimes the same combination of letters—or the same sound—has altogether different meanings. In this case it may be said of that ‘word’ that there is one sign but more than one symbol

Do use, common agreement, and lists of meaning set by learned societies fix meanings? Meanings change from one time to another, one place and culture to another, one context to another. Generally, meaning depends significantly on context. Some contexts are vague and so meanings may change without any real significance to the change because the context has not stabilized meaning; additionally meanings may change with significance as a context becomes better defined. If the size of undiscovered or uncreated contexts is large meaning remains intensely open

There must be some fixity in meaning. Without any invariability in meaning, thought and communication via language would not be possible. Thus the actual situation is that of balance or dynamic give and take between fixity and openness of meaning. There are various social, personal, and biological mechanisms for both fixity and openness. There are places, times, cultures, and persons—as bio-social organisms—that emphasize definiteness of meaning and others that emphasize openness. Openness is a correlate of times of change and opportunity. Fixity is a correlate of stable times (that is positive) but also of acceptance of authority (whether explicit or no) and perhaps of self-indulgence (whether conscious or no)

In this narrative we relate the development and demonstration of a hitherto hardly known and appreciated metaphysics. Some of its elements new. Many elements are known but the combination of elements, and the demonstration, development of significance, elaboration and application of the metaphysics is new. A significant aspect of the metaphysics is that it shows some directions of closure to the universal ‘context’ and other directions in which the universal must remain ever open

The directions of closure will be found to be depth; those of openness concern variety of experience, entities and kinds

In the directions of openness, meaning is likely to remain ever in flux

The metaphysics derives in part from the old. However it is new and therefore while the container system is likely to use old ideas it must also introduce new ideas and is likely to use new combinations and configurations of ideas. The ‘old’ ideas acquire new shades of meaning. It is crucial for understanding that attention be paid to the meanings as introduced here and to the entire system of meaning that emerges in the configuration of ideas that is developed

What is meaning? In using language we have a sense of meaning for a word or a sentence. However, there is more. Language has something to do with the world. An older idea was that in using language we refer to things in the world. Thus Frege held that meaning consisted in sense and reference. ‘The sun is shining’ is an example. However, ‘Come here!’ and ‘Ah!’ (as an expression of understanding or of satisfaction) are not clearly about the world. Again, we so characteristically distinguish mind and world that when we say ‘in the world’ we often implicitly mean not having to do with the subjective. Although ‘Ah!’ does not have the form of reference it does make a statement about the feeling state of the speaker which is as much in the world as the sun and its shine. Pure expression is expression in the world. And ‘Come here!’ is not directly about the world but has to do with the world. One might argue that the expression ‘%$*##@’ is not about the world; that however would be a part of the story; ‘%$*##@’ is not so far part of language. This having to do with the world may be called ‘about-ness’ which may and has been called ‘intention’

Thus MEANING may be characterized by sense and intention

Somewhat contrarily, ‘sense’ is sometimes called intension and the range of reference is called extension; sense and reference and intention and extension are similar and are also similar to concept and object and to connotation and denotation

Some writers assert that meaning is exhausted by extension. The idea has its attractions: it objectifies meaning—eliminates the subjective and likely distorting aspect of meaning; and the focus on extension promises to exhaust the meaning of a word. However, in an environment in which tigers are not the only objects the word form ‘tiger’ means nothing without some sense indicator—e.g. shared sense, a picture, another tiger as mold for the word ‘tiger’, andor pointing. Extension is insufficient even in the case of fixed meaning and even when extension is specified by algorithm rather than mere lists; growth of meaning requires the sense side of meaning

Sense is essential to meaning; dictionaries and rigid specification are inadequate to meaning; meaning requires stability and flux to address contexts and change; without use there is no meaning or stability of meaning; perfect and unchanging meaning is possible only in an ultimate context—as will be seen in the development of the Universal Metaphysics

Existence

‘Apples exist’ means ‘there are things that correspond to my concept of an apple’

‘X exists’ means ‘there is object that corresponds to my concept of X

Thus ‘apples exist’ means ‘there are apples’ in combination with the knowledge that there are apples. Just as in the case the case of experience, we find object and knowledge in essential combination

EXISTS means ‘there is’ (and existence is the quality or property of being there) but to assert the fact I must also know it

When I see an apple my concept of the apple is the PERCEPT. When I say ‘that apple exists’ I mean, as has already been said, that there is something that corresponds to my concept of the apple

When I say ‘unicorns do not exist’ I mean that there are no things that correspond to my concept of ‘unicorn’

The point to talking of existence in terms of concepts and objects is twofold. First, we see again the join of knowing and how we know: or the join of metaphysics and epistemology. In emphasizing the join it is not (to repeat) intended to imply that existence depends on being known but that talk of existence is impossible without knowing. A second reason to for the discussion of existence in terms of concepts and objects is concerned with a supposed problem of the concept of existence that has been discussed in the recent literature on metaphysics. The problem is this: if we say that unicorns do not exist, regarding what are we making that assertion?

Talk of existence in terms of concept and object cuts right through the—supposed—problem of the meaning of non-existent objects

Of something that exists, I may say ‘it exists’ or ‘it has existence’. The two statements are equivalent

The statement ‘X is’ is awkward but may be regarded as having the same meaning as ‘X exists’

‘X exists’ usually means ‘X exists somewhere at the present time’. Alternatively we may mean ‘X exists somewhere at some time or range of time’

Meaning and Paradox

This section provides an analysis and resolution of ‘liar type’ paradoxes in terms of the sense-reference analysis of meaning. In the context of this narrative the primary purpose of this section is to exemplify and continue to establish the power of the sense-reference or concept-object analysis of meaning

Recognizing that referring to an object always requires a concept was instrumental in resolving what has been regarded as a paradox of the notion of existence

It is essential in resolving some paradoxes that arise from self-reference

The assertion ‘This statement is false.’ is seemingly paradoxical. If it is false it is true and if true it is false

Consider instead of the above paradoxical sentence the seemingly non-paradoxical assertion ‘This statement is true.’ What is its truth value? If true it is true, if false, false; there seems to be no way to determine whether it is true or false; apparently, it has a truth value if and only if it has a truth value. The conclusion regarding its truth value lends to the statement an air of paradox. What is that seeming paradox? It is that we tend to think that the statement should have a truth value. However, the conclusion regarding its truth value shows that it does not have a definite truth value. The expectation that the statement has a truth value results in effectively treating the assertion in quotes as ‘This statement has a truth value and its truth value is true.’ That statement is false. Early in modern logic it was realized that the unfounded belief that every propositional form is a proposition is untrue and a potential source of paradox. The paradox inherent in the second statement in this paragraph that is in quotes is that the statement has a truth value and it does not. This paradox is implicit in the first form of the same statement

The paradoxical nature of the classic paradox ‘This statement is false’ is the result of assuming it has a truth value. It is a result of the statement being both concept and object and there therefore being no measure of its truth. According to this analysis ‘This statement is false.’ and ‘This statement is true.’ are both paradoxical and the paradox is essentially the same. The source of the paradox in both cases is the tacit belief that the statements have a truth value

Implicit in the paradox and its resolution above is the lack of recognition that the statements are both concept and object which leads in this case to an indeterminate truth value

Consider now ‘This statement is short.’ That it is both concept and object does not seem to result in paradox. However, the concept is the sense of the statement and the object is a physical characteristic of the sign. We may regard the statement as true without paradox. However, statements-as-statements are not physical in the way that sticks are physical and so the statement does not have a length (even as a sign its ‘length’ lacks definite meaning). In other words the statement is meaningless. This wrests a paradox from the statement if we insist that it has a truth value: it is meaningless (has no truth value) and has a truth value (by insistence). In this case the statement has no object; and in a sense it is not a concept. It is in the form of a concept (precisely: its sign is in the form of the signs of many concepts) but it is not a concept

It is important—often crucial—to recognize meaning as consisting in concept and object or sense and reference

Meaning as sense and reference reveals that not all propositional forms are true propositions and to understanding and resolution of paradoxes of self reference

Being

BEING is that which is. The definition, if non-standard and awkward, is chosen for simplicity. It has the following two equivalent forms (1) Being is that which exists (2) Being is that which has existence. Another equivalent is possible though even less standard than the original: Being is that which has is-ness

Being has other senses. In some uses the being of a person or thing is its essence or ‘core’. This is not the primary use of ‘being’ in this narrative and this and any other secondary use will be either informal or given clear definition

In the history of thought a distinction has been made: existence is as being-in-relation and Being as being-in-itself. In some cases being-in-relation is a form of (composite) being-in-itself. However, the metaphysics to be developed shows that the distinction between ‘in itself’ and ‘in relation’ is empty

Thus all things which exist have Being

Being excludes no specific thing

However, consider ‘apples exist’. Is the assertion true? ‘Yes’ is a practical response. However, given that perception includes projection we may seriously question whether there is anything that precisely corresponds to my concept of an apple (we need not appeal to science, e.g. to the facts of atomic and molecular structure, to have such doubt). Such thinking might be considered to be over cautious. However, if we want to build up a robust system of thought this caution or care might be necessary. If we want to build up a theory of Being (a metaphysics) any error has the potential to make the metaphysics absolutely incorrect. This is because the choice is not between correct and almost correct but between correct and not (this is over and above possible amplification of error in chains of deduction). Therefore we will be so cautious that we risk the outcome of ‘no metaphysics’ so that we have the best likelihood of achieving true metaphysics

Therefore, Being includes no specific concept of a thing without further investigation. More precisely, there are no a priori categories that belong to Being

These cautions of thought will rapidly yield dividend

The neutrality of Being with regard to what lies under it—what things and kinds (categories) it contains—is a source of the power of Being

From the discussion of Experience it is given that:

There is Being

From the discussion of the External World it follows that

The concept of Being is robust

[See the earlier discussion for the meaning of robustness in this context]

The statement There is Being and the definition Being is what is there are not circular. In saying Being is what is there, it is allowed that ‘what is there’ may be ‘nothing’. The discussion that started with experience showed that there is something and then in discussing the external world we showed that what is there is robust. No proof from premise to conclusion is required

Being may be regarded as naming what is there

A law such as the Newton’s law of gravity or second law of motion is a pattern that we read in (into) a region of the Universe. The actual pattern is a (the) LAW

Because laws are what we read, we may doubt whether laws have Being. However, Laws are patterns and therefore:

All Laws have Being

In so far as words—e.g., mind, matter, concepts (and laws as what we read into a part of the Universe), process, space, time, interaction and other concreta; and value, number and other abstracta—describe actual things or kinds, the word-concepts fall under the concept of Being and the referents of the words fall under Being. This is a source of the power of the idea of Being

The power of the idea of Being is that it makes one and only one distinction: existing things fall under it and non-existing things do not

We can conceive of things that do not exist; these concepts do not fall under the concept of Being. Later, we find that the only concepts that do not have objects somewhere and when in the universe are the ones that are illogical. Therefore, effectively, all things fall under Being

Being and Metaphysics

There is Being. It may not similarly be said that there is mind or there is matter (it is not suggested that there is no matter or mind—thus far in the narrative neutrality is maintained regarding the Being of matter and mind; instead it is suggested that matter and mind are more specific than Being and the concepts of matter and mind require investigation andor further specification before their existence is asserted or denied)

Another expression of these thoughts is that Being abstracts from the world what is most immediate and distortion-free so that it requires no proof and simple naming is sufficient

There are other concepts that similarly abstract only distortion-free detail. These are the perfectly known concept-objects—i.e., even though concept is not object, in these cases reference to an object has perfect meaning and that the references are in fact perfect

We will find a system of such concept-objects that fit together as a system. Their significance is not only that they are perfect but also that they form a perfect and articulated system. I.e., the system itself is as a perfect object

This study may be called METAPHYSICS. We call it PURE metaphysics to distinguish it from special topics within metaphysics and topics outside it

Pure metaphysics is the study of Being. Analysis of Being reveals pure metaphysics as the study of perfect objects

ABSTRACTION is the essential method of pure metaphysics

Since Being is what is there, i.e. what exists, the study of Being depends, in the first place, on no other characteristic. It therefore applies equally to the immediate (conceptually, spatially and temporally) as to the remote. Therefore, metaphysics is universal. However, we will reserve the term UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICS for the system to be developed which applies explicitly to All Being

Metaphysics has been regarded as impossible. It has been regarded as speculative. There is a sense in which all study that goes beyond mere facts is speculative (some thinkers regard all facts as having a speculative character; here we have found that there is Being and we will find later that there are other objects: therefore there are some given facts). In science for example a theory typically begins with a hypo-theory or hypothesis. It is then subject to test and can be proven ‘wrong’ but never ‘right’. That is the conventional wisdom and in it the speculative element remains even though it is often forgotten

Here, in the beginning, with Being, we see that there is absolute demonstration. The hypothetical element enters as hypo-thesis but receives absolute demonstration

The foregoing truth is one sense in which the Universal Metaphysics will be ULTIMATE

A second sense will be in that the Universal Metaphysics shows FOUNDATION (reduction of understanding andor explanation to simple terms) without axiom or regress. A third sense will be in showing the Universe itself to be ultimate: it has no limits (and the meaning of ‘no limits’ will emerge)

One of the methods in the development is that of abstraction. An aspect of abstraction is analysis of meaning. We will find that a new conception of logic emerges in the development and will distinguish it from the old concept by calling it Logic. In the development of metaphysics content and method naturally emerge together

For perfect objects metaphysics and epistemology emerge together

There is one metaphysical study for any perfect object

This study may have different ways of expression; the ways, however, are and must be equivalent (else at least one of them will not be a metaphysical study)

With the Universe (which will be defined as All Being) as object there is one and only one metaphysics, the Universal Metaphysics

It will be seen to be an Ultimate and Universal Metaphysics

In summary

Being is a distortion free abstraction from the world; here the abstract is the most immediate rather than the remote; abstraction is the method of metaphysics which is therefore actual and possible and it is developed here as a Unique, Ultimate and Universal Metaphysics that is the study of a system of perfect objects

…

In its fundamentals this metaphysics will contain general cosmology, the study of the variety, extension, and duration of Being. Variety will include kinds and varieties within kinds. Kinds include matter, mind, spirit, extension, duration, process, person, identity, God, powers, ghosts; varieties include, e.g. material objects

There are senses in which metaphysics can and will be extended to include Normal objects, i.e. objects that suffer distortion in the epistemic sense but may be perfect in other senses (if an object is not perfect in any sense it is incapable of study). These will include practical senses such as science and reflective common sense. They also include value or moral senses. It is necessary to be careful in the use of such senses so that one kind of abstraction is not substituted for another

These senses of abstraction are important because they provide mesh of ordinary knowledge with pure metaphysics and practical instruments to approach the ideals and ultimates revealed by the pure metaphysics

Since everything that exists has Being, the concept of Being is Universal in some sense. However, in the development of the metaphysics it is found that a careful consideration of the concept of the ‘Universe’ is important. Because it is Universal, Being is also trivial. However, that it is trivial does not mean that it is without depth. In fact it is the triviality that is the source of depth. Talking carefully about the Universe and its domains is significant in bringing out the depth

Universe

The UNIVERSE is All Being over all Extension and Duration

In some conceptions, e.g. universe as known universe, the constitution and extent of the universe is indefinite. E.g., the ‘known’ universe depends who are taken to be the knowers and how we (they) specify the boundary of the universe—in space, time, and kind. Thus the following may arise as valid questions that may be regarded as puzzles. Is matter or mind or concept or law or pattern or number in the universe? Is there one universe? More? An indefinite number? It will, on the definition as known universe, be important to answer these questions otherwise the notion of universe will be effectively vague. However difficulties may and do arise in answering such questions

Given the definition of Universe above, there is no vagueness regarding the number of universes

There is one and only one Universe

The Universe has no other, no outside, no cause, no creator (on the concept that a creator is other than what is created), and no creation; these are not possible facts that do not obtain as a matter of contingency; they are logically impossible

The question ‘What kinds of thing are there in the Universe’ have not yet been answered. However, some definite—perhaps surprisingly definite—answers will emerge in later sections

For the Universe, possibility and actuality are identical (for a context, possibility is actuality in some configuration of the context; for the Universe there is only one configuration)

The Universe contains all Laws

The Universe contains all things and kinds—e.g., mind, matter, concepts, process, space, time, interaction and other concreta; and value, number and other abstracta: it contains all these in so far as the words refer to actual things or kinds

Domain

A DOMAIN is a part of the Universe

We use PART in the sense that it allows that the Universe is a domain

Given a domain, its COMPLEMENT is the part of the Universe not in the domain

Given a domain, it has a complement; or

If a domain exists it has an existing complement

It is logically impossible for the Universe have other, outside, cause, creator, or creation; it is logically possible for other domains to have cause and creation. It will later be seen that some domains are creative with respect to others

It is logically possible for one domain to be implicated in the creation, sustenance, meddling, and destruction of another. This remains true when the phrase ‘implicated in’ is omitted from the first part of the (previous) sentence

Void

The VOID is the absence of Being

The Void exists (because it is the complement of the Universe). I.e., there is at least one Void

The statements ‘the Universe has no other or outside’ and ‘the Void is outside the Universe’ are equivalent

The Void contains no things or kinds (e.g., mind, matter, concepts, process, space, time, interaction and other concreta; and value, number and other abstracta)

If there is some state to which the Void is not equivalent, i.e. if there is some state that is not accessible from the Void state, that would be a Law in or of the Void. However, the Void is the absence of Being and therefore that is not possible

The Void is equivalent to every state; therefore:

The Void has no limits

Therefore number of Voids has no significance (except that there is at least one)

It is valid to say that There is precisely one Void

It is also valid to say that every part of the Universe—everything that exists—a Void associated with it or attached to it

The most important conclusion from the fact that there is a Void that has no limits follows immediately from it and is the:

Principle of Being

The Universe has no limits; it cannot be greater

As it stands the meaning of the assertion of the previous paragraph is not precise and requires development. This is done in subsequent sections especially Logic and General Cosmology

The assertion that the Universe has no limits is the central result in the Universal Metaphysics, i.e. the Principle of Being or PB, and as a consequence of this result:

Logic

Every concept (proposition) is realized

This section clarifies the meaning of PB by considering potential violation of logical principle and in so doing a new conception emerges: that of Logic which is distinct from the idea of logic as valid deductive inference and includes the valid parts of the extant (classical and other) logics

What does it mean that ‘every concept is realized’? Consider ‘there is an apple that is simultaneously green and not green.’ This is clearly not realized. It is because the assertion in quotes violates the principle of logic called the principle of non-contradiction. We therefore modify the assertion about realization to:

Within the bounds of logic (WBL) every concept is realized

However, except a few primitive cases the classical logics are not certain; they are empirical rather than tautological (the few primitive cases may be exceptions)

Therefore define LOGIC as the requirement on concepts for realization. Logic ensures conceptual realism. Logic is a requirement on concepts but not a limit on the Universe

Logic amounts is conceptual realism

Within the bounds of Logic (WBL) every concept is realized

In this form, Logic is the first conception of logic

This concept of Logic reduces to the idea of logic as deductive inference by application of Logic to multiple concepts

Though introduced by definition, Logic is not empty because the classical logics are at least approximations to it

The following problem of Logic arises. When applied to discrete concepts, each concept will be consistent in and of itself. In some cases the application to multiple concepts leads to reduction of the multiple concepts to a single concept (join). In other cases, conflict may arise. Therefore, while situations in which cases where it is sufficient to consider Logic in relation to specific domains, in the general case:

Logic should be interpreted, developed, and applied with sufficient regard to holism

This reveals immense possibilities for development of Logic and working out its object

WBL every idea, myth, religious or scientific or metaphysical or literary cosmology is realized. WBL every work of art and architecture, every literary work, every drama, every piece of music are realized according to any referential interpretation

The LOGOS is the object of Logic. It is the Universe in all its detail

Working out the Logos is the problem of Logic

Two further aspects of Logic are pertinent

The first concerns meaning. Consider the concept (proposition) ‘The Universe moved a mile’. Since there is nothing outside the Universe—neither object nor framework—the assertion has no meaning. There is no explicit contradiction in the assertion and yet it has no realization (not even an un-detectable realization). Taking the meaning of Logic broadly, it shall include concern with semantic issues. There is of course a tacit contradiction in the proposition about the Universe. For it to have meaning there must be something outside the Universe but with the Universe regarded as all Being there is no outside (if the universe is the physical universe or all matter there may be an outside) and the truth and meaning of the assertion ‘the universe moved a mile’ is indefinite and therefore its truth must also be indefinite)

The second aspect of Logic concerns facts. If there are a number of (exclusive) ways the Universe or a domain could be and it is found in one of those ways, that fact does not constitute a limit. When a domain that exists has a number of possible configurations it must be found in one of those configurations. If the domain had to be in one of the ways that would be to say that a contingent fact had to obtain. This is of course a contradiction of the meaning of ‘contingent fact’. The fact that the Universe or a domain is in some particular contingent way is not a violation of PB—it is not a limit—or of Logic: such violation would obtain if and only if the Universe or domain had to be in that contingent way

On Demonstration

In so far as we know PB and Logic—the logics—its application in simple cases is easy (trivial)

In simple cases statements of results will not require explicit demonstration

In these cases the main concerns are interpretation and mesh with the valid parts of traditional and modern human knowledge. In fact, the mesh with science will illuminate science and illustrate the metaphysics

In non-simple cases the development of the logics and of Logic itself constitute the problem of Logic mentioned above

General Cosmology

GENERAL COSMOLOGY is the study of the variety, extension, duration, and interactions of Being and its kinds

In a climate of thought which tends to regard science as defining the universe, cosmology is often taken to be physical cosmology as it has been developed from modern scientific theories (general relativity and quantum theory) and modern observations (e.g. of the cosmic microwave background). Here, however, we see that the scientific picture of the universe is essentially a picture of our cosmos which is one among an unlimited collection of cosmological systems which are part of the unlimited Universe

Later in this section we will see that although PB (and its consequences) may seem to violate science (and reflective common sense) there is no actual violation. In fact there is a sense in which PB requires our valid sciences and the consideration of this issue will lead to an appreciation of the nature of science

Without DISTINCTION and EXTENSION there would be a limit to Being

A static Universe would be equivalent to a Universal Law: a Law in the Void: therefore there must be DURATION and PROCESS

There are distinction, extension, duration, and process

In what follows the when modifier WBL is not stated it is implicit in every applicable case

There is no limit to the variety, kind, extension, and duration of Being in the Universe

Specifically every conceivable physical law and all its possible cosmologies are realized without limit

In detail:

The Universe contains every possible cosmos. Our cosmos is repeated without limit. All possible physical laws obtain in some cosmos each of which is repeated without limit; in fact, given an actual physical law, the range—variety and number—of systems that realize it is limited only by the bounds of Logic

Every domain interacts with every (other) domain. Some interactions are ghost interactions, perhaps normally un-measurable. There are ghosts passing through every cosmos at every instant. There are ghost cosmological systems passing through ours at this and every moment of its existence. Every cosmos has an annihilator domain. However, cosmological systems come spontaneously into being; and may ‘self’ annihilate spontaneously

Some domains are implicated in the creation, sustenance, meddling, and destruction of others. This remains true when the word ‘implicated’ is omitted from the first part of the (previous) sentence

The Universe goes into and out of states of manifestation

It is worth repetition that in each applicable case above—and in what follows—the modifier WBL is implicit

The processes in the above cases contain essential indeterminism. From PB the Universe has ABSOLUTE INDETERMINISM: from every state, its successor states have no absolute restriction: any state may emerge. Absolute indeterminism is equivalent to ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM: from every state, every (other) state shall emerge. In this use, determinism is not the standard temporal determinism. However, there shall be cases of as if temporal determinism without limit. It is often argued that random / indeterministic process cannot yield structure. Yet it is temporal determinism that does not yield structure: the only structure to emerge in temporal determinism is structure that is already at present (if only implicitly so). Absolute indeterminism requires the emergence of structures, in fact of all structure; this occurs against a background of indeterminism, lesser structure, and relatively transient phenomena

The Principle of Being is equivalent to absolute indeterminism; this indeterminism necessitates structure against a transient background. Absolute indeterminism is equivalent to a kind of atemporal absolute determinism

Some of these thoughts and many others—recall the nature of the Void and consider an analogy to the quantum vacuum—suggest analogy with the phenomena revealed in quantum theory

It might seem that PB violates science. First, consider that modern cosmology reveals the big-bang (and perhaps bubble universes) picture of the universe. However, what we see is that this picture is of a concept of the universe as, e.g., the empirical universe: it is really a picture of our cosmos which is one cosmos against cosmological systems without limit as part of a limitless Universe. Second, physical laws can be seen as limits. However that the Universe or a domain is a certain way is not a limit; if Logic permits other ways but some non-Logical constraint required the certain way to obtain, that would be a limit. Further, PB requires our cosmos and its Laws and Patterns and, equivalently, its science

The method of science gives or suggests two interpretations: science as universal but always hypothetical and science as factual but local. In the history of science the former has been generally preferred; but PB / Universal Metaphysics shows it impossible. PB allows and requires the second interpretation in which laws are facts but not limits (Logic requires that no fact be violated). PB requires unlimited variety outside the edge factual domain; and the method of science does as well even though ‘we’ tend to think of science as in a process of asymptotic approach to truth. In fact, from science there is an inner edge of smallness (currently the Planck Length); and via PB, there is always a Logical edge: the Void attached to every element of Being. PB is consistent with the fact that our cosmos is the way it is and requires that that way must obtain somewhere and (WBL) that it must obtain in situations without limit on the population of those situations in the Universe

The sciences of our cosmos in their valid domains are consistent with and required by the Universal Metaphysics. They may be seen as coming out of the universal background that is equivalent to the Void. That we know from our cosmos that in some cases there are and in other cases there may be mechanism of origin suggests general but not universal mechanisms of origin of forms (e.g. the cosmos, the stellar and interstellar systems, life, mind-as-we-know-it and intelligence.) There is occasion for rich interplay between culture (including sciences) and the Universal Metaphysics. The metaphysics may frame the particular disciplines and the disciplines illustrate the metaphysics

Thus the facts of local cosmologies obtain but only in some NORMAL sense. The Normal physical and other scientific and common necessities and impossibilities have the interpretation of very high and very low probability respectively

The relations among science and the Universal Metaphysics may be summarized:

In light of the Universal Metaphysics—the unlimited Universe—a detailed empirical-conceptual science is never complete and the best interpretation of a scientific theory is that of a compound fact over a domain of validity. Universal Metaphysics and science have no conflict: the metaphysics requires science and science illustrates the metaphysics

Although the only necessity in the above cases is that they remain WBL, it is reasonable that the relatively stable cases would most commonly arise by incremental VARIATION AND SELECTION from some seed state, e.g. the Void or transient from the Void; and the INCREMENTAL process would remain NEAR STABLE and NEAR SYMMETRIC (perfect stability and symmetry would be very improbable: impossible on a deterministic model: for they would be deterministically impossible to enter but once there, deterministically impossible to leave)

A COSMOLOGICAL SYSTEM or COSMOS is near stable, near symmetric configuration that may arise spontaneously but in the organic case arises by incremental variation and selection. Its Laws are the conditions of its becoming

The significant population of the Universe may well be of cosmological systems formed organically

The immediately preceding thoughts suggest interplay between the Universal Metaphysics and its general cosmology with modern physical cosmology

‘The Universe moved a million miles’ in some direction has no meaning. The Universe as a whole has nothing against which to measure such motion

Extension and Duration are part of the Being of the Universe. Space and time are local measures of extension and duration. Because Being and Becoming are bound together and because Being is measure, Extension and Duration are bound together. There are patches of space-time; these are manifest in Being. In the patches dimensionality of space is not given; there may be multiple dominant times as well as transients; signal speed, if there are dominant speeds they may be multiple. In some cases dimension of space may be fixed, dominant time and dominant signal speed may be unique to the cosmos. Particularly:

Space and time are immanent in Being—part of Being—and therefore relative; but domains may have as if absolute space-time

Thoughts of interplay between general and modern cosmology arise again. Specifically, there may be fruitful interplay between general cosmology on one side and the philosophy and physics—e.g. general relativity—of space, time, and matter on another side

Clearly the development of this section is but a beginning in the study of general cosmology

In subsequent sections some specialized aspects of cosmology will be taken up

Substance

Early in the development of the ideas of this narrative various approaches to metaphysics were tried. My early thinking was scientific and materialist with the provision that it was not given that the objects of science—especially matter—do not exhaust the kinds of thing in the universe (the idea that matter does not exhaust Being is stronger than the idea that matter is insufficient or undesirable in the explanation of all things). One of the earliest formal approaches was via evolutionary understanding of what is in the world; this was a tacit but specialized form of materialism. Later, when I felt that material explanation was insufficient I looked into idealism as a metaphysics in which the stuff of the universe is mind or mind-like. I found that the difference between a healthy materialism and a healthy idealism is significant in the names employed: idealism is a renaming of the elements of materialism with alternate emphasis. Although I abandoned both materialism and idealism I learned much. Perhaps the most important learning was the growing feeling that substance explanation was likely inadequate to metaphysics but also metaphysically not particularly interesting, illuminating or desirable

In the history of metaphysics SUBSTANCE has been regarded as an unchanging, uniform ‘stuff’ that gives rise to all manifest being and all change. The appeal of substance is that of simplicity, of absolute but simple explanation. If substance were to give rise to the world via indeterministic process there would be little point to it. It is therefore at least implicit that substance should generate the world by deterministic process

It should be clear that there can be no mechanism of generation of the world by substance

Since early metaphysics there have been different but related meanings of substance. One such alternate but related meaning is that of substance as the SUBSTANCE OF PARTICULAR OBJECTS. Under this conception a horse has a substance as do horses taken as a class

In modern times alternate conceptions of substance have arisen: these are alternatives to ‘stuff’ but play a similar role. Examples include mental, conceptual, and linguistic elements. The idea of mathematical objects as substance has a tradition that spans Greek and recent thought

PB suggests that Being may be thought of as substance. The idea would be that every thing is its own substance. Here the two notions of substance merge. The explanation is trivial but as we have seen it is also profound. However it is unnecessary. The insertion of the idea of substance serves no function except (a) to deny the role of classical substance and perhaps (b) to provide a familiar name for new ideas (in this case the familiar name would be misleading)

However the idea of Being—what is there—as substance justifies one recent trend in philosophy: the trend that stands against depth explanations. Depth explanations have a role in science but in this view metaphysics would be best served by abandoning depth or substance and instead find LATERAL or SUPERFICIAL EXPLANATION. Explanations that refer to Being are superficial. Though unnecessary this superficiality would be positive

Since the Void is equivalent to every state, no substance is needed to explain / understand the Universe of change as a whole. Similarly no ultimate explanation is needed for the objects of our world

[That no ultimate substance is necessary—or even possible on a requirement of determinism—does not mean that there is no need for or power to local as if substances. For our cosmos certainly matter as understood in modern physics is a candidate for substance]

There may be local as if substance(s)

It is commonly thought that there must either be a substance or RELATIVE foundation of metaphysics. A relative foundation is one that refers every foundation to another and so the only ‘foundation’ can be infinite regress. A relative foundation is clearly not desirable as a form of simple explanation

A NON-RELATIVE foundation is an alternative to the relative foundation: it is one that terminates at some point and has no need to refer to something more fundamental. As foundation a substance can be in the classical mold of substance or it could be an axiomatic system which must have undefined terms, unproved axioms, and unproved methods of proof; that is the common notion of a non-relative foundation. Clearly, if explanation is to be self-contained, a substance or axiom based non-relative foundation is no more satisfactory than relative foundation

In Being, Void and Absence of Law, and Logic as requirement for reference, we find definite or named terms, and identified primitive definite fact and (implicit but definite) method of proof. Therefore The Universal Metaphysics is a non-relative foundation without substance

This is contrary to widespread belief in the impossibility of such foundation

The preceding thoughts on substance and the non-relative and non-substance foundation provided by the Universal Metaphysics continue to reveal its immense power

The source of this power finds its way back to the careful selection and definition of concepts and their articulation. Especially important are the concepts of Being, Law, Universe, and Void

In summary of this section:

The Universal Metaphysics shows the impossibility of classical substance as ‘stuff’ or axiomatic system; but the metaphysics shows that substance is unnecessary: it provides a non-relative foundation without substance. However as if substance may be introduced locally

Mind and Matter

The matter and mind of our cosmos are extremely limited as exemplifying Universal Being

In any cosmos, however, MATTER may be identified as an organic form of Being-in-itself. If there is an associated mind, it must have entered from without, arisen spontaneously, or be the effect in one element of the organic form in another: Being-in-relation. In the spontaneous case mind reaches down to Being-in-itself (interaction among all elements of Being) and the idea of mind entering from without simply refers back to another case of mind. We are left with mind as ‘effect’. I.e., elementary feeling is the feeling of one element in interaction with another. What we regard externally as interaction, e.g. force, is internally to be regarded as feeling. Matter is first order Being (in itself) and MIND as second order Being (in-relation)

From PB, every atom is a cosmos and every cosmos an atom. Therefore there is no final distinction of mind and matter

In the organic case there may be several modes of matter in a cosmos and each will have a corresponding mode of mind. Cross interactions among modes will occur: matter-matter (ghost), mind-matter (ghost, spirit, experience of intrusion), mind-mind (ghost, spirit, experience of intrusion, external source of creativity and thought; but indeterminism with selection by mental structure is an internal source of creativity)

There will be more and less coalescence among modes of matter

A cosmological system may have but one mode; or more than one mode with all modes (or less) dominant (i.e. over lesser or transient modes)

Every interaction has a mental component (feeling). It is only in special structures that this is concentrated, focused, elaborated, highly structured, self-referential (experience of experience), and in which spontaneous creation becomes more than a random event. ACTION is the amplification of mind-matter interaction that is concurrent with the focusing etc. of mind and the structuring of body

The foregoing thoughts resolve the following problems of mind and matter: the nature of matter and mind, the putative question of the relation between mind and matter, the nature and problem of action, the nature of higher mind and consciousness, and the putative problem of monism versus dualism where in a previous section it has been seen that metaphysical foundation requires and allows no substance (‘zeroism’)

Highlights of the section. In any cosmos matter may be introduced as Being-in-itself or first order Being; mind in one entity may be introduced as second order Being or the feeling effect of another entity in the first. This mind-matter distinction has no ultimate purchase. However, it extends to the root of Being; mind in higher organisms is the result of structures, layerings, processes of elemental mind that produce bright, focal, self-aware, volitional (creative) consciousness. These thoughts may be seen as resolving the classical issues of mind and matter

Attributes

Looking at the apparent categories, matter, and mind one may speculate that there are many other modes—perhaps third order Being and so on (a third order interaction would seem to still be ‘mind’; yet we allow the possibility as one for further consideration)

Spinoza suggested infinitely many ATTRIBUTES of Being (God) of which Extension (possessed by matter) and thought are the ones we know

However, as matter-matter interaction, mind is not without Extension. It is only that mind as contrasted with matter may seem immaterial and without Extension

As already seen mind and matter are not distinct. There is no sense to attributes in Spinoza’s meaning of the term. There may however be modes of matter and mind without limit

Objects

In pure metaphysics the meaning of object is clear. Via abstraction (which characterizes certain experiences) knowledge of the thing is perfect

Below in Applied Metaphysics this notion of object is generalized

Here we are interested in the range of Being in the Universe. Via Logic we see that the range is immense: every Logical concept has an object

The common objects are entities, processes, interactions; we know of them via the metaphysics even when we do not know them. These are the concrete or particular objects

What is a number? I.e., what kind of object is it? It is not—does not seem to be—an entity. In modern thought a number is regarded as an abstract object; the objects of mathematics are regarded as abstract: they seem lie outside time and space and they seem to be ‘mental objects’ or if objects at all then objects in an ideal or Platonic world. Other abstract objects are properties and Universals (redness), values, tropes (instances of properties or relations e.g. the color of this specific rose that I just picked), and propositions (semantic, syntactic, and logical objects). The object-status (concrete or abstract) of ‘things’ such as such as concepts and symbolic systems is not clear

Since every Logical concept has an object the abstract concepts, if Logical, must correspond to something in the Universe (abstract objects must be Logical for otherwise they do and can not exist)

This results in a UNIFIED UNDERSTANDING of the abstract and the particular or concrete

The idea of mental object is vague and unnecessary. What is a number as a mental object? However, concepts—though they seem immaterial—reside in the body

A number resides in the Universe. However, it may be (regarded) as a collection or property rather than a single concrete object. Still, the distinction between abstract and concrete in this sense is psychological rather than logical or epistemic

A value could be seen as a tendency to act in the interest of some group and toward some end. In this sense a value is an object. Other approaches to value could yield value as object except however in the case of arbitrary definition. Arbitrary definition or specification might define an object but it would not specify a value

Redness is not merely abstract; it is a real aspect of a real relation between an observer and a physical object. More precisely, an instance of redness is such a real relation and redness as Universal can be seen as the collection of instances of redness

Abstract objects are not timeless; when apparently timeless it is because in the cases in question the kind or degree of abstraction makes their temporality irrelevant

We can see a symbolic system, e.g. the propositional calculus as essentially symbolic and non-concrete (in which case it is vague) or as a net in a real object e.g. a brain or a brain + paper + computer or as a set of nets in the system of brains + books + computers. This fact is neither nullified nor existentially enhanced by the idea that a symbolic system ‘really’ resides in a PLATONIC SPACE. There may however be some practical or computational or metaphorical advantage to thinking in terms of Platonic or Ideal spaces

If a Platonic space is understood via a Logical conception, the space is a (real) object in the real and one and only Universe

The distinction between the concrete and the abstract, then, is the way we study or see them rather than what they are. The approach to the ABSTRACT CONCEPT-OBJECT is via thought or symbol; the approach to the concrete or PARTICULAR CONCEPT-OBJECT is via perception (the term particular may be preferred to the term concrete because the idea of the concrete as marking a KIND is psychological rather than existential). And so it is natural that the divide should be porous. A trope is simultaneously abstract and something very concrete. A number is simultaneously abstract and some collection of things in the Universe. And: in human history, number began as empirical and concrete (one banana), became abstracted but with the computer study has reacquired an empirical status. And: Logic is empirical over, e.g., propositions. Tropes, mathematical, and Logical objects are examples of MIXED PARTICULAR-ABSTRACT CONCEPT-OBJECTS: there are particular and abstract approaches to their conception andor study

With regard to the nature of their Being, there is no distinction between particular and abstract objects

There is a psychological distinction which it may sometimes be desirable to maintain and sometimes desirable to dissolve

There are as if distinctions between the concrete and the abstract and these may be useful in practical understanding and study

A summary of conclusions of the section follows:

There is one Universe. All objects—concrete, abstract, and mixed—are in the Universe. With regard to their Being there is no distinction among concrete and abstract objects (in view of our adapted psychology we experience differences). A good way to characterize the putative distinction is that concrete objects are experienced or studied in perception while the abstract objects are studied conceptually

Individual and Identity

PB requires the Being of objects; and earlier study of mechanism suggests that the universe-of-objects will be significantly populated by those that that they must generally be near stable and possess some symmetry of form; and that the stability and symmetry shall arise organically (incrementally and adaptively) or, perhaps, that they shall be artifices of organisms that arose organically

IDENTITY is (sense of) sameness over time. (Sense of ) sameness of an object is object identity. Sense of sameness of self is personal identity

Objecthood and perception of objecthood arise in the Universal Metaphysics; and practically because of individual and joint organicity of object and knower (here the meaning of ORGANIC is rather that of naturally or without external intervention rather than just that of ‘living’)

These thoughts suggest analogy with theories of evolution from evolutionary biology. The field has possibilities, perhaps rich, for study. It suggests approaches to the study of objects and knowledge. For example, object constancy is the phenomenon by which a moving and rotating object seems to have the same size and shape and object invariance refers to the fact that we perceive the ‘same’ object under a wide range of conditions (e.g. although I have changed vastly my sense of self has a continuity from early childhood till today; and the sun is the same sun even though it dips below the horizon every evening). A generic explanation is that of adaptation (such explanation does not make the likely difficult neurobiological explanation an irrelevant goal). Such thoughts are of course not new and the application of evolutionary principles to psyche is found in Darwin’s thought as well as in the modern field of evolutionary epistemology

PB requires that the Universe will have diffuse and acute states of Identity; as well as states (dissolutions) without recognized identity

Identity is an aspect of object-hood and therefore requires no special treatment

An INDIVIDUAL is a near stable more or less adapted organism with acute mind and acute Identity

PB requires that individual identity will approach universal Identity; suffer its dissolutions; death of body and identity are real but not absolute; identity has and must have continuities over death of the individual and states in which there is no manifest Being

This identity is not a new thought. An example: it is the identity of self and All Being or Atman and Brahman of the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy. However, the structure of this Identity and the varieties that lie under this it (developed below) and its demonstration appear to be new. The narrative owes to Vedanta and Bhagavad-Gita a variety of suggestions (the Yogas) regarding significant though limited achievement of the Identity

A SOUL is the aspect of an individual that has continuity over death and non-manifest states. Since death and full non-manifest states are not the same, degrees of depth of soul can perhaps be identified; this suggests a continuum (degrees of non-manifestation and degrees of remove). We have a sense of belonging to a culture. This belonging too should have a soul according to PB; similar thoughts are found in the writing of C.G. Jung

The foregoing suggests that fully non-manifest states do not occur. This suggests a re-interpretation of the fullness or meaning of ‘non-manifest’ in the assertion of existence of states of non-manifest Being

Applied Metaphysics

The term pure metaphysics refers to perfect knowledge. Where it obtains the meaning of the term ‘object’ is clear and the object is perfectly known

In day to day affairs, objects are known partly by projection so the (day-to-day) meaning of the term ‘object’ is not definite and knowledge is not perfect

However, we know from adaptation that there is a net sense in which the world is known well enough. For some purposes we need not demand better. In some cases we may reach the limit of knowability in a context (of knower and known)

There is another related sense in which knowledge may be regarded as good enough: that is the sense of value (but not all systems of value will lead to this conclusion). If realization of the ultimate is an ultimate value, good enough is all that we may want to demand or expect of common knowledge

In these ways—the way of adaptation and of value, common knowledge may be regarded as perfect even though not epistemically perfect

The expansion of pure metaphysics in this sense to encompass all that is valid in human knowledge and the culture of knowledge is APPLIED METAPHYSICS

On Method

We have seen that abstraction is the essential method of pure metaphysics

In abstraction, EPISTEMIC and metaphysical concerns arise and are addressed simultaneously

Since metaphysics is knowledge of the world and knowledge is in the world, this dual development is natural and should also have been desired

This desideratum is often displaced in the history of human thought. A natural source of the displacement is the fact that ideas develop over time. Another source is the instrumental attitude that requires precision. And modern sources include pressures to specialization and perhaps even indulgence of self

The development encompasses PRIMITIVES, PRIMITIVE FACTS, and PRIMAL METHOD (Logic and demonstration) which result from abstraction rather than postulation

It leads to a new understanding of knowledge and of Logic

It may be extended in some sense (Applied Metaphysics) to all valid knowledge

In realization of the ultimate, knowing as we understand it will not be enough. A finite Being that sets out to realize the ultimate will have to undergo transformation. From PB, there is no final realization. The WAY will be one of UNENDING and UNLIMITED VARIETY; there will be SUMMITS and PLATEAUS and DISSOLUTIONS; the summits will be of unlimited variety and ELEVATION: there is no end to the process; there will be PAIN; pain is neither sought nor avoided; but pain may be a teacher where it arises—an effective approach to pain and any CRISIS / OPPORTUNITY is to cultivate this attitude of opportunism; INTELLIGENT APPLICATION is not necessary but will make the process EFFICIENT and ENJOYABLE

The way of science (hypothesis, deduction, test…) will be insufficient in this process. Already in social sciences the method of objective and non participatory observation gives way to PARTICIPATION. This will necessarily be what the natural sciences will give way to in order for them to be effective in realization. What we call objectivity will give way to participation and IMMERSION. Already in fact this is and has been the way of the world outside academia (and its dominance over the way the educated think); already the political and economic and in its better forms the religious worlds proceed in this way (which does not exclude or seek to exclude information, illumination, guidance from and immersion of the academic)

To repeat: the method of science will grow to include immersion but it will not reject its classical method

Discussion now turns to informal but powerful aspects of creativity

Other aspects of method that have been implicitly present in the development so far are NEUTRALITY AND EMERGENCE (neutrality at outset but openness to emergence and commitment) and what may be called REFLEXIVITY. The first meaning of reflexivity is that of application of a principle to itself (when so applicable). A trivial example is ‘there are no absolutes’ which itself seems absolute and suggests modification to ‘there are no absolutes of certain kinds’. Though trivial, the application sheds light on the idea of an absolute and on issues self-reference. If we shy away from initial commitment because we want to avoid prejudice we also recognize and find that all avoidance of commitment may be a (commitment to) prejudice. That is another example of reflexivity

Reflexivity may be broadened to cross application or CROSS REFLEXIVITY which we shall also refer to as an aspect of reflex thinking. The cross application or interaction of the pure metaphysics and science and the tradition of culture is such an application

Reflexivity of the more general type (cross reflex) is already present in the idea of the concept as mental content: it does not emphasize distinctions among FEELING, EMOTION, COGNITION, and PERCEPTION (there are of course distinctions but it is also valid and immensely useful to see those aspects of content as interactive, interrelated and perhaps of a common root). What could be called high emotion may motivate cognitive development (intellect) and intellect rewards high emotion

However, in every act of intellect and cognition there is a base level of feeling and emotion—with the feeling guiding and grounding and sometimes freeing the cognition and the cognition also referring back to the internal states called feeling; cognition-emotion ride together; emotion alone and cognition alone are prone to autistic free-wheeling, together they are instrumental and grounded (and perhaps the roles of instrument and ground change according to context.) The binding of emotion and cognition in this case is subtle and not typically noticed or remarked, especially if we are accustomed to thinking of feeling as intense feeling. Further the binding is not rigid but allows varying degrees of freedom. The ranges of subtlety and freedom are effective in making feeling-thought effective over a wide range of contexts

The reflex is also present in effectively combining CREATIVE IMAGINATION and CRITICISM. In an instrumental culture we often value criticism over imagination but there is nothing to criticize without imagination. It is essential that criticism and imagination interact: without criticism, imagination is mere free wheeling (free wheeling is important; it is the ‘mere’ that is the object of objection). The interaction has a subtle layer. Imagination is important in the development of criticism (and imagination and feeling in the sense of when to be critical); and when we have become educated—via reflection andor in schools—in the way of criticism there arises an intuition regarding criticism that guides but does not impede imagination and results in a effective rather than merely free wheeling imagination

Neutrality and emergence, and reflexivity have introduced as powerful but informal elements of creative thought

It is worth repeating that abstraction seems to be the essential formal method of metaphysics

Power

POWER is degree of limitlessness. The Universe is the greatest power

Except for conditions of coexistence domains inherit the limitless power of the Universe

There may be further apparent limits that reflect Normal realism, experience, reason and science

GOD is a name for the greatest power and its power is identical to that of the Universe; this power includes all cause and spontaneous origin and as required by PB, and creativity. This power assumes specific forms including Identity—acute and diffuse. The name God may be reserved for these forms whether of symbolic or actual significance. The individual realizes all forms of God

This argument gives no support to the existence of specific forms of God in this cosmos. It may however lend support to the symbolic meaning of God in anthropomorphic or cosmomorphic or other forms

There is no God external to and creator of the Universe

GODS, GHOSTS, and SPIRITS are lesser powers. A domain is a ghost to another when its effect on the other is minimal. A spirit is a ghost that has actual or assigned significance. RELIGION concerns positive understanding of, relation to, and realization of all power; and under it, the individual or group may employ all aspects of Being. An institution or culture of religion may refer to cumulative and shared insight and appeal to individuals with special insight and power

Domains (gods) may be powers in formation through dissolution of other domains. External and immanent powers are not exclusive. The organic / immanent / more or less stable case may be regarded as normal

No support is given to anthropological or cosmological morphs of gods, ghosts, or spirits in any particular cosmos. Such and other morphs are however present (WBL) without limit in the Universe. And they may appear at any time in any given cosmos; this seems unlikely in organic cosmological systems but perhaps the truth is probability as we understand has no absolute purchase in the context

Access to all power is given. There may be difficulty in direct access—access from ‘this’ form—to power. MEDIATE POWERS are instruments of access. Such powers may be actual or symbolic. A symbolic power is a symbol that enhances access to personal andor Universal power. Mediate powers and instruments include other persons, nature, art and technology, and the symbols of religion… They include the instruments described earlier: metaphysics, science, reason, imagination, participation, and immersion

The ethos of this section is as follows. God may be a name for an anthropic form of the greatest power. Such a God and lesser interventionist gods are remote possibilities and the metaphysics gives no support to their existence in any specific domain. Mediate powers are the actual and symbolic forces or the world that give human beings access to power. It is suggested and will be seen later that the mediate powers may give access to ultimate power

Journey

The foregoing are among the transformations of identity

Realization

The moment and the individual have identity with the ultimate

This realization is given though not Normally to ‘this form’

The realization is an ultimate; and an ultimate value. There is some freedom of choice in values. However, the ultimate is given and its cultivation may have normal but not absolute avoidance. Since the ultimate is the Universe it includes all value. Therefore there is no promotion of one individual or group over others

VALUE concerns choice that promotes power and realization; values concern actual choices

LOCAL VALUE concerns this world; INTERMEDIATE VALUE concerns transitions among Normal worlds; ULTIMATE VALUE concerns transformation to the ultimate

There may be conflicts of value among understanding of local value—just as there are conflicts among individual values and among cultural values. Whether there is final conflict and how it may be realized is open to determination

The thoughts of the following two paragraphs have been encountered earlier in the section On Method

Some traditions talk of ultimate states of realization—of heaven, of nirvana; PB implies that for limited Being realization is and must be a JOURNEY. It must be a journey of unending variety; of summits, plateaus, and dissolutions; the summits have unending variety and unlimited elevation

The journey requires and is one of transformation of Being. It is enhanced in appreciation and efficiency by imaginative, reflective, and intelligent participation, immersion, and experiment in Being. Inspiration may also be derived from Being itself and from tradition

Because of concerns regarding the demonstration of the metaphysics (PB) and in negotiating the journey it is effective to approach the journey also (simultaneously) from FAITH as the attitude that is most conducive to ultimate realization and being on the path to this realization

MYSTICS hold direct experience to be essential; direct experience is a value and an instrument; however, it is not ultimate. Others prefer a symbolic (cognitive, feeling) approach. In both cases, the approach is experiential (enjoyed) while it is instrumental. Here, the direct and the symbolic are held to be complementary: to be mutually enhancing. They interweave with one another and action in the ideal and dynamic in the greater end of transformation

Religion is significant. The objections to religion are objections to the religions. However there can be no objection to Religion without a conception of Religion. Here, RELIGION is conceived as having the following aspects: (a) A Universal aspect: deployment of all dimensions and processes—including immersion—of Being in the realization of All Being, (b) Intermediate and immediate aspects—instrumental use of the dimensions in accessing power, e.g. NATURE—material and living, PSYCHE, SOCIETY, and CULTURE in this realization, and (c) Cumulation and sharing of common power including that of individuals with special insight, power, and ability

In some places and times there has been movement away from religion and to spirituality or the IDEAL (in a shade of meaning somewhat different from the use of the word ‘idea’ in this narrative). If spirituality is understood as belonging to another plane, it is misunderstood. PB shows that there is no other plane but spirituality must concern this life and its universal extension. Spirituality is not merely about what is in the Universe. One side of spirituality is the way the Universe is and another is our actions and our relations to and within the Universe; the two sides are closely related. With this meaning there must be significant overlap between spirituality and religion as delineated above. It is not the intent of these thoughts to suggest that individuals must be explicitly religious or spiritual but to suggest that there is always some religion-spirituality and that enrichment may be a result of sharing

Lineaments of a Journey

The following is repetition

The journey is one of unending variety. There are summits, plateaus, dissolutions, without end; there is no limit to the variety and elevations of the summits. Ideas are appreciation and enhance efficiency and communication. Sharing enhances appreciation and efficiency

Accomplishment

Details of the material in this section are in Journey in being-detail

Introduction

I have ‘cultivated’ the following—numbered—developments as part of my life. Some items date to early in my life but others arose later. In casual reflection I recall peaks of development from early life, high school, college, and from the years 1978-1982, 1984 and 1985, 1986, 1992, 1999-2002, 2007, and 2011 and 2012

From my early life I recall a love of being in nature; when I was five my parents and some friends visited a hot spring in a valley surrounded by hills—I loved it at the time and the memory remains beautiful. Throughout my life nature has been nurturing and inspiring. It is inspiring and grounding in itself and in and through it I see a way to the ultimate. Many of the great inspirations and intuitions of my thought and life occurred in nature. Once I noticed these phenomena I cultivated them. High school continued nature inspiration and marked love of poetry, music, mathematics, science—especially physics and its theories and evolutionary biology, and athleticism; and these continued in college where I excelled in analytical mechanics, graduate school, and university professorship where I cultivated a balance of intuition and symbolic knowledge, of imagination and criticism, and of depth and breadth

In 1978 as I was finishing my PhD dissertation I had a dream that emphasized a sense of mission: knowledge and experience of depth that I would share with the world. 1999 marks the height of the intuition for the Universal Metaphysics and 2002 the intuition of the key to its formal development and demonstration. 2007 was pivotal in expanding the scope of the metaphysics. While living out the ideas has been present and guiding since early times, 2011 was critical in this regard

While many of the developments were simple observations in their original form in my first dawning and then growing awareness of them, I have cultivated them experientially and existentially and refined them in light of the Universal Metaphysics and its dynamics (item 4, below)

From the past

1. Ideas and the arena of ideas

System and dynamic—the present document, Journey in being-detail, and other documents such as journey, from the archive

Multiple environments have been pivotal to my thought—school, university, and library; personal study and library—the enjoyment of reflection and writing; intellectual friendship; society as shared endeavor and for contribution; and nature as source and inspiration

2. Identity and personality

Ideas on the identity of self and universe and preservation of identity over states of non-manifest Being

Personality and interaction with others. Meditative and Tantric (exposure) enhancement. Includes public speaking but primarily refers to meditative charisma and transformation in self and other

3. Mind and awareness; meditative cultivation

Body, healing, and healing; meditative awareness of connection between behavior and healing

4. Discovery and development of a DYNAMICS OF BEING (see The Way)

Recent

5. Meditation and meditation in action; Tantra

6. Crisis and opportunity; into action ; mundane spirituality; human spirituality; adapted 12 step process

7. Journey in Being and higher spirituality (and mesh with the mundane)

Précis

A précis of these developments is that my experience and interest has been in practical and ultimate realms which mesh. The examples cover dimensions of Being and process (the document Journey in being-detail for breadth, depth and persistence of experience). I have achieved some exemplary success which I have interpreted in terms of and which suggests the efficiency of the Universal Metaphysics in transformation

The Future

This section emphasizes the immediate future and immersion in process as the most practical approach toward greater change. The areas of emphasis are ideas and transformation

I have become aware that while I can envision and while the Logic of the Universal Metaphysics requires that the ultimate (defined in exquisite detail earlier) will be realized and while I have an intuition of my power the actual way must begin in the immediate and proceed by learning, iteration, cultivation. The elements of the immediate future are presented immediately below; their cultivation and beyond is the topic of the final part of the narrative: The Way

Ideas. Improvement, development and application of the system of ideas. Researches suggested by the ideas. Examples of researches: Void, non-manifest states, absolute indeterminism and structure—quantum theory, evolutionary biology; general cosmology—physical cosmology, space-time; participation, immersion—the sciences. Sharing; shared journey. Publication, advertising, networking

Ideas for transformation. Includes the foregoing, especially the system of ideas. Emphasizes the topics of The Way

Transformation. The journey. The Way, its development and interaction with the Ideas

The Way

The Way is a brief account of approaches for the Journey. It covers ways I have used and others that I have studied. It is a map and a resource. Though it cannot be complete it aims to cover the kinds of approach from the earlier and today’s cultures

I do not want to make the specification in this section too detailed or rigid. General areas of concern are identified and are complemented by the sources in Some systems and sources

While the material here aims at presentation it is eclectic in selection and summary in form. The aim the selection and form is to leave it open to and to encourage in process action and completion for myself and others

The process of identification has been based in experience, reading, reason, imagination, and criticism

This version is a summary of ideas and further sources

Dimensions of Being and Process

Identified as not essentially process oriented—Living and Being

Selected as process oriented—Psyche, Mediate powers, Ultimate Power

Living and Being

Living concerns good relations with self and world. Good in themselves, they free up the psyche toward its potential

Living light and so in the real

It is easy to be rigid and method oriented; therefore there is no one way; and even those who do not adhere to (preset) conditions of ‘living’ are not barred from realization: this is a simple and not a moral fact. If, however, one is moral then good living concerns freedom from inner ‘karma’ of a diversionary nature

The (some of the) areas of concern are physical health and life style; psychic health: self relations, and relations with others and universal power… and decording; economic health and realism; in life and education: a balance between specialization, enjoyment, and breadth: breadth of and—critical and imaginative—openness to experience

Psyche

The immediate power, PSYCHE includes the field of psyche and body

Emphasis: depth, communication among the following elements: creation and criticism; feeling and cognition; conscious-explicit-perhaps-directed and intuition-unconscious-body; bound and free; more and less stable states

Some system of psyche (e.g. Freudian, the system of the Bhagavad-Gita, the rational system of Journey in Being) may be employed as inspiration and idea toward further development. Here we emphasize the simple differences that (may) have base level identity: FEELING AND SENSE and their INTEGRAL ASPECTS (BOUND: perception, primal emotion), (FREE: thought, appreciative emotion, and their integral form), (style and emphasis in differentiated and integral form: PERSONALITY and identity)

Mediate powers

The identified mediate powers are NATURE (material and organic); and SOCIETY and CULTURE

NATURAL SCIENCE is a powerful source of knowledge for nature and psyche

The SOCIAL SCIENCES are not as powerful as the natural sciences and so SOCIAL PROCESS of PARTICIPATION and IMMERSION are essential for access to society and culture as mediate power; and, further, immersion in culture is a source of access to natural science and TECHNOLOGY. Reasons for the relative limits of the social sciences include (1) Unpredictability of the elements (e.g. individuals) and non-uniformity of the social environment (2) Our immersion in the scene. Still, ECONOMICS and various aspects of POLITICAL and other social sciences are immensely significant

Ultimate Power

The nature and conceptual understanding of ultimate power is developed in the first part of the narrative: Ideas. The main development begins in the section on Being. The metaphysics is ultimate and much power is derived via mesh with tradition and modern culture briefly developed in later sections. The sections leading up to Being earlier sections are concerned with Being as immanent in the individual

The distinction between the particular (concrete) and the abstract (see Objects) raises the question: Can individuals or groups inhabit or become or inhabit abstract objects?

Phases of the Journey or Way

Primary

Primary—Ideas, Transformation to the Ultimate

Secondary

Secondary—via the Mediate powers—construction of and cooperation (synergy) with organic and intelligent being, and action aimed at and immersion in social and cultural worlds

System of Human Knowledge and culture. Art as expression and communication of essence of soul and world; poetry of precision… and of the literal… and of metaphor as précis and symbol… art and cultivation of intuition and intuitive precision. Language as medium of communication and thought

Travel and place—culture and nature… and for catalytic transformation

World (secondary)

Resources. Classification and principles of classification. Space; water, land air; material, energy; organic; human, cultural, scientific, and technological resources; population

Geopolitical and economic regions. Continents and countries

Social process. Political, economic, education, military… Science and immersion… Technology

Issues. Environment, resources, population, quality, equality; economic and political considerations

Power

Dynamics

Dynamics employs the metaphysics including its applied aspects in transformation

Note that ‘dynamics’ is the name or part of the name of a number of disciplines. Here, no reference to such disciplines is intended even when there may be analogies

It is learning; a phase of it emphasizes the iterative and the incremental: therefore immersion and action are essential

The way becomes especially dynamic as cognitive-emotional process enters interactively with intuition and body (less than bright conscious)—interplay among self, other, world enters intuition and meditative interplay, and, secondly, an encompassing intuition of the foregoing including world via, e.g., the Metaphysics (Universal and Applied, in cognition and intuition)

The way becomes especially dynamic as it becomes reflexive. As it becomes self-aware and self-cultivating; as it uses its own tools; and as it learns opportunistically from its own experience which is one of its cultivated tools

Transformation

Transformation aims at the ultimate. Transformation of Being is the goal. The contours of the ultimate have been given: the endless journey, summits and so on

The process begins here

It is and must be rooted in the individual: psyche-body in individual and group process

It begins with simple actions and immersion

Ways of Transformation

The ways begin as primitive. They act upon the individual. They build by cumulation to achieve what has been recognized in ways partly seen and developed. The incremental aspects of cumulation are the most obvious but the importance of incremental process should not be taken as absolute: large single step transformations are not ruled out—they are less probable but from PB, are necessary and we shall be open to their opportunity

An essential way of transformation, and not necessarily restricted to increment, is to destabilize psyche; the goal is to disrupt chains to limited self, limited vision, limited feeling and thinking; giving up the dependence only on prior success

The outcome that is sought is (being on the way to) the ultimate

The process may be in steps; the end result of destabilization is a shift—e.g. a change in gestalt but we shall not limit possibility to the ethereal side of mind—to another state perhaps more fluid perhaps also stable

Life and culture predispose individuals to certain ways. Therefore the changes described above require maintenance. Maintenance is repeating the process; however, in repetition it becomes sharpened and efficient… Openness remains essential

Agents of Transformation

These are the catalysts of transformation

I currently emphasize meditation, being-in-nature, crisis and edge, vision quest, shared endeavor, death as fulcrum, Right living, travel and access to the masters, and dynamics

The next section A Catalog of Catalysts is a collection of agents of transformation. Some of these are components of the catalysts of this section. E.g., fasting is often associated with the vision quest, the ‘edge’, and meditative awareness

Meditation

Meditation in a broad sense is focus toward some objective; the ‘objective’ may of course be the focus itself or the open objective of openness. It may be focus on a single object (a mantra) toward some state of mind. Some practitioners emphasize quieting and unusual experiential states; some warn against getting mired in such states. Work toward the objective may bring about the focus without an intermediate object (e.g. mantra). The objective may be outcome: focus on ideas, a game, some task, or some ultimate concern. Another objective is meditation-in-action where one acts andor lives in a meditative state that is positive in itself and outcome; in some cases the outcome is a living-through-by-aware-tolerance-of-some negative. The variety of combinations may co-occur. Openness to ways of meditation and their use may be cultivated

The practice of meditation may promote meditation-in-action and meditation-as-life

A kind Tantra called Chöd may be seen as an aspect of meditation; in it there is meditative embrace of problem or ugly situations when there is either no option to avoid it or where avoidance is undesirable for psychic andor material reasons (an excellent tool to learning and receiving from crisis). An aspect of chöd is acting, i.e. to the as-if mental and behavioral ways that leads to better communication with self (awareness) and others (charisma)

Meditation upon the openness of one’s actual boundaries and the transitory character of the limited leads or may lead to seeing Identity with All Being and so to one’s eternal nature in this Identity

Meditation-in-action as charismatic influence on self

Being-in-nature as meditation

Fate—there is place for adequate and appropriate understanding of fate. Pain is inevitable; understanding and meditation enhance learning from it when learning is possible. Proper understanding may eliminate fear by recognition, by distinction of predictable from unpredicted pain, by acceptance of a balance of risk and behavior. The Universal Metaphysics requires an unending journey; it requires both enjoyment and emptiness

Adaptation of Twelve Step Programs

Twelve is not an especially magical number; and twelve step programs are for more than addictions. Perhaps the essence of the programs is that they address some essential issues that many people face. This is a significant reason that they help many cases of addiction

Many ‘twelve step programs’ follow a well known formula that begins with the first step We admitted we were powerless over our addiction—that our lives had become unmanageable. However, there are other molds that do not follow the formula and that do not directly address some specific problem area such as addiction

The programs address interpersonal and social relations, the problem of the self and the ego, and relations that are overtly spiritual. However, I like to think that interpersonal and ego issues are also spiritual

As an example, take the traditional fourth step Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. It is the detailed work and self-examination in doing the step that is useful in seeing and overcoming the ways in which excessively defensive behavior has been destructive of our own interests and potential for better relationships and, consequently, to freeing up energy for pursuits in worldly and spiritual domains

The fifth step Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs (which I have not yet done) is, I anticipate, an aid to being careful, clear, and truthful and the emotion of sharing should reinforce the work done in the fourth step

The sixth though ninth steps encourage further self examination—our defects and wrongs that we may have done—and overcoming the defects and redress of wrongs done to others. We are affirmed in our attempt to be better human beings and keep our house in order without judging others or making their behavior a precondition for developing our own practical spirituality (worldly relations) which can only help in the efficiency and truthfulness of our full spirituality or relation with the Universe

Steps ten through twelve emphasize maintenance. Once the problems of ego have been overcome to whatever extent, the internal and external forces that result in the issues do not disappear; and the transformative effect may attenuate also from lack of reinforcement. Transformative therapy is generally recognized as being good only for so long (six months according to some sources). The maintenance steps address this issue

I have found the ‘worldly’ aspects of the steps and the overtly spiritual ones immensely useful and freeing

My intention is to work through the steps and to adapt them to general needs

Nature

Being-in-nature—nature as ground to the Universal, ground to physical and psychic self, ground of our Being and so portal to All Being

Crisis and Edge

Crisis is opportunity. It may require seeing opportunity. The attitude of opportunity may be cultivated. Meditation-in-action is pertinent

Crisis is as if living on edge. I (will) cultivate the attitude of the edge (but not to exclusion of attitudes of Being, being still, and abandon)

Vision Quest

A vision quest involves some kind of isolation, perhaps meditative and toward some general concern (revelation of universal meaning, the nature of the universe…) or special concern (e.g. insight into an individual or social problem). It is thought effective to conduct a quest in or under the auspices of others who have special interest in the individual and the quest and may have experience in the quest

Construction of Organic Being

The goal is to design and build physical and symbolic systems that come as close to being organic as may be possible with available and resources

The systems would be ‘organic’ in having characteristics of intelligence, feeling and life

The purposes include understanding, inheritance, and enhancement of human endeavor by assistance and by independent function

The approaches would include the symbolic, computational and modeling, mechanical—systematic and tinkering, experiment, built in adaptability, ability to evolve, and reflexive (e.g. self-design). Sources of information and support would include the academic, the economic (industry, technology), and political sectors of society; non-secular thought and experience may be useful

Shared Endeavor

The vision quest is solitary but as described above not essentially so

Shared endeavor has two aspects: means—it is effective… and ends—it is enjoyable and useful (moral)

Effectiveness comes from the group as resources and from the enjoyment of the group; enjoyment comes from community and morality

Meditation-in-action, meditative clarity, care and morality, and right living are sources and modes of charisma

Death as transition

From PB, death is one gate to the unlimited

The absolute and the reductionist thinker may be tempted to say ‘death is the gate’

Will I live again with recognizable identity?

One argument starts with the thought that ‘this’ is all there is. That we came from nothing implies, as far as we might know, that we come from nothing again. This argues against this life as this one life

How will identity be recognized beyond death? I do not have to know. PB implies that we have life unlimited and our lives are part of a greater entity with identity

Can I say anything about the state beyond or before death? One argument is that no one has been dead and so we know nothing. There is an argument against this from near death states; I do not have sympathy with this argument; how near ‘near death’ is to death is not known from ‘near death’ experience. But we have been before birth; that casts suspicion on the strength of the argument from ‘no one has been dead’

It seems on common secular, scientific, common sense accounts that one can know nothing about death. Therefore the secular person ought hold no necessary opinion about death. The common sense person says but we know that at death the body goes back to earth and we have never seen anyone come back from real death

It seems that we can know nothing about death. It seems that life is life and death is death and ne’er the twain shall meet

However, we do not know this. The assumption is that life and death are hermetically sealed from one another; we do not know this. Perhaps life and death states already partake of one another. PB requires this. If I have no conscious experience of overlap and no rational knowledge of it the strongest necessary negative consequence is that I do not know the overlap. However, again, PB requires overlap

It follows that the assumed discontinuity between life and death is in error. Different lives are part of a larger being and derive continuity from a common source; however we now see that ordinary life and death are sufficient for continuity

Consideration of death is therefore important for foregoing reasons

It is also important because it encourages a good existential stance in this life

How can we know and use death?

The Tibetan Bardo Thodol is one source. Perhaps they know. I may learn from that Book of the Dead. Still, I must know it through my own experience, meditation and experiment

Meditation on and awareness of the fact of death; significance for the importance of the immediate and ‘every’ act; and as strength

Meditation on my non-absolute character as understanding of and openness to the given—e.g., death

Meditation on the non-absolute character of death (Tantra), Tibetan Bardo Thodol…) as knowledge of Being and Identity; as strength

Perhaps near death experience is a teacher after all. The experience itself may teach us nothing. However, we can reflect on the significance and meaning of such experience before, during, in between, and after such experiences. And we need not wait for serendipitous experience. We can attempt to simulate it; PB requires that such simulations and learning are possible and therefore do occur of necessity; our challenge is to make and learn from simulations. Blood letting is one approach but perhaps not the best: its lack of efficiency does not derive from any repugnance or risk but from its passivity; but perhaps I am mistaken in being suspicious about passivity. What are some others? Some may be found at least implicit in most sections of the narrative. The following sections are among those that have explicit ways or logic: Experience, Logic, General Cosmology, Individual and Identity, On Method, Dynamics, the present section Agents of Transformation, A Catalog of Catalysts

Preparation for death as preparation for universal life. Living this life as best possible as a preparation for death: fully, morally, but also with (attempt at) full understanding of the nature of morality. Meditation on Universal Identity and any in between states (Tibetan Bardo Thodol…)

Moral identity of death as absolute versus non-absolute; importance for moral action

Right living is part of an approach to good death and to beyond death

Right living

Right living—carefully understood and practiced intentionally but also intuitively and not obsessively—is the way of life in this world and form; and it is on the way to spiritual or universal life

[It is a preparation for death as transition]

Travel and access to the masters

I will travel, visit special places in nature, visit special communities; I will be open to opportunity as it may arise; I seek the influence and insight of places and people; I will seek unrecognized and recognized ‘masters’ and in the end my experience of these things will be crucial to my judgment of their use for me, for my purposes, for the journey

Dynamics

The previous agents or catalysts of change emphasize the immediate approach and ‘being-in-process’. The emphasis reflects importance. The approaches are significant in themselves but also as gate to larger things and to the ultimate

From PB, precise destinations are not known. However, there is a dynamic of Being that envelopes and may guide the entire process

The idea of a dynamic of Being was discussed in the earlier section Dynamics. The goal here is to employ the dynamics to weave together and further the agents described above. The following material is repeated from the earlier section Dynamics

“Dynamics employs the metaphysics including its applied aspects in transformation

It is learning; a phase of it emphasizes the iterative and the incremental: therefore immersion and action are essential

Jnâna and other Yogas

Jnâna is the Jnâna of Jnâna yoga—i.e., of ‘knowledge’ yoga

‘Jnâna’ however refers to a specific field of knowledge. ‘Yoga’ is yoke, the yoking of the individual to the Universe, of Atman or self to Brahman or the ultimate real

Ideas, the first part of the narrative is a meditation on this Jnâna. The meditation continues in subsequent parts

The ‘meditation’ includes consideration of ‘non-knowledge’ approaches that conduce to special states and knowledge. The catalysts are among these ways

A common problem is that after the experience of another state we return

A function of Jnâna is that it maintains continuity of connection between our ground or ego state and other and selfless states

We may choose to return or not

Jnâna is ever conscious; this is the source of its strength—that it is grounded; it is its weakness—that it is not given to leaps

However, if we yoke the yogas the issue of relative strength and weakness does not arise. The indirect and the direct, the continuous and the discrete form one; which is the oneness of psyche-body

The continuous and the discrete (direct) approaches are complementary

Systematic Approach

Early versions of the narrative emphasized a system of experiments. See Journey in being for details

The goal of a system is to cover the dimensions of being—psyche, nature, culture, and the universal; the ‘vertical’ element—the approach, recognition of transformation as it occurs (for appreciation and learning and design)

At present I favor eclecticism, immersion, dynamics and openness. These are sufficiently covered in the preceding discussions of ‘agents’ (and system is available in at Journey in being-detail)

A Catalog of Catalysts

This section is a selective summary of Dynamics, catalysts and catalytic states:

These are states of physiological and psychic sensitivity, receptivity and readiness… and are not restricted to any compartment of mind or physiology

Types of state include dream, hypnotic states, vision, heightened awareness to self—including of course the unconscious—and world. Catalytic use includes focusing dreams and so on and integration in awareness; cultivation over time; sensitivity to and cultivation of opportunity and idiosyncrasy

Approaches—meditation and isolation of the psyche (‘and’ body,) suspension of judgment, exposure to and intuitive integration of archetypes through dream-symbol-Art-myth-Faith…and induction of states by contemplation, via shamans and equivalents, and in groups

Approaches—sacrifice and commitment to a higher end

Enhancing or inducing factors—physical isolations and deprivations, physiological alterations from exposure, shock or trauma, pain, presence, fear, crisis and crisis sense, sense of opportunity and opportunism in relation to all events especially crises and unexpected gifts, anxiety—imposed or volitional and purposive, exertion and exhaustion, march, repetition and rhythm and dance, inaction, fasting and diet, and extremes in environment, Tantric exposure to what is unavoidable or neurotic and debilitating avoidance (objectives are manifold especially conservation of energies, openness to Being and vision and perception of opportunity, and psychic transformation)

Other factors—sacred places, rituals, texts

Sensitive individuals, relation to disturbance—that relations are contingent rather than necessary; personality or disposition and state. Individual and group approaches to transformation of personality; splitting; social action and transformation of self and society. Charisma and charismatic transformation. Savant states and transformations

Further information is in a detailed version: Journey in being, especially the part on the Journey

Some systems and sources

The following supplement shall be expanded:

Western, modern: Freud, Jung, Lacan… (12) step programs applied to the ‘ordinary’ individual

East, traditional: Vedanta; Yoga (Samkhya); the physical arts; Bhagavad-Gita—Raja or the Vedantic identification of self and Brahman, Jnâna—knowledge of ultimate truth, Bhakti—immersion via ritual activity symbolic or physic, Karma—duty without emotional attachment to results; Tibetan Buddhism, Tibetan Book of the Dead or Bardo Thodol—a guide to experience of Bardo: the period between death and rebirth

The main religions—trans-cultural, indigenous, and modern—and their texts. Sects, e.g. Gnostic and Mystic

Shamanism

Summary

The details of this part on The Way are too detailed to permit representative summary

The essentials of The Way are (1) A Framework—the Universal Metaphysics adapted to a Dynamics of change, (2) Traditional and experiential systems and approaches, (3) A beginning in my experience so far, (4) Immersion in the process and so learning and iteration with emphasis on openness to opportunity and insight and risk in light of the Dynamics

A Précis of some Essential Ideas and Results

Click on an item below to go to its location in the text