1 Foundations


The Nature of Metaphysics

1.1-1 Metaphysics is an inquiry into the nature of the relation between self and reality.

1.1-2 Metaphysics is organized thinking that attempts/purports to describe the common aspects of the relations between self and reality. The basic questions of metaphysics include:.

- What is the nature of existence, creation, and interaction?
- What is the nature and basis of value, purpose, and meaning?
- What is the nature of the known, the knower, and of knowing,
or between the known, the unknown, and the unknowable?
- What is the nature of causality, of choice, and of change?
- What is the nature of the personal (self, soul, mind, spirit, that which is subjective),
and of the impersonal (world, substance, body, physical reality, that which is objective),
and what is the nature of the relation/interaction between them?

1.1-3 Although metaphysics is often considered as an extension of physics, it is more correct to assert that physics is a particular instance of a more general metaphysics.

Physics is organized thinking that attempts/purports to explain the common correlated content of the perceptions of many selves in the context of a particular physical world.

Physics is the study of the interactions within a given domain.
Metaphysics is the study of the relationships between domains (1).

1.1-4 A metaphysics is not a physics. Each has its own means, ends and values.

Physics (explanations) is an answer to a Why question.
Technology (prediction) is an answer to a How question.
Metaphysics is an answer to a What question.

The concept of falsifiability is applicable to questions of why and of how, but it cannot be applied to questions of what (description). Metaphysics, insofar as it is descriptive and definitive, is generally not so much itself the subject of logic or of proof, as it is an attempt to provide a basis for logic and proof.

Physics and technology (when combined together as per the scientific method) refer to a collection of theories, and are thus subject to falsifiability and disproof. Metaphysics, as a description of the nature of meaning, measurement, and interaction, is not a theory, not scientific, and not falsifiable, in the conventional sense of these terms. A description (and/or metaphor) is evaluated on a basis of a feeling of significance, completeness, and relevance, rather than on the basis of a fixed procedure or methodology (a form of logic).

A true metaphysics makes no predictions and provides no explanations; it is merely a description of the foundations of being in terms of patterns of correlations of meaningfulness (a system of metaphors and definitions).



Notes:
[1] In common usage, the meaning of the term "domain" is similar to the notions of "objective reality", "world", "universe", and "dimension" (as in the notion of 'a space' in which things happen). Here, the concept of domain extends to include any realm or class of thought, theory, and/or imagination. For example, any single language is a domain. Each system of mathematics or field of scientific study is a domain. Each individual and personal dream is a domain.

However, in more technical considerations, the notion of 'a domain' must be regarded as abstract, rather than as a concrete reference. A domain is not a container or context in which a certain type of things are content; rather it is a reference to the combination of a certain set of ideas. A domain (as a notion) does not refer to a total collection of things so much as it refers to a common context (or type) of consideration of three or more mutually associated (and usually fundamental) defining concepts.



Knowledge and Understanding

1.57-1 The concept of knowing is distinct from the concept of knowledge, for the former refers to the nature of one's being in relation to a world, whereas the latter refers to the content of one's subjective state. To say that one has knowledge of something is to say that one has information about something (static), but is not to say that one is in the process of knowing (dynamic).

1.57-2 Knowing and understanding are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable. The phrases "to know" and "to understand" cannot be used interchangeably; they are not the same. They are distinct in inner essential meaning and in the actual practice of being.

Knowing is the selective abstractive transformation (filtering) of perception.

Understanding is the selective instructive (1) transformation (filtering) of expression.

1.57-3 Perception is simple. Knowing is complex.
Where perception is defined by a single form (simplicity), knowing is defined by many feelings (complexity).
Expression is simple. Understanding is complex.
Where expression is defined by a single feeling (simplicity), understanding is defined by many forms (complexity).

Knowing is a transformation of outer form into inner feeling. Any process that converts from an
outer/ external form into an inner/internal form (feeling) is a process of abstraction (as "from structure").
Knowing is fundamentally a perceptive process.

Understanding is a transformation of inner feeling into outer form. Any process that converts from an
inner/ internal form (feeling) to an outer/external form, is a process of instruction (as "into structure").
Understanding is fundamentally an expressive process.

1.57-4 No degree (even a very large degree) of knowing is equivalent to any degree (even a very small degree) of understanding. Similarly, no degree of understanding is equivalent to any degree of knowing. Understanding cannot replace, or create, knowing (2). Knowing cannot replace, or create, understanding.



Notes:
[1] The term 'instructive' is here used in the manner of "to in-struct" or as in 'to put into, add, or create structure').

[2] Due to the nature of communication, this book can only convey understanding; it cannot convey knowing. The reader must (and will) already have a knowing of innate being, to or from which no text (such as this one) could ever add or diminish.



Simplicity, Clarity, and Metaphor

1.1-5 The concepts of simplicity and clarity are distinct, even though they may often appear in the same context. In thinking about metaphysics, one must proceed with an emphasis on a clarity of essence rather than submit to a desire or drive for a simplicity of appearance. As a metaphor for how the concept of simplicity is distinct from clarity, and of how clarity can sometimes be more valued than simplicity, consider a sphere of pure black coal as compared to a large multi-faceted diamond. The sphere of black coal perhaps represents the simplest possible physical object. In contrast, the large diamond represents a clear, yet complex, physical object.

The sphere, although very simple, will not let light pass through it, for coal is not transparent. Despite the complexity of the diamond, however, it does pass light. In this way, one can see that the ability to transmit light (a metaphor for understanding) is not dependent on complexity, nor on the materials used, for both coal and diamonds are made of just carbon. The beauty of the diamond, and how it makes prisms and sprinkles of light, depends on a detailed technology of careful faceting (very complex). Light, which typically represents love and spirituality in symbolic terms, is made beautiful by the clarity, and to some extent the complexity, of the diamond. Simplicity cannot, therefore, be the one and only end of all considerations of metaphysics (nor of spirituality, enlightenment, etc). As another similar metaphor, consider that the important aspect of a chandelier is its clarity, and not its simplicity. A chandelier is made more impressive by the degree that it is complex and consists of many multifaceted parts.

1.1-6 The value and sophistication of a metaphysics is in the power and insightfulness of its metaphors
(the clarity of its descriptions and definitions).

The power of a metaphor is proportional to the dis-similarity and diversity of the perceptions, ideas, and concepts the metaphor links across different symbol systems, languages, or levels of self.
The power of a metaphor is proportional to the degree of completeness by which these perceptions, ideas, and concepts are linked together.
The power of a metaphor is inversely proportional to the amount of subjective time that it takes to make the necessary connections between perceptions, ideas, and concepts.

The clarity (potency) of a metaphysical description, definition, or metaphor (and of the whole of a metaphysics) is measured by the degree to which the understanding of the essence of being is reflected in one's innate knowing of the essence of being. Assertions of metaphysics are 'meta-physical' only insofar as they transparently connect and reflect an essential personal knowing of being with an essential impersonal understanding of theory (the physical with that which is not physical). Therefore it is essential to the nature of metaphysics itself to be a clear description of the nature of the connection between the personal (self) and the impersonal (world), in both theory and in being.

In the practice of spirituality, philosophy, and art, clarity (not simplicity) is the more essential value. This is particularly true when examining and presenting the deeper concepts of metaphysics. To say that a concept of metaphysics, or a theory of physics, has 'elegance' and grace, is not to say that it is demonstrably simple so much as it is to say that it is profoundly clear.

Thinking about metaphysics and philosophy will tend to encourage the reader to frequently examine implicit and hidden assumptions. Clarity is especially important when examining one's underlying assumptions. The reader is advised to exercise discipline in their thinking, and to maintain a clear openness. When allowing a release of expectations, it becomes possible to gain new and valuable insights.

1.45-9 The essence of what it is to be in a domain is the same as the essence of what it is to use a language.
Events occur within domains in the same sense that messages occur within communication.

1.45-10 Just as the synthesis of multiple languages grants the speaker a deeper knowing (including a knowing of the essential nature of language), so also does the use of multiple levels, channels, and interchanges of interaction with a reality grant a deeper knowing (including a knowing of the essence of reality). The depth of such knowing obtained is greater than the sum of its components. The self which is knowledgeable about many worlds has greater wisdom in each of them.

1.45-11 In that there will always be limitations in translating the fullness of some ideas in one language into terms of another language, so also will some qualities of being in one domain be particular to that domain and none other. The domain of an Immanent metaphysics has aspects particular to itself.

To be able to think about, within, and upon, different types of foundations is important. The choice of the language (assumptions, subjective context) used in consideration has a profound effect on the trend and effectiveness of one's thinking.


Foundational Triplication and Type Isomorphism

1.1-7 The philosophical development of this Metaphysics has as its basis two ideas; that of foundational triplication and of type isomorphism.

1.1-8 The idea of foundational triplication is to model all that is real, and particularly the foundation of each and every domain, in terms of at least three essential concepts, which although inseparable, are always mutually distinct.

1.1-9 The idea of type isomorphism is to consider that the essential concepts of each domain are those which have similar patterns of correspondence (1).

Isomorphism: literally "one shape"; a term used to describe two concepts as having a deep sameness because they both belong to the same abstract class or type.

The principles of foundational triplication and of type isomorphism (and the Immanent metaphysics based on them) are in contrast to the prevailing philosophical and scientific heritage of Western Culture, which may also be described as based on two ideas; that of dualism and that of physical monism.

The idea of dualism is to model all that is real in the terms of a fixed Cartesian separation of mind and soul from body and matter; an absolute separation of the subjective from the objective.

The idea of physical monism is to consider as real only that which exists in a manner which can be studied/ evaluated in a quantitative and objective manner (the Scientific Method).

Dualism and physical monism, in combination with each other, are the basis for most of the metaphors and explanations of/for worldly phenomena. They are the basis for most of the attendant assumptions commonly in consensus usage today. These are the very assumptions about which a careful clarity is required when examining the ideas of this metaphysics.



Notes:
[1] The identification of isomorphisms is not arbitrary, but may depend on the exact context in which the concepts are considered. Considering the same (literal) concept in a different (semantic) context may result in varying associations of aspect and modality. As such, it is especially important to remain aware of the assumptions and perspective in which one considers a given concept.


The Three Modalities

1.2-1 Metaphysics realizes greater generality in referring to the 'types' of basic domain concepts and predicates rather than to the concepts themselves. As such, metaphysical thinking often considers the class (or type) of each of the fundamental predicates as they appear in each domain, rather than to be referring only to the specific instances of those predicates in themselves. The fundamental concepts in each domain are seen as instances of a more general set of concept classes (types), which themselves are related to one another in specific patterns.

The term class refers to a general category to which many eventities (concepts, beings, relations) may belong. This usage of the term 'class' is borrowed from the language of computer science, and has much of the same meaning as found within the software development process for certain languages.

The term instance refers to a specific proper member of a category or class.

The term class has the connotation of context (a general whole).
The term instance has the connotation of content (a specific part).

1.2-2 The modalities define a terminology for the role that each of the archetypal terms play in each specific domain, rather than to the specific instances of those archetypal terms in some particular domain (1).

1.2-3 The fundamental consideration of any domain can be (must be) resolved into exactly three concepts, each of which are primal and necessary to the very essence of that domain. This is known to be true for all domains.

1.2-4 1.2-5 These three concepts (the modalities), which form the most basic foundation and logic of that domain, have a definite and describable pattern of roles that each plays with respect to the other two, and in the domain as a whole. The basic pattern of roles is common to the foundations of all domains. The same pattern of roles between these three fundamental, necessary, and intrinsic concepts will be found as the essence of all domains.

The term 'modality' is generally used to refer to a specific type of role, as selected from a finite set of available types. Three such types, (or roles), and the relations between them, are both necessary and sufficient to provide a complete description of this metaphysics (The IDM or Immanent Domain Modality metaphysics).

In that the general pattern of relative roles is common to the foundations of all domains, each of the three roles is given a specific name, a modality, which is then used to refer to the class of all concepts that have that type of role.

1.2-6 The three modalities are the three terms used to refer to each of the three primal roles that form the essential basis necessary to the consideration of each domain. To consider the modality of a concept is to consider the essential role that concept plays with respect to other primal concepts.

1.2-7 The names given to the three roles (modalities) that domain primal concepts have with respect to one another are "the immanent", "the omniscient", and "the transcendent".

1.2-8 Within the lexicon of this metaphysics, the term "the immanent modality" refers to the entire class of all immanent modal concepts, (as instantiated within their respective domains). The omniscient and transcendent modalities are similarly defined, as references to classes of concepts.

1.2-9 The absolute description of the relative nature that each of the three modalities plays with respect to the other two; i.e., the pattern common to all domains, is defined by the three Axioms. Insofar as the Axioms define the pattern of the three roles, then it is ultimately the Axioms which define the exact meanings of the three modalities (and also, eventually, of all of the metaphysics itself).

Since the Axioms are formulated in terms of the modalities (since no more primal concepts exist with which to formulate them), the exact definitions of the modalities themselves are necessarily abstract, and thus are not specific to any particular domain, including that of the IDM metaphysics itself. (The modalities are abstract; the Axioms are concrete).

Therefore, no exact and final (closed/complete) definitions can be given for the modalities, aside from those which are implicit and inherent within the Axioms (and all of their pure theorems), in whatever language they are expressed. For this reason, the pattern of the meaning of each of the three modalities must often be expressed in a metaphorical character, in the language of whatever domains one happens to be interested in considering (see appendix). In this manner, eventually, with a large number of role correspondences to known systems, the essential nature of the pattern of meaning of each of the three modalities becomes clear.

Also, it is to be understood that the concept of a metaphor and the concept of an established system of correspondences is essentially equivalent in use (isomorphic) in this context. In effect, the modalities constitute the basis of a system of correspondences, the totality of which, for some large set of domains, will give particular meaningfulness to each.



Notes:
[1] For this initial description (as a rough simplification), the term "domain" refers to any instance of a world (or universe) which may be (is) experienced by a self. There is no world that is completely independent of all selves and there is no self which is completely independent of all worlds.


The Three Axioms

1.3-1 Where the foundations of any domain can be subsumed by three necessary and sufficient concepts, known as the modalities, so too does the relationships between these three have a consistent pattern and form. This form/pattern, common to the foundations of all domains/worlds, is described by the three Axioms.
All of the descriptive power of this metaphysics ultimately descends from the Axioms.

Axiom I: The immanent is more fundamental than the omniscient and/or the transcendent.
The omniscient and the transcendent are in conjugate relationship to one another.

Axiom II: A class of the transcendent
will precede an instance of the immanent.
A class of the immanent will precede
an instance of the omniscient.
A class of the omniscient will precede
an instance of the transcendent.

Axiom III: The (classes/instances) of the immanent, omniscient, and transcendent are distinct,
inseparable, and non-interchangeable.

1.3-2 In that the Axioms are statements of the relations between the modalities, the Axioms themselves are also associated (have a one-to-one correspondence) with the modalities. In this manner, the Axioms are fully self-describing.

Axiom I has the nature of the omniscient modality.
Axiom II has the nature of the immanent modality.
Axiom III has the nature of the transcendent modality.

1.3-3 Scope of the Axioms:

Axiom III is an omniscient consideration
of the nature of the transcendent.
Axiom II is a transcendent consideration
of the nature of the immanent.
Axiom I is an immanent consideration
of the nature of the omniscient.

1.3-4 The Axioms are (and represent) the concept of pure form, without quality. The Modalities are (and ultimately represent) pure quality without form. These concepts, taken together as different representations of the same fundamental pattern, are the basis of all considerations of the IDM metaphysics.

1.53-5 Axioms refer to that which is applied between all domains, but is a part of none of them.
Laws refer to that which applies to/in/within only one world/domain.
Principles refer to that which applies to/in/within many worlds/domains.

1.53-6 Axioms have the nature of the immanent modality.
Laws have the nature of the omniscient modality.
Principles have the nature of the transcendent modality.



Back Up To TOC Next


For recommendations, comments, suggestions, or other offers to provide qualified assistance,
Please write to:

[20_14/12/09;17:18:50.00]