1. Keep it simple
2. Provide enough of the pattern to be sure it is a pattern

With this in mind let’s begin to review the pattern:

First we had a perception that we as individual existed within a physical universe:



This led to our sensing there was nothing other than the physical universe within which we existed:



This led to a perception of reality potentially being the physical universe existing and a primal force existing transcendent of the physical universe perhaps being a reality:



This led to the perception that the individual existed within the physical universe and the primal force did in fact (a religious perception of 4 billion living human beings) exist as a separate entity ‘overseeing’ the physical:



This led to: ‘being’ being ‘Being’ as espoused by the concept of emanation but where the whole embraces the physical universe itself and the term - being - is non-italicized to indicate the passivity of the individual as regards the individuals ability to ‘change’/impact/affect the whole of ‘Being/the whole/summation/the purity of abstractual existence found to exist ‘outside’ the physical universe:



This in turn led to the concept of ‘being’ being ‘Being as espoused by symbiotic emanation, symbiotic panentheism where the whole embraces the physical universe itself and where the term - being – is italicized (as opposed to being non-italicised) to indicate the active nature of the individual as regards the individual’s ability to ‘change’/impact/affect the whole of ‘Being/the whole/summation/the purity of abstractual existence found to exist ‘outside’ the physical universe:



The diagram in its simplest form becomes:



The dotted line becomes a solid line to indicate the furthest boundary of our present perceptual abilities. The arrow is ignored for the system’s name embraces the concept of symbiosis as clearly indicated by the system’s names: symbiotic emanation, symbiotic panentheism, ‘being’ being (italicized) ‘Being’. The names enfold both the passivity and action of individuality – ‘being’.

It is at this point in time, the dawn of a new millennium, that the concept of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, the concept of a Cartesian system powering a non-Cartesian system, emerges. It is at this very point in time that one must take pause and use extreme caution, for the concept has not been examined to its fullest. A full examination of the model is an endeavor that does not happen in a matter of years or even decades.

Therefore to assume the model is ‘the’ model or to assume the model is an ‘absolute’ incapable of being ‘expanded’ is getting ahead of ourselves and for this very reason the theoretical speculation regarding an expanding model of symbiotic panentheism is classified as ‘theoretical metaphysics’.

We must, therefore acknowledge that:



may, in fact, not be an accurate diagram regarding the whole of reality and thus:



May not be the case.

Therefore, we must recognize that the next diagram:



Or more accurately:



may not be the case and thus we have little choice but to go back to the more simplistic diagram of:



In order to determine where to place:



Just because we found the concept of ‘separation through exclusion’ to be lacking in terms of resolving paradoxes of our past (see Tractate 9: The Error of Russell), does not mean ‘separation through exclusion’ may not, could not, does not exist in regards to the interrelationship existing between the first three metaphysical elements and the new element – ‘?’, the fourth potential element of metaphysics.

But why the dotted line? The line is dotted because at this point we have no idea regarding what this fourth element may be let alone if the dotted line represents a Cartesian system, a non-Cartesian system, or something else altogether.

As such we have no idea regarding where to place this new element in relationship to the integrated system of the first three forms of being: ‘being’ being ‘Being’

We don’t even know if this new element, this fourth element, is ‘within’ any one, any two, or all three of the first three.

Now it would appear that this fourth ‘location’ could not be ‘within’ the other three or it would be a part of the other three. This, however, is not necessarily the case. Since we have no idea whatever as to what this fourth element is, should the fourth element in fact exist. We have no conception of the fourth element’s characteristics and as such the fourth element, should it exist, has the potential to be anywhere and anything other than what it is we are capable of conceiving at this point in time.

This then brings us back to our question: What is the next diagram in the sequence?