Also, going off of what you've just written, if mind is needed to actualize such potential, it would itself have to be actual in order to do so; since potentiality can't actualize itself or another. So there would still be something, namely, mind, that existed independently of this potential, which proceeds to actualize it. — aRealidealist

Your reasoning is ok however I have adopted pre-existent into my own metaphysics and have an entry titled “pre-existent” in my book glossary explaining what I mean. Although the term is a conventional one in the way you have show it in your post: ‘Commonly used & understood, "pre-exist" means existed before’ in the metaphysical sense I use it, is an original term of my own choice.

I suppose you are familiar with philosophers who found fit to adopt terms with a new meaning; useful for their philosophies, or to create new terms just to explain what they mean. In my book glossary I group my adopted or created terms in two categories: Original Metaphysical Terms, and Meaning-Modified Conventional Terms.

I classified ‘pre-existent’ as an original metaphysical term since the use of it which you mentioned is not metaphysical. Do you believe I should have classify it as a meaning-modified term, just because it is written the same way, or would you agree with me in the basis of my use of it (and meaning) being metaphysical?

In relation to whether mind needs to be an existent to actualize potentialities I do not regard it as part of the universe substratum, it is genetically sourced, was designed to be the actualizer of existence, and it is foreign to the natural world. It neither exist or pre-exist, it is genetic for sure and perhaps you could suggest what the correct adjective for it should be other than ‘existing’ or ‘pre-existing’.

Pre-existent means potential to exist, should mind provide the complementing appearances needed to actualize its existence.

I thought it might be useful in orienting your ideas in respect of other philosophers. Obviously at this point I can't anticipate what you mean by 'actualised materiality'. — Wayfarer

Let me ask you a couple of questions about Kant and Berkeley. You just told me Kant did not agree with Berkeley, but Kant was an idealist as Berkeley was right?

Does Idealism mean: you do not see the object as it is in itself (in both cases for Kant and for Berkeley)?

Does materialism mean: you see the object as it is in itself?

Risking your disappointment, let me clarify my position about idealism. I take idealism as a foundation, my metaphysics begins accepting Berkeley and Kant, as being right about certain limitations of the human sensory system. But as I progress, it becomes clear their positions are only a building block that I can use to achieve something stronger. It turns out they did not go far enough, idealism in itself, if you stop there, is weak, and in my persuasion it belongs to the frame of mind of immature people, receptors in my lexicon. A mature individual; a perceptor in my lexicon, achieves the materiality stage not because materiality exists independently in the world but by mental actualization of it. Therefore reconsider whether my metaphysics can be classified as transcendental idealism learning that an initial epistemological arrangement could turn later as actualized materiality.

I'd like to agree with you but finding it difficult. Your presentation is rather idiosyncratic. — Wayfarer

Are you open-minded to an idiosyncratic philosopher? I am a self-taught one who has no much formal education but makes up with considerable vocation for metaphysics. Regarding the example of the earth being a fact long before mind, I have no doubt about that, I only rate facts differently, perceptive facts require perception that depends on direct, concurrent subject-object targeting and those facts are the facts of reality. Logical facts, such as the earth taking form long before mind, do not require mind to be a “fact” but are facts of inference not of reality.
So if what you care about is whether: “the earth took form long before mind” is a solid fact, yes it is. However do not confuse logical facts with perceptive facts. Regarding my metaphysical persuasion it is neither idealism or realism, reality is “realized” (actualized in perception {by mind} over epistemological-practical foundations in synthesis with external world substrata) by human perceptors, and you should tell me whether such realization by mind is realism proper, or something else.

Not a prejudice. Just aware of how disconnected they can be from ordinary life. — Andrew M

Ordinary life is cultural, and my writing is mostly about metaphysical issues, my writing does not intend to explain everyday cultural manifestations or how the use of expressed language affects cultural interactions. It centers on metaphysical fundamentals and the use of the senses rather than the details of communication. So you could put aside my comment about Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin, etcetera who I choose to mention because you mentioned them, what I mean is that most philosophy (not only theirs) is based on logical schemes that do not reach the metaphysical bases of realness. So consider me a philosopher who does not like the philosophical method, I get tired of logical schemes and seek to get straight, or as close as possible, to my target which is realness (reality, perception).
Regarding dualities I value highly my determinations, definitions and conclusions about them, reception and perception, actuality and reality, receptor and perceptor, etcetera are crucial components of my metaphysics, so I felt compelled to tell you if you have a prejudice about them it could become an obstacle for your understanding of my persuasion.

So, for the sake coherence could I summarize the position as a belief that if the right mind 'percepts' the intended target the truth about the target will be manifest. And one ought expect it may deviate from information gained by other means. — Cheshire

You lack enough information to determine whether the concept is one worthy of consideration. You need to wait until my exchange with Andrew M gives you more clues because you are too far away from what I mean.

Perhaps you could briefly present the problem that you're attempting to solve, and why the conventional (and scientific) language that most people find eminently useful is not up to the task. — Andrew M

Rather than solving a problem, my task is to define fundamentals and after I define some fundamentals the results themselves offer guidance that could help preventing problems. Language that is expressed is a cultural matter, but awareness itself includes language fundamentals. The issue of realness, which is my main interest, is not boarded, penetrated, or even significantly reach by the cultural use of language, not even by specialty uses of language of writers such as Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin, etcetera because what is handled by them is logic. There is a large difference between logical schemes and materiality. Talking about materiality does not board, penetrate, or even significantly reach it. So if you have a prejudice against dualities, if you think all things are set in a single plane, the plane of language, or the plane of nuclear elements, or the plane of logic, or mathematics, you are somehow handicapped for the totality of reality.

Are people in some sense mistaken about that? If so, perhaps you could provide your criteria (or the metaphysical authority implied by "In metaphysical talk") for saying that that talk is incorrect/misguided. — Andrew M

Let me tell you what my criteria is, for the writing I do about my metaphysical persuasion, which I classify as perception metaphysics. I stay away from logic as much as possible since I believe logic cannot reach or board realness, and realness is my main interest therefore my audience should not expect any scientific corroboration of my claims.
Testable hypotheses are ruled out because I do not conduct experiments that would be scientifically testable in a physical way or present logical arguments that would be proven with logical outcomes resulting in exact science. Basically what the audience could get are claims based on what I assert as correct, the way things are or where.
From there you need to determine what the consequences would be should I be right, and for this enterprise to be successful, you must take my claims as correct for a suitable period of time carefully considering significant consequences and ramifications. If you do that, find no way to significantly disprove my claims, and as a result you end up either liking or fearing the consequences foreseen by your figuring out, you will respect me as metaphysician and could become a member of my persuasion.
If on another hand, you convincingly disprove my claims, come to think I do not know what I am talking about and should think about occupying myself in something other than metaphysics or philosophy of mind, I wish you good luck and apologize in advance for the time you’ve lost taking my rhetoric into consideration.
Clear enough?

These stimuli seem to hover somewhere in between natural existence and nonexistence yet they lean far away from nonexistence and more toward existence since they are apparently something that the senses can take in, with the brain needed to turn them into phenomena as 'existence' in our minds' reality, they only in that sense being named as 'pre-existent'. — PoeticUniverse

You lack enough information to determine whether the concept is one worthy of consideration.

What is gained by subjugating logic to observation? — Cheshire

Perception, as defined by me, is more than observation and there is a lot to gain in such “subjugating” but it is too long to explain here. Specially when members respond only to my last post ignoring what I have explained previously and I need to repeat myself.

Before going to far; is there some novel conclusion that is supposed to be drawn that can't otherwise be assailed? — Cheshire

Do you have time to read a book? If you do check my website. (Look up my bio.)

The Berkeleyan subjective idealist empiricist intuition is that the external work is made up of lots of properties - that is how we experience it. — bert1

May I disagree with your description of the Berkeleyan perspective? Berkeley thought the external world is only felt in some ways (as ideas). Therefore it would be improper to attribute properties to it other than the ideas that make up our feeling of the external world. That is because we are limited to our cognitive system and there is no way to reach the external world beyond our ideas. Later on, a remarkable thing happened that would surprise Berkeley very much. He thought there was no way to corroborate materiality, and concluded, correctly so, there is no matter, only a “feeling” of matter. In the basis of his conclusion it can be inferred that neither materiality or immateriality can be corroborated, and that was the case in his time. But then comes the surprise, the atom microscope was developed and his Immaterialism became a scientific fact.

Which are you implying to be the correct interpretation or neither. I realize it's later qualified, but I'm looking for a starting point. — Cheshire

A different example: Pre-existence is not a denial of logical facts. Let us supposed you visit a building located far away from your home. While you are there looking at it directly you perceive it and the building is set in reality. Later you go back home and remember the building, your memories of the building are set in actuality (or, the building is set in actuality owed to your memories of it). Therefore what makes the building real is you perceiving it (it is the direct subject/object relationship). When you are away from it only the location of the building is a fact of actuality corroborated by your memories. Far away the building is no more than a logical fact, suggested by either: your memories of it, a map, a television camera, etcetera, but it is not real unless perceived directly. Let us suppose while you are away the building roof collapses and no one see it happening, well the collapse is a fact of actuality waiting to be discovered. When someone arrives there and perceives the results of the collapse, the collapse is real. (It is set in reality). Again, actuality (pre-existence) is no negation of unobserved facts, but those facts are logical facts, not perceptive facts.

Are you an academic? In the announcements page I offer a free e-book copy to some academics.

I would be willing to suppose that the universe is expanding to keep up with how far we are looking, but mind actualization seems to limiting to be the only requirement for existence. Things that are out of view still need to remain in existence in so much as other variables states rely on them. The inner core of the earth is probably always there without the need for anyone constantly pinging it. — Cheshire

It is a controversial feature of my metaphysical persuasion to only rate as reality what is perceived, while anything else pre-existing out of mind’s sense-targeting I rate as actuality, not reality. The controversy is large because I claim science in its totality operates within actuality. Only perception (directly and in close proximity) reaches realness and if that was not enough a controversy, human cognition I divide between reception and perception. Only human beings who attain the hierarchy of perceptors are capable of perceiving. Human receptors and scientific instrument are not capable of perceiving, they operate by means of psychological impressions. I do not expect you to fully understand my frame of mind just by reading here a few of my claims.

So, yep, got time, but maybe not inclination. — Mww

Check my website to determine whether you have interest. (look at my bio).

What are the properties of this substratum? — RogueAI

If you are looking for a metaphysical definition: force surfaces. If looking for a scientific response, physics has a growing catalogue regarding properties of the substratum.

If all minds in the universe disappeared, what would be left? — RogueAI

The universe pre-existent substratum would be left.

Do you have time to read a book?

Who are you talking to? — counterpunch

Initially I meant to talk to all members, but sarcastic or disrespectful members, if any, I rather not talk to.

Is the mind an object? Does it exist independently? Or must each mind be actualised by another mind? — Michael

Is this "appearance-less essence" or "force" that exists in the external world not an object? — Michael

When referring to immaterial targets such as mind, consider actualization by judgment (judgment of mind) so yes another mind judging yours is needed, but your own judgment is as good as another mind judgement, right? Essence is not an object until it is realized by mind (realized into an object of realness).

You have to be careful of the word "exist". Let's take the moon for example. Would the moon exist if no one was around? Well, the the big rock would exist, but there would be no one to call it "moon" (or for that matter to differentiate what a "rock" is from the space around it). So does that mean the moon exists or no? Just depends on your definition. — khaled

I am careful about the word “exist”. Anything able to exist should you sense-target it, pre-exists in the meantime. Consider pre-exist as a correct expression.

Either you are disagreeing with their claim in which case this is an empirical dispute. Or else you're using words unconventionally which is likely to confuse your audience. If the latter, can you restate your claim in conventional terms? — Andrew M

I have redefined existence as something that becomes rather than “is”. It is not easy to bring that redefinition to the forum in one shot so first you read my initial claim, ask me to restated it, and here it is in different words. We learn that things (objects) exist in their own, but in fact each time you sense-target there is only a substratum which requires mind to become an existent. Such state of affairs does not affect logical facts such as the one you mentioned: “the Earth existed billions of years before the emergence of human beings (with minds).” Therefore before you become acquainted with my whole frame of mind, all significant aspects of it, I suggest taking my initial explanation as a correction of misguided language. In metaphysical talk (perception metaphysics in particular) it is incorrect to refer to existence-in-its-own, there is no such thing in the universe. Existents become by act of mind.

If things were wholly of my own making, actualized, then I couldn't really misunderstand or get something wrong about them. I'd know already. Something's amiss — jorndoe

Do do not confuse understanding with actualizing. Understanding depends on you intellectual build-up. Actualizing of the object you observe is provided automatically by your cognitive system. What you observe within awareness (awake, not in a dream or hallucinating) is created by mind in subjective fashion so it can never be wrong since it is actualized internally (from genetic resources and at your highest intellectual level). It is not in fact observed in the external world but since it fits the substratum under target with precision, that is why it is hard to believe.

StreetlightX, you are right, that is only a beginning, an assertion is my way of introducing myself to a new group.

Keep in mind, metaphysics is not a science, offering testable hypotheses, the reputation of the metaphysician is an important component of the enterprise and it depends on the audience respecting it just because the claims could not be disproven, if proved wrong that would be the end of the effort.
My metaphysical persuasion is presented in a book I have self-published and here is an excerpt from my book glossary (the glossary is a separate book) which perhaps would give you a clear idea of my frame of mind.

“Absolute Realization is a metaphysical persuasion which I classify as a theist, essentialist, intelligent design proposition about a foundation of epistemological awareness that eventually reaches theoretical-practical realness. My metaphysical argument springs from a simple, although surprising realization: As a matter of metaphysical fact, the universe is invisible and silent, and the human genetic makeup—practically singlehandedly—must overcome such considerable interaction limitations in order to succeed.

Genetic instructions carried by the chain of species are responsible for both the emergence and functioning of the body and mind in human beings. As the necessary means to interact with the featureless substratum of the universe, they are the cause of the feature-rich environment we are able to observe as soon as we become aware. Therefore, the external world we identify as being visible, audible, tastable, smellable and touchable is a synthesis of the universe substratum’s pre-existents and mind’s effect on them…”

Glossary Book Page 1

Wayfarer, thanks for the Berkeley excerpts, his persuasion is a strong foundation for future metaphysicians, and his main claim: Immaterialism, was confirmed by modern physics. Developing my own metaphysical persuasion I began with the Berkeley’s frame of mind.

Jorndoe, the substratum is independent of mind but it does not amount to existence, it pre-exists.

Sir2u, would you ask those questions to George Berkeley after he said: “To exist is to be perceived”?
The beer exist when you drink it, everything involved in making it sub-exist in a dark underground I call: Actuality.
Actuality is made out of facts but it is not Reality.

Apollodorus, the external objects are a synthesis of the external substratum (which lacks any details) and mind. Mind is not an “observer” (since there are not traits that can be observed) it attributes details to the substratum and then identifies the attribution (at the external location of the substratum targeted).

Bert1, at this initial stage of you considering my claims I believe the “force” element in my argument is not the one to concentrate on, since physics takes care of it, more importantly are the metaphysical and philosophy of mind consequences. I mean all the elements that mind needs to provide to make an invisible and silent universe, visible and listenable.