A qualitative absolute subject or a quantitative subjective Wholeness as a Concept

A qualitative absolute subject or a quantitative subject?

Historically, when people have spoken and thought about existence and a subjective creator of the world, they have conceived of this subjective creator as relative to - and distant from - the creation, in the sense that the subjective creator brings the world into being from the void outside their own existence. In this view, the subjective creator is conceived as relative to both the creation and the human beings created in the creator's own image.

Philosophers have, however, previously conceived of the subjective creator as the Absolute. This view appears in Advaita Vedanta, for instance, but also in the works of Kant, Spinoza, and Heidegger.

The underlying idea was that the subjective creator was a conscious being aware of its own existence.

The problem they wrestled with was how something absolute without parts could either create something outside of itself, or if it was impossible to create from the imagined nothing, how the absolute can be experienced as the amount of objects that are both visible and tangible in reality.

Buddhism posits non-existence as the foundation of the world, but in his hypothesis, Stefan Hlatky replaced non-existence with Existence.

His assumption turned the subjective creator into a quantitative subject - a multitude of subjective parts building up the vast whole into an organism that brings forth creation as a vibrational phenomenon within its own body.

This concept is entirely conceivable and fits within the logic he presented in 1972.

The idea was to explain how wave motion could arise; Stefan Hlatky envisioned the subjective elements moving in relation to one another at the behest of the whole, thereby - together with all the other subjects - creating the wave, much like waves in water.

This concept is further developed in the Philosophy of Absolute Existence by positing that Existence is "the Absolute Subject".

What is experienced as the multitude of objects - both visible and tangible in reality - is regarded as phenomenal reality and as a modulative change of state in the Absolute Subject’s essential faculty of perception. (Like the parable - a switching between rest and wakefulness – like the binary on and off – zero and one.)

The subject is then not quantitative, but experiences phenomenal consciousness in various unique qualities as objects in motion.

The subject itself is not visible but makes phenomenal reality visible as consciousness in relation to its own faculty of perception.

Science

In the late 16th century, modern science made a deliberate methodological choice to exclude the subject from its mathematical calculations of reality. What was taken into account regarding reality was that which could be measured, weighed, and have its speed calculated.

Reality was conceived as consisting of inert, objective dead atoms in motion, influenced by dead natural laws such as gravity and, eventually, electromagnetic forces, and the strong and week atomic force.

When materialism reached its end in the early 20th century with the advent of the theory of relativity, it was replaced by "the quantum mechanics theory" —a concept just as lifeless as materialism, and one also governed by the so-called "quantity syndrome." Reality is viewed fundamentally as a vacuum field in which quantities of interactions fluctuate between different energy states, causing inert atoms to emerge from the vacuum field to then build up the universe and create creatures with brains that generate consciousness.

There is no understanding of how subjective consciousness arises; however, the prevailing assumption is that if inert atoms are arranged with sufficient complexity through the laws of nature, consciousness will emerge spontaneously.

This is "the hard problem" that science has failed to explain satisfactorily, yet still believes that if only it gains more knowledge of reality, scientific theories will eventually be able to solve the riddle mathematically.

The only question is when the quantity syndrome will give way to the quality syndrome.

Could one simply assume that the reality we experience is phenomenal consciousness—experienced by the absolute primordial subject, which perceives its own changes of state in the form of the phenomenal image of the universe?

Will the pattern be broken? A paradigm shift away from quantitative thinking requires science to begin treating the subject as primary rather than secondary (akin to theories such as panpsychism or analytic idealism, championed by figures like Bernardo Kastrup). Until then, it remains a philosophical and metaphysical conceptual model—albeit one that is far more logically coherent than the model attempting to conjure life out of a dead vacuum.

A framework such as Absolute Existence offers a coherent metaphysics, yet it will never gain scientific acceptance because qualitative measurement methods fail to treat the subject as a fundamental quantity; this is because it is the subject itself that performs the measurement and experiences the result, thereby influencing the outcome.

Until then, the philosophy of Absolute Existence remains a metaphysical model that avoids the logical contortions of materialism.

Wholeness as a Concept

The risk with the word "Wholeness" arises when it shifts from being a pointing concept to becoming a descriptive term within levels.

When Wholeness is used as a concept in reasoning, it functions indicatively: it points beyond the levels, without itself becoming part of them. Here, "beyond the levels" does not mean lying outside or beyond the absolutely existent, but that it does not belong to any phenomenal, existential, or essence level, and is instead what makes the levels possible – that is, Being itself in its unchanged foundation. In this function, the word does not carry its usual linguistic baggage of parts and composition, because it is not used descriptively.

The problem arises when the same word begins to be used in connection with descriptions of relations, positions, or comparisons within the phenomenal – for example, when something is said to be "closer to wholeness," "further from wholeness," or "in relation to wholeness."

At that very moment, the following occurs, often imperceptibly:

• Wholeness transforms from a pointer to ontological content
• the part–whole structure sneaks in without being stated
• the levels become mixed, even if the language still appears consistent
• the absolutely existent begins to be treated as something that can be related to, rather than as what relations arise within

This is particularly risky because the word wholeness in everyday language and philosophy almost always presupposes parts, even when not intended. When the ontological "goalkeeper" is inactive, the word passes unnoticed—and the foundation has already been shifted.

Summary

The problem is not the word itself, but its functional shift. When Wholeness is used within the levels, instead of as a pointer beyond them, the mixing has already occurred, making the reasoning practically impossible to keep clean, even if it formally appears consistent.

Negative Rule

Never use the word Wholeness to describe something emerging within the levels, whether in terms of position, relation, degree, or access. The word may only function as a pointing concept on the ontological level, and never in direct connection with phenomenal, existential, or essence-level content. As soon as the word is used descriptively within the levels, the foundation has already been risked, and the warning signs should be seen as indications that the assumption must be re-examined.

Addition – Goalkeeper Rule

Before writing or speaking, make a conscious check: each time the word Wholeness appears, ask: "Does this word point to the unchanged foundation of Being (the ontological level), or is it used to describe something within phenomena, existence, or essence?" If the answer points toward the levels, the word should be removed or replaced with a neutral pointing term. This functions as a practical "goalkeeper" preventing the assumption's foundation from being undermined by linguistic drift.

Strategies to keep Wholeness on the correct level

1. Always use Wholeness as a pointing concept

   • Example: "Wholeness, the absolutely existent Being that is indivisible, cannot be affected by phenomena."

2. Link Wholeness to level-indicating signal words

   • Signal words: the unchanged, on the ontological level, independent of, outside phenomena.
   • Example: "Within Wholeness, on the ontological level, there is nothing to separate."

3. Avoid using Wholeness in relational expressions

   • Instead use: "Within the phenomena emerges …" or "What emerges in Being …"

4. Separate linguistically with commas or parentheses

   • Example: "The phenomena (which always exist within Wholeness) show …"

5. Repeat the perception connection

   • Remind that the word points to the foundation of Being, not to phenomenal content.

Level Awareness

• On the phenomenal level, Wholeness is phenomenal and can be used as a descriptive marker.
• On the Existence or Essence levels, or as a doctrine, it becomes misleading and risks introducing parts into Being.

"Wholeness" is phenomenal on the phenomenal level, but never carries ontological weight beyond the phenomena. When used on the Existence or Essence levels, or as a doctrine, implicit part-division sneaks in and undermines the assumption of the unchanged Being.

Philosophically reasoning texts