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".

The image of reality seems to play out in different places at the same time and appears as a difference in distance to the experience. This perceptible reality emerges in a curvature that lingers in a relatively stable delay relative to the subjective experience.

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.

Reality and the mental map of reality.

Reality, then, lies in the experience of resistance within the ongoing process—a sequential interaction in the dynamics between the subject and phenomenal reality.

What we store in memory as mental images is what we have actually observed, rather than merely letting it pass by as noise.

The encoding of a memory of an observation occurs within a four-dimensional network pattern in the brain, forming a mental map in which spacetime curves back upon itself during the experience of the event. This can subsequently be visualized as memory images of varying high resolution.

There are those who have low-resolution mental images, and there are those who have extremely high-resolution mental images. Those with "low-resolution-visual-memory" compensate using verbal memory, but they find it much more difficult to orient themselves in reality than those who possess higher-resolution, more detailed visual information about the real world.

Those who have a language-based memory that doesn't create clear mental images tend to stick to thoughts in words, which can affect their attention to reality. They are basically useless as witnesses to an event because their attention doesn't place memory images into memory.

Someone with good visual memory and attention can simply see that the stove is turned off and the key is locking the door; however, for someone lacking that excellent visual recall, it is necessary to think—and say silently to oneself—that stove knob 1 is at zero, stove knob 2 is at zero, and so on. The same applies to remembering that the door is locked. Again, a person with low visual memory resolution needs to think silently to themselves: "Now I am turning the key, and the door is now locked."

Medical conditions can also occur in which visual memory remains intact, yet linguistic memory fails to translate those visual memories into pronounceable and intelligible words.

What characterizes humans as a species is precisely the ability to take experienced visual memories and transform them into human speech — a feat impossible for those who lack this ability.

By learning to speak, humans agree to designate certain objects by specific names. This enables the reception of information about reality in a way that is entirely impossible for anyone lacking this ability.

The problem with language is when the philosophical problem of trying to grasp the basis for reality being perceivable at all by the subject experiencing it.

The big problem with language is that it becomes a philosophical problem when language is used as a tool to try to understand how reality even can be perceived as 'a fundamental subject' by the subject trying to grasp it.

When thought turns back upon the subject, it slips away like a kitten’s tail.

This is because the subject cannot see itself as anything other than mirror-forms curving back into an experience of the curvature of space-time. The subject is invisible because it is the subject itself that is searching for itself.

The difference between an "object" and a "subject"

The actual distinction between an object and a subject lies in the idea that if the subject were removed, the object would remain as something unchanging and enduring. This idea is mistaken, for there are no objects that remain unchanging and enduring. There are no unchanging, enduring objects whatsoever. It only appears that way. As for the experiencing subject, on the contrary, it appears to be the only thing that remains unchanging and enduring while perceiving a changing reality - a reality devoid of any unchanging, enduring objects whatsoever.

When the subjective quality of existence was set aside 400 years ago for methodological reasons, science began to concern itself solely with a relative reality defined by measurability, weight, and calculable velocity. Science has now concluded that the quantitatively sequential state changes of the objectively invisible vacuum field cause particulate "objects" to emerge.

The subject is the act of existing. Objects appear to be the effect of the ceaseless sequential state-shifting of a primordial subject.

At first glance, this might not sound like pure mysticism - and mysticism, after all, tends to deal with the dualistic distinction between subject and object, light and darkness, and the enigmatic nature of the contemplative reflection made possible by the primordial subject.

But if one views existence in this way, the mysterious ceases to be mysterious and instead becomes self-evident.

Fundamentally, science may have been mistaken about what is "fundamental" to existence, given that there are no static, unchanging objects in existence.

In this non-mystical way of thinking about existence, it is not the atoms that move - atoms are instead an effect of something changing its state.

For anything to perceive a changing world at all, there must be a stable, underlying unity that senses and integrates all these shifting sensory impressions into a coherent experience of reality.

Conceiving the subject as the only thing that remains unchanged can offer an explanation of how phenomenal reality connects with the subjective aspect of the experience of absolute existence.

The subject is not something that can be conceived from the outside as an object, but rather that which senses itself when reflecting on its own function.

The subject lacks physical form, yet its inherent nature is the capacity for perception, as it constitutes the very lens - or the prerequisite - through which everything else is perceived.

Since the subject is actively experiencing something right now, the subject’s immediacy is present; no mystical search is required to “find” it.

Phenomenal objective reality is experienced by the subject - within the subject's absolute reality - as a multiplicity of mirror effects perceived by the observer. There is nothing in the phenomenal image of reality that does not exhibit a mirror effect.

The presence within what is unfolding.

Do you notice that as soon as you try to think about the subject, it slips away and positions itself behind you - and when you try to turn your thoughts toward it, it is still standing behind you? The subject - the origo - can only be held in thought as that which experiences everything except the subject. The subject is like a living, fluctuating, boundless space - the presence in which everything unfolds.

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.

The Resistance in the “Self”

"The self" entails material resistance from matter that reflects the point of view. "Matter" is a "matter of resistance" The self is predicated on a distinction in subjective viewpoint. In this context, understanding is primarily a matter of different perspectives grasping one another’s respective standpoints. True understanding arises when these standpoints meet in their shared ground - namely in the fundamental ability to perceive the changes in reality.

If one posits this "faculty of perception" as the inherrent nature of a primordial subject, it becomes easier for different perspectives to converge. They then share a common fundamental principle, insofar as the foundation of reality cannot be objectified - given that this foundation is an original, absolute subject.

The impossibility of grasping with thought the concept of absolute existence

When one attempts to pin down the concept of existence and removes the subject, one turns the concept into a dead object. This applies even if one removes the object. In that case, one turns the concept into an objective void, even if what is regarded as an objective void exhibits activity. Then, one must replace the concept of a void with that of a vacuum field and state that this objective vacuum field is active, given that it shows every sign of ongoing fluctuations. We are then left with an objective vacuum field fluctuating between different energy states, without this rendering the concept of a vacuum field intelligible in any way. However, if we return to the concept of existence without encircling it on a sheet of paper, and instead assume that the concept of existence is a subject, the philosophical concept becomes entirely different. If we encircle the concept, we limit it. As soon as we limit the concept of the subject, we turn it into an objective subject - we transform the concept into an entity, and an entity is, in thought, a quantitative unit based on the number 1. The problem with this mathematical concept is that, even though we believe we are grasping existence as a unified concept in our minds, we have positioned ourselves outside of existence and turned it into an object of thought - even if we choose to call that object a "primordial subject."

In absolute existence there is no content or limitation and therefore nothing to be ignorant of. Then it is the obviousness of existing that lies in the phenomenal experience of absolute existence.