The self-evident nature

The self-evident nature of the idea that something already exists—something already underway—and that it is impossible to gain an objective perspective on it from the outside, leads to the realization that this ongoing process cannot be an objective one; on the contrary, it must be a subjective process experienced from within, wherein the subject itself remains invisible in its presence.

• Entity (The Object / The Visible): That which is distinct and bounded, possesses form, can be observed, and is viewed from the outside. It is a "thing" or a "phenomenon" within the ongoing process.

Dimension: Entity

Perspective: The objective unfolding (From the outside)

Visibility: Visible through its qualities and forms

Nature: Relative, mutable, and composite

• The Primal Subject (The Source / The Invisible): That which is undivided and boundless, lacks form, and experiences from within. It is the very presence that cannot be objectified.

Dimension: The opposite of Entity (The Primal Subject / Origo)

Perspective: The subjective unfolding (From within)

Visibility: Invisible in its absolute presence

Nature: Absolute, immutable.

The universe as a phenomenon occurs then in what absolutely exists but 'appears as if from a vacuum field.'
The universe occurs in the absolute existence of the living

The alternative is that the universe is a mass of dead matter - “falling freely, as in a dream”, through a dead and infinite void - which here on Earth happened to become alive and conscious of this fact, and which, in the grip of habitual notions, dreams nightmares about the death that will soon come to claim us all. In this scenario, everyone will die the “death”. In the second case, we do not die “death.” In that instance, the concepts of “we” and “death” are phenomenal concepts that signify merely changes in the ongoing phenomenon.

In the other scenario, we do not die the “death”. In that case, the concept of "we" and "death." are the phenomenal concepts of change.

Although the concepts of existence and essence are phenomenal concepts, they are concepts to which we do not have objective access. They reside entirely within experience and are invisible metaphysical, philosophical concepts. These concepts are words pointing to the foundation that makes experiences possible in the first place. The same applies to the concept of the phenomenon. The difference is simply that the phenomenon is the visible element - something that can be seen and touched as resistance. Existence and essence constitute the invisible background that perceives the visible through the phenomenon. The universe is a phenomenon, yet not merely a phenomenon set against an infinitely invisible background. This phenomenon turns, twists, and curves back into the phenomenal experience of it.

Without the phenomenal experience of the universe, the universe as a phenomenon would not be experienceable, since the universe is the phenomenon itself. The universe is thus the same phenomenon that is also popularly known as consciousness. The phenomenon is experienced at various frequencies as distinct experiences of difference.

The relational aspect, then, lies in the flow of the unbroken, intertwining, transcendental encounter between the experiencing subject and the objects being experienced within phenomenal reality.

If one confuses the phenomenal level with the absolute level, nature becomes fundamentally dead. If one manages to mentally distinguish between them, nature becomes alive. And then you avoid the phenomenal confusion that is constantly there and bothers you.

Entity The word entity ultimately comes from the medieval Latin 'entities,' which means 'being' or 'creature.' Etymological development • Base word: The word is based on the Latin 'ēns,' which means 'being' or 'that which is.' • Origin: 'ēns' is in turn the present participle of the verb 'esse,' meaning 'to be.' In terms of meaning, it originally refers to something that has existed or exists in itself.

Hlatky and "the Entity".

In Stefan Hlatky’s view of organic unity, he turned unchanging, enduring Being into an entity. This entity possessed parts, form, and extension- an outside and an inside. This is a fantastic phenomenal representation - one he had absolutely no trouble conceiving it. The fundamental problem, however, is that this constitutes a category error in thought. As soon as one forms a representation of "Being" an object, it becomes a phenomenal representation of that which makes all representations possible. The primordial subject is, therefore, not an entity. The primordial subject is the precondition for all entities.

The important philosophical clarification

Philosophical Meaning • Object: When the word "entity" is expressed and described in language, it inevitably becomes an object. • Subject: When the word "entity" is added to the underlying proto-subject, the subject is broken down into parts and gains form, size, and content, which contradicts the subject's absolute nature.

It is as if the veil of the "I" that conceals the subject is drawn aside, allowing the subject to experience reality through its mirror-like forms.

Evidence vs. Self-Evidence -- Including the Insight of Undivided Existence

1. Starting Point: Self-Evidence

• Primary experience: Existence itself
  • resting in the feeling of being,
  • undisturbed by irrelevant thoughts,
  • self-evident and immediate,
  • forms the ultimate starting point for all understanding.

2. Sudden Insight: "All is One"

• Experience: "All that appears separate is actually a single Existence without parts."
• Character:
  • self-evident, immediate, not dependent on argument or evidence
  • same type of primary certainty as the basic experience of Existence
  • realization is not a synthesis of parts, but the direct apprehension of undivided existence.

3. Relation to External Statements

• Mediation: statements, texts, traditions can reinforce, inspire, or challenge the experience.
• Immediacy: primary certainty remains intact through direct experience.
• Strategy:
  • listen to statements,
  • compare with self-evidence,
  • distinguish between mediated claims and immediate experience.

4. Tradition vs. Current Experience

• Tradition: inherited structures, historical teachings
• Current experience: the direct, immediate perception of undivided Existence
• Self-evidence is independent of tradition, but can coexist without being affected.

5. Evidence vs. Perception

• Evidence: external proofs, observations, arguments
• Perception: self-evident and self-sustaining
• Evidence can support understanding, but is never necessary for primary certainty.

6. Derived Certainty vs. Primary Certainty

• Derived certainty: reasoning, analysis, tradition -- secondary
• Primary certainty: self-evident experience -- immediate
• The starting point is always primary, undivided experience.

7. When External Statements Clash

• Doubt may arise: "Could it be so?"
• If one focuses solely on the statement:
  • "Could it be so?" becomes "It must be so"
  • Risk of blind faith
• The person conveying the statement may have passed through:
  1. Belief in the statement
  2. Questioning
  3. Reconsideration
  4. Testing alternatives
  5. Concluding "It must be so"
  6. Resting on reason-based foundation

8. Risk of Sect-Like Structure

If one abandons self-evidence in favor of statements:

• risk of authoritarian leadership
• in the company of few members
• in enclosure and isolation
• in an us-and-them mindset
• with control and prohibition of criticism
• with reward and punishment
• through voluntary but not free participation

9. Difference Between Sect and Religion

• Sect = small group with above characteristics
• Religion = same structure but with many followers
• Only the number of adherents distinguishes a sect from a religion

10. Safe Navigation with the Insight of Undivided Existence

• Rest in the direct experience of all as one Existence
• Receive external statements without losing primary self-evidence
• Use evidence and tradition as tools, not foundations
• Prevent doubt or external insistence from converting "could it be so" into "it must be so"
• Maintain the insight that all apparent parts are manifestations within the undivided whole.

(A Metacognitive Starting Point)

If the perceptual capacity of a subjective substrate were to fluctuate in intensity between two states - such as expression and impression, or the absence of an impression versus an experienced impression - akin to the transition everyone recognizes between dreamless sleep and the gradual emergence of wakefulness, then these fluctuations could manifest as a phenomenal stimulus. This stimulus would be received by the absolute, non-binary existence of a perceptual faculty that is in its essence - binary. This absolute existence serves as the foundational subject - a metacognitive basis that functions as a starting point.

The Philosophy of Absolute Existence. From Solipsism to Origo: The Absolute Subject

If the situation were merely a matter of the individual human subject projecting the universe, reality would collapse into chaos or isolation. However, within the framework of the philosophy of absolute existence, the individual human consciousness is not the fundamental prerequisite itself; rather, it is merely one of many transient modes employed by the primordial subject - acting as a mirror-form - to facilitate the possibility of having any experience whatsoever.

Origo: There is only one singularity, and that is the Absolute Subject. It is the timeless source from which all existence emerges.

The phenomenal mirror-forms: Humans, animals, and other conscious entities are not separate containers of consciousness. They are unique points of refraction - or "lenses" - through which the undivided potential of the Absolute Subject can be realized sequentially. This shared capacity for perception is, therefore, the interface through which the Absolute experiences itself from various angles.

The Dissolution of the Linear Short-Circuit

Linear thinking is the greatest limitation of the linguistic system. Language demands a subject - verb - object structure; it requires a "then - now -next" sequence. When the intellect employs this linear template to comprehend the origin of the universe, it projects a historical "Big Bang" point. However, this constitutes a categorical error rooted in language. When, instead, the singularity is understood as the ongoing intentionality of the Absolute Subject, the following occurs:

The outer becomes the inner: The world is not "out there" in an empty void. Space, time, and matter are structured phenomena that arise within consciousness.

Consciousness is the phenomenon being experienced: There is no dualism between the one who experiences and that which is experienced. To experience a flower, a star, or a thought is, in fact, to experience the potential of consciousness itself, having taken on a specific form.

Time as the ongoing translation (From potential to realization)

In this model, the Big Bang is not an explosion that fell silent 13.8 billion years ago. The Big Bang is eternal now-shift. The singularity pulses in every moment you open your eyes. It is the ongoing and unfolding translation in which the unmanifest (potential) turns outward and becomes the manifest (realization).

Linguistic thought will always attempt to objectify this and construct theories about "things." But your starting point severs the infinite regress at its root: it is logically impossible to posit a cause prior to the subject, since the very concept of "before" requires a subject in order to be conceived at all.

(The Fact IS)

When we talk about what a fact is, it's about something no one can or even needs to prove—because how could you even prove something that's already happening?

But regarding the condition of the ongoing reality, we say that it can't even be grasped by thought as a concept or as an object for the mind.

However, we can do the opposite (neti, neti), just like with sorting trash, where we have to adjust our thinking about what we can't throw away.

If everything we have with us is on the list, we simply have to accept that and go home with our trash and rethink things.

To "go home with your trash and rethink things" leads to intellectual humility. It's when we realize that our old tools of thought no longer hold up that a genuine, direct understanding of the ongoing phenomenal reality can arise, in the moment we recognize that reality is a phenomenon not separate from the awareness of it.
This is the experience in the realization of 'Ontos Origo'.

(Subjectum (---→) Faculty (----→) Factum)

The word "fact" has a direct linguistic connection to "doing" and "ability," as all these terms share the same Latin origin. Here is an overview of how these words are etymologically related:

The connection to "doing"

The word "fact" (plural: "facts") derives from the Latin word factum, which means "an action," "a deed performed," or "something that has occurred."

Factum, in turn, is the past participle of the Latin verb facere, which means precisely "to do" or "to make."

2 Originally, a "fact" (faktum) simply meant "something that has been done" or "something that has demonstrably happened."

The connection to "faculty" and "ability"

The word "faculty" (as in the divisions of a university or the faculties of the human mind) comes from the Latin facultas, which means "ability," "skill," or "possibility."

This word, too, is formed directly from the same root, via the adjective facilis ("easy to do"), which in turn derives from the verb facere ("to do").

In terms of linguistic history, a "fact" (faktum) is the result of something having been done (an actual state of affairs), whereas a "faculty" is the ability or power to do something. They are branches on the very same Latin etymological tree.

The literal meaning: "Do!"

The word facit is the Latin plural imperative (command) form of the verb facere. It literally means "do!" or "do it this way!".

Its association with answer keys in mathematics and textbooks came about as follows:

In older mathematics textbooks (dating back to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance), mathematical problems or chapters often concluded with the Latin word facit, followed by the correct final result.

It served as an instruction to the student: "Perform [the calculation], and you will get this result," or "This is the result/sum."

Over time, people stopped thinking of the word as a verb ("do!") and began using it as a noun to refer to the answer itself, or to a list of correct answers.

• Facere: ​​To do. • Faktum (fact): That which has been done (that which has occurred/is true). • Fakultet (faculty): The ability to do something. • Facit: The command "Do!", which evolved into the term for the correct result of what has been done.

If this is already taking place (factum), then there must be an underlying entity (subjectum) that possesses the potency (faculty) to ensure that the effect of this underlying entity becomes that which is already taking place (factum).

What is termed "reality," consciousness, or "fact" cannot float freely; it is a phenomenal expression (factum) of an absolute, underlying existence (subjectum) that operates through its innermost essence (faculty).

The Fact IS....., if something acts based on these premises, this becomes the necessary effect!

11. Overall Conclusion

• The self-evident experience of undivided Existence is always the starting point.
• Evidence, tradition, and mediation can strengthen, illustrate, or challenge but never replace primary certainty.
• The risk of sect-like structure arises only when primary self-evidence is abandoned in favor of blind trust in mediated statements.
• Sudden insight that "all is one" reinforces self-evidence, and when properly held, prevents misinterpretation or dependency on external authority.

Reality and the mental map of reality.

Reality 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 this observed experience occurs within a four-dimensional network pattern that forms a mental map, wherein space-time curves back toward the person experiencing the event. This can subsequently be visualized as mental images of varying 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 with a linguistic memory that does not generate mental images are more prone to becoming trapped in linguistic thought, and this comes at the expense of attention to reality. They are essentially useless as witnesses to an event, since their attention does not encode mental images in their 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 capacity.

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 great problem with language is "the philosophical problem" of trying to grasp the basis for reality being perceivable at all by the subject experiencing 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 idea that something underlying constructs the phenomenal image of reality leads one to think that this, too, must be something objective yet invisible.

That is how thinking works. Even the underlying element becomes an object of thought. The underlying element is presumably what lies behind thinking itself.

A primordial subject can never be a personal subject, yet an impersonal subject is equally impossible to conceive. An impersonal subject would then have to be that which attempts to conceive of itself as a personal subject - thereby becoming an object of thought.

Reflecting on the nature of a thought turns that thought into an object, even though it is actually a process - an alternating shift of states between dreamless sleep and waking consciousness. The foundation of phenomenal reality differs from anything we can imagine. The underlying foundation is that which envisions phenomenal reality. Thus, it is impossible to turn the precondition of that which envisions phenomenal reality into an object within a mental image. Thinking cannot grapple with that question. All thinking is directed the other way. Thinking operates only within phenomenal reality. Thought can never grasp what lies behind dreamless sleep.

It is impossible to answer the question of whether reality lies before or behind the state of dreamless sleep, given the constant oscillation between the states of dreamless sleep and wakefulness, in varying degrees of intensity. The capacity for perception is likely the mysterious precondition for phenomenal reality, yet the mere thought of this makes it easier to relate to that reality. Something serves as the precondition for the ongoing phenomenal reality. Thus, a precondition exists, and this precondition must be Absolute. An Absolute Existence that cannot be conceived from the outside but only experienced from within as the precondition itself. It is this precondition to which those known as prophets give various living names. At best, language handles what we can agree on, and at worst, language breaks down from disagreement. If we don't agree, we have to rethink if we want to be able to interact back and forth in ongoing sequential ways.

The Nature of conceptions

All conceptions take the form of phenomena. This also applies to the fantastic spiritual notions regarding the spirit world - concepts of an invisible or parallel reality existing alongside our physical world, where souls, spirits, or higher energies are believed to persist after death or act as guides.

There are numerous ideas about various dimensions existing side by side in separate bubbles, like distinct parallel universes.

Of course, no one can point to evidence that such things exist, but that does not prevent people from fantasizing about the possibility that they might.

There is a difference between saying something exists and believing that it exists.

One can fantasize about anything - such as the Earth being flat or imagining oneself to be Napoleon Bonaparte (or Murhpy Brock for instance)

One can also claim that reality might have arisen from nothingness; the tricky aspect of this notion, however, is that it appears to be the conclusion drawn from the scientific investigations conducted so far. It also becomes difficult to reason one's way from the idea of ​​dead particles randomly clumping together to form living beings - beings that develop such complex, advanced brains that they become conscious of a fundamentally inanimate world existing independently of whether any conscious being perceives it or not.

This stems entirely from the fact that science disregards the subject's own experience and conception of these "objective" investigations. Despite this, this view remains dominant - a lingering consequence of science having removed the subject from the equation.

The problem, however, is that many people do subscribe to one of these notions.

Spiritual beliefs regarding the spirit world suggest the possible existence of a parallel dimension: The idea of ​​a non-physical plane inhabited by consciousnesses, angels, guides, or deceased loved ones.

• Connection to spiritualism: Modern spiritualism and various belief systems hold that the soul lives on and can be contacted - for instance, through mediums, meditation, or intuition.

• Signs and symbols: Those who believe in the spirit world maintain that it communicates through subtle signs, such as recurring numbers, dreams, events, or symbols.

The difference between spirituality and spiritualism

• Spirituality often centers on a broader, personal inner journey to find meaning, presence, or a connection with oneself.

Belief in the human soul. The concept of a soul is fundamentally based on the idea that human beings possess a non-physical core or essence that houses our consciousness, personality, and innermost self. It is often viewed as the unique spark that gives us life and distinguishes us from the purely biological body. Perspectives on the soul vary widely depending on culture, religion, and philosophy:

Different views on the soul

• The religious and spiritual perspective: Within the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), the soul is considered to be created by God and immortal, meaning it lives on in an afterlife (heaven or hell) following the death of the body.

• Reincarnation and energy: In religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism (where it is referred to as atman or anatman, depending on the specific tradition) as well as in modern spiritualism, the soul is viewed as a form of energy. It migrates to new lives to learn lessons and evolve, or returns to a universal cosmic consciousness.

• The philosophical perspective: Historical philosophers such as Plato argued that the soul is trapped within the physical body and strives to return to a higher realm of pure knowledge and truth.

• The emotional life: Our emotions, moods, and how we react to the world around us.

• Cognition: Our thoughts, memories, and logic, and how we process information.

• The unconscious: Drives, dreams, and deep-seated influences of which we are not always aware.

In other words, the psyche is the landscape itself - the platform where we experience reality.

Judgment: Our inner compass Judgment is a specific cognitive function of the psyche. It concerns our ability to assess a situation, weigh various options, and make wise decisions. Good judgment entails the ability to:

• Anticipate the consequences of one’s actions.

• Distinguish between what is appropriate and inappropriate, right and wrong.

• Balance emotions with logic in the moment.

7 How they influence each other: Judgment is not an isolated mechanism; rather, it is entirely dependent on the state of the psyche.

• When the psyche is in balance: Judgment usually functions at its best. We can think clearly, control our impulses, and make choices that are beneficial in the long run.

• When the psyche is under pressure: If we are affected by intense stress, depression, anxiety, or anger, our judgment is often impaired. Emotions take over, and it becomes harder to foresee consequences, which can lead to impulsive or ill-considered decisions.

Stripping Away the Social Theater

People stage phenomenal performances of their self-image. Men perceive themselves as men. Women perceive themselves as women. Whether a man perceives himself as a woman, or a woman perceives herself as a man, people can make a great spectacle out of how they conceive of their roles.

However, if one does not turn one’s self-perception into an elaborate drama, the focus can shift instead to the phenomenal reality itself.

By shifting focus from social roles to phenomenal reality - that is, the direct, unmediated experience of existing here and now - an opportunity arises to experience existence without the filters often created by societal expectations and categorizations. When we stop making a big deal out of labels and self-images, we are free simply to be, and to observe the world as it actually appears to our senses.

All of this concerns ideas about the nature of the state of existence.

The state of existence fluctuates and encompasses everything from dreamless sleep to the experience of existing. The experience of existing - and the effects of the sequential lag we call reality—is something that everyone has experienced.

The only thing that actually creates an experience is difference and contrast. Right now, an intense stream of impressions is flowing around you. We experience this flow as a kind of tangible resistance - much like holding your hand in flowing water. For an experience to be possible at all, there must be someone to experience it: a subject. By its very nature, this subject must be completely invisible, motionless, and unchanging. It is the invisible background to everything. This unique, undivided consciousness receives all impressions simultaneously. Yet, for us to comprehend the world, the whole is broken down into parts. It is like white light striking a prism and splitting into all the colors of the rainbow. The world reveals itself to us as a series of still images, but because there is a microscopic time lag between them, we perceive it as light, movement, and physical friction. This resistance acts like an invisible movie screen. We cannot see the screen itself, yet without it, the film could not be shown. It is likely impossible for consciousness to perceive or create images in any other way. The moving, three-dimensional image of the world must encounter tangible resistance within our invisible inner self to become real. Consciousness experiences the entire universe all at once, but for that experience to become intelligible, it is delayed and broken down into every single point.

There is nothing mysterious about the essence of absolute Being’s existence awakening as the diverse forms of unfolding phenomenal reality. There is likely no other way to experience anything at all.

But as is the case with language: The moment we attempt to describe the existential foundation as a subject in the Absolute (or being) as an indivisible whole, suddenly language has snuck in parts into the Absolute and made it into a whole, an entity. A "unit" is the closest thought can come.
A unit is, after all, the smallest thing anyone can imagine and agree on.
But as soon as we think about the concept of a unit, it becomes an idea of a dimensionless point that the subject stands outside of and observes as an image.

An absolute unit cannot contain parts.

As soon as we speak of the subject, it becomes a subject for mapping - yet the subject is not a map. The subject is the intangible foundation that defies description, yet can still serve as "a point upon which to rest the needle of the mental compass" - in silence regarding it.

When someone ceases to reflect and simply becomes a follower of one of those who proclaim themselves a guiding star, that person - having stopped thinking - follows the leader of the flock in blind faith.

When someone grasps the unfathomable reality to which these guiding stars point, that person, too, wishes to become a guiding star pointing toward insight into the unfathomable.

They then seek to become a "guru" to blind followers.

11 However, the one who realizes the unfathomable and decides not to become a Guru lives only in silent insight - perhaps viewed as a mystic who finds nothing mysterious, but rather self-luminous.

The mystic’s silence is therefore not emptiness, but the purest form of communication. By refusing to become a "Guru," the "mystic" remains true to undivided Being, avoiding the dependencies and blindness that inevitably arise within the entourage of a guiding light.

Some of these figures are, of course, well-known; both Thomas Aquinas and Jiddu Krishnamurti are living examples of this phenomenal awakening.

• Thomas Aquinas: After dedicating his entire life to constructing one of history’s most colossal intellectual and theological systems (Summa Theologiae), he experienced a mystical vision during Mass toward the end of his life. Following this, he abruptly stopped writing. When pressed to continue, he simply replied: "I can do no more. Everything I have written seems like straw to me compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me." He chose silence over continuing as the system’s foremost guiding light.

12 • Jiddu Krishnamurti: He was raised and prepared by the Theosophical Society to become the new "World Teacher" (an ultimate guru). However, in 1929, he decisively dissolved the order that had been built around him (the Order of the Star). His famous speech declared that "Truth is a pathless land" and that no organization, religion, or guru can lead a person there. He spent the rest of his life encouraging people to think for themselves and not to follow him or anyone else. By refusing to assume the mantle of guru, the mystic protects both their own integrity and the freedom of others. "Self-illuminating" insight requires no blind followers, for the awakened individual realizes that the unfathomable is already present in everything and everyone - it need not be mediated through a retinue of admirers.

Insight cannot be mass-produced or taught through blind obedience, because the very system of "guru" and "follower" recreates the duality and blindness from which insight actually liberates us and let us remain in light in the fact that Being in silence is not a conception

"Listening wind" https://open.spotify.com/track/60z53BhYhXBmElp7Ztw5Q9?si=2koNgImHSZCCseg5JV7Yaw&utm_source=copy-link

"The year of the Guru" https://open.spotify.com/track/396CcpA5bZDNhg8YqidVWC?si=gPxZej2eQSizjRmJTrF7kw&utm_source=copy-link