FAQ

21 FAQs About the Absolute Existential Philosophy

Introduction to FAQ – The Absolute Existence Philosophy

This FAQ compiles the most common questions and answers regarding the Absolute Existence Philosophy. Its purpose is to clarify how this philosophy differs from other schools of thought, how it relates to the concepts of Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon, and how it can serve as a foundation for philosophical thinking.

Each question is designed to guide the reader step by step, from fundamental concepts to more complex reasoning, always with a focus on self-evident insight and logical consistency. The philosophy is based on the recognition of an indivisible and unchanging being – Origo – which makes all phenomenal experience and understanding possible.

Here, you will also find answers to questions regarding practical implications, morality, and the role of the Phenomenon in our thinking. The FAQ is intended as a clear guide for both the curious and the knowledgeable, without replacing direct experience of Absolute Existence.

1. Can Existence be fully understood?

Answer: The question of Existence is essential – it concerns the very foundation of all being. The solution, however, is phenomenal: it manifests as an expression that can be experienced, interpreted, and communicated.

In other words, it is a phenomenal solution to the essential question of Existence. The Absolute ground remains unchanging, indescribable, inaccessible, and unattainable while the phenomenal solution is made available for our experience and understanding. The concept of Existence can neither be explained nor needs to be, because everyone knows what it means to exist. Assuming that it is an absolutely undivided experience at its core is not really a definition. That’s what philosophers have assumed before.

In other words, it is a phenomenal solution to the essential question of Existence. The Absolute ground remains unchanging, indescribable, inaccessible, and ungraspable while the phenomenal solution is made available for our experience and understanding.

2. What distinguishes the premises in Absolute Existential Philosophy from general premises about reality?

Answer: Absolute Existential Philosophy is based on an unconditional, indivisible, and unchanging Being as the foundation of all. General premises about reality often assume dependence, change, or relations as a starting point. Absolute philosophy instead takes the ground of Being as independent and absolute, making the insight self-evident.

3. What is truly "Being" and what does it mean that there must be an unchanging Being as the basis of all changing ongoing reality?

Answer: "Being" is that which truly Is – Existence itself. An unchanging Being as foundation is necessary because every changeable, relative, or dependent phenomenon must have an absolute cause ("Origo") to exist at all. Without this foundation, Being would be relative and never self-evident. (You will immediately discover that it is impossible to imagine an absolute subject since both language and thought insist on instantly turning the absolute subject into an object in thought. It is not until one realizes this and turns away from the subject and only has it as a starting point, as the invisible background to the phenomenal reality where language works.)

4. Why is an object sometimes used as a thought target and then replaced by a subject?

Answer: This is a philosophically necessary step and the real mindgame that can be "the gamechanger": by first objectifying the Absolute, the mind can then immediately subjectify it. The Absolute thereby becomes the subject, the only instance that Is what Is. Without this inversion, philosophical thinking cannot reach the obvious perspective that this page invites the reader to.

5. What does it mean to "treat the Absolute as part of the dependent"?

Answer: Doing so would make the Absolute relative or composite, violating its indivisible and unconditional nature. In Absolute Existential Philosophy, this is forbidden – the Absolute cannot be part of anything dependent, or it loses its fundamental character.

6. Why do some philosophies use non-existence or parts as foundation instead of the absolute starting point?

Answer: Philosophies based on non-existence (e.g., some Buddhist schools) or relationally composed wholes (organic unity view) attempt to describe the world without an unconditional ground. This leads to dependence, relativity, and division. Absolute Existential Philosophy maintains that only an indivisible and unchanging Being can provide self-evident insight.

7. What distinguishes an immanent God from Absolute Existence, and why can the Absolute not consist of parts?

Answer: An immanent God is part of the world, active and dependent, whereas Absolute Existence is unconditional, indivisible, and unchanging. If the Absolute had parts, each part would depend on the others, making it relative. The Absolute must be indivisible to serve as the foundation upon which everything else rests.

8. Why is the absolute starting point a turning point?

Answer: It's a turning point because consciousness shifts from seeking the foundation 'outside itself' to realizing that what one thinks is the self is actually the foundation (Origo) that interacts with phenomena. Before the turning point, the mind gets stuck thinking that it's the solitary 'I' observing phenomenal reality in relation to what's 'out there' and that consciousness resides inside the head. After the turning point, there's no difference between consciousness and phenomenal reality from the unconditional root's, the absolute being's multifaceted phenomenal perspective.

9. What is the difference between "Being" and "that which is going on"?

Answer: "Being" is Existence itself – unchanging and unconditional. "That which is going on" refers to phenomena, objects, or events – that which appears within the Beings Essence is relative, changeable, and dependent. Absolute philosophy strictly distinguishes these to preserve logical clarity.

10. Why is the organic unity perspective not logically sustainable as a foundation?

Answer: The organic unity view begins with a whole that is both living, concious and composed of parts. This makes the whole relative and dependent, violating the requirement for an unconditional foundation. It can describe the world as phenomena, but cannot give absolute, self-evident insight into Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon, as Origo is completely ignored. Existence is in the view of the organic unity depicted as a massive monolithic concious entity in a living relation to its inherrent concious parts.

11. Is it possible to conceive of a "gluon" or a principle of cohesion as foundation?

Answer: No. If you assume something that connects parts, you’ve already created a relationship between two differences – the binder and what is bound – which makes the foundation relative. The Absolute can’t start with a relation or division; if it did, it would no longer be unconditional and indivisible.

12. Is "nothing to understand" confused with "non-existence" or "void"?

Answer: No. The question arises because there is a phenomenon that is incomprehensible in its absolute context, which may at first glance resemble "non-existence" or "void." The organic unity view does not start from non-existence, but from a living, organic whole as Hlatky introduced. Through this, the incomprehensible quickly fills with relation, life, and consciousness, while Origo – the absolute root – is ignored. This makes the unconditional a function within the conditional, losing absolute consistency. Absolute Existential Philosophy strictly maintains that the Absolute is unconditional Being, Origo, and not nothing; it cannot be filled with something relative.

13. Why is an Absolute Existential Philosophy necessary?

Answer: The absolute starting point is not a choice, but a logical necessity to:

• speak of Existence without dependence,
• distinguish Essence from Phenomenon,
• avoid introducing parts or relations into the Absolute.

All alternative starting points lead to dependence, relativity, and phenomenological "clumping," preventing self-evident insight.

14. Can Origo, the "zero point," be the same as "nothing" or "non-existence"?

Answer: No. Origo cannot be understood as nothing or non-existence, as this would make the foundation relative and conditional. Origo is necessarily Absolute Existence, the unchanging Being. It is a something to which thought can attach, not merely an empty position in nothingness.

Without this absolutely unconditional foundation, there is no starting point to begin from, no absolute turning point, and no phenomena or experiences can be related to anything self-evident that can make understanding possible.

15. How does the Absolute Existence philosophy reconcile the indivisible Absolute Existence with our experience of being autonomous individuals, without becoming pantheistic or paradoxical?

Answer: Absolute Existence is fundamental, indivisible, and necessary for all phenomenal experience.

The Absolute faculty of perception is essential and rests upon this Absolute foundation. We participate in the faculty of perception phenomenally, but we are not parts of the Absolute foundation.

All phenomenal reality, including our experience of autonomy and individuality, manifests through the faculty of perception as expressions that can be experienced, interpreted, and communicated.

The experience of autonomy is therefore always phenomenal: each individual experiences themselves as distinct, but this distinctness is made possible by the Absolute faculty of perception that carries all phenomenal expression.

The philosophy does not deny the individual's autonomy, but shows that it exists as phenomenal reality within the framework of the Absolute foundation.

In this way, pantheistic misunderstandings are avoided and the apparent paradox is resolved: Absolute Existence remains indivisible and unchanging, while phenomenal expressions and experiences of autonomy occur within its stable framework.

16. How can we understand objects in spacetime as self-luminous, and how does the experience arise that some objects appear illuminated?

Answer: Each phenomenal object is self-luminous in the sense that it manifests directly through the faculty of perception as its own expression. It does not require any external light to exist in experience – its manifestation is independent and immediate.

At the same time, these objects interact with each other through a phenomenal "emission" of impressions. When an object is influenced by the expressions of other objects, it appears illuminated rather than self-luminous.

The result is that the phenomenon as a whole emerges with differences in intensity and visibility: some objects appear to shine on their own, while others are experienced as lit by these interactions. This is not a physical light process, but a phenomenal field of expression where differences in experience create the sense of light and weight in the space.

17. What happens if one believes that the phenomenon is the only ruling reality?

Answer: If one perceives the phenomenon as the sole ruling reality, there is a risk of confusing the phenomenal with the Absolute foundation. The phenomenon is always expressive, changeable, and relational, whereas Absolute Existence and the faculty of perception are indivisible, unchanging, and essential.

Believing that the phenomenon alone governs can lead to the notion that reality consists of separate objects acting independently, without connection to the Absolute foundation. This creates a "dead" reality, where the experience of autonomy and coherence is lost, and the desire to alter the phenomenon to match personal ideas may dominate.

The philosophy shows that reality is always phenomenal in expression but grounded in Absolute Existence. Only by recognizing this foundation can one understand the changes, relationships, and experience of autonomy within the phenomenon in a coherent and logical way.

18. How has AI been used in the context of Absolute Existential Philosophy?

Answer: AI has functioned as a helpful tool to structure and compile the assumptions, questions, and answers of the philosophy. It has helped organize reasoning, create a consistent FAQ, and produce copy-friendly text for the web, without affecting the logical foundations of Absolute Philosophy. AI supports the thinking process, but insight into Absolute Existence is human and self-evident.

19. Can philosophy ever claim to answer questions of right and wrong from a moral perspective without relying on the Ten Commandments and the double commandment of love?

Answer: Philosophy can provide guidance on moral reasoning only from a standpoint of clarity and self-evidence. It cannot impose absolute rules as religion does, but it can reveal what is necessary for coherent moral thought. From the perspective of Absolute Existence:

• The Phenomenon is where moral experience and reflection take place.
• Existence and Essence provide the stable, self-evident foundation necessary to evaluate actions without contradiction.
• Any moral consideration must recognize that acts, consequences, and intentions emerge within the phenomenal realm grounded in Absolute Existence.

20. How can "we" exist in the Absolute Existence Philosophy?

Answer: "We" is a phenomenal concept and has no place in Absolute Existence, since everything there is one (1) and undivided. In the Phenomenon, however, "we" can experience and share the Faculty of Perception, which constitutes the very Essence of Absolute Existence.

21.

Isn't it the absolute existence of reality we are looking at when we wake up in the morning, get out of bed, and go to work?
Answer: Reality is a phenomenon and not the absolute existence in direct view.
The absolute existence cannot appear in direct view. It is the perceptivefaculty of absolute existence that perceives its sequential state changes as the phenomenal consciousness in reality.

Question set: 40 philosophical questions for you to reflect on when you have some free time.

When academic science cleared out metaphysics, we also lost the language to talk about the basis for why anything exists at all. Modern, academic natural science tends to avoid these metaphysical questions. The methodology of natural science is strictly pragmatic, empirical, and mathematical; it measures effects, describes functions, and builds models, but generally refrains from answering questions about Being itself or the ontological origin of consciousness. These questions simply are no longer on their table. They don’t play in that field at all.

The questions below are therefore formulated in a way that challenges the limits of naive materialism, which basically relies on a dead nothing randomly emerging from a formless amount of a mechanical vacuum to pop into a universe without any observer 13.8 billion years ago. So, you could say they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

(The questions are tricky and should be answered with yes, no, or unclear, and it’s unclear whether the question should be avoided because modern academic natural science often avoids these metaphysical questions and no longer deals with the philosophical questions they once had the task of answering.)

If someone dares to let go of the dogma that reality must consist of small, dead billiard balls colliding in an empty nothingness, and if one wants to avoid conjuring consciousness out of dead gravel or "the empty nothingness itself", does this then open up thinking about phenomenal reality in a new, obvious way?
Yes, no, or unclear?

Is there anything to suggest that
without the permanently existing being as a reference point, thinking about reality will continue to flounder blindly and trip over its own conceptual makeshifts (like calling an active quantum field "vacuum")?
Yes, no, or unclear?

Is there any indication that we can objectively detect what makes all change possible, given that it is not an object in the world and can therefore never be observed "objectively" from the outside? Yes, no, or unclear?

Can a condition ever become the object of a mental representation? Yes, no, or unclear?

Is there any indication that we can only access weighing and measuring the effect of something that must absolutely exist as the foundation of reality, but which in itself is completely impossible to access with measuring instruments? Yes, no, or unclear?

Is there any indication that dark matter, dark energy, or the "quantum vacuum" are just words that are functions without an underlying unchanging permanence? Yes, no, or unclear?

Is there any indication that reality is something that occurs in the oscillation between on and off of what exists as the fundamental condition of reality? Yes or no or unclear?

Is the word “form” really the same as “information”, in the sense that an isolated piece of information has no physical extension until it interacts ("is exposed") in a system with multiple pieces of extension, but in exposure gives form to reality? Yes or no or unclear?

9. If we follow the binary/digital ontology, then every form and physical property is a result of state changes. Can anything then happen without a change, contrast, or measurable form, without a state change between the on and off positions in the exposure of this change? Yes or no or unclear?

Is it possible to perceive anything other than changes? Yes or no or unclear? Is there any indication that reality is a phenomenon that appears for an experiencer? Yes or no or unclear?

11 Is there anything that suggests that reality is a phenomenon that occurs for a experiencer? Yes or no or unclear?

12 Is there any indication that real Is there anything that suggests that reality appears in phenomenal mirror forms like right/left, positive/negative, male/female, etc., etc...? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that suggests that someone must observe reality for the phenomenon to appear to an experiencer? Yes or no or unclear?

("Ex nihilo nihil fit.") Can existence arise from non-existence? Yes or no or unclear?

14 Can something come into being from nothing? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that suggests that if the answer to whether something can come into being from nothing is yes, it leads to a logical explosion implying that any reasoning can be derived from that premise? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that suggests that if a natural law is established it can be called a law, but if it is not established, it is not a law, just a sequential necessity called a law, even though that is a careless expression? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that suggests that science has given up the philosophical idea that change requires something that does not change in order for change to be possible? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that suggests that the concept of “quantum”, meaning quantity, and vacuum, meaning the absence of everything, then forms a concept that sounds like something but in reality has removed everything that can drive a change and only remains with the potential for change but without the expresser? Yes or no or unclear?

Is it a violation of the word vacuum, which means emptiness, to call it the empty quantity and to make the empty quantity an original precondition? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that suggests that an experiencer as a subject can come into being from nothing or from something that lacks the ability to experience? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that suggests that an experiencer can only experience the phenomenal reality from multiple experiential perspectives? Yes or no or unclear?

22 Is there anything that suggests that the philosophical problem of phenomenal reality could be solved if reality is a subjective experience phenomenon instead of a volume of heated matter from a dead objective vacuum? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that suggests that the question of the Absolute is the subject that philosophy will be forced to take as a starting point for thinking to be able to focus on the phenomenon from a logically absolute standpoint? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that suggests that this is a question taken very seriously on any website on the internet? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that suggests that the primal cause is not a dead object but a primal subject instead? Yes or no or unclear?

26. If you start from something formless that has the potential for change and therefore should have the faculty of perception as an inherent nature, does this not point to an Absolute Existence at the base of all biodynamic interaction between the states of on and off regarding the capacity for perception as the nature of the Absolute? Yes or no or unclear?

27. Are you fudging the language if you call a vacuum something rather than the absence of something, and is energy a concept that means the ability to do work and becomes completely meaningless without a worker? Yes or no or unclear?

28. Is there any indication that the philosophy of Absolute Existence will ever make any difference? absoluteexistence.org Yes or no or unclear?

Is there any indication that anyone will understand the logic on absoluteexistence.org? Yes or no or unclear?

What is the logic on absoluteexistence.org and their “Ontos Origo”? Clear, unclear, or completely incomprehensible?

Is there any indication that the materialistic paradigm that broke apart over 100 years ago will be replaced by an Absolute Existence philosophy? Unclear, likely, or totally impossible (because of the academic establishment’s resistance to metaphysics and whether or not or when this shift happens on a broad scale remains unclear).

Is there any indication that we are forced to accept that something can arise from absolute nothingness (which leads to a logical explosion), or that dead material can somehow magically begin to experience itself, and is this an unconscious doctrine that leads to confusion? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that indicates that we have something that is boundlessly attached to ourselves as a subject is obvious but impossible to display in a representation in front of ourselves, and that we cannot even imagine it if we close our eyes in concentration. We must therefore just start from that as the ultimate prerequisite for reality appearing before us? Yes or no or unclear?

Is there anything that indicates that if one does not think that there must be an unchanging foundation for phenomenal reality, and that this foundation in this way is the absolute prerequisite's 'ontos origo' - the unchanging being - an Absolute distance-less Existence, and that its Essence is the binary capacity for perception that has the possibility of being exposed to phenomenal reality in reflection to consciousness, then the contradictory thinking about reality will continue to grope for some foundation for thought? Yes or no or unclear?

Is the idea of an unchanging Absolute Existence as the basis for thinking a philosophical blind faith or a self-evident truth? Yes or no or unclear?

Is the idea that the dead empty set is the basis for thinking a philosophical blind faith that leads to complete confusion and mental suffering? Yes or no or unclear?

37 Is the idea that Absolute Existence represents reality in the form of informative expressions as "messengers" whose "messages" can be received as impressions of Absolute Existence self-evident upon reflection? Self-evident or unclear?

38 Is what is happening born from what absolutely exists, or is reality what exists?

39 Is it the brain that thinks with consciousness, or is it consciousness that thinks with the brain? Is it consciousness that exists in reality, or is it reality that exists in consciousness?

40 Are consciousness and reality one and the same phenomenon?

Etymological review of the words related to experience, thinking, and understanding,

We start with the word Brain:

Brain Linguistic history and development

• Old English: The word developed from Old English brægen, which specifically meant brain or brain matter.
• Proto-Germanic: It can be traced back to the Proto-Germanic root bragną (which also gave rise to Low German bregen and Dutch brein).
• Proto-Indo-European: Researchers derive it from the Proto-Indo-European root mregh-mno- or mregh-, which meant "skull" or "upper part of the head".

The Swedish word: Sinne

The word sinne fundamentally deals with movement, traveling, and noticing something along the way.
• Old Swedish: It was called sinne and then meant "way", "journey", "course" or "understanding". (We still see traces of the meaning "course" in words like någonsin or annars/ånyo in older Germanic languages).
• Proto-Germanic: Comes from sinþa- (way, journey) and the verb sinnaną (to travel, strive, follow, go after and notice). • Indo-European: Derived from the root *sent- which means "to go", "travel", or "take a direction". To "have a sense" for something originally meant that you "directed your attention" along a certain path.

The English word: Mind

The English word mind is instead fundamentally about memory, thought, and remembering. • Old English: Developed from gemynd, which meant "memory," "thought," or "intention." • Proto-Germanic: Comes from *gamundiz (memory/thought), from the verb *munaniz (to think, to be remembered). • Proto-Indo-European: Derived from the widely spread root *men- which means "to think" or "mental activity." This is the same root that gave us the Latin mens (thought/mind) and the Greek menos (spiritual force), as well as words like mental and monument.

Understanding (Mental ability)

The word originally concerns "standing in front of something" in the sense of overseeing, controlling, or being responsible for it. • Origin: Borrowed from Middle Low German vorstant, which is related to the verb vorstân (to understand, comprehend, or literally "stand in front of/before"). • Logic: Compare with English understand (to stand under/among something in order to grasp it). In Germanic languages, physical positions were used ("stand in front" or "stand under") as metaphors for having knowledge about something. ".

1. To Stand Under (To Understand)

When we use the English word understand (from Old English understandan), it literally means "to stand among" or "under".
• The receiver is placed underneath in order to be able to take in what comes. If you stand under a tree, the fruit falls into your hands.
• The basis: Standing under something also means seeing its foundation. You support the knowledge and let it land.

2. To Stand Over (Arrogance or Missed Opportunity)

If you "stand over" something (similar to the word 'overlord' or the English 'overlook' – to miss/see past), you have distanced yourself.
• A missed catch happens when someone throws a ball (an idea, an insight, a feeling) to someone else, and that person is "above" the situation, so the ball flies right under them. They miss the throw because they haven't positioned themselves as a receiver.
• The contrast to Understanding: In Low German, vorstant (understanding) meant "to stand in front" as a protector or overseer. But it is precisely an active position. Just placing yourself 'above,' in the sense of being superior, makes that position intellectually and emotionally isolated. To grasp (which basically means 'to take hold of' with your hands, from the German fassen) requires someone to stretch out their hands and be ready to receive. Someone standing too high simply cannot reach down to what is being thrown.

Advantage (Profit or Benefit)

The word originally referred to how a loot or inheritance was divided, and getting your share first. • Origin: Borrowed from Middle Low German vordel (or vordele), which literally means "fore-part" or "earlier part." • Logic: It referred to the portion of an inheritance or loot that someone got to take before the general division began (a priority right). Whoever got their share first got the best piece, which led to the modern meaning of profit or benefit.

So, someone who has realized something has the opportunity to share what they have realized with others or simply give it up and forgo that opportunity.