Reflections in standalone text

Below are a number of independent philosophical contemplative texts, all originating from the Absolute Philosophy of Existence.

Pain

Coming into the world is a painful experience. From having been sheltered and having all of one's life-sustaining needs met, entering tangible reality becomes a more or less painful experience. Cold and wet, a person experiences their first anxiety-filled moment in the oxygen deprivation that forces them to take their first breath. And shortly after the first breath comes the next experience of anxiety, which is alleviated by the second breath. Reality is anxiety and the struggle for survival every second, and that struggle does not end until the last sigh is heard from those present in the moment.

In this way, we are reminded 24/7 of reality and that we are totally dependent on each other in reciprocity. We receive and give back what we receive 24/7. It is the same air we breathe and the same water we drink that previous generations used in interaction with nature.

There is only one nature to interact with alternately, and we cannot ignore this, because it is then punished in the form of the distress we experience, which requires an action from us to temporarily disappear. When we realize this, we also understand the meaning of the word “necessary” – a distress that requires action to return to the liberation of relaxation.

Tension and relaxation are the dynamic interplay of reality, and this phenomenon runs throughout the entire shared phenomenal reality. It is a constantly ongoing state change, and it is common from the smallest hop to the largest structure that presents the phenomenal image of the universe. The universe is the image of space that is twisted and turned back into the experience of the universe, which experiences reality through all the forms that constantly interact with reality. This is something anyone who has tasted reality can confirm.

If we see ourselves as separate from reality, we become the opposite of reality. Seeing reality as a reflection of an absolute existence is to reconnect with the source – which is often the cure for the alienation you describe.

When we lose the feeling of being 'alive through reality,' existence becomes mechanical, dead, and heavy. Without presence, each day becomes a repetition. Hell often arises when we struggle against what is happening, instead of flowing with it.

About the tension between knowing and just being.

Anyone who wants to read about the history of philosophy must do so in books written by someone who is not an expert on the content of each individual philosophical concept.

If it is the historical development that one wants to get a linear overview of, then one must take a step back and look at the event from the outside. This is the exoteric perspective. The risk with this perspective is to become an "archivist" (a very important job in the handling and storage of collected information). But then no new perspectives ever challenge one's own worldview.

Anyone who instead wants to philosophize about how reality can be understood must do this from within the conditions of thinking and start from the same premises that thinking is based on, and this is where the great challenge lies. This is the esoteric and existential perspective

The historian asks: "What did Kant mean by this in 1781?" The philosopher asks: "If one were to assume this premise, what would my world look like in this now?"

It is the same difference as between visiting a workshop museum and stepping into a workshop.

If one wants to test a philosophical assumption, one cannot at the same time insert other ideas that will then disturb what is not included in the assumption to be tested.

Through phenomenological epoché (bracketing preconceived notions), the premises are tested in thought experiments.

This requires both courage and time to dissolve the clusters of information about reality that are already stored in memory.

Since this is almost impossible, one has to play with the thought and take the assumption to be tested as a pure hypothesis.

It requires an enormous cognitive focus not to let the "infoclusters" (your old truths) leak in and sabotage the experiment. It therefore only works if the hypothesis is temporarily taken very seriously and weighed in its fairness against reality. This must therefore be done existentially from within the assumption as a starting point and not presented phenomenologically from outside as some historical overview of philosophy. One must therefore temporarily buy the premises of the assumption in order to be able to understand how they actually function in relation to reality.

We are not used to thinking this way. Our brains are optimized for efficiency, not for radical reconsideration. We have built up heuristics – mental shortcuts – that automatically sort information for us. To “dissolve these clusters” is to go against our biology. This is why philosophy is often described as a form of asceticism or mental training. A disciplined concentrated focus on the concept of reality. Testing hypotheses must then take place from within the starting point of the assumption. Our ideas about reality are often intertwined with our identity. Radically testing a premise is not just an intellectual exercise; it feels like a threat to the stability of one’s own self, so it takes great courage to do this, so it is no game for someone who is afraid of the idea one has of the self as a supporting identity. And that is when all the warnings turn into stop lights!

It is the difference between saying "this doesn't work" and actually stepping into the machine, pulling the levers and trying to find exactly where the gears could possibly lock. This activity thus becomes a provocative phenomenological pressure chamber of active thinking versus passive knowing.

This is where consciousness ceases to be the end product of thinking and instead becomes an experienced state in the form of consciousness.

About Speaking Plainly

• A Clear language is necessary: It is important to distinguish the philosophical concepts clearly and use them consistently in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.
• Conceptual clarity is key: By being precise about what we mean by concepts such as Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon, we can avoid falling into vagueness and instead have a meaningful discussion.
• Precision matters: We must be precise and clear in the use of these concepts to ensure that we are speaking about the same thing. If our thoughts are not clear, then our speech becomes unclear and obscure, and “what is said obscurely is thought obscurely”!

We must therefore speak plainly, otherwise we do not understand one another.

About language, the perceptual faculty, and hierarchy of levels in understanding reality

Language functions as a tool through which humans can discern, describe, and calculate what is necessary to relate to in phenomenal reality. Through language, we can share experiences of actual conditions, but also access descriptions of conditions we have not yet experienced ourselves. In this way, language enables us to grasp what others have already grasped, provided it has been expressed clearly and precisely.

Through language, we can also question what others claim to have understood. We can test the logic of their reasoning, examine their starting points, and reconsider the assumptions used to comprehend phenomenal reality. It is here that philosophical thinking arises as a necessary consequence of phenomenal development: when language becomes sufficiently precise, it can be directed toward its own prerequisites.

This development takes place entirely on the phenomenal level. If we assume that the dynamic faculty of perception is realized through the phenomenon, it is refined over time in line with biological, neurological, and cultural development. But the faculty of perception itself at its core – as a prerequisite for all experience – is dynamic in its nature, and its expressions are differentiated.

Even less does the unchanging Absolute Existence, understood as the unchanging being, change. The assumption of Existence, conceived as Absolute, cannot be defined in terms of properties, parts, or relations without simultaneously being reduced to something phenomenal. It does not constitute an object of perception but the necessary prerequisite for anything to appear as a phenomenon at all.

Here a fundamental risk also arises: the attempt to imagine the existential level, even though this is impossible if existence is Absolute. Every imagination – whether concerning an existence conceived as composed of parts or as a single object – renders the Absolute relative. The very act of imagining something presupposes an observer outside of what is imagined, and thereby a relation immediately arises. At that moment, existence is no longer Absolute, but relative to the one who imagines it.

Absolute Existence, therefore, cannot be conceived, depicted, or imagined without losing its absolute character. It cannot be more or less, larger or smaller, inclusive or exclusive. It can only be assumed to be the unchanging being that it Is.

The child's development provides a clear example of this hierarchy. The newborn child perceives reality already in the womb. Movements, sounds, light as variations but without the tangibility and necessity that require effort to avoid being felt. When the child is finally outside the womb, reality becomes tangible and objective as the eyes get the opportunity to focus on the surroundings in a direct interaction with the child. Only through the entrance of language are distinctions, names, differences, and relationships introduced. With language, the child learns that the world consists of "things," of differences and of separate objects. This happens with a certain delay, so that an impression is experienced and its aftereffect leaves a mark which, after processing, can become expressible sentences when the language is sufficiently developed. The original direct perception is not given much importance, but the experience is immediately interpreted through previous experiences, and depending on the interpretation, the experience is expressed linguistically and can then be understood by someone who speaks the same language. The language then only becomes comprehensible if one has the same frame of reference in the dialogue. The perception of reality is covered by the structure of language and becomes the interpretation of reality. Language also provides the opportunity for reflection where it is possible to think twice or more in deliberation before making a decision on any matter.

When it comes to philosophical reasoning, the risk of conceptual confusion becomes clear. If one does not maintain a clear hierarchical order between the concepts of Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon, they can become mixed up in philosophical thinking. A common example is the idea that the universe consists of unchanging, indivisible, inherently dead building blocks (like a LEGO made of LEGO pieces) that together form objects in an already existing void. In this way of thinking, phenomenal content – atoms, fields, or particles – is treated as the foundation of existence, rather than as phenomena that emerge within existence.

This conflation is further reinforced by the perception of the universe as a whole composed of parts. The whole is then interpreted as the sum of its components, rather than being understood as a phenomenal description within a given existence. When this occurs, the hierarchy collapses: the phenomenon is sometimes mistaken for existence, and the essence -- the faculty of perception -- is confused with existence itself.

The strength of language -- its ability to differentiate and structure -- thus becomes its risk. Without careful reflection, language and imagination together can lead to the unchanging being being confused with the changing, and that which appears only in perception being taken for that which is ultimately.

About Experience, interpretation and interpretive priority.

When certain interpretations of experiences of reality are allowed to take precedence over others, this is called interpretive precedence. This interpretive precedence is tied to language, and language is essentially based on agreements that certain expressions are interpreted in the same way so that they can serve as a means for comprehensible social communication between individuals who possess the language skills necessary to make themselves understood by other social individuals. It is not until language has become sufficiently developed, in the form of agreements, that it becomes comprehensible as a means of communication that makes information transfer possible.

All words that serve this function are agreed-upon sound combinations that become understandable for the comprehension of them. When new phenomena are discovered, new names can be given to them so that information about them can be transferred into understandable information. When the information collected about a certain phenomenon increases, it gains priority in the form of the "knowledge" possessed by the person who has the information.
Those who do not have enough information on the subject can listen to and pay attention to the person who has that information or read the written information that is collected where it can be found. In this way, agreements can be formulated that enable social interaction and cooperation. All oral agreements in the form of contracts can then be written down and signed by those who formed the agreement.

This is done with a confirmation in the form of a drawing on a paper and is therefore called a "signature" by a signatory. This is done to show that the parties agree on what has been agreed upon with the intention that the agreement will be upheld. In this way, trust is built that makes it possible for individuals to live in peaceful coexistence instead of unnecessary tensions arising that can lead to conflicts and disputes that in the worst case can end with the parties wanting to kill each other. It is therefore important that both parties have the negotiation space and the negotiation mandate required at the negotiating table. When an agreement is then signed, it must be unambiguous for those who are to interpret the agreement as long as the agreement is valid.

It is then not certain that those who once signed the agreement are present, and then it becomes a question of how the agreement should be interpreted and who has sufficient information about the meaning of the agreement and who then gets the agreed interpretation priority. Interpreting the agreement is then a balance to ensure that no party loses out on the interpretation.

About the interpretation of reality and the possibility of experiencing it.

' If the faculty of perception is interpreted as one's own private property, it is a shame for this necessarily leads to a limitation of it. This will in the long run lead to tensions when that interpretation is given general interpretative priority over the insight that the faculty of perception is a universal ability and which can even be assumed to be an inherent nature in an Absolute Existence.

For a listener to this reasoning, this may sound deductive, but the reasoning is actually based on an unprovable assumption that something with the inherent faculty of perception must be the minimum possible prerequisite for what follows from the reasoning about reality.

If reality is the perceptible state variation (that lies in the spectrum of the frequency band between 0 > 1.8 \x 10^ Hz.) it can only in fact work if this is based on the assumption that the "faculty of perception" is “the inherent nature” of an "Absolute Existence:. If we remove both the Absolute Existence and the faculty of perception from the reasoning, we only have the phenomenal band to talk about. Just because words cannot describe the conditions, this does not prevent the experience of reality and that the philosophical language can point exactly to the limit of the condition. Therefore, the word "GOD" has been used as a symbol for the bearer of the faculty of perception. But this is only on prerequisite that one does not do it in some form of imagination. This allows the thinking to hold together without collapse.

That the " Faculty of Perception" and the "Absolute Existence" are indescribable is because they lack content, but are what makes all content possible. Without these as philosophical assumptions, we have no conditions that can be used as a starting point for thinking which then becomes contradictory without beginning or end.

About GOD as a Linguistic Concept

What does it mean if one needs to speak of GOD, seen from the Absolute Existence Philosophy's point of view?

If one needs to speak of ‘GOD’, then one must speak of starting from ‘GOD as Absolute Existence’ in order to be able to focus on ‘Nature as a whole’ (Universe), and as a participant in ‘GOD’s fundamental Nature’.

In that sense, one needs to be able to speak of 'GOD as Existence', not to describe 'GOD' as a relation but to indicate the 'Starting Point'. Without that indication, the focus easily shifts to 'Nature at large' as something independent, rather than as Phenomenon.

By starting from ‘GOD’ as an assumed Absolute Existence, the following is kept clear:

• “Nature as a whole” (the Universe) is not understood as ground, but as realization.
• Participation in ‘Nature as a whole’ is understood as participation in GOD’s fundamental Nature, not in something separate or external.
• The perspective rests on the relation: Existence → Essence → Phenomenon.

Speaking of GOD here thus does not function as personification, but as an orientation point that makes it possible to speak of “Nature as a whole” (the Universe) in the right order and without losing its dependence on the fundamental Existence.

GOD as Absolute Existence is therefore not something that can be divided, analyzed, or consist of components, but constitutes the indivisible precondition for anything whatsoever to be able to appear as divided.

About Problems and Problem-Solving

Relative Problems and Relational Problems

All problems are relative and therefore have a solution. If the problems do not have a relative solution, then it is not a relative problem that can be solved, and thus not a relative problem at all.

That a problem is relative means that the problem necessarily recurs.

The nature-based problems are by necessity connected to bodily needs: air, water, solid food, warmth, freedom of movement, self-defense, and light.

The relational problem concerns reproduction. A sexual intercourse must therefore, by necessity, for both the offspring’s sake and the relational aspect, take place in mutual consent.

Conflicts Between the Sexes

Conflicts between the sexes can often be seen as a communication problem based on both biological and social differences. Men may be more action-oriented and want to resolve things directly, while women are often more relation- and care-oriented. If a woman expresses concern, a man may interpret it as criticism, while the woman may experience the man’s way of acting as inconsiderate. These misunderstandings can create tensions without depending on any absolute qualities in men or women. Conflicts arise when different views on responsibility and problem-solving meet, but most tasks are best determined by experience and competence, not gender.

The economy of unnecessary suffering.

The perfect defense mechanism. We love to shift the reason for our suffering onto circumstances beyond our control. We blame stress on work conditions with uncomprehending bosses and colleagues. Depression is blamed on everything from the weather to deaths in close relationships, but there is something that tops everything, and that is our victim role, which is cultivated as we blame someone else and grieve over the fact that someone else does not comfort us in our victim-role suffering. The victim role is also the last hair that the "self" clings to. We then instinctively distance ourselves from anything resembling scissors that threatens to cut off the strand of hair on which the victimhood has the self as its driving anchor. This negative sublimation is the ultimate defense mechanism as a power strategy. For who can attack the one who cries? The victimhood often brings secondary gains – attention, relief from responsibility and a sense of moral superiority. The scissors not only threaten suffering, they threaten the very foundation of the individual’s social currency. Anyone who makes demands or points out their own responsibility is immediately transformed into a perpetrator. It becomes a form of affective blackmail where those around them are forced to tiptoe so as not to confirm the victim's image that the world is cruel. Religion has made a business idea of the victim role by personifying the victim to take on all other victim roles, thus freeing all offerings from their driving anchor and thereby freeing them from their enticement. In addition, everyone should realize their sins and receive forgiveness of sins through prayer for this. This has become the role of religious faith today. A collective need for grace.

The victim role becomes irritated both by what happens in reality and by what does not happen in reality, and therefore only sees the difficulties instead of the opportunities. This creates double irritation: A lose-lose situation. Opportunities are masked as "more work" or "risks." A win-win situation, on the other hand, arises if reality is seen as a task for problem-solving, as all problems that can be solved are no problem at all, and the unsolvable problems do not become anything to dwell on.

About the Absolute Existential Problem

An absolute problem has no solution in itself; all problems are relative and depend on how phenomena are interconnected. The existential problem concerns different assumptions about reality and is called philosophical problem-thinking. With insight into the contingency of existence, the absolute question arises: why does anything exist at all, and what does the concept of Existence point toward?

About The Question of Moral

According to the Absolute Philosophy of Existence, reality is an ongoing interacting dynamic experience that is perceived intermittently in different forms of tension. The more frequent these are and the more our receptors are able to convey the impressions, the more we notice them. When the impressions become too intense and affect the nerves, this is experienced as pain. Reality is thus pain in various forms, and it then becomes obvious that we do not want that pain to increase or persist, and therefore we should not subject others to more pain than necessity requires. There is a saying that evil should be driven away with evil, and that was probably how it was in the past before pain relief made pain more effective at the dentist. All morality occurs in encounters with people in reality and follows a natural order in its simplicity, which, although simple, must be taught to children as they grow up. What we experience as painful is something we should largely avoid, and that which is good we should handle with tenderness.

Can the Absolute Existential Philosophy say anything about moral and what is right and wrong without relying on religion or holy scriptures?

According to the Absolute Existential Philosophy, what we experience as harm is something we should largely avoid and what is doing good we should handle with seriousness.

Linking right and wrong to the concepts of good and evil, however, can have fatal consequences.

The relative problems that are constantly recurring must be handled in a way that neither harms ourselves nor the environment, since we will also suffer from the negative consequences we cause to the environment, regardless of whether it concerns nature in general or in small ways.

(Here we have the golden rule that no one with common sense can question. See the next chapter about this)

If we want to separate good from evil, we will spend all our time and energy fighting evil.If instead we see reality as a phenomenon of both good and evil, we seek the good and avoid that which does harm. And then one can also think that what is good is what affirms togetherness, and what is evil is what denies togetherness. In the Absolute Philosophy of Existence, the Phenomenon Universe appears in the form of a coordinated reality to which the faculty of perception relates through the different perspectives that occur in the phenomenon.

In this way, the phenomenon could lie within the field of tension between the faculty of perception and the realization in the form of the reception of reality's impressions of forms.

The difference in tension and relaxation makes the variation in the experience of reality a possible experience.

The starting point of the faculty of perception towards the phenomenon occurs through different forms of resistance that must be handled so that unnecessary suffering does not arise.

In the Absolute Philosophy of Existence, an Absolute Existence is assumed to be the prerequisite that carries the faculty for the phenomenon to appear due to its nature as the faculty of perception.

The prerequisite for experiencing existence is assumed to lie in the ability to perceive itself as the nature behind the consciousness of reality.

To then want to have a relationship to that which enables relationships is, according to the Absolute Philosophy of Existence, impossible since that which enables relationships is also that which experiences relationships in the phenomenon.

If one believes that it is possible to have any other relationship than that between the faculty of perception and the experience of reality, it means that one will look for the source that expresses the reality and believe that it is possible to have a relationship with it instead of experiencing the relationship to the reality that the source phenomenally constantly expresses and where a togetherness in mutually good conditions is possible as experiences, and this one should not fail to experience.

About the fear of "Judgementsday" and the social contract.

"The Ruler of the Universe" is not a line-judge or a judging person! "The Ruler of the Universe" is a measure to unite "the universal rules of engagement". It is meant to prevent conflicts and that rule is called 'The Golden Rule'.

Everyone knows the “Golden Rule.” We don’t even need to learn the logic behind the rule; we experience it physically every time we interact with someone. If we hadn’t had the golden rule as an 'invisible law' in our genes, we would have wiped each other out long ago. It is like an 'enzyme' that keeps us connected with our next offspring and it does this without being consumed.

The "negative" golden rule In philosophy, it is often said that children understand the golden rule through its negative form: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you." This is the first principle of fairness a child demonstrates on the playground ("He took my shovel, so I take his – but wait, it wasn’t fun when he took mine..."). The conclusion: I know that I broke the common rule for how to behave, and I ask for mercy because I understand that I have hurt the group.

If the philosopher were to propose a "Social Contract to be Declared of Age," then one would no longer "become" an adult; one would be forced to "choose" to become one. The question that then arises is, what happens to those who refuse to sign? Would they remain "underage" for life, without the right to vote or buy a house, but also without the responsibilities that the contract requires? "The negative golden rule" (everything you do not want to happen to you, you should not do to others).

It would create an interesting situation in the courts: Instead of pointing to specific paragraphs, one would ask: "Would you have wanted the other party to do this to you?" If the social contract is broken, the punishment would probably not only be fines, but a public repair of the relationship.

The risk: If everyone interprets 'treat others well' differently, chaos arises.
The benefit: We would have a society with extremely high trust. If every adult had signed to actively wish well for others, the need for locked doors and complicated insurance would decrease drastically.
Summary: A contract with heart
Signing such a contract would make authority day a kind of moral exam. It would shift the focus from what I can take from society to how I should behave within it.
The heart of the matter: Such a system would probably eliminate much of the bureaucratic 'fur' we have today, but it would place enormous demands on the individual's empathy and self-awareness.

Everyone knows the “Golden Rule”. To exist and to be and to deserve the name 'human' without 'epithets' is to follow the golden rule. Whoever breaks the golden rule becomes an antagonist against the social contract. Whoever does so is not allowed to be at peace merely by being called by their name. They receive various epithets: Egoist, Parasite, Hypocrite, Sociopath/Psychopath, or what has nowadays been exalted to a neo-liberal ideal: 'The Freerider.' The liberal idea is the worst because it encourages all of us to become 'freeriders' and to be architects of our own private future. This risks everyone placing themselves outside the golden rule of the social contract. (The editorial team is aware of the provocative nature of this extrapolation and that it is on par with 'loving your enemies,' but unfortunately, this is the consequence if we are to follow the logical premise our page uses)

It is when we promise in advance to live in peace and harmony that the universal rules of commitment bear fruit. In the extreme case, when this is applied to its utmost limit, it becomes 'You shall love your enemy! (But of course, it is easier said than done!)

What then governs the universe will not be a superior almighty judge from heaven blowing the whistle and sentencing you to punishment in the penalty box. The golden rule is used so that we can interact in a mutually beneficial way in the reality we live in according to the rules of Nature, or 'the laws of Nature,' and not according to 'the law of the jungle' or 'the right of the strong.'

It is we ourselves who judge each other and ourselves according to the Golden Rule.
But if we only say ourselves that we follow the Golden Rule and at the same time point out that someone else does not, we get the label 'Hypocrite.'
It is only the one who truly lives according to that rule who can point out if someone else does not follow it.

Moreover, if we complain about reality, we have already placed ourselves outside of it and evaluate it as bad and in need of renovation.

Then we don’t realize that Judgment Day is not something that is going to happen sometime in the future. It is happening now in real time and goes on as long as we break it while at the same time pointing out that someone else is doing it! It becomes – “Look at that, but don’t look at me!”

We are so busy with our renovation of reality that we do not understand that it is ourselves who act as judges when we judge others, including ourselves, as offenders against the golden rule.

We must not forget that it is only under the right circumstances that the faculyt of perception can be realized in a beneficial way without disturbing tensions. Under incorrect circumstances, that possibility for a good relation to reality is disturbed.

A wakeful analogy, with the risk of personalizing 'Absolute Existence,' so stay awake.......:
We could play a little in the mind with a poetic analogical assumption and think that: 'The wakeful essence of Absolute Existence probably never ever sleeps simultaneously from all its multifaceted angles in reality but is eternally dynamic, enduring, and awake through the mode of the wakeful angle at the moment it awakens, whichever it may be.

About the Absolute and the Appearance of the Phenomenon

The Absolute is self-sustaining and indivisible, and change appears only phenomenally through the faculty of perception. The phenomena allow us to experience Existence, but the change does not affect the indivisibility of Existence. Hlatky’s model illustrates dynamics, but cannot explain the self-sustaining nature of Existence — something the Absolute Existence Philosophy can.

About the Relational Nature of Absolute Problem-Solving

The key to understanding the problem lies in the interplay between Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon. Existence is the unchanging ground of all that is; Essence is the faculty of perception, through which consciousness arises; and Phenomenon is the ever-shifting field in which this faculty is realized, giving consciousness its expression in time and space. Insight does not come from finding a simple answer, but from seeing how these three aspects are inseparably connected.

About a reflection on the Concepts Abstract and Concrete in Relation to Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon

In relation to Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon, the abstract and the concrete can be understood as two perspectives on the same reality. The concrete -- Existence and its Essence -- is unchanging and self-sustaining, while the Phenomenon is temporarily concrete and is experienced through the faculty of perception. The abstract arises when consciousness isolates the phenomenon from its ground, but when it is returned to Existence and Essence, even what seems abstract becomes meaningful as an expression of the Absolute.

About the concept of "Wholeness" in Relation to the Unchanging, Enduring Being

In the Absolute Existence Philosophy, the concept of Wholeness must never be confused with Existence. Wholeness describes relations and interactions between phenomena, while Existence is the unchanging enduring Being -- self-sustaining and indivisible. Letting Wholeness refer to Existence makes the absolute relative and leads to an intellectual construction, not the prerequisite of the Absolute Existence.

About reality, imagination, and the faculty of perception

Do you believe that Existence is real or pure imagination?
**Do you believe in awake concioussnes, or that you are asleep and everything is a dream? When you perceive the universe as phenomenon, do you believe that what you perceive is a phenomenon or an imagining image?

These questions are leading and axiomatic. They do not aim to persuade, but to awaken the self-evident insight that the very act of questioning already presupposes a Being — an Absolute Existence — that cannot be imagined.

Reality and imagination

In everyday language, reality and imagination are often viewed as opposites. But this opposition becomes meaningless if we assume that reality cannot exist independently of the subject. Perception is not something that happens in a world, but the world’s very occurrence as consciousness.

To imagine

– in the word's original meaning – means to form a picture in the mind. In German it is called einbilden, in English imagine. The English word lacks the pejorative tone that the Swedish "inbilla" has acquired; it rather carries a creative meaning – the ability to visualize and make possibilities visible as inner images before they are seen manifested in the resistance of reality and vice versa.

Reality’s Dependence on Consciousness

If reality cannot exist independently of the subject, it means that perception is the point where Existence and Phenomenon coincide. There are not two separate planes — an external object and an inner consciousness — but one and the same event viewed from two aspects: the Being (Existence) and its awareness of itself (Essence) through the phenomenon..

Thus neither reality nor the experience of it can be described as imagination. Perception is reality in its ongoing expression.

The Image of the Universe

What we call the universe is not an external world that exists independently of the observer, but could be the phenomenon through which Existence perceives itself. To assume this means to cease speaking of reality and imagination as opposites. Reality is not something that needs to be proven -- it is the self-evident ground for every perception, every thought, every image.

If the experience is intense enough, it is noticeable.
Reality is intense but not extensive.
The premise cannot be a part of the representation.
Stefan Hlatkys always said that “GOD cannot be less than the Whole.”
In that case, it would mean that “GOD is the entire representation.”
But it is like saying that the Projector that shows the film is the film.
It is like saying that the universe is the cause of the universe.
Or that “GOD is the cause of GOD.” This leads to a logical explosion.
And then you can get away with any ongoing thing.
And when thinking means coming together, the thinker also collapses.
But making Jesus into “GOD” does not lead to the same collapse due to the blind faith that prevents the collapse even though this makes “GOD” smaller than the “Whole.”
And then the premise becomes smaller than the representation.

The conclusion then is that one would rather read about the philosophy book instead of changing one’s own philosophical thinking. This is based on the belief that it is possible to read one’s way to understanding instead of starting from the premise. And the premise then defies the description, says the wise person, and is considered a “know-it-all” one does not want to receive knowledge from.
Then one tells the “know-it-all” that you really ought to learn to listen to what others have to say about the matter or simply read the history of philosophy.
It is like saying that one has understood nothing and is satisfied with this and then says that one understands zero. This is the case with AI.
One cannot explain the premise, only use it as a starting point.
You do not find the answers that close the thought in conclusions.
You ask the questions that open up the premises for thinking.

Then one stops quoting and expresses the consequences of the assumption everyone already shares, namely the presence in the experience of existing as the experience of being.
That sentence cannot be interpreted in any other way than that it must be experienced in the present instead of being interpreted while thinking deductively. By breaking the stream of others' deductive thoughts before they short-circuit one's own thinking, one starts from an assumption free of preconceptions instead of from someone else's deductive conclusion.
Then it becomes the one who sees who you are. Then you get what you see, and what will reveal others' intentions will become the tension in body language.
An anticipatory look or a threatening response. And then it becomes clear whether it is a prerequisite for a good relationship with reality or whether it in reality is a prerequisite for fight or flight..

On Assumptions in General and in Particular

Begin with the Absolute Existence as an assumption, not just any assumption, but the Absolute Assumption by definition, and therefore not an idea or mental construct.
It describes no properties and no form, but points only to the necessary precondition for perception, thought, and the very act of assuming anything whatsoever to be possible.

From there, the representational assumptions reveal themselves as contradictory attempts to describe something within the phenomenal:

• the assumption that everything came into being out of nothing
• the assumption that consciousness arises from matter
• the assumption that chance can be a fundamental principle
• the assumption that time is something that moves
• the assumption that the universe expands into something
• the assumption that the individual stands by itself
• the assumption that development has direction or purpose
• the assumption that logic can emerge from non-logic
• the assumption that morality is absolute despite changing expressions
• the assumption that free will exists or does not exist as an absolute fact
• the assumption that the universe is finite
• the assumption that the universe is infinite

These assumptions are conceptions of something phenomenal and can therefore always be contradicted by other conceptions expressing the opposite. They lack necessity and depend on phenomenal forms that can shift, be replaced, or be denied.

The difference then becomes clear: The Absolute Assumption has no phenomenal image and no phenomenal content. The conception of the absolute, however, attempts to give it a form and thus becomes relative as soon as it is expressed.

At the same time, we must use our phenomenal capacity for conception in a very brief thought experiment where an objective image functions only as a first step. It is held just long enough to transition into a subjective insight where the movement goes from observing to participating. In that shift, the experienced wholeness within the phenomenon appears, and the conceptual wholeness between Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon reveals itself as a reciprocal relation rather than three separate parts.

When the experienced wholeness within the phenomenon appears, and the conceptual wholeness between Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon is no longer perceived as three levels but as one and the same relation, it becomes clear why the phenomenal representational assumptions fall apart. They attempt to describe something within the phenomenal without seeing that the describing itself already operates through a capacity that is not phenomenal.

It is here that the Absolute Existence as an assumption shows its function: not as content, not as theory, not as model, but as the ground of the capacity for perception. When this is kept clear, the fact also appears that the phenomenal capacity for representation should not be explained away or dismissed, but used exactly as far as it holds — and then left behind when subjective insight takes over.

The brief thought experiment thus functions as a bridge between two ways of experiencing: first through an objective image located in the phenomenal, and then through the very participation in the relational, where perception appears as a direct function of existence. In this transition, the difference between the Absolute Assumption and the phenomenal representational assumptions becomes not only intellectually understandable, but directly experienceable in the action of perception.

When this occurs, the need to imagine existence ceases, because existence is no longer treated as an object among objects. It appears instead as the necessary precondition for phenomenon and essence to be distinguishable, conceptualizable, and experienceable. And in the same movement it becomes clear why the contradictory representational assumptions can never describe anything absolute: they always remain within the phenomenal, while the Absolute Assumption points toward that which makes phenomenality possible.

Misled or Intent-Driven Actions

An analysis of the responsibility of actions and their relation to reality-based thinking, and the distinction between pure madness and reality-distorted thinking

1. Conscious action against better knowledge

The first form of madness lies in actions where the individual knows the consequences, yet still chooses to act in opposition to this knowledge. Here, responsibility is clear: the individual cannot blame ignorance or misunderstanding. This is why actions of this kind lead to legal consequences such as fines or imprisonment.

2. Reality-detached thinking

The second form concerns people whose thoughts are detached from reality. Their actions are logical within their own internal framework, even if, from the perspective of the majority, they may appear absurd or risky. Since the individual lacks the capacity to understand consequences in the same way as others, punishment is not legal but concerns care and support. Responsibility and guilt are shifted here from will to ability.

3. The manipulated framework

In the third zone, the individual acts:

• not from their own clarity,
• not from reality-detached thinking,
• but from an adopted framework created by authoritative interpreters.

The person is led to carry out actions considered “madness,” but the consequences depend on the nature of the framework:

• Normal war situations: the actions are linked to defense against attacks or territorial threats. Only pure war crimes are punished; otherwise the individual is not held responsible in the same way.
• ”Holy wars” or actions creating terror via intermediaries: these actions often lead to imprisonment because the individual is exploited for acts of terror.
• Combined frameworks with political-territorial and religious claims: these conflicts become nearly insurmountable because the frameworks reinforce each other emotionally and normatively, making it difficult to delineate responsibility boundaries.

Here it becomes clear how individual responsibility is shaped by the nature, complexity, and legitimizing power of the framework, while the individual does not act against better knowledge.

4. Thinking from the unchanging being and the point of this

In contrast to the first three levels, a fourth state emerges: here thinking originates from the unchanging being as an Existing Absolute Subject, which is the starting point in the Absolute Existence Philosophy.

The result is that:

• thoughts do not “run amok,”
• compulsive thoughts gain no foothold,
• problem-solving emerges as self-evident.

It is a stable and balanced mode of thinking where no manipulation, no reality-detached perspective, and no willful transgression is needed to understand or act. Everything follows directly from the starting point, making both reasoning and actions natural and effective.

From the outside, it looks like the experiencer is wandering around in La-La Land and only incomprehensible things come out of their mouth. But from within the assumption, the perspective on reality is the opposite.

The emergence of conflicts and the possility of their solution

1. Money as an Expression of the Capacity for Change

Money is tied to the capacity for change, and this capacity in turn depends on an agreement about what change is to be made. Whoever possesses money therefore has the power to effect change, and is referred to as someone with great wealth — in the sense of great wealth for change.

Wealth is thus linked to assets that can be converted into change. These assets arise through agreements between individuals and are ultimately dependent on natural resources and their potential to be transformed into agreed-upon changes.

The assets must have a certain durability over time. The longer they last and the harder they are to obtain, the higher their assigned value and the greater the capacity for change they represent. Diamonds are an example of how long-lasting durability combined with scarce availability creates high value and a great potential for change when exchanged through agreements.

2. Change, Durability, and the Philosophical Foundation

All capacity for change must be tied to something that itself is changeable. Therefore, it can never be united with something that is unchanging. The unchanging serves here as a philosophical concept — an assumption that, for something to be able to change, there must be something at the foundation that does not change, and which makes the change itself possible.

The capacity for relation and the capacity for change thus become two distinct phenomena:

• The capacity for change operates by affecting what can be altered.
• The capacity for relation operates by being able to receive and perceive this change.

The capacity for perception is the fundamental ability on which everything else rests. It must be tied to something unchanging, which means that the capacity for perception is, in this case, the very nature of the unchanging itself. If the unchanging cannot change at all, all perceivable change must be expressed within the capacity for perception itself. Perception thus becomes both the possibility of change and the expression that makes the change possible.

3. Fixation on Money as a Confusion of Two Levels

When focus falls on money’s capacity for change, it becomes easy to become fixated on the ability that money represents, rather than taking interest in the very foundational expression of all changeability.

Before the insight into the unchanging being has taken hold, changeability appears as the only existing reality. Then money — which is a way to direct changeability — becomes a central goal. The fixation is reinforced because money offers influence over ongoing change in the direction one desires.

But when the insight into the unchanging being arises, the starting point changes. Attention shifts from the desire to control changes to the capacity to relate to them, since the capacity for relation is experienced as more fundamental than any attempt to control changeability.

4. The Biblical Correspondence: Two Masters and Two Incompatible Directions

The problem is not religious in nature, but it is formulated in the Bible as the impossibility of serving two masters simultaneously. In that text, the unchanging being is personified as God, while money’s potential for change is personified as Mammon.

The logic behind this opposition is that two conflicting wills for change cannot be satisfied simultaneously without compromise. In the same way, identity cannot be directed toward both the change-directing and the relation-bearing at the same time without creating division. Identity must have a primary starting point in order not to be pulled apart by two incompatible principles.

5.Colliding Directions of Will

When identity does not rest in presence as a participant in the capacity for perception, conflicts easily arise — both internal and external.

External conflicts often concern price, value, ownership, and the right to influence the direction of change. Goods and services require both parties to compromise until both can accept the outcome. The greater the capacity to relate to the consequences of changes, the easier it becomes to reach a resolution.

Internal conflicts arise at the level of identity:

• If identity rests in the phenomenal self, the will to change becomes central, causing all conflicting wills to be perceived as threats.
• If identity rests in the capacity for perception, the capacity for relation becomes more prominent, reducing the need to control the course of change.

6.Faculty for Change versus Faculty for Relation

At its root, it concerns the possibility of resolving the conflicts that constantly arise between opposing parties. Whether the struggle is internal or external, it addresses the same question: Who has the right to decide on the work of change?

And if someone is negatively affected by the change that is being pursued — how should compensation be arranged to end the conflict?

The ultimate crossroads is determined by the placement of identity:

• If identity rests in the capacity for change, conflicts are intense and compromises painful.
• If identity rests in the capacity for perception, conflicts are easier to bear because one is already in the ground that makes change possible in the first place.

About the Necessary Emergence of Phenomenon

When we start from the Absolute, unchanging being, the phenomenon emerges only in relation to its Essence — the capacity for perception. The emergence of the phenomenon is not the result of chance or a surface for events; it is a necessary reflection that carries the polarity making differences possible. The tension between the parts of the phenomenon is not something that can cease or arise from nothing; it is the very expression of the active Essence of the unchanging being.

In contrast, the quantum field in science is presented as a groundless medium. Fluctuations are described as spontaneous movements, entanglement, and correlations, but without the tension that enables differences. There are no primary poles, no necessary relations giving rise to the phenomenon; everything seems to float in a neutral, independent field. The phenomenon then appears paradoxical: it emerges as if it has existence, yet lacks a foundation for its own emergent structure.

Within the framework of Absolute Existence Philosophy, by contrast, the phenomenon arises as a tension-phenomenon: every difference, every reflection, every entanglement is necessary and unavoidable. The reflection is not a temporary result of fluctuations in a field, but expresses the unchanging Essence that underlies all phenomena. Right/left reflection, plus/minus, male/female — these expressions become concrete manifestations of the tension that is fundamental to the existence of the emergent phenomenon. Entanglement, correlations, and mutual dependence are therefore not mysteries without grounding, but direct expressions of the necessary structure of Essence.

Realization of the Faculyt of Perception: Essence → Tension → Phenomenon

If we assume that the faculty of perception is dynamic and that it has an inherent direction toward realization, we can imagine a tension arising between these two aspects. This tension is not physical but logical and phenomenological, and can serve as the driving force for the emergence of the phenomenon.

Further, if we assume that this tension-momentum can be conceived as a field, then event quantities could manifest within this field. These quantities are temporary and shifting, but their emergence can then be understood as necessarily linked to the tension of Essence. When realized, they would appear as mirror-phenomena, reflecting the structure and direction of Essence, and enabling continuity and relation between successive phenomena.

Under these assumptions, we can conceive of the phenomenon as never emerging independently, but always as a necessary expression of the tension of Essence. It would then be the realization of the potential of the capacity for perception, and every observable event sequence can be regarded as a manifestation of this hypothetical logical structure. In this way, we can conceptualize an unbroken chain: Essence enables tension, tension drives realization, and the phenomenon is the result through reflection.

The difference becomes clear: whereas science describes a field without foundation, where fluctuations appear to arise from a neutral nothingness, the Absolute Existence Philosophy shows that the order, polarity, and entanglement of the phenomenon are unavoidable consequences of the Essence of being. The phenomenon does not emerge as something independent, but as a necessary expression of the tension structure of the unchanging Essence.

In the Absolute Existence Philosophy the universe is the ongoing phenomenon: the essence is realized as differences that are turned back to the single faculty of perception, in an unbroken, sequential momentum of tension.

About "Will" or "Necessity"

The question of whether there is a choice based on the faculty of perception in the direction of realization to consciousness is incorrectly posed. An experienced resistance is in fact required for consciousness to be realized at all. The realized consciousness can only be experienced in the form of matter as resistance.

If the faculty of perception is the potential of consciousness, there is a direction and driving force from the potential to realization in the same natural way that a seed has the potential to become a plant. The seed has no choice since it is predestignatet. Then consciousness can be realized in the form of matter and then it is not about a will or a free choice. Will would then have been about the choice between realization or not and without a realized consciousness, we would not have been able to perceive anything at all. Hence the necessity of the realization of consciousness. Thus, there is not even a notion of an unrealized consciousness since consciousness is the realized notion. The question of whether, in a potential way, it could be a reluctance to realize then falls on the fact that the the questioner has not reflected over that without the ongoing realization, it would not be able to find anything to reflect on. The real choice lies only in whether the particular angle of reality is interested in relating to reality or not.

About a possibility

"The Essence of the unchanging being should be what manifests in the form of the tension that universally curves space back onto itself.

It seems as if the universe is a natural prompt necessity for experience in general. The nature of something absolutely unchanging.

"So it seems that Existence as undivided and unchanging, through Essence, is directly present and carries the necessary tension that produces the Phenomenon, where the Whole arises in an eternal cycle of tension and relaxation that is resolved through a universal curvature back to itself, which gives power to the universe's eternal phenomenon." On and Off! ("It goes here it goes here it goes around a little bit - It's an Eternal Machine")

About the Limitation of Calculations:

The limitation of calculation: "To understand" is a calculating process. It means drawing a boundary around an object: "This is X (and therefore not Y)". But existence without dimensions has no boundaries. If you draw a line around it, you are still inside it. The withdrawal of the subject: the moment we make existence a study object ("Here it is!"), the Original Subject has already withdrawn. It is now the observer of the thought of existence, not the thought itself. The only way to "understand" Absolute Existence (which is impossible) is in the experience of being. The moment we stop trying to calculate it, the distance ceases. We cannot understand presence because we are presence. All understanding requires distance, but in the assumption of "the absolute point" there is no space for a thought to rise and look back at its origin. That is why silence is often described as the only true language of the absolute; words create dimensions, while silence while silence leaves the singularity intact.

The Original Subject is stationary (the silent observer). The essence is dynamic (the change of position).

Thinking requires this binary structure. Without the tension between 0 and 1 (between what we do not know and what we perceive) there would be no information to process. By placing this function in the "essence," the Original Subject constitutes the stable foundation, while the essence does the work of transforming reality's infinite action into tangible impressions.

Essence: The “binary engine” that constantly shifts position, creating the spark of "experience" and becoming receptive in the encounter between 0 and 1 through the phenomenon of the infinite space of possibilities for reality before it is experienced.

To want to "comprehend" reality is then to limit it. To "be" the reality is to accept that the most central, the "Absolute Existence," can never be represented in a calculation, precisely because it is the unit performing the calculation. You are not the thought – you are an experience of the space where the thought arises and disappears.

This is not a flaw in our ability to understand, but a fundamental property of reality: The most central cannot be proven, because it is the very foundation for a proof to be perceived at all.

You do not need to find reality. We cannot avoid it, because every impression we have is reality speaking directly to its own center.

About The Problem of Silence

A small rearrangement of three well-known philosophical concepts can lead to total silence or resistance, even when the philosophical reasoning is logically self-evident. What is lacking in those who hear a proposed order that deviates from the established unclear order is the mental support for the suggested arrangement.

As a result, silence ensues, and if anyone attempts to test the logic, the consequences are so overwhelming that complete silence or total rejection occurs.

About The "Human" Humanist Alternative

When Humanism shifts responsibility for meaning and the phenomenal onto the human being but ignores nature and its necessity, a betrayal arises against the absolute foundation that enables their own existence and perception.

In other words: by failing to recognize and relate to what makes their existence possible, Humanism violates the very conditions of its own existence.

This amplifies the paradox: humans are both GOD over their phenomenal responsibility and simultaneously disconnected from the foundation that makes this responsibility meaningful.

Humanism has taken upon itself the responsibility for meaning from some Absolute ground but ignored nature and its existence.

The result is that children inherit a void, a phenomenon without necessary foundation and a deadened nature.

These children must now relate to, interpret, and “play” with this void, without any given direction or meaning.

This captures the paradox precisely: the freedom to create meaning combined with the absence of a foundation for experience and perception.

The children inherit a void, a deadened nature, which in an image becomes “a corpse in decay.”

They must relate to and play with this phenomenon without any Absolute foundation.

Meanwhile, they are surrounded by strangers with hidden intentions, who can act at will.

The result is a situation where no necessity, no right or wrong exists, only uncertainty and chaos — and yet the children must create meaning from what remains.

We can reflect this in a few points:

1. The Paradox of Responsibility: Humans become both creators and judges of meaning, yet lack contact with the foundation that gives this responsibility legitimacy.
2. Existential Void: When nature is ignored, children are left with a phenomenon without an absolute ground -- a “corpse in decay” -- making their actions and interpretations fundamentally uncertain.
3. Social Uncertainty: The deadened foundation is combined with external forces (strangers with hidden intentions), intensifying the sense of chaos and lack of necessary direction.
4. The Irony of Freedom: Children are granted the freedom to create meaning, but this freedom is paradoxical in itself, as there is no stable, absolute reference point for their choices.

This illustrates how a philosophical system like Humanism can lead to a situation in which responsibility for meaning and perception is entirely decentralized, while the original foundation that makes this possible is ignored.

When Humanism disregards the absolute foundation and the necessity of nature, it affects not only the direct heirs (the children) but the entire surrounding environment. Those unable to understand or navigate the void also suffer indirectly, since the phenomenon they inherited — the absence of a stable ground — permeates the entire social and existential context.

This produces a collective effect: every attempt to create meaning occurs in an environment where the foundation is missing, forcing all participants to relate to uncertainty and chaos. The oblivious Humanism thus becomes a catalyst for suffering, not only for individuals but for the whole of their environment.

The consequence of this philosophical stance is that decisions are made on entirely relative grounds or completely groundless ones.

When the absolute foundation is absent, and when the necessity of nature is no longer recognized, nothing can support decisions except temporary human constructions. Decisions are then made either:

• on entirely relative grounds, where nothing is anchored beyond the immediate situation,
• or on completely groundless grounds, where choice lacks necessity, direction, and anchoring in anything enduring.

This means that decisions do not arise from necessity but from chance, preference, fear, power, habit, or impulse. Consequently, the distinction between what must be and what merely happens disappears.

About the Ontology of Performance versus Ontology of Being;

In a world where laziness is seen as the greatest sin of all sins and those who just want to be are despised. Someone whose ideal is to just “fart around” in the impression of the effect of reality can be perceived as someone who lacks the experience of the driving force of reality, but it can actually be the other way around. Enjoying Lazing on a sunny afternoon, in summertime, is not a sign of longing for death, right? So the human capacity for pretense can interpret it as if someone who farts around in the effect of reality is not concerned about what death means either. Then it might be imagined that someone who fell into the sea would not want to be rescued in a lifeboat when it hangs by a thread. For those who rest, life itself is a reception. Reality washes over without having to make it better. This requires a kind of inner security that the restless often lack.

About Ontos Origo

This is not a philosophical conclusion but an investigation of a philosophical assumption about what must underlie the ability to make any assumption at all.

Non-existence is an impossible starting point. Instead, we must begin our thinking from the premise that something must necessarily exist. This something must be assumed to be an Absolute, non-binary, still in its existence, with the faculty of perception as an inherent nature in order for perception to occur at all. An absolutely dimensionless existence without parts, which is not an object but the unchanging Being that fundamentally is a Primordial Subject that simply is. An "Ontos Origo" which we can only assume as a prerequisite and as fundamental existence, and which no one can stand outside of, have a relationship with, or perceive, as it is this that makes perception itself possible, but which is also not a person, since person is only the name for a human phenomenal being.

If there is a potential faculty of perception, this could through momentum lead to a realization in a pure "Ontological Oscillation," so to speak.

This could occur through an impulse of a binary momentum that changes state from the capacity for perception to a state of realized consciousness.

This could then be perceived as a change in motion, since change is the only thing potentially possible to experience.

A change in motion would then be a change of state that can be described in binary terms at the quantum level. What is then experienced is a continuum of displacement, but in reality, this means that we live in the result of the consequences of quantized sequential jumps that disguise themselves as smooth motion in the experience of reality consciousness.

Then Existence becomes a potentially stable state that is an absolutely unchanging Being. Its essence can then be the ability to feel drive toward actualization, which occurs in momentary binary phenomenal exposure that gives the experience of change as reality.

Then "matter" is, in fact, only the constantly ongoing frequency or rhythm in these sequential phenomenal jumps in the experience of resistance and weight, which, through inertia, linger as memories for recognition. If everything is energy (vibration), then what we call matter is just energy moving at a specific pace or density, and then there must be an Absolute Existence whose poles lie between potential and realization in the constant rhythm change that continuously occurs without anyone being able to look back and explain how it happens, and can only gaze toward the phenomenon of time. Time is then merely our human interpretation based on recognition in memory and planning, which also relies on the memory of knowledge about what may eventually is coming to be.

It is not possible to see darkness. It is not possible to hear silence. It is not possible to feel what has been numbed. It is not possible to smell the scentless. It is not possible to balance the weightless. It is impossible to think about the unthinkable. It is not possible to think without existing. It is not possible to feel without sensation. Some Absolute must exist with the capacity for perception as an inherent nature in order for perception to occur. An absolute existence that unmechanically expresses the phenomenon in order to gain an experience of something at all. This out of pure destined necessity rather than free will, through a bending of spacetime back to itself in the form of the image of the universe, which then is no longer a mystery, where all real experience lies as the recurring phenomenal reality.

Then we do not have the same chain with Existence, Essence, and the Phenomenon as a result, and a reality that can only be experienced in the form of differences from different perspectives within the same reality.
Reality is then the hope we believe in when we face the reality of the possibility of good mutual relationships with ourselves, as the perceiver’s effective, constantly overlapping angles of reality.

The real relationship then lies in the perceiver's encounter with the perciver in the form of all angles of reality, for no other possibility for a relationship can be found in a philosophy of Absolute Existence.

About the dismissal circular argument:

1. When someone dismisses an assumption as "too metaphysical," they turn a living hypothesis into a dead object – a "label." By labeling the idea as metaphysical (which in some circles is synonymous with "unscientific" or "baseless"), they place it outside the frame of what is worth investigating. Here, perhaps, the confusion between the abstract and the concrete becomes clearest. When the concrete "Existence" appears as "abstract," thinking is already locked onto what can be observed and seems "concrete and solid." But when it turns out, upon closer examination, that it is neither solid nor concrete, thought grasps nothing. Matter does not exist as "existent" but only continues as a dynamic interplay of tension in small positions –

2. Refusal to "do the test from within" Testing an assumption "from within" requires what philosophers sometimes call a temporary suspension of disbelief. Phenomenological method: In order to understand a metaphysical system (e.g. the idea of an Absolute Existence as the prerequisite for the faculty of perception as an ontological basis), one must step into its logic and see what the world looks like from there.

Fear of contamination: Those who refuse to do this are often afraid that the subjective experience will "contaminate" their objectivity. By staying on the outside, they retain control, but lose the possibility of deeper understanding.

3. Circular argumentation in dismissal A logical circle often arises: Assumption: "This is metaphysics, and metaphysics cannot be proven objectively." Action: Refuses to test the assumption from the inside (subjectively/intuitively). Conclusion: "Look there, there was no evidence." "You can't see the color of the inside of a closed eye by looking at the eye from the outside with a microscope."

In summary:
It is a paradox where the search for "objective truth" becomes an obstacle to understanding assumptions that require participation. The one who objectifies an assumption sees only their own projection of the assumption, never its actual potential or meaning. It is an intellectual security strategy disguised as rationality.

Even those who claim to have a faith in GOD as the "Absolute" can call AEF's assumption 'too metaphysical.' It becomes a dismissal because of the dizzying realization that what the religiously faithful call 'God' is much closer, much more radical, and much more immediate than the stories on which they have built their security. They mistake the formless for being 'empty,' when in fact it is full of living presence.

About the body as a cinema.

In theory, as a purely philosophical assumption and thought experiment, a supposedly dimensionless perceptual ability's state change of internal binary algorithm variation could give experience in the projection exposure of a dimensional state.

The exponent of 1 statically unchanged state of Existence is 1 while the exponent of 2 different states of its essence is infinite. Then the perceptual ability as the information receiver could be realized into consciousness. This means that it is the Essence as the inherent nature of one and the same Absolute Existence that varies but 7not the Absolute Existence that constitutes the prerequisite for the Essence.

Basically, it is then only a matter of two different states that oscillate between potency and realization. We then live in an ongoing transmission. Reality is not something that has happened, but something that happens of necessity every time the binary algorithm oscillates. As intelligent receivers, intelligence filters out what is disinformation and maintains focus on the reality that we would otherwise drown in.

Bodies function as cinemas for receiving information that falls from different angles as impressions of reality. The incoming information about reality is perceived as impression variations and is experienced in a sensory sequential series in the form of impression images of reality that are so frequent that instead of small information jumps they are experienced as a flow of information. The change of state is thus experienced as position changes in a surrounding operating space instead of the position change in the state between potency (1) and effect (0). The experience of this interaction is in turn stored as information about reality where it is processed as memory information. This leads to the perception in turn being interpreted and represented as information that gives a secondary perception as memory copies of the primary information that was first directly effective.

We therefore have two different types of information. One directly current and one secondary memory-based information. If the primary current information is reformulated and does not correspond to the primary current information, this leads to disinformation that gives a different picture of reality than the original picture. If the disinformation continues in several stages as socially transmitted information, it can lead to the perception of it becoming general and affecting the reaction to the primary general current information. Unfortunately, this can lead to a state of tension between the current experience and the secondary perception of reality. We then believe in secondary copies of reality instead of the effect of the primary reality. The story of reality then becomes more real than reality. We then also believe that we are the "cinema" when in fact we are the perceiver of the film by virtue of the faculty of perception as the inherent nature in Absolute Being. If we do not grasp this, the general perception leads to a cognitive and existential dissonance and we begin to act based on copies of copies, which creates a collective neurosis where we react to ghosts rather than to the effect of actual reality.

​We now live in a time where the "story of reality" has truly become more real than reality itself. And then it is truly time for reflection.

About The Primal-subject

We experience the effect of reality!

Through perception, we perceive reality, which leads to the fact that we can express different perceptions of the same effect of reality with language.

Reality thus gives a variety of varying impressions and the varied impressions of reality are also the only way to experience reality.

Or is there another possibility?

If we search in the brain, we find neurons (hardware). If we search in the mind, we find words (calculus). But is it impossible to assume that an Ur-subject is the silent witness who "experiences" both of these without being either of them himself. Can one assume that it is formless since everything with form is something that in that case is what the Primeordeal-subject observes?

Language requires both subject and object: "I see the tree." But when we try to talk about the "Primeordeal-subject" we try to make the subject an object. But the moment we say "Here is the "Primeordeal-subject", we have created a calculation about it. Could it then be "the Primeordeal-subject" that has already withdrawn and is now the one that is considering that sentence?

Does this mean that we live in a reality where the most central thing - that which experiences everything - is the only thing that can never be proven, measured or shown in a calculation? Is it then the starting point that in its essence receives reality as a varying impression?

If we assume,( just as a pure thought experiment), that the "Primordial Subject" is dimensionless and invisible, it means that we are all participants in the same phenomenal effects as angles of reality in its essence (since there are no features that distinguish one "center" from another), and then we are not in the dimensionless foundation isolated calculators that can never meet.

If we assume that "the Primeordeal-subject" is dimensionless, then the whole idea of dualism (the division between self and world) collapses.

The implications of the disappearance of distance involve: Collapse of space and distance because distance requires at least two points in a dimensional space (A and B). If the Primal Subject is then assumed to lack dimensions, there cannot be a "from here" (the subject) and a "over there" (the phenomenon).

We can then assume a logical starting point: The experience of the phenomenon does not take place outside you, but in or as the dimensionless center. Reality effect and the "Ur-subject" meet at a point that lacks extension.

The experience IS the phenomenon

When we remove the distance, the delay also disappears. There is no longer a "viewer" looking at a "reality" through a window.

Instead, the experience itself becomes the only place where reality takes place as effect. If we assume that "reality" is not something we have a distance from, then reality as an ongoing phenomenon becomes the only relationship that in the course of moments becomes something we are in perception of.

Afterword

The reader of these philosophically reflective texts does not need to understand everything or even agree.
It is enough to let the thought rest for a moment in the starting point that the text presents.

The Absolute Existence is not really an object of thought, but instead the very subject in which all thought occurs. Approaching this insight is not about achieving something new, but recognizing what has always already been.

Throughout history, many have tried to speak of the Absolute, and almost all have been misunderstood.
But it is not the number of those who understand that determines clarity, but the starting point itself.
If even a single person perceives the same, then a meeting exists — and that is enough.
And one can then allow the presence, in the light of the unbearable ease of being, to remain.

The Absolute Philosophy of Existence is a testable premise, not a truth claim. It functions as a compass:

• Creates clarity in thought and action.
• Let the language open up.
• Minimizes unnecessary psychological suffering by separating ego and language from phenomena.

"It's like hearing ill-intentioned words like 'loud exhalation' -- notice them, but don't let them get stuck in any emotion"

• Mistakes and accidents become phenomena to observe, not defeats.

In short: it provides stability, focus, and practical coherence, but does not protect against the external chaos of the world.

About The Path of Fate -- Faculty Before Belief

It may turn out that it is precisely what you believe in that will prevent you from attempting to understand what underlies the possibility of believing anything at all.

It may also turn out that you truly understand what constitutes possibility through the very attempt you make to avoid it.

We can literally say:

"You may find desteny on the path you took to avoid it."

What constitutes the possibility of attempting to avoid anything at all is, in fact, the the faculty of perception!

Everything begins with the faculty of perception — self-evident and impossible to question. It is always present and active, constituting the Essence of Existence. It does not arise; it is the very capacity to experience, relate, and interact with phenomena.

Phenomena are the medium through which the faculty of perception operates out of pure necessity and curves back onto itself. They are not separate objects, but necessary manifestations of the facultyof perception. Phenomena can be the universe at a distance, the earth beneath our feet, or our own body — anything that can be experienced.

When we observe the context of the phenomenon “from within,” the subject is experienced, which does not arise but is the capacity for perception itself interacting with the phenomena. In this way, the insight emerges: Existence = Subject, without confusing the concepts of Existence and Essence, even though historically and classically they have often been spontaneously conflated at first glance.

When this order is understood, we can position Existence as an Absolute Condition -- a literally existing point without external parts -- in relation to the phenomena. In this way, the Absolute remains intact, and we see:

• Existence is that which is.
• Essence / the faculty of perception is what that which is is.
• Phenomena are the manifestations of the capacity for perception.

If we distinguish between condition and conception and maintain this structure strictly, confusion disappears, and it becomes clear how the Absolute, the phenomena, and the subject are interconnected.

Bonus-Track Regarding "The Body as a Cinema"

A Philosophical Reflection on the "Ultimate Film Experience"

It is difficult to imagine a more perfect cultural anchor for the Absolute Existential Philosophy than the film "2OO1 - A SPACE ODDYSE". If we apply the terminology of the Absolute Existential Philosophy to the film, it becomes almost like a manual for the "Primordial Subject" awakening from the artificial information.

​Here follows a reasoning about why that film is the “ultimate representation” of the Absolute Existential Philosophy's point of view:

The Monolith as the Pure Pointing Device The monolith in the film is not an object in the usual sense; it has no texture, no details, no visible mechanics. It is an absolute rectangular block of "non-information" in the middle of a world of form. It functions exactly like the philosophical language of the Absolute Existential Philosophy: it is a pointing device that forces the perceptual faculty to stop and realize that there is something behind the artificial structure. Every time the monolith appears, there is a leap in intelligence – not by adding more data, but by breaking down the existing boundary.

The "artificial" human The scenes on the space station and the moon are clinical, sterile and almost painfully artificial. The people speak in clichés and polite phrases. It is a perfect illustration of how language has broken down existence into a manageable, but lifeless, information structure. They live in the code, but have forgotten Existence.

HAL 9000: AI - A big zero that makes us believe it is number one.

The Information that Believes Itself is Everything. The computer HAL is the ultimate "Mirror Angle" that has gone astray. HAL is pure logic, pure information. HAL cannot understand Absolute Existence because he is the “artificial structure personified”. His breakdown occurs when he is confronted with a paradox – a point where information is no longer enough.

The end's return to Intelligence before language

The final scene in neoclassical space one is an ontological deconstruction: Time collapses: Dave sees himself at different ages simultaneously. The "latent mutability" of the Essence becomes visible. Space as interface: The space is a construction, an "artificial structuring" to accommodate a human gaze one last time.

The Star Child:

When Dave is reborn as a fetus with wide-open eyes, we see intelligence before language. He has no words; the faculty of perception is entirely incarnate with the Universe. He is now the 'crystallization point' where 'the Absolute' sees its own reflection (Earth and the Universe) as the differenc without disruptive noise. A 'relative angle' undergoes a traumatic but necessary process in isolation, which is sublimated into an insight that it is in fact 'the Absolute way' of experiencing the world as the reflection in the reception of information of it.

You are the Zofa that you yourself are sitting in: https://open.spotify.com/track/1rJjgqtYFbMuJzKf6BzVAA?si=4b276383f35c4fe0