Standalone Texts

Absolute Existence Philosophy

Standalone Philosophical Texts

Below follows a number of independent philosophically reasoned texts, all originating from the Absolute Existence Philosophy.

Speaking Plainly

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.

Language, Perceptual Capacity, 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 occurs entirely on the phenomenal level. If we assume that perceptual capacity is realized through phenomena, it is refined over time in step with biological, neurological, and cultural development. Yet the faculty of perception itself – as the prerequisite for all experience – does not change. It remains unchanging in its nature, even if its expressions become increasingly 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 development of the child provides a clear example of this hierarchy of levels. The newborn likely experiences reality without division, without conceptual fragmentation. Perception appears holistic. Only with the entry of language are distinctions, names, differences, and relations introduced. Through language, the child learns that the world consists of "things," of differences, and of separate objects. The original “all is one” experience then disappears from explicit memory, not necessarily because it ceases, but because it is overlaid by the structure of language.

Here the risk of conceptual confusion also becomes evident. If a clear hierarchy between Existence, Essence, and Phenomena is not maintained, these can become conflated in philosophical thought. 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.

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 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 in order to describe ‘GOD’, but in order to mark the ‘Point of Departure’. Without that marker, the focus is easily shifted to ‘Nature as a whole’ as something independent, rather than as a 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.

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 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?

The Question of Moral

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.)

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 ability to perceive relates through the different perspectives that occur in the phenomenon.

In this way, the phenomenon could lie within the field of tension between the ability 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 ability to perceive 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 ability for the phenomenon to appear due to its nature as the ability to perceive.

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 ability to experience 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.

The Absolute and the Appearance of the Phenomenon Question

The Absolute is self-sustaining and indivisible, and change appears only phenomenally through the capacity for perception. The phenomena allow us to experience and understand 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.

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.

A Philosophically Scientific 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 capacity for 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.

Addition on 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 an understanding of the Absolute.

Reality, imagination, and the capacity for perception

Do you believe that your Existence is real or pure imagination?
Do you believe that you are awake, 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?

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 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 in consciousness.

To imagine -- in the original sense of the word -- means to form an image in the mind. In German it is einbilden, in English imagine. The English word lacks the derogatory tone that the Swedish inbilla has acquired; it carries instead a creative meaning -- the capacity to envision and make possibilities visible before they manifest.

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).

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

Conclusion

What we call the universe is not an external world that exists independently of the observer, but the phenomenon through which Existence perceives itself. To understand 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.

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.

The Emergence and Resolution of Conflict in Relation to the Placement of Identity

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. Conflicts as Expressions of 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. The Core of Conflict: Capacity for Change versus Capacity 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.

The Reflection of Essence: On 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 Capacity for Perception: Essence → Tension → Phenomenon

If we assume that the capacity for perception is unchanging 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.

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.

What Should Be 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.

"It appears, then, that Existence, as undivided and immutable, through Essence is directly present and the bearer of the necessary tension that brings forth the Phenomenon, where Wholeness arises in an eternal cycle of tension and relaxation, resolved through a universal curvature back onto itself, which provides the power for the universe’s eternal phenomenon."

The Path of Fate -- Capacity 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.

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.

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:

The Paradox of Responsibility: Humans become both creators and judges of meaning, yet lack contact with the foundation that gives this responsibility legitimacy.
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.
Social Uncertainty: The deadened foundation is combined with external forces (strangers with hidden intentions), intensifying the sense of chaos and lack of necessary direction.
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.

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.

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.

Bonus

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: The Information that Believes Itself is Everything. The computer HAL is the ultimate "Angle" that has gone astray. He is pure logic, pure information. He 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.

Star Child: When Dave is reborn as a fetus with wide-open eyes, we see intelligence before language. He has no words, but he has a total ability to perceive. He is now the "crystallization point" where the Absolute sees its own reflection (the Earth and the Universe) without filter. The Absolute Philosophy of Existence can thus give the film an even deeper resonance. It becomes a story about how an "Angle" undergoes a painful but necessary process to realize that it is in fact the "Primordial Subject" playing with limited information. From the monkeys' first insight to Star Child's last look, the film is one long movement towards understanding why there is a world to try to understand at all.