Historical Overview

Historical overview of the philosophers who worked with the concept of "the Absolute" and with the idea of "the unchanging, enduring Being."

From the oldest metaphysical traditions, humanity has sought to understand that which must remain unchanging within all change.

In Advaita Vedanta, through Ādi Shankara (c. 700–750 CE), the idea of the Absolute is formulated as Brahman — the only real, unborn, and unchanging reality, in which all phenomenal appearance emerges as Maya, that is, as semblance. This insight is not a thought about the Absolute, but an experience in it, where the boundary between subject and object ceases.

In Plotinus (c. 204–270 CE), this develops into the idea of the One — not as something accessible to the senses, but as that from which everything emanates and which can only be intuited from within.

During the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) sought to reconcile reason and faith. For him, God was not a phenomenon or one thing among things, but the necessary cause of all being — that which grants each essence its existence.

In Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), this becomes a consistent monism: Substantia sive Deus — that is, Substance or God, which are one and the same, and whose infinite expressions form everything that exists.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) broke with the notion that the Absolute could be reached by reason as an object: the thing-in-itself lies beyond experience, yet is at the same time necessary as a precondition for the understanding of phenomena.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) then took the next step: the Absolute is not something beyond, but a process in which consciousness develops its own self-insight; through dialectics, the Absolute becomes identical with self-comprehended Being.

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854) similarly regarded the Absolute as the living identity between subject and object.

Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) returned the question to Being itself — to the fact that we always already find ourselves within an understanding of Being, and that this presence can never be viewed from outside but only experienced from within existence itself.

Against this background, Stefan Hlatky (1918–2005) formulated, in the late 1960s, a decisive distinction between Existence and Essence. He presented a phenomenal conception of the unchanging, enduring Being as an organic unity of immanent parts — that is, something conceivable, but not Absolute, since it remains something that can in the mind can be imagined from the outside.

If, on the other hand, one tests the assumption with Existence itself as the Absolute Subject, a decisive shift occurs. Then thought is no longer directed toward something outside itself, but from within Existence, which means that the one who thinks does so from the very same source that makes thinking possible. Existence must therefore be assumed as Subject from within and as Absolute — never from without.

From this, the insight necessarily arises: it is not I who observe Existence, but Existence that experiences itself phenomenally through me. I then participate as a phenomenal participant, whose identity lies in the Essence of Being.

Here, the concepts of Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon are united within a conceptual context without being confused with one another.

Existence is the Absolute ground, Essence is the identity through which Existence experiences itself, and the Phenomenon is the experienced actualization of this identity in time and space.

The distinction between them is necessary for thought, but in lived insight there is no actual separation.

Whoever carries out this synthesis consistently therefore arrives, with absolute necessity, at the same point of departure: that all thinking, all representation, and all experience are only possible from within Existence as Absolute Subject. To attempt to place oneself outside it would be to abolish the very ground upon which understanding itself rests. It is in this participatory position — where thought returns to its origin and ceases to be separate from it — that philosophy reaches its endpoint and its origin at the same time.

It must be stated with the utmost clarity: one must never confuse Phenomenon, Essence, and Existence with one another — only see the necessary context between them. In this lies all philosophical clarity!

What Every Philosopher Who Wishes to Continue Calling Themselves a Philosopher Should Be Able to Require from a Sustainable Life Philosophy

A sustainable life philosophy should meet the following criteria:

• Stable foundation – provide a basis that cannot be contradicted and on which all thinking can rest.

• Separate identity from ego – recognize that who you are is not defined by what you experience; this reduces unnecessary psychological suffering.

• Phenomenon focus – direct attention to what actually appears, without getting caught in interpretations or judgments.

• Open and testable – no dogmatic claims; the philosophy should be able to be tested and applied in direct experience.

• Clarity and coherence – start with existence and provide structure for thinking and action without adding meaning, value, or purpose.

• Reproducibility – anyone who accepts the premises should be able to reach the same logical structure.

• Independence from dependencies – function without the need for authority, tradition, belief, or external validation.

• In short – a sustainable life philosophy is logically robust, practically useful, psychologically liberating, and independent of dogmatic claims.

• Purpose and function – create a stable platform for understanding the universe and relating appropriately to phenomena, while protecting the thinker from unnecessary suffering and enabling consistent and focused thinking.

Waiting for What?

We have only waited four hundred years for science to explain everything. But understanding consciousness does not wait for more data – it begins with an assumption: that there is an Absolute Existence, unchanging and without parts, which carries all perception. When we test this assumption, every notion becomes an ongoing relationship between the field of perception and its realization in the phenomenon, instead of something that awaits the explanations of physics.

Why It Is Impossible to Find References

The Absolute Existence philosophy is based on an assumption about the very possibility of making an assumption – the unchanging "being" that makes perception and thought possible. This makes it unique on several levels:

• It is pre-phenomenal: It places the starting point before all experiences, consciousness, or the universe.
• It is logically fundamental: It is not about God as a creator of the world, not about consciousness creating phenomena, and not about the universe as objectively existing. The starting point is the prerequisite for all of these possibilities.
• It is analytically pure: It cannot be expressed as a phenomenon or an experience, because that would shift the focus from the prerequisite to the manifestation.

Since most philosophical systems start either with the personal subject, the world, or God as a property, there simply is no established term or source pointing to exactly this assumption. The internet, which reflects existing writings, discussions, and popular philosophy, is therefore empty of references.

Placement in Relation to Existing Philosophical Currents

Even though there are no direct equivalents, the Absolute Existence philosophys position can be analytically compared to known currents:

• Phenomenology (Husserl, etc.): Phenomenology investigates experiences and their structure. Your philosophy can be said to use the phenomenon as an entry point, but differs by not identifying the phenomenon with the starting point – the absolute capacity to perceive is the prerequisite, not the phenomenon.

• Idealism (Berkeley, Kant, etc.): Idealism often claims that the world depends on consciousness. The similarity is that both place something "behind" what is experienced. The difference is that Absolute Existence philosophy do not place consciousness itself as the creating instance; the Absolute Existence philosophy place the faculty of perception as universal and unchanging.

• Theological absolute concepts (God, Brahman): Theological systems point to something independent, often with attributes, will, or purpose. The Absolute Existence philosophy abstracts away all attributes, will, or teleology: Absolute Existence is the prerequisite without properties, pure potential for experience.

From a historical perspective, GOD has often been understood as a creating instance that brings the universe into being outside of itself. In this view, GOD becomes relative to creation: either positioned at a distance from it, or conceived as an invisibly immanent part of what is created. In both cases, a relation arises in which GOD and the universe are separated in some manner, presupposing a "between" – logical or ontological – between creator and creation.

At the same time, already within the history of philosophy, there are conceptual formations that point in a different direction. In Plotinus, "the One" does not appear as a creator alongside the world, but as an unchanging ground from which the world necessarily emerges. Manifestation does not occur through a decision in time, but as a consequence of the ground's own fullness. In a similar way, Spinoza describes God as substance – Deus sive Natura – where nature is not created by God, but is God's expression. What is, follows with necessity from the essence of substance. In these lines of thought, there is no external act of creation; the world is a phenomenon that follows from the absolute.

A similar structure is articulated in Advaita Vedānta. Brahman is described as Absolute Existence, unchanging and fundamental, where the world does not arise as something external, but appears as a phenomenal expression. Perception and manifestation are not two separate realities here, but two aspects of the same ground. The apophatic tradition within Christian theology moves in the same direction by avoiding any objectification of God and instead emphasizing God as the condition for anything whatsoever to appear.

What these historical perspectives have in common is that they point toward an Absolute Existence that does not stand in relation to the world in the same way a cause stands in relation to its effect, but where the world appears as a necessary phenomenon given this ground.

Modern natural science does not use these concepts, yet it describes the universe in a way that is structurally compatible with such an assumption. In modern physics, the concept of fields has become fundamental. Particles are no longer understood as independent things, but as excitations of fields. Fields are not objects in space, but conditions for the phenomena that can be observed at all. Yet what generates the fields is rarely – if ever – addressed. That all fields must have something that carries or gives rise to them is not formulated as a question within the theory, but is left outside its linguistic scope.

Within cosmology as well, the universe is described as the result of instabilities, symmetry breaking, and momentum of tension. Phenomena arise because certain fundamental conditions are realized. There is a clear language of tension, dynamics, and necessary realization, but the poles of this field of tension are not presented as anything more than mathematical or physical quantities. What in the Absolute Existence Philosophys assumption is described as the field of tension between the capacity for perception and its realization appears here as a field without explicitly stated ontological poles.

When the question of consciousness is raised, this limitation becomes particularly evident. There are no established natural-scientific theories that describe non-local consciousness, but there are hypotheses and philosophical interpretations – often in connection with the non-locality of quantum mechanics – that question whether consciousness can be understood as strictly localized in space and time. At the same time, several thinkers point to the principled problem of attempting to explain perception using the same tools that are used to describe what is perceived. To search for the condition of experience with what already presupposes experience introduces a circularity that cannot be resolved within the method's own framework.

In this light, one can see how the historical concepts of Absolute Existence and modern natural science's description of the universe as a field of tension and realization approach each other structurally, without using the same language. Philosophy names the condition and makes it its point of departure; natural science describes the dynamics of the phenomenon, but remains silent about what ultimately carries and generates the field. The difference does not lie in the description of the phenomena, but in where the point of departure is placed.

How Absolute Existence Can Still Be Referenced

Since phenomena, consciousness, and the universe cannot make the assumption themselves, the strategy is:

• Use phenomena as an entry point: Show that there are experiences, differences, tensions between potential and manifestation.
• Point backward analytically: From each phenomenon, one can ask: "What must exist for this phenomenon to be possible at all?" The answer is Absolute Existence.
• Keep it absolutely and independently: It is never identified with any phenomenon, object, or objectified subject (unless you switch places with it as a pure thought experiment without it necessarily leading to any form of solipsism). It can never be reduced to anything experienced, but all experiences presuppose it

In short: the internet lacks references because no one else has defined a starting point that is entirely pre-phenomenal and necessary for anything to be experienced or assumed. The Absolute Existence philosophy can therefore be said to be analytically unique, but it can still be "placed" comparatively with phenomenology, idealism, and theological absolute concepts to show the difference and the analytical value in your logical structure.

A Review of the Assumption in the Absolute Existence Philosophy

The assumption in the Absolute Existence Philosophy takes as its starting point an unchanging Being, understood as an Absolute Existence without parts. This Being is not assumed to be an entity among others, but the ultimate condition for anything to appear at all.

In this assumption, the faculty of Perception is not a function added to Being, but is understood as its essential nature. Perception is not secondary, but the way in which Existence can be meaningful as Existence at all.

Since Being is assumed to be undivided, there are no internal parts that can relate to each other, and since nothing external is assumed, there is also no external relation. This raises a fundamental question: how can relation, difference, or phenomena be conceived at all if everything is one and unchanging?

The assumption in the Absolute Existence Philosophy approaches this question by distinguishing between things and states. Relation is not understood as something arising between separate entities, but as something that can only be conceived between states.

It is noted that the only thing that can actually be perceived is difference, and that difference always appears sequentially. Difference therefore cannot be understood without some form of tension, and tension cannot be understood without at least two distinct states.

These two states are formulated as:

• Ability (potential)
• Realization (actuality)

Ability here is not understood as a latent property of something, but as the state in which realization has not yet occurred. Realization is not understood as an end, but as the actual appearance of difference.

Tension in this context is not understood as a force in a physical sense, but as the logical and phenomenal difference between potential and actual. It is this tension that makes it possible to speak of direction without introducing change in the nature of Being.

The assumption thus implies that relation in its most fundamental form is not a relation between subjects, objects, or parts, but a tension between the faculty of Perception and its realization. It is within this tension field that sequential differences can emerge and become objects of perception.

All subsequent relational differences — such as before and after, inward and outward, tension and relaxation, life and death — are understood in this perspective not as original, but as phenomenal expressions of this more fundamental relation.

The assumption in the Absolute Existence Philosophy is therefore not about describing the content of the universe, but about formulating the necessary condition for any assumption about relation to come into being at all.

It is a reasoning that neither presupposes parts, external causes, nor random emergence, but tests whether difference and phenomena can be understood as possible without abandoning the idea of an unchanging Being.

The Assumption of Existence and the Experience of Reality.

There is no reality without the consciousness of reality. If we consider reality without consciousness, we end up in contradictory thinking because we then take ourselves out of the process as experiencing thinkers who consider whether matter is the realization of consciousness as the universe or not. That is why we can not separate reality from the consciousness of it. We experience things as real, believing that they are unchangingly permanent until they fall apart and it turns out that this is not the case.

From things to reality ​Latin rēs: The root word means "thing", "thing", "object" or "matter". ​Late Latin reālis: During the Middle Ages, the adjective reālis was formed from rēs. It was used to describe something that belongs to the thing itself or that actually exists in the physical world. ​French réel: The word found its way into French and then spread to other languages. Every time we talk about "Reality",we really mean that what we relate to is the actual state of the "things" as we experience them as conscious of them. Matter is not then the "opposite" of consciousness, but rather how consciousness appears in a certain form.

we actually mean what we relate us to the actual 'things' states as we experience them as consciousness of them.

Matter is not the "opposite" of consciousness, but rather what consciousness looks like in a certain form.

We often talk about being "in" the universe, but perhaps it is more correct to say that the universe is something that happens "in" consciousness. Without the experiencing thinker, there is no one who can attest that "things" have a status as "things" at all.

1. By putting words to experiences, we create an interobjectivity. ​Individual: I see a color and feel a texture. ​Collective: We agree to call it "a chair." ​Result: We can now collaborate on the object "chair" without ever knowing if we are actually seeing the exact same shade of brown.

Purposefulness. ​It is primarily about relating to reality purposefully. ​If we agree that a red traffic light means "stop", then this linguistic and symbolic agreement creates a highly tangible physical certainty. The reality in this moment is not the color itself, but the common rule we navigate by.

​3. When language creates reality: ​There are parts of our reality that only exist through linguistic agreements. These are often called institutional facts:

​Money: A piece of paper or digital numbers only have value as long as we agree on it.

​Laws: Borders between countries are rarely visible from space, but they are real because we have spoken them out.

​The contradiction in the "unchanged permanent" leads back to an earlier point: We treat these linguistic agreements as if they were unchangeably permanent constants of nature.

But because they rest on language and consciousness, they are highly changeable. ​You could say that "reality" is the conversation we have with each other in order not to get lost in the sensory impressions.

The assumption.

​01. The Absolute Existence (Non-Binary) ​This is the assumption of the original unity. It is not zero, but the first reality. It is non-binary because it has no opposite; it encompasses everything. It is the substance that can never arise from nothing, since existence is its fundamental nature.

​02. The Essence (Binary: Potentiality vs. Realization) ​Here the field of tension arises. The Essence is the inherent nature and dynamics of 01 that enables movement as a change of state. By being binary, it creates the polarity between: ​Potentiality: All that can be experienced (the as yet unformed). ​Realization: The drive to actually experience this potential. It is this binary engine that drives the process forward.

3. Phenomenon (The Emergence) ​Phenomenon is the third stage – the actual expression or “image” that arises from the tension of 02. This is where reality emerges and realizes the state of consciousness. ​In the of Circular Logic model of Reality, it becomes clear that: ​it is not a question of creation out of nothing: Since we start with 01 (Existence), the universe is not about “coming into being” from nothing, but about a phenomenally altered state of being. ​Consciousness as an end point and beginning: Consciousness is not a random by-product, but is the specific point where 03 (Phenomenon) feeds back to 01 (Existence) so that it can experience itself. ​What we call “reality” is thus the point where the binary essence (02) manages to translate the non-binary existence (01) into a phenomenal emergence (03). This explains why we end up in contradictions when we remove consciousness from the equation: we then try to keep 03 (the Phenomenon) but erase the process that makes 03 possible. Without the receiving experiencer in relation to the experienced reception, the whole structure collapses back to the silent potential of 01.

If consciousness is the point where Absolute Existence is actually realized, then there is no "reality" outside of this process. Trying to imagine a reality without consciousness is like trying to imagine a mirror image without light or an observer - a logical impossibility because the very definition of "reality" requires this act of realization. ​This means that we, as conscious beings, are the "place" where the universe (as phenomenon) and the Absolute (as existence) meet to become real.

The Absolute Philosophy of Existence and the modern scientific description of reality.

Without the modulation of the faculty of perception in the phenomenon, there was no possibility of experience and without an Absolute Existence as the Absolute Primordial Subject, there was no ability to perceive as its inherent nature.

This assumed premise is a postulate that is used as a crystallization point for thought as the unchanged existing Being as the ontological basis of reasoning.

For those who are possibly interested in how modern science calculates today, we can see similarities to the Absolute Philosophy of Existence and then we can test our assumption by making an analogy.

All information is experienced when it is received by an experiencer.

It is received in sequentially transmitted binary information that remains through resonance in the form of binary memories of experienced received sequential images.

Science currently says that the transmitted sequential information occurs in small frequent jumps (hG tp= ≈ 5.39 × 10-44 s c5) (about 10^ seconds) which are so frequently updated that they are not experienced as single images (qubits) one at a time, but what is received is experienced as a fluid continuum of shapes in motion and these shapes shape what is experienced as space through a curvature of space that the sequential memory information is forced to relate to and which then collects the information in clusters that are experienced in the form of inertia in resistance and weight. These resistance clusters reflect information about positions and states of change, and this change in position is experienced as a fluid, continuous change of distance perceived as movement. Since this happens so quickly, the experience occurs as a fluid phenomenal experience of forms changing location against a background of unlimited space, which is experienced by the experiencer as the space for the experience. The information stored as memories can then be transferred through communication containing instructions to other information clusters, which can then implement these instructions to update the content of the clustered information that the cluster contains. A high density of differences creates an experience of a solid, complex world.
A lowering of the frequency (as in deep sleep or certain meditative states) brings the experiencer closer to the edge of the indescribable.
The phenomenal medial manifestation is then assumed to occur out of pure necessity for the faculyt of perception to perceive anything at all.
And then the medium must probably lie between the potential and the realization of consciousness.

And if the experience of reality only occurs in the form of differences from various perspectives of reality, it means that reality and consciousness are synonymous even though it is there that all phenomenal difference takes place.

It means that one must accept that 'reality' is not a place one is in, but a continuous series of differences that the Absolute casts like shadow plays against its own immobile nature, and this is unfortunately in itself a threat to the self-image where identity lies in the 'I' and not in the faculty of perception of the absolute condition.

This is how one can think without thinking collapsing.