In-depth Study

This text is an analytical continuation and deepening of the introductory text. It is directed particularly at those who are familiar with Stefan Hlatky's organic view of unity and who wish to follow a careful reflection on the logical consequences and level distinctions between Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon. What the philosophy on this page concerns is, among other things, the central difference between two entirely different views of the concept of Existence. The two views are monistic, but the Absolute Philosophy of Existence inevitably risks being interpreted as pantheistic unless a strict distinction between the philosophical concepts is upheld. One is about the prerequisite for all conceptions of reality and the other is about what happens if one tries to form an imaginary picture of what must be the prerequisite for what makes all conceptions of reality possible and what may be behind it all.

Philosophy and Experience

All philosophy originates in human wonder and reflection upon one's own existence, reality, and knowledge. Philosophy takes its starting point in the fundamental questions that arise from our experience, but then develops these into a systematic and critical mode of thinking.

Philosophy therefore starts from experience: Human experience of the world—such as wonder at the vault of the heavens or at one's own soul—is the original catalyst for philosophical thinking.

From these original questions, philosophy analyzes and systematizes them in order to understand fundamental concepts such as perception of reality, knowledge, and values, which are central to human experience.

Philosophy is also more than mere experience: While perception is the starting point, philosophy transforms it into an intellectual and rational inquiry aimed at clarifying concepts and lines of reasoning that may be unclear.

At bottom, this is a matter of conceptual analysis, and the concepts concerned in this case are: Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon—and herein lies a philosophical opportunity to contemplate the conceptual map.

All philosophical understanding is therefore based on reflection, and all reflection is built upon the individual thinking of someone who thinks.

Therefore, no understanding can be presented as an objective fact, but only as an assumption of prerequisite. No philosophy can therefore claim any "truth," but can only point to the consequences of different assumptions, whatever they may be.

(It is the religions that may claim "the truth," regardless of which "truth" they assert in their embodiments.)

With the help of thought, philosophy will help us here by going through some of these concepts that are so fundamental to philosophy. The concepts are old and tried and tested, but they are tested in a different way and in a different order than they usually are.

Grammatical-Linguistic Overview

We start here with a grammatical-linguistic overview of three different but equally important philosophical concepts.

01. Existence

• Noun expressing the very being.
• Fundamentally means "to be" or "the fact that something is."
• The word does not refer to properties, only to occurrence.

(This refers to 'Being", the fundamental fact of existence, without qualitative content.)

02. Essence

• Noun expressing what something is in its core.
• Means "the Beings singular innermost nature," the very "Varandet" (Swedish term), that which makes something precisely this."
• The word always carries some form of qualitative content.

(This refers to "Varandet" itself, the inner being or qualitative content of what exists.)

03. Phenomenon

• Noun referring to what appears or shows itself to consciousness.
• Signifies the experienced or perceived being—(in Swedish, "Varande").
• Highlights how something presents itself, without implying the underlying, unchanging foundation (Varat) or the essential structure (Varandet).
• Swedish makes a clear distinction between Varat, Varandet, and Varande, which is not directly mirrored in English or German (Sein, Dasein). Here, we focus solely on the Phenomenon as it appears to consciousness

Grammatically, one can thus arrange them as follows:

• 01. Existence: to be.
• 02. Essence: what that which is, is.
• 03. Phenomenon: how that which is, appears.

Possible Objections to the Order

Something that sometimes arises when placing the words in such a hierarchical sequence is:

1. That "existence" (01.) is placed first as something "entirely without content."

   • If existence (01.) is only "to be," the question sometimes arises whether it can really stand before essence in a comprehensible order.

2. That "essence" (02.) presupposes more than the word grammatically states.

   • Essence (02.) often carries an idea of an "innermost being."
   • For some, it can grate that this already suggests more than a purely linguistic determination.

3. That "phenomenon" (03.) ends up last, as if it were always a product of the other two (01. + 02.).

   • Grammatically, "phenomenon" (03.) is only "that which appears."
   • In some lines of reasoning, it may feel strange to place it in a strict third position, since the phenomenon, linguistically speaking, does not state how it relates to Existence (01.) or Essence (02.).

4. That the order (01, 02, 03.) can appear as a logical chain, even though it was only intended as a grammatical sorting.

   • Someone may experience the sorting as more metaphysical than grammatical.

This thus points to some possible objections where the order could imply a friction.

It is difficult to find historical examples of previously tested alternative orders of precisely these three concepts—existence, essence, phenomenon—in this simple sequential form.

There are philosophical traditions that speak of these three concepts, but not as a fixed three-part schema in precisely the proposed order that is here alternatively suggested as an assumption.

When the concepts Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon are used together, this more often occurs as loosely related levels than as a numbered sequence such as "01–02–03."

There are therefore no established models in which existence → essence → phenomenon is presented as a tested, methodically ordered process in that form.

In other words: There is no known standardized or frequently referenced order in which someone has systematically tested precisely this threefold division in a straight sequence.

But the very idea of our investigation is to test this alternative order—to see what happens if one places "to be" (01.), "what it is" (02.), and "how it appears" (03.).

The entire backbone of the Absolute Existence Philosophy rests on being able to distinguish these three levels and not confuse them or merge them into a single level. It is precisely this order that the whole Absolute Existence Philosophy proceeds from, and that the entire reasoning about levels and level-differences concerns—and it is the most important thing to keep in mind while reading.

(It is also for this reason that it would be fatal to use synthetic AI text models to analyze the philosophy, since they tend to merge the three levels into one.)

We will further go on to examine alternative orders of the concepts and see how these hold together in terms of reasoning.

These questions are, of course, things that philosophers have touched upon in various forms, just not in the exact and purified way that our alternative assumption requires.

Testing Alternative Orders

Example 1. (The Absolute Existence Assumption)

01. Existence As the first point, this means that one begins with the most elementary: That something is. It is a pure concept of being without content. Grammatically, it is the lightest and most minimal level. It stands there as a naked "Is."

02. Essence As the second point, this means that one first acknowledges that something Is, and thereafter asks the essential and heavier question: What is this that Is?

Grammatically, essence functions as a determination of an already given Being: the quality (02.) is added to the very occurrence (01.).

03. Phenomenon As the third point, the question arises: How does that which Is (01.) and has its nature (02.) appear?

Linguistically, phenomenon is that which appears—the experience, the observation, the expression—and therefore comes naturally after both "to be" and "what it is."

This order makes the phenomenon dependent on the essence (02.), and the essence dependent on the existence (01.).

It places "the showing" last, "the quality" in the middle, and "the being" first.

It creates a chain in which each step linguistically presupposes the preceding step.

In an Absolute Existence there are no parts. Only a single one to start from.

Its Essence is the faculty of perception. The inherent nature of Existence.

It is the Essence that must form a Phenomenon in order to perceive anything at all.

If we now mirror what happens when one changes the places of the proposed order,

we will here see what happens, grammatically-logically, if we change the positions of the concepts. No conclusions will be drawn, and nothing will be rounded off — only pure observations of how the order changes.

Example 2. (The Essential Assumption)

Essence → Existence → Phenomenon

1. Essence (02.) first: One then begins with what something is before one has even established that it is. Linguistically, a disorder arises: an identity without an established being.

2. Existence (01.) as second: "To be" comes as a consequence of "what it is". This can be experienced as reversed, since existence is grammatically usually the most fundamental.

3. Phenomenon (03.) last: The position of the phenomenon is not really affected — the appearing is still an expression, only now of something whose essence "came" first.

(What often causes friction here is that Essence usually grammatically-logically presupposes a Being. Here it does not!)

Example 3. (The Phenomenal Assumption)

Phenomenon → Essence → Existence

1. The phenomenon (03.) first: One begins with how something shows itself without having established What or That it Is. The first point thus becomes a pure surface without a ground.

2. Essence (02.) as second: Essence would here become a retroactive construction of nature based on an appearance. This is semantically possible, but it turns the first two concepts upside down.

3. Existence (01.) last: To place existence last makes being itself appear as a final result, which is linguistically unusual.

(What causes friction here is that the placement of Existence becomes illogical, since "To Be" is usually the precondition for both essence and appearance.)

Example 4. (A variant of the Phenomenal Assumption)

Phenomenon → Existence → Essence

1. The phenomenon (03.) first: One again begins with the appearing.

2. Existence (03.) as second: Here, "that something exists" would be derived from the phenomenon itself. This is not in itself grammatically incorrect, but the order makes existence dependent on experience.

3. Essence (02.) last: Essence then becomes something one constructs after having established that the phenomenon is in fact taking place.

(What may cause friction here is that Essence ends up as a final product of both appearance and being, which shifts its function from "innermost nature" to something more like an interpretation.)

Example 5. (The Phenomenal-Existential Assumption)

Existence → Phenomenon → Essence

1. Existence (01.) first: Unchanged: a pure establishment of being.

2. The phenomenon (03.) as second: The appearing comes directly after being, without a nature first taking form. This means that the phenomenon does not express any defined "what".

3. Essence (02.) last: Essence becomes something one determines afterward, as a conclusion drawn from how something shows itself.

(Essence thus ceases to be a ground and instead becomes something that is derived from and a result of, or formed out of, something else, either through a change or as a consequence of an idea of something else. If the phenomenon comes before the essence in the conceptual structure itself, and the essence is defined as derived, then this means that the essence comes into being through the phenomenon — not as a cause, but as that which makes the essence possible to formulate or to discern.)

Example 6. (The Existentially Derived Assumption)

Essence → Phenomenon → Existence

Here, the order dissolves completely linguistically:

• 1. Essence (02.) comes before being (the Phenomenon 03.).
• 2. The appearing (the Phenomenon 03.) comes before existence itself (01.).

Existence (01.) thus becomes a result rather than a precondition.

What causes friction here is that, although it can be verbally stated, the language loses its logical direction.

Classical Perspectives and Resistance

Classical perspectives:

Aristotle: essence before existence – weight before being.

Sartre and the existentialists: existence precedes essence – we exist, and only thereafter do we create our inner nature.

These perspectives show that the order between the concepts has always been contested.

Resistance to the new order (Existence → Essence → Phenomenon):

Linguistic and cultural habits often want to place weight before lightness.

The paradox becomes clear: how can something exist without being anything in particular?

The resistance is primarily linguistic and intuitive, not necessarily rational.

The perspective of science:

Modern science begins with the phenomenon – the observable.

Essence and existence are treated as models or conclusions.

The Absolute is left to philosophy and theology.

Axiom: If something is said to be the Universe, it must satisfy the condition: it is all that is manifested, twisted towards and turned towards the only one who can experience it. Anything that does not satisfy this condition cannot by definition be the Universe.

Faculties for the Questions of Being

• Philosophy/metaphysics: investigates Origin and Essence.
• Theology: interprets Being as the ground for GOD or the principle of creation.
• Science: addresses only phenomena, not Origin.

The paradox of language and indifferent answers:

Language always seeks to explain origin: "We have come into being from something else."

The individual's answer does not affect the fundamental lightness of Existence.

The self-evident lightness of Being:

Existence as Absolute gives lightness in the absence of conditions, burdens or dependencies.

Essence carries the weight, and with the weight follows the logically necessary direction towards realization.

The ability does not operate in emptiness but in a phenomenal field of tension, where the weight of the essence finds its expression and realization becomes possible.

The phenomenon emerges through the field of tension in a form of distinguishableness — "visually" in the broad sense that something becomes possible to distinguish — and thus becomes the object of perception.

The order Lightness → Weight → Tension appears in this structure as logical, practical and philosophically sustainable

• Being as the light basis and conditions for bearing
• The weight of perception
• The essential as that which weighs
• and the phenomenal as the inevitable form of tension that arises from it and which becomes possible to perceive and therefore must be noticed.

Stefan Hlatky's Attempt to Unite Faith and Science

The philosopher Stefan Hlatky's attempt to unite faith and science.

Modern science always begins at the phenomenon: that which can be observed and measured.

Since both the investigator, the investigative method, and the investigated belong to the same phenomenal level, the phenomenon cannot be broken down to something more fundamental without simultaneously taking for granted the conditions that make the investigation possible.

In that sense, the failure is not empirical or temporary, but principled.

Essence and existence are not treated as absolute starting points, but are modeled or inferred.

The non-phenomenal is handed over to philosophy, theology, or speculative theory.

Here the distinction becomes clear: science stops at the tension, at what appears, while philosophy can take responsibility for the underlying conceptual relations.

If we do not take existence as indisputable, then: Philosophy/metaphysics can conceptually examine both Existence, Essence, and Phenomena.

Theology can interpret Being as the basis for GOD or a principle of creation.

Science can only address phenomena, never any unchanging and enduring existence directly.

Hlatky's breakthrough and its limitation

The Hungarian-born, Catholic-raised philosopher and Doctor of Law Stefan Hlatky did something groundbreaking: After having been a teacher of Indian deep meditation within the TM movement in Sweden, he had heard of the non-existence assumption. He simply tested replacing Buddhism's non-existence with Existence. His courage to say "the starting point cannot be a nothing" opened a window that almost no thinker in the modern tradition has dared to open.

It was a philosophical breakthrough!

Removing "the void" as a starting point and replacing it with something that actually is constitutes a real reorientation of all thinking. This is the core of all sound ontology:

There must be an unchanging and enduring Being for anything changed to be perceived.

Here Hlatky stands on solid ground.

The Break with the Absolute

But his next step breaks the Absolute.

Instead of remaining within the necessary, the fully independent, the partless, he makes a philosophical leap:

He introduces imaginary parts into the enduring Being. This is a purely phenomenal idea. He imagined unchanging relational parts. These metaphysical parts — "senses" — he literally imagined to be components of God's Existence.

Here a break occurs with the absolutely logical structure:

• An Absolute cannot have parts.
• Parts make it relative.
• Relativity belongs to the domain of the phenomenon, not of existence

In this way he imaggines Existence and fills it with parts — and thereby makes it relational — while simultaneously claiming to defend its absoluteness.

This is where his assumption becomes an imaginary belief.

We no longer have our literally self-evident starting point. We have been given an "imaginary Organism."

An organism is not an Absolute starting point. An organism is a phenomenon, a figure, a form, a structure. It is by definition composite, relationally movable.

It is the opposite of what must be unchanging and enduring since it has the possibility of carrying out a relative movement.

So instead of:

01. Existence — that which IS

we get:

01. A conceived whole-being with parts.

Logically, this is a category mistake: He places phenomenal structure into what should have been the unconditional ground of Being.

The result: instead of a grand model with a firm foundation, we get a moving foundation.

It feels intuitively right. It is appealing.It gives a sense of meaning.

What he himself claims is self-evident — that something must be prior to everything else — lacks the binding principle that would hold together the reasoning about parts in a Whole.

He begins in clarity:

• Existence is necessary.
• Something must be enduring.

But he ends in an image:

• This something is an enormous organism.
• With parts.
• Which he calls "humanly conscious senses".

It is a slide from ontology into cosmological myth-making — without the slide being marked.

And nobody notice the transition, because the respect for Stefan Hlatky as a thinker and the glow of insight makes the image feel larger than it is.

Hlatky's framework as homework

If anybody only have Stefan Hlatky's framework clearly before them, then it is possible to articulate the logic that necessarily follows from Hlatky's conception. It carries its own logic within its own system. And it can be learned like a memorized lesson. But it becomes a repeated phrasing of what Stefan Hlatky has imagined and no longer the self-evident starting point that it should have been as unchanging and enduring.

He made a fundamental assumption that could have become a new philosophical starting point, and perhaps one of the best in modern times.

But instead he replaced the starting point with a conception of an organism.

He transformed a necessary ontological fact into a metaphysical model that cannot be derived from that fact.

The Absolute Existence Philosophy instead points to the need to separate the self-evidence of existence from the image of how a phenomenal whole might be constituted.

That distinction is necessary in order to restore an absolute starting point.

But as it must be with representations, a representation of a potential cannot contain less than the realized result.

The Absolute cannot contain parts or be object of any imagination.

An Absolute is by definition without internal relations. It has no structure, no composition, no components. If something has parts, then it is dependent, variable, and comparable.

By introducing senses as parts, Stefan Hlatky thus made the whole dependent on relations.

These senses:

• stand in relation to each other's placement within the whole, wherever they may be.
• have the same faculty of perception as the whole but not realized as consciousness
• have boundaries that border adjacent senses.
• are many (a multiplicity).
• are comparable in relation to the whole.
• are interacting within the whole.by virtue of the whole

And all of this consists of phenomenal properties.

As soon as multiplicity is introduced, the following arise:

• relations
• size
• direction
• position
• internal order

In short: the same category as the phenomenal.

It is in this gesture that the existential becomes relational.

Existence then ceases to be an Absolute starting point — and becomes a cosmological gestalt.

Not in a negative sense, but in a categorical sense:

What he calls "the whole" is no longer:

• the absolutely enduring

but instead

• a conceived structure.

It is an enormous shift — but he never marked it himself, and therefore everyone followed him into the model without seeing the breaking point.

The precise logical shift is not that Stefan Hlatky removes Existence, for he has already presupposed it, but that he transforms Existence into something non-absolute.

This is a subtle but decisive distinction.

And it is this that makes:

• The starting point no longer a point.
• Existence becomes model-bound.
• The Absolute becomes relational.
• The necessary becomes mixed with the speculative.
• Organic whole then becomes unchanging units + a unifying principle, and he presents no such principle!

The Absolute Existence Philosophy also begins from the assumption of Existence.

However, the Absolute Existence Philosophy cannot provide any narrative of a whole within this Existence, nor any myth or imagined organism. It can only point toward Existence as such. It does not describe how it "looks" or "functions" in relation to anything else. It only shows its necessary character and lets the rest follow from its own logic.

It is a test of logic, not a belief. The Absolute Existence Philosophy examines the consequences of a literally indivisible Existence as a starting point, without speculative attributes.For Stefan Hlatky, the enduring being was therefore an organism in which Existence/The Organism was the subject, indivisible and space-filling.

The Essence (the faculty of perception) was the organism's own, with the shared quality of the parts despite the parts lack of realized consciousness of the whole.

The Phenomenon was the organism's relative movement in relation to its parts and thus not a necessity for the Whole's ability to perceive its own parts. Hlatky assumed that the whole was aware of its parts, while the parts lacked this perspective.

For Hlatky, the Phenomenon was purely instrumental, not necessary for the property of consciousness The whole (Being) already perceives itself before and regardless of the phenomenon, through its immanent parts. The phenomenon is added only to give the parts perspective and freedom of movement in order to understand the whole. According to Hlatky, the whole wants to be known, understood, and loved by its like-minded parts.

In the Absolute Existence Philosophy, however, the Phenomenon is constitutive, not an addition. Without phenomenal change, there is nothing for the faculty to perceive. Perception here is not a self-illuminated state, but a faculty that requires a phenomenon to be directed toward. The phenomenal becomes the only way for existence to actualize its own faculty of perception.

In Hlatky's view: Being is already self-perceiving → The Phenomenon is created both for the sake of the parts and the Whole so that the Whole becomes known, understood, and loved by the parts.

In the Absolute Existence Philosophy: Being is the Absolute Existence whose Essence (the Faculty of Perception) → requires the Phenomenon out of pure necessity → only then does perception become possible.

It is through the concious senses in the phenomenon that these perspectives give the faculty of perception the opportunity to percive something. That these are generated in the phenomenon is therefore obvious.

Hlatky's Rejection of the Dimensionless Starting Point

In contrast to the Absolute Existence Philosophy, Stefan Hlatky rejects the idea of a "dimensionless starting point" precisely because, in its scientific variant, it is regarded as a "nothing" with infinite density or a "nothing" without content. Hlatky also states that something called "Subject" cannot be without Existence and therefore also dismisses an "Existenceless Subject" In Hlatky's thinking, this is of course not a possible description of the enduring being. It reduces Being to something:

• without extension,
• without quality,
• without life,
• without perceptual capacity,
• without subject.

In other words: a pure "void-concept," merely dressed in mathematics as the Origin.

Hlatky therefore dismisses the idea that a dimensionless zero-point could generate, expand into, or "give rise to" the three-dimensional space we experience as the universe. Hlatky's objection is in essence very simple:

A point without dimensions cannot give rise to dimensions.

If the zero-point completely lacks extension, it also lacks:

• directions
• volume
• spatiality
• internal variation
• the possibility of change

This is the core of his rejection:

And without these, every conceivable mechanism that could "unfold" space or structure is also absent.

In other words:

A purely mathematical point cannot begin to "behave" in a way that creates physics. It cannot expand, cannot interact, cannot differentiate, cannot become anything other than precisely a definitional point.

Three-dimensional space requires a something, not a nothing. In other words: A purely mathematical point cannot begin to "behave" in a way that creates physics. It cannot expand, cannot interact, cannot differentiate, cannot become anything other than precisely a definitional point.

Three-dimensional space requires a something, not a nothing.

Hlatky therefore maintains that the foundation of reality cannot be described as:

• a singularity
• an initial point
• a "nothing inflated"

It must be a something, indivisible but not zero. A being that already in its nature carries the condition for space, relations, and phenomena.

It is this distinction that makes his model begin not with physics' vacuum or "mathematical nothing," but with a living indivisible whole — a Being with parts and content.

Hlatky describes an invisible reality underlying the visible. He does this by:

• rejecting the dead atom (and historically the church's attempt to "breathe life" into it)
• rejecting the concept of chance as a meaningless "explanation substitute"
• insisting that the foundation of reality must be a living, enduring thing, not a vacuum or a dimensionless point.
• examining the assumption that this enduring thing is a coherent organism, of which we are functional parts.

Hlatky's Basic Requirement: Concreteness

1. Hlatky's basic requirement is concreteness:

   • "Thing" means that which exists, that which occupies space.
   • "Function" is the expression of a thing, not an independent entity.
   • Childlike intuition: function requires a concrete carrier.

2. The problem of the senses' limitation

   The mind often experiences functions as "detached things" (sound, smell, flash, ideas).

   This creates insecurity and lack of cause.

   If one settles for technological or phenomenon-based explanations, one gets a pseudo-understanding.

3. Philosophy's A, B and C according to Stefan Hlatky:

   A: There must be an enduring thing. Nothing cannot give rise to something.

   B: Function can never exist in itself, never detached from thing.

   C: Function is transferred only through immediate contact; thing and function are an unbreakable unity.

4. God as enduring thing -- not a form-projected figure

   God = the enduring thing.

   Historically thought of as a conscious being, since the cause must reasonably have the same nature as us in terms of consciousness.

   Same principle for the human being: an enduring conscious mind behind the body's changing expressions.

5. Organic unity-view

   Correction of the idea of isolated objects.

   Reality must be understood as a living whole, moving within itself, where:

   • the body corresponds to the visible function-image
   • the mind corresponds to the invisible enduring thing-part
   • Parts cannot be conceptually separated from the whole.

6. What we can know

   We can never see the thing (the cause), neither the whole nor our own mind.

   But we experience its nature, since we ourselves are its expression.

   Direct experience: consciousness / wakefulness

   Indirect experience: lifelike expressions in the visible function-image

7. The role of science

   The law of energy shows that all visible "things" are function, not thing.

   Technology (cinema, TV, laser) demonstrates how function can be experienced as "thing."

   Science has thereby confirmed the senses' limitation:

   one finds no enduring thing in the image of the universe.

   Thus there is an open logical space for philosophy to reclaim the question of thing.

8. Conclusion according to Hlatky's line:

   An enduring thing must exist.

   It must be living.

   It must be unified.

   It must be the cause of both the whole and the individuals' life-expressions.

   We are functional parts of this thing.

   Philosophy is required to apply science and experience in awareness of the shared nature.

The Absolute Existence Philosophy's Response to Hlatky

Stefan Hlatky assumes that every part of the phenomenal world must have a counterpart in the unchanging enduring being.

The Absolute Existence Philosophy does not see this as a logical consequence, but as an assumption Hlatky turns into a "must."

What the Absolute Existence Philosophy points out is:

It is a conception that Stefan Hlatky makes, not a derived necessity.

He does not revisit that assumption to test its durability or its alternatives, even though he claims to have done so.

No one close to him challenges it, because as a thinker and image-maker he instead encounters a kind of listening silence and reverent respect-gap where the status of the assumption is never problematized. A listener may possibly ask whether they themselves must have an unchanging human conscious mind as a fundamental component in an enduring whole, and receives then an inward-drawn "yes" in response, and may blush in embarrassment for not having grasped this as a self-evident truth.

This is exactly where his reasoning rests on a transition that is not ontologically grounded, yet is presented as if it were.

The Absolute Existence Philosophy does not claim that the conclusion is wrong — but that it lacks the double reflection needed to make it necessary.

Hlatky's First Step and the Abrupt Shift

Stefan Hlatky's first step is clear, pure, and self-evident: There must be something that endures unchanged — a something, a "thing," an object, an Existence — otherwise nothing can appear.

It is one of those rare steps of thought that require no belief or metaphor, only the insight that no phenomenon can appear without a supporting ground. Here the "aha-moment" occurs as a kind of pure ontological obviousness.

But then an abrupt shift takes place in Hlatky's presentation:

He replaces the abstract, logically necessary "something" with a metaphysical image:

• an organism,
• composed of conscious minds,
• each of which exists as a part of this whole,
• and which together constitute GOD.

This is where listeners may hesitate.

For many, something like the following arises:

"Wait... if his assumption is correct, am I myself such a separate conscious mind, built into a metaphysically limited-size organism?"

The logical clarity of the first step loses its character of necessity and slides into a much more speculative layer — but this is never marked as speculation.

Respect for Stefan Hlatky as a person means that no one interrupts his line. Instead follows silence, mask-holding, and the reflections begin by trying to see how this could be true.

Here lies the transition from the necessary to the imagined, a step that is not presented as such. A psychological shift arises in the listener: one does not want to be the one who "does not understand," so one assumes in silent fascinated listening that there is a logic there that one does not want to miss.

This is unfortunately the central flaw in Stefan Hlatky's system.

It is in itself a strong sign that his model contains a logical gap that he himself does not see.

If the starting point were as necessary as he presents it, it would not require more than three decades of special explanations. (1972--2005)

The self-evident idea (the enduring being) is simple. The image of the organism is not.

The Unity Insight and Its Misinterpretation

But sometimes an "insight" occurs in certain listeners — and the listener interprets it as if they have suddenly understood Stefan Hlatky's theory.

What actually happens is something else:

It is the natural intuition of unity — "everything is one" — which may also strike someone who has possibly listened to Stefan Hlatky's presentation.

It is an ancient, pre-philosophical experience of coherence, a kind of non-dual clarity that can arise without any specific theory beneath it.

But when this occurs within the framework of his imaginative world, the experience is automatically linked to his concepts, his structure, his metaphor of the organism.

It becomes:

"I feel the unity" → "Then it is the organism he has spoken about that I am experiencing."

It is not a logically derived "understanding" — it is an existential recognition mistakenly interpreted as theoretical comprehension.

The one who feels the unity insight naturally wants to continue exploring, speaking, deepening. It is genuine, and it is valuable.

But it does not mean that Hlatky's metaphor of an organism with conscious minds has become understandable or necessary.

It only means that:

Their own intuitive experience of unity finds an arena where it is given language.

But in the shift — from existential experience to an accepted metaphysical conception — lies both the strength and the weakness of his project.

Strength: The widened conversation that emerges is alive, meaningful, opening. People feel that they are finally allowed to touch the fundamental.

Weakness: The theory itself does not account for the logical breakpoint where speculation replaces necessity. It leaves the listener abandoned to fill in the gap, often by elevating his words to something more than an assumption.

Here we see exactly where the shift lies, and thus also why Stefan Hlatky's model could simultaneously:

• be difficult to understand,
• yet create the feeling of being close to the truth.

The Contradiction in Hlatky's Model

On the one hand, Hlatky says that we can never access the underlying existence to make it an object of investigation, but on the other hand, he makes explicit representations of what he says must exist beneath the surface.

On the contrary, we must assume that it is the Faculty of Perception that makes it possible to gain access to consciousness through phenomena at all.

This is an important step if we want to formulate an alternative framework where the starting point is not replaced by an imaginative image, but is allowed to remain a necessary foundation.

The Absolute Cannot Contain Parts

The Absolute cannot contain parts. An Absolute is by definition entirely without internal relations. It has no structure, no composition, no components. If something has parts, then it is dependent, variable, and comparable.

By introducing the minds that Stefan Hlatky makes into parts, the whole becomes dependent on relations.

The formulation of the Absolute Existence Philosophy clarifies the exact logical shift:

"Stefan Hlatky thus fills the Absolute with parts, which makes the Absolute relational."

What the Absolute Existence Philosophy does is to replace the non-absolute with Absolute Existence!

The Absolute Existence Philosophy's Position

The Absolute Existence Philosophy makes no claims about truth, right, or wrong.

The Absolute Existence Philosophy starts from an assumption that there must be something that is unchanging, and indivisible. Everything else becomes secondary. Phenomena, properties, relations, functions — everything then appears from this.

This does not mean that the Absolute Existence Philosophy gives the concept of Existence to something that does not Is — It literally gives the concept of Existence to that which Absolutely Is. No metaphysical superstructure is needed here.

The Absolute Existence Philosophy does not place attributes, minds, subsystems, or parts in the Absolute. The Absolute Existence Philosophy lets the Absolute be precisely an Existence that is:

• indivisible
• independent
• necessary

This means that we do not need to imagine a whole with parts, an organism, or minds built into it.

The purpose of the Absolute Existence Philosophy is thus a purely investigative and testing philosophy that examines what happens if one lets this Absolute Existence be the starting point.

Summation

Structure: Existence -- Essence -- Phenomenon

1. Existence

• Definition / position: "Is", pure being.
• Character: Light, uninteresting in itself, does not need to be proven, explained, or imagined.
• Function: Prerequisite for everything else; the condition for Essence (The faculty of perception) and Phenomenon to be realized.

2. Essence

• Definition / position: The Faculty of perception
• Character: The heaviest and most essential level. Enables dreaming, wakefulness, and experience of reality.
• Function: Realizes experience without being part of the content of the experience; stands prior to interpretation.

3. Phenomenon

• Definition / position: The universe and life on the surface of the planet.
• Character: The tension field between the Faculty of Perception and its realisation, where experience becomes manifest.
• Function: That which is experienced, narrated, and interpreted; always filtered through the experiencer's framework. Here is where dreaming, wakefulness, and experience of reality.takes place.

Relations and Consequences

1. Immediate experience: To exist, be awake, and experience occurs prior to any interpretation.
2. Dependence on interpretation: All experiences that are narrated are already filtered through some framework (materialist, religious, cultural).
3. Foundation: Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon are immediate given conditions, which cannot be proven or created through language.
4. Priority:
   • Weight: Essence (The Faculty of perception)
   • Interest: Phenomenon
   • Condition: Existence

Visualized Summary with Gliding Points

"In an Absolute dimensionless point -- an Absolute Existence with infinite density, where everything is potentially included and nothing is potentially excluded -- The Faculty of perception and change is the essential."

1. Existence (absolute, indivisible)

   • Nothing can be added or divided.
   • Glide risk: Introducing words like "wholeness" or "organism" here immediately suggests parts or relations, which are not compatible with Existence.

2. Essence (The Faculty of perception)

   • The qualitative primary attribute.
   • Glide risk: Describing perception in terms of manifestation or activity can start to resemble Phenomenon if language implies actualization.

3. Phenomenon (the Universe)

   • Actualization of potential; consequence of Existence + Essence.
   • Glide risk: Stepping back and referring to it as part of the "absolute" in the same sentence blurs level distinctions.

Key points:

• Seamless transitions between levels can make shifts from Existence → Essence → Phenomenon nearly imperceptible.
• Linguistic cues must be controlled: any mention of parts, relations, or whole structures at the Existence level creates ontological confusion.
• Strict level separation preserves clarity and prevents the absolute model from being misread through phenomenal associations.

The universe as a phenomenon is thus, in the Absolute Philosophy of Existence, a necessary actualization of the faculty of perception, but appears and acts as an organic unit when considered as the image of the universe.

On the Validity of the Absolute Philosophy of Existence and Its Future

When one examines philosophical models built on the image of existential components and relative movement, such as Stefan Hlatky's model, an unspoken and unconditional principle soon emerges: the cohesive principle upon which the whole depends. Without this principle, the imagable model risks collapsing; the whole is not held together by the relative movement of its components alone. For most, this flaw remains a diffuse gnawing, without anyone being able to pinpoint what is wrong, until someone, through a thought-experiment, systematically reduces the model to a single existential element to observe the consequences.

It is precisely then, when all superfluous existential elements are removed and only one (1) absolute component remains, that the Absolute Existence Philosophy is born. This single existential Absolute Existence is then not an object of representation but the existential condition one must conceptually begin thinking with.

Suddenly, there is no plurality requiring an unspoken cohesive principle -- the whole is already given in the absolute component. The phenomenon is not manifested through internal relations among multiple parts, but through the perceptive faculty's direction toward realization, the tension field in which the phenomenon comes into being.

The Absolute Existence Philosophy is principle-driven and consistent; it does not rely on multiple existential elements and thus lacks the flaws that gnaw at models based on relative movement.

At the same time, the question remains whether it will ever be noticed or studied. To risk being archived, two conditions must be met: someone must first wish to analyze the model, and someone must identify a previously overlooked principle that disqualifies it and opens the way for a "better" model.

But only the Absolute Existence Philosophys assumption that an absolute condition exists can remain as necessary and foundational; all other alternatives -- emptiness, relation, form, detachment, or unconditionality -- cancel themselves out upon examination.

Without any alternative this remains as a logically self-sustaining philosophy, consistent and unchanging in its structure, ready to manifest for those who dare to direct their perceptive faculty toward its realization.

Core of the Absolute Existence Philosophy

Absolute Existence / Original-Subject (GOD)

Absolute Existence, Being, is indivisible, dimensionless, and pure quantity: one (1). It cannot be accompanied or related to anything else; any attempt to add parts, relations, or quantities immediately transforms it into an object and breaks its absolute character. The original-subject is not a conscious "I", nor an acting subject, but the absolute ground that makes all realization possible. The term GOD can be used as a name for this Absolute Existence, provided it is understood in the same way: indivisible, dimensionless, and non-relational.

Essence / Capacity of Perception

The capacity of perception is inseparably tied to Existence; it is its inherent nature. Essence can never be separated from Existence, because Existence is the absolute prerequisite for Essence. Essence carries potential, direction, and the faculty of perception, and is the absolute foundation for Phenomenon. Without Existence, there is no Essence; without Essence, there is no Phenomenon.

Phenomenon / Context

Phenomenon is the relational and manifested level where distinction appears through the tension between the faculty of perception and its realization. Phenomenon is not the faculty of perception itself, but that which emerges in the relational field between potential and actualization. Without Phenomenon, there is no distinction, no experience, no realization. Phenomenon never affects the absolute character of the Ultimate-subject; it functions solely as the medium in which Essence becomes perceptible through realization, not as something that Essence itself becomes.

Hierarchy and Level Discipline

1. Existence / Ultimate-subject: absolute, indivisible, non-relational.
2. Essence / faculty of perception: absolutely tied to Existence, enabling realization.
3. Phenomenon / Context: relational level that realizes perception through distinction.

Maintaining strict separation of levels is crucial. If level 01 (Ultimate-subject) and level 02 (Essence) are merged with level 03 (Phenomenon), the philosophy becomes phenomenal and pantheistic; the absoluteness of the Ur-subject is lost. Through strict level discipline, a monistic or monotheistic foundation is preserved, allowing Phenomenon to be realized without affecting the absolute ground.

If and when one tests the assumption of an Absolute Existence, in which the Essence represents the phenomenon within the relational field between the faculty of perception and its realization, then the logic remains coherent.

Objections as Natural Questions

Structure: Three Distinct Levels

01. Existence

• The unchanging Being that makes all appearance possible.
• Nothing at this level appears phenomenally.
• This is the condition for everything that can be experienced or appear.

02. Essence (The Faculty of Perception) -- "what"

• The essence is the perceptive capacity.
• It expresses what can appear, the potential for appearance, but is not identical with the phenomenon.
• The Faculty of Perception sustains the phenomenon and allows it to appear, without itself appearing as an object.
• The Faculty of Perception lacks memory; memory arises only in the sequential appearance of the phenomenon.

03. The Phenomenon -- Realisation -- "how"

• That which actually appears in experience or thought.
• The phenomenon is real as appearance but depends on Existence and Essence.
• The phenomenon appears only in the relation between perceptive capacity ("what") and its actualization ("how").
• The phenomenon is sequential: only through sequential differences can relational experience be possible.
• That which expresses the phenomenon is not identical with the phenomenon.
• Memory arises only in the phenomenon; it emerges where sequential appearance exists.

Structural Relation (not intersubjective)

• Relation here refers to the dependence between levels that follows from their ordering, not to anything between subjects.
• The relation is not a bond between two units, but the only conceptual grasp that makes indivisibility thinkable without dissolving it.
• Relation arises as the tension between capacity ("what") and actualization ("how"), thereby allowing the phenomenon to be held apart without division.
• In the phenomenon, relation is sequential: differences occur in succession, not simultaneously or comprehensively.
• Without sequential appearance, there is no experience, relation, difference, or memory — only indivisibility.

Objections (natural questions from someone who has not understood the assumption)

1. If what appears (the Phenomenon) is only possible through an unchanging Being (Existence), does it follow that everything that appears (the Phenomenon) is identical with this Being (Existence)? Is dependence on The faculty of preception ("what") a condition for the Phenomenon to appear, or identity between the Phenomenon and Existence? (Dependence and identity are often conflated here.)

2. We experience ourselves as self-determining and autonomous beings (Phenomenal autonomy). If this autonomy is not ontologically grounded (that is, if one does not assume that Existence is unchanging and that parts are necessary for appearance), must this autonomy (the Phenomenon) then be regarded as illusion? (Here phenomenal self-determination is often confused with ontological originality.)

3. How can the Absolute (Existence) have a relation to itself? If relation is understood intersubjectively as between separate consciousnesses, it becomes self-reflection or self-deception. Structurally, however, as the tension between The Faculty of pteceptoon ("what") and actualization ("how"), the relation is understandable and possible.

4. Why must what appears (the Phenomenon) be relativized in relation to Existence? Can one not think of an absolute whole (Existence) with absolute, inseparable yet autonomous parts (phenomenal parts allowed to appear within a coherent organic Existence)? Here relation appears as structural, not intersubjective, and the difference between relation and indivisibility becomes clear.

Concluding reflection

• When the levels Existence -- Essence -- Phenomenon are strictly distinguished, relation appears as structural rather than intersubjective.
• Sequential appearance in the phenomenon is what makes difference, relation, experience, and memory possible.
• The objections are not expressions of logical error, but reflect a different pre-existing assumption.
• The entire reasoning is held together by the question: Should what makes appearance possible be understood from what appears, or should what appears be understood from what makes appearance possible?

Difference, Perception, and the Unchanging Enduring Being

Only difference can be experienced. Sameness in itself gives rise to no experience.

An unchanging enduring being can therefore not, in itself, offer any difference. Within such a being there is no internal distinction that could form the basis for experience.

If the unchanging enduring being had consisted of different parts, difference would have been possible. But then it would not have been unchanging.

If it instead had consisted of identical parts, another problem arises. Identical parts cannot be held together by their sameness alone. A unifying principle would then be required.

But unification is not the same as difference. A unifying principle does not, in itself, create anything that can be experienced.

Even if all the parts were held together and together constituted a whole, neither the whole nor the parts would be able to experience any difference between themselves. There would be nothing that distinguishes the whole from the parts, nor the parts from one another.

Without difference, no experience is possible. The absence of difference cannot be compensated for by a unifying principle.

To claim that the parts are held together by the same property, for example consciousness in the form of The faculty of perception, would moreover require that this perception is already realized on behalf of the whole.

But to keep track of the parts, to know that they are many, requires that the parts can be distinguished and that this distinction can be ordered and preserved in memory.

This requires a principle that is more than the sum of the parts. Without difference there is nothing to count, and without memory there is nothing to keep in order.

Phenomenal Comparison: The Body

If one makes a phenomenal comparison with one's own body, this becomes clearer.

We experience our body as a whole consisting of different parts. This experience arises partly through sensory impressions from without, and partly through signals from the nervous system from within.

The body therefore appears as difference, both between its parts and in relation to its surroundings.

When we close our eyes, we can still imagine the body, because it has already appeared phenomenally. Memory and The faculty of perception make us observers of the medium through which observation itself takes place.

The phenomenon is the medium. The faculty of perception is the condition that allows the medium to give rise to experienced difference.

To then say that the whole in the unchanging enduring being does not need the phenomenon in order to realize consciousness becomes a self-contradiction.

Consciousness is then taken as a presupposition, when it is in fact The faculty of perception that must be assumed as the presupposition.

The Condition for the Universe Cannot Be the Universe Itself

To believe that the Universe itself is the condition for its own appearance, and therefore to look for the condition there, is to search for the source of appearance among what already appears. One then believes that the condition for the Universe is the Universe.

There is a difference between condition and appearance. The phenomenon is the difference and the field of relation between the ability to perceive the phenomenon and the perception of the phenomenon. It is a question of two completely different states: one state is the ability and the other state is the realization. The phenomenon lies in the mutual field of tension between them.

But first we must be clear that the condition cannot be phenomenal. It must be essential, and this essence must rest in its own existence.

Faculty or Property -- Consequences

If the essence is interpreted as a property, an organism arises. The property requires a subject to bear it, which means that The Unchanging Being is indirectly fragmented. The organism becomes necessary for the property to be able to occur.

If the essence is interpreted as a Faculty, The Unchanging Being remains undivided. Capacity is neither content nor a property of anything. The concept of inherent nature is not interpreted as a property, but as how something that Is, Is. The faculty of perception is then not a property, but the actual receiver that makes occurrence possible without itself occurring.

In this order, the only real relation that exists is between the receiver and the reception. Phenomena, media, or channels are merely mediators that actualize occurrence, but they do not affect the reception itself. In this way, The Unchanging Being remains whole and unchanging.

Hlatky makes a conscious consideration of what makes perception possible, namely the faculty of perception, but regards the Whole as already containing realized consciousness. Even if this can be seen as an idea, it aligns with the old saying that "even geniuses speculate."

Even though Stefan Hlatky imagined GOD as a permanent thing — not as a form-projected figure— he actually contradicts himself in a way if he claims that he himself has no problem imagining GOD in his mind as the for us invisible underlying Whole with its constituent parts.

Perception That Already Happens

Perception already happens. Perception can only happen if there is first a faculty of perception. The only thing that can be perceived is difference. The difference then lies only in the tentionfield between the ability to perceive and the realization of consciousness.

When we mention an Absolute Existence that is dimensionless, it is not a notion but an assumption about a prerequisite. As soon as we try to imagine a dimensionless Existence, it does not work, which is precisely the intention of the dimensionless assumption

An imagined singularity that has infinite density is imagined as both without external space but with a potentially enclosed content with infinite density.

This is exactly the idea that modern science starts from, but in that idea, thinking completely breaks down.

However, sound philosophical thinking must have an ontological basic premise to start from. This premise must not, however, be a notion but only be held as an assumption of an Absolute Existence as an undivided dimensionless primordial subject for thought in order for thought to crystallize against something and become crystal clear.

Without an Absolute Existence as a foundation without content, thought has no anchor and starting point to start from.

Our ability to think is based on our ability to imagine what is not shown to us in a direct manifestation.

We can use our ability to imagine freely about what comes to mind.

In Stefan Hlatky's idea, we live in an organism that we can imagine ourselves in. In Stefan Hlatky's model, he keeps the personal part enclosed in this organism as multiplicity of human conscious minds.

Without Stefan Hlatky's concept, one lives, as he point out, in a concept of atoms and void (exactly as science assumes) and then the void becomes a real void that it appears we are in.

In an Absolute Existential Philosophy, instead of living in a concept of void, we live in an already ongoing phenomenal concept as consciousness (not as consciousnesses in the plural) in the tension between the faculty of perception and its realization as the inherent nature of an Absolute Existence.

We cannot even imagine that Existence, but only understand that we are completely dependent on it. The faculty of perception is then assumed to be the absolute prerequisite for consciousness.

The idea is both simple but more challenging for the personal part as the personal part as imagined identity becomes secondary in relation to the Faculty of Perception which is then the primary identity.

And in that sense the true identity of Absolute Existence never changes, even though everything we see is constantly changing.

Because of and with it, we can live in the unchanging prerequisite for consciousness.

Concluding Remark

The presentation that has been made here is not a distancing from Stefan Hlatky's thought, but a possible continuation that has only become conceivable through the clarity and consistency that the organic unity view brought into the conversation.

Hlatky's work opened a space where the question of the permanent being could be kept alive, examined openly and taken seriously, without being reduced to either metaphor or technical explanation. The intellectual discipline he maintained -- and the respect he showed for the weight of the question itself -- has been crucial in being able to discern the distinctions that are examined here at all.

To point out a logical slip is not to diminish a work, but to acknowledge its bearing capacity. Only a thought work with real substance can bear such an examination.

The organic unity view thus remains a central and indispensable reference work in the expanded conversation about the foundation of reality -- not as a definitive answer, but as one of the few modern formulations that seriously dared to ask the question.

The essential point is to start by testing assumptions, and in this context, the Absolute Existence Philosophy can be understood as a testable, conceivable assumption: a way to systematically investigate how the faculty of perception, essence, and occurrence relate to each other without turning essence into content.