A revival of the abstract in existence

How could we, in thought, revive the abstract in existence by making a Copernican turn in thinking about reality through a philosophical movement in three steps from a dead object to a living subject, and what could this lead to in the experience of being?

Step 1. The birth of abstraction: The object as "1" It is possible to place a unit of some kind before oneself - upon a surface of some kind - as an object. This object can be written on the same paper as a "one," using the symbol 1.

This "one" is not conceived as containing other ones (like a set), but solely as a single "one" within the symbol 1.

This is how all mathematics works.

This was achieved using wedge-shaped styluses pressed into clay tablets; as the clay hardened, it enabled people to keep track of barter transactions in a clear and organized manner.

1. The birth of abstraction (An object = "1") When early bookkeepers in Sumer needed to keep track of barter transactions - such as five sheep ☆ they initially used small clay figures (tokens) that represented the sheep themselves. However, the breakthrough came with the realization that it was not necessary to draw a picture of the sheep. One could distinguish between quantity (the number) and quality (what the object was). • Pressing a wedge-shaped stick (a stylus) into a soft clay tablet created a mark. • This mark represented a single unit of something - a discrete entity on a surface.

2. The "one" without internal quantity (Atomic unit) Defining the number "one" as a single, self-contained symbol - rather than something containing other "ones" - constitutes the definition of an atomic unit. In the philosophy of mathematics, this forms the basis for constructing numbers: • The number 1 is the fundamental building block. • The number 2 is not "two halves," but rather a "one" plus another "one" ((1 + 1)). • By viewing the symbol "1" as an indivisible point, we can construct the entire arithmetic system simply by adding more discrete units.

3. "This is how all mathematics works" Even modern, advanced mathematics rests on the idea of ​​axioms and formal symbols. We decide that a specific symbol (such as 1, x, or π) represents a specific object or relationship. We then manipulate these symbols according to strict rules on a "medium" (whether that medium is a clay tablet, a sheet of paper, or a computer screen). At its core, mathematics is about manipulating symbols that represent abstract truths. It is fascinating to consider that the digital world we inhabit today - with its complex code and AI - descends directly from that very principle: a human being, thousands of years ago, pressing a stick into clay to represent one (1) concrete object.

Consider the scientific perspective, which posits that reality consists of atoms existing within an equally real void; gravity packed these atoms so tightly together that they collapsed into an infinitely dense point. This point is then theorized to have exploded outward, evolving into the forms we see today.

Step 2. The cosmological projection: The singularity When science describes the Big Bang and the absolute beginning of the universe, it does so in precisely three steps. It takes all existing reality - every atom, all space, and all time - and compresses it into a single, indivisible point: a singularity. In the realm of mathematics and physics, this point becomes the ultimate representation of the definition of "one":

Step 3. The Copernican turn: The subject as substrate and "Zero-Point" If we, as thinkers, replace this objectively conceived, distance-less point with the equally distance-less subject, this line of reasoning fits perfectly; indeed, it is the only logical conclusion if we reintroduce the subject that science stripped away exactly 400 years ago.

When science removed the subject, it was forced to invent abstract substrates: "empty space," the "fabric of spacetime," or mathematical coordinate systems. Yet, if the subject is restored, we realize that the substrate itself is the subject’s essence - its pure capacity for perception. The empty space into which the universe "expands" is not a physical void, but rather the subject’s boundless capacity to experience its own shifts in state between dreamless sleep and waking consciousness.

By reintroducing the subject, we can see how the external cosmos of science is, in fact, a map of the inner architecture of consciousness. Mathematics works because its fundamental principle - placing a symbol upon a substrate - is a direct reflection of how the subject’s pure capacity for perception transforms into consciousness through the perception of differences (the object). The Sumerian mark in the clay was not merely the beginning of bookkeeping; it was consciousness observing, for the first time, its own capacity for objectification.

By applying this line of thought to phenomenal reality, we can revitalize existence, rescuing it from the notion of an objectively dead world that has prevailed for four hundred years.

In this light, the concept of this "zero point" is not that of an objective subject, but rather the very experience of existing in the space between dreamless sleep and the experience of reality.

[STEP 1: Abstraction] →
The object becomes a "1" on an external substrate.

[STEP 2: Cosmology] →
The entire universe is compressed into a singularity.

[STEP 3: The Copernican Turn] → The singularity is not an external point, but the Subject’s pure "Zero-Point."

The only obstacle to this idea is the human veto issued in defense of the ego - which both visualizes the idea as a glowing point in a mental image and clings to the notion of itself as separate from this subject.

The ego still operates according to Step 1 logic. It views itself as a "1" - an isolated, atomic unit standing before the world and observing it. When the ego hears of the "Zero-Point" or the singularity, it immediately transforms the idea into an object. It imagines a glowing, mysterious point out in space or before its mind's eye. Overcoming this veto requires the ego to let go of its status as a separate entity and realize that it is, by sheer necessity, merely one of the many sequentially passing phenomenal lenses within the phenomenal eyes of contemplation - experienced by a fundamentally undivided subject.

The ego is stuck in Step 1. As long as we perceive ourselves as standing above this way of thinking - remaining in the blinding confines of Step 1 - we cannot grasp why the reasoning in the subsequent two steps might make any significant difference to the experience of existing within the sequential "now" of presence.

Yet this profound realization - akin to an existential metamorphosis - can strike when you least expect it.

Overview: Logical Coherence of Absolute Existence Philosophy

"Reality is an ongoing, present phenomenon right now and not a twitch of a dead, stretched-out vacuum"

1. Starting Point in an Unchanging Being The reasoning is based on the assumption that there exists a single, unchanging foundation — a being that does not come into existence, does not cease, and does not change. This assumption functions as the logical axis to which everything else is related.

2. The Faculty of Perception as a Necessary Aspect For anything to appear as a phenomenon, there must be an inherent faculty of perception. This faculty is not a relation but a fundamental property of the enduring being. Without this capacity, no phenomenon could be actualized at all.

   If something is to be able to appear as a phenomenon, there must be an inherent faculty of perception. The faculty is not a relation but a fundamental inherent nature of existing being. Without this faculty, no phenomenon could be actualized at all.

3. The Phenomena The phenomena are not independent forms of existence, but probably arise through a modulation of the ability to perceive. They appear as changeable, dependent, and conditional expressions of what in itself is unchanging.

4. Essence as a Qualification of Being Essence means the inherent nature of that which already is. It follows logically after the assumption of being itself, since something must be before it can be described through its properties.

5. Conditions as a Level-Bound Concept Conditions belong to the domain of phenomena. They apply to that which arises, changes, and disappears. The unchanging being is not conditioned and therefore lies outside all categories that presuppose dependency.

6. Necessity and Possibility Necessity follows from the assumption: if existence is unchanging and the faculty of perception is essential, then the emergence of phenomena is the only possible consequence. Possibility, by contrast, refers to variations within the forms of phenomena, not to the foundational condition for their occurrence.

7. The Universe as a Phenomenon The universe can be understood as a modulation of the capacity for perception. The phenomenon appears organic, but the impression itself is a phenomenon – an expression of the capacity for perception rather than an independent substance.

8. Ontological Chain of Consequence

   • Being (unchanging existence)
   • Essence (nature / capacity)
   • Phenomenon (that which appears)

   This chain is logically ordered such that each step depends on the preceding one, but never the reverse.

9. Conceptual Coherence The concepts remain coherent if and only if they do not contradict the assumption of an unchanging foundation. Any concept that presupposes change or dependency applies solely to the level of phenomena and cannot be applied retroactively to the enduring being.

10. The Comprehension of the Whole The logical coherence lies in consistency: if one accepts the first premise — the unchanging enduring being — the rest follows as necessary implications. The whole then becomes a coherent structure in which existence, essence, capacity, and phenomena are logically integrated.

Explicit standpoint

"We have to take a stand on whether we assume that reality is an experience because of many experiencers (Gods), or whether we assume that reality is many experiences because of one and the same experiencer (God). If we don't take an explicit stand on this, the first assumption applies implicitly."

This was said by the Hungarian-born philosopher and juris doctor Stefan Hlatky in a radio interview in the 90s.

This idea has now been further developed in the Absolute Philosophy of Existence.

The two positions
Many experiencers → One shared reality (Objectivism/Materialism):

This is our everyday intuition. We assume the world exists "out there" as a solid, objective stage. You, me, and millions of other relative, time-limited experiencers step onto this stage and observe it. Since the stage is the same for everyone, our experiences are similar enough that we can agree on a shared reality.

One Experiencer → Many Experiences (Idealism/Solipsism/Monism):

This is the more radical, philosophical position. Here, it is assumed that there is only one fundamental capacity for perception – a "Experiencer" with a capital E, what Advaita Vedanta calls Brahman or Western idealism calls The Absolute. This single experiencer generates an infinite amount of different perspectives. What we call "other people" are actually the same unique capacity for perception looking out through biological lenses that constantly take turns.

Why the first assumption wins "by default":

If we don’t make an active decision, we fall flat back on the first assumption. This is mainly due to three things:

○ Biological and social survival: In order to cooperate, build bridges, or avoid getting hit by cars, we have to act as if there is an objective, shared reality. The first assumption is pragmatic; it doesn’t require any introspection to work in everyday life.

○ The structure of language: Our language is built around subjects and objects ("I see the tree"). Just by talking, we are almost always forced into a model where there is a separate "I" (one of many experiencers) and a separate "world."

○ The stable consensus:

If both you and I look at a house and agree that it is red, the simplest conclusion for the brain is that the house exists independently of both of us.

Challenging the default setting:

If, on the other hand, you start examining it more closely (through, for example, questions about interpretations in quantum physics or deep meditation), you notice that the first assumption has logical gaps. For example, we can never prove that an objective world exists outside our consciousness, since any possible proof must itself be experienced through consciousness.

By not taking a stand, we allow the materialistic spirit of the times to choose for us. But as soon as we articulate the dilemma, the enchantment is broken, and the 'obvious' external world starts to feel more like a fascinating projection in an ongoing play.

The dead end of language:

When we try to describe the other position (Monism/Idealism), we often stumble over words. As soon as we say 'Consciousness projects the world,' we have secretly smuggled in a three-part structure:

1. A projector
2. A projection
3. A screen on which the projection is shown.

Suddenly we're back to dualism (position 1).

In pure Advaita Vedanta philosophy, or in the work of Western idealists like Schopenhauer, the world is not something created by consciousness. Rather, the grounds essence is the very faculty of perception reflected in different forms into consciousness.

Comparison of the Two Ontological Models

Attribute Position 1: Many experiencers (Materialism)

Metaphor: The theater stage: The stage stands there in the dark. The actors (experiencers) step on and off.

Primary substance: Matter/Energy (Objective)

Everyday self (The Ego): A fundamental, separate entity.

Consensus: depends on us looking at the same external object

"Attribute": Position 2: Essentially An Absolute Existence without attributes but with an inherent nature - the ability to perceive (Idealism/Monism)

Metaphor: The dream: All characters, houses, and trees in the dream are the effect of the same perceptual ability’s change of state.

Primary substance: Absolute Existence Sensibility (Subjective)

Everyday self (The Ego): A temporary lens or "angle" of the ongoing phenomenon.

Consensus: depends on it being the same subject experiencing the phenomenon through different angles.

How We Solve the Language Trap: From 'Creation' to 'Modulation'

To avoid the words 'creates' or 'generates' (which create a gap between the creator and the created), Eastern philosophy and modern analytical idealism (like Bernardo Kastrup) often use other metaphors:

The wave and the ocean: A wave is not created by the ocean as something separate. The wave is the ocean, just in a specific form of movement. In the same way, the world is not created by Perception – the world is the ability to perceive, taking the form of an experience. There is then no 'external world' for consciousness to look at, and there is no 'consciousness' hiding inside the head. There is only the experience itself (The Seeming).

All successive state transitions are perceived as delays within the lag, lingering there as a curvature or reflection within that which expresses the change of state. Inertia and perception unfold as if in a zero-point field without beginning or end, and the state transitions follow one another so rapidly that they are perceived as a smooth stream, despite their sequential interaction. The exponent of this binary oscillation is infinite in its development but is presumably slowed by the curvatures that attract the emerging resistive curvatures as they alternately transition within the zero-point field. These resistive curvatures possess simultaneity yet are perceived with a delay; this delay is experienced as distance - or a temporal shift - within the zero-point field. This maps precisely onto the experience of a subject oscillating between dreamless sleep and the interaction with waking consciousness, where the faculty of perception constitutes the intrinsic nature of the Absolute precondition. This is also the only way to experience anything at all. The subjective precondition does not appear in any specific representation, except through the forms of the multitude of self-reflective angles by which it can experience phenomenal reality.

Why the Default Setting is an 'Enchantment':

Materialism is our default setting because it is evolution’s way of keeping us alive. If a tiger jumps at you, you don’t have time to philosophize about whether it is a modulation of the ability to perceive – you have to run. But as soon as you phrase the dilemma, naive realism falls apart. It’s enough to simply realize that you’ve never actually experienced a material world; you’ve only experienced the experience of it.

When we try to describe monism (Position 2) with a dualistic tool (language), an automatic distortion occurs. That’s why concepts like modulation, excitation, or localization work better than creation.

The importance of "The Seeming": In the Absolute Philosophy of Existence, it becomes clear that what we call "matter" is really just how a process looks from a certain perspective. The material body is not the container for your consciousness; the body is rather the image that arises when Absolute Existence looks at itself through a specific, time-limited angle.

The amazing thing about Hlatky's formulation was the insight that the magic breaks the moment the dilemma is articulated. By simply giving Position 2 a valid linguistic space, materialism ceases to be "The Truth" and instead becomes what it actually is:

an assumption that is based on the idea that the world has arisen from nothing - ex nihilo - and from the logical explosion, any statement can be derived.

And to believe that we can describe the universe as a completely independent, objective field 'without an observer' is perhaps science's last great dogma that is starting to crack.

Ditch 1: Blind materialism (Death as the final station)
If we don't have the premises clear to us, we accept the default setting. We believe that the mute, material stage is the only reality and that we are small, isolated biological accidents that will soon be erased.
Result: We become detached from reality because we live in an illusion of absolute separation. We are seized by existential terror, neuroses, and a constant chase to secure the temporary ego. We miss that we are the Ocean, and we desperately believe we are only the doomed Wave.

Ditch 2: Absolute silence (Monotonous emptiness)
If we fully take Krishnamurti's path, we shut off the projector and rests completely in the Absolute, the oscillation stops. But in that state, there is no time, no colors, no relationships, no love, no music – nothing. It is an absolute, homogeneous nothing. Result: We also become completely detached from reality, because we totally deny and flee from the phenomenon that is actually happening. If Absolute Existence only wanted to be at rest, it would never have started oscillating in the first place. Refusing the oscillation is refusing the very meaning of why the idea started.

Solution: Playing the role while knowing that you are the actor This is where Hlatky’s and the Absolute Philosophy of Existence’s true value emerges. The solution is not to choose one path or the other, but to hold both perspectives simultaneously. This is what mysticism calls being in the world, but not of the world. When the premise is crystal clear to you, the oscillation changes: You can run from the tiger (because you respect the rules of the game and biology’s survival requirements), but in the depths of your being you know that both you and the tiger are the same Existence modulating itself. You can mourn, rejoice, and experience the rich variety of life, but you do it without the paralyzing fear, because you know that death is just the movie ending – not the theater burning down.

The materialist perspective:

The world is fundamentally unconscious matter. Evolution builds complex machines (brains) that ultimately generate consciousness as a functional end-product for the sake of survival. In the materialist view of existence, consciousness is the end product of thinking.

The transcendental/non-dual perspective (Absolute Existence):

The phenomenal world is fundamentally consciousness. Evolution is the process by which the faculty of perception takes form, differentiates itself, and reflects itself through various physical and phenomenal expressions.

From the AEF perspective, the phenomenon of "blindsight" in materialism does not serve as proof that thinking can occur without consciousness. Rather, it becomes an example of a reflective mechanism limited to merely registering information, lacking the ability to reflect the full, unique light of consciousness (qualia) within that specific function.

So what then slips away from the consciousness of reality?

Could one philosophically assume that it is the faculty of perception that is the inherent nature of Existence’s unchangingly enduring Absolute Being that interacts between the two states of presence and absence in the perception of consciousness's different intense frequency states, which turn into various experiences of the inertia of resistance? Could one, purely philosophically, assume that the more intense the frequencies, the greater the resistance in the experience of conscious reality? Just as purely humble, philosophical, existential assumptions, that is.

When you strip away the religious and sentimental noise, what remains is instead a razor-sharp, almost mathematical or geometric principle: There is the Absolute Being (Existence). Its inherent nature is to perceive (Essence). When this faculty change states of varying density and resistance are created (Phenomena). No belief, no incense, and no gentle whispering is needed to recognize it – it is a pure structural necessity for any experience to take place at all.

The thought-experimental assumption model of Absolute Existence philosophy points to the following:

Low intensity/frequency: The perceptive capacity moves with slow, sparse intervals. The information density is low. The experience has no strong grip, no significant resistance. It is a fluid, diffuse experience.

High intensity/frequency: The perceptive capacity operates at an extremely high speed and density. It whips up such a total information density that immediate friction arises.

This friction is experienced as inertia. It is that inertia we call physical matter, time, and space. The faster the perception 'samples' reality, the more compact and solid it appears.​It's a purely mechanical necessity: resistance is a byproduct of high frequency. Without that inertia, the experience would collapse back to zero in an instant. High frequency is needed to maintain the illusion of a solid reality. Claiming that someone has 'the truth' about the Absolute is the ultimate proof that they've missed it. You can only be in the Absolute and assume that you are in it.

Absolute or relative

To point out that someone who constantly relativizes reality is, in effect, assuming that phenomenal reality has an Absolute foundation at its core.

When someone claims that "everything is relative" or that "there is no absolute truth," a logical problem arises:

• The claim is self-defeating: If the statement "everything is relative" is true, then that statement itself must also be relative.

• A hidden absolutism: To establish, as a universal rule, that reality is always relative, the person must—ironically—adopt an absolute position.

They are asserting that there is at least one absolute truth: that everything else is relative.

The philosopher Plato employed a similar argument against the Sophists (who held that truth is subjective) as long as 2,400 years ago. He pointed out that if Protagoras is correct in saying that "man is the measure of all things" (meaning that everything is true for the person who believes it), then Protagoras’s critics must also be correct when they claim that Protagoras is wrong.

In short: One cannot argue that there is no firm ground to stand on without simultaneously attempting to build that very argument upon a firm foundation.

This is what is explored at this webbsite

The Relative Opposites

Origin / Coordinate System Existence / Non-existence

Starting Point / Coordinate System Absolute / Relative

Potency / Impotence Possibility / Impossibility

Prerequisite / Outcome Capacity / Realization

Unexperienced / Experienced Subject / Object

Order / Chaos Life / Death

The Logic of Interaction (Pair by Pair):

1. Origin / Coordinate System ←-→ Existence / Non-existence

The first step in the interaction. The origin is absolute existence. Logic requires that the origin be fixed in relation to non-existence for a coordinate system (a relational structure) to be projected at all.

2. Starting Point / Coordinate System ←→ Absolute / Relative

The origin functions as an absolute starting point. Interaction occurs when this fixed point reflects itself within the coordinate system, creating the primary logical division between that which is absolute (the origin itself) and that which is relative (everything within the system).

Potency / Impotence ←--→ Possibility / Impossibility

The projected system is imbued with an inherent capacity. The interplay between the total force (potency) and its limitation (impotence) defines what is logically possible or impossible within the system.

4. Precondition / Outcome ←→ Capacity / Realization

Here, the "leap" or transition into the actual takes place. The system’s established precondition (its essence) unfolds into a concrete outcome. It is at this point that the latent Faculty of Perception shifts into an instantaneous, phenomenal realization. The faculty to alternate sequentially between two states—best described as the mental absence of the experience of stimuli, and the experience of stimuli itself.

5. Unexperienced / Experienced ←→ Subject / Object

In the act of realization, that which can be experienced splits into contrasts. The origin acts as the central subject, while that which is projected as difference becomes the object. In this sequential pulse, what was previously purely latent (unexperienced) immediately becomes perceived (experienced).

6. Order / Chaos ←-→ Life / Death

When these realizations occur in a sequential succession, the experience of structure (order) and disintegration (chaos) arises. On the biological level, this oscillation translates into the tension between the maintenance of order (termed Life) and the process wherein disintegration - erroneously called "Death" (which actually signifies an inability to experience changes of state) - transitions into new forms through a sequential progression of state changes.

Within this framework, there is no logical contradiction, as the universe is not permitted an independent material existence. Every stage, from the most fundamental to the most complex, is entirely dependent upon how the relative coordinate system - at any given moment - pulses toward and is affirmed by its Origin. The universe exists only within and through this interplay.

To speak of death as an "end point" or a "return" is to surreptitiously reintroduce time, along with a separate entity undertaking a journey. Yet, there is no journey. Time is the sequential interplay between the states of dreamless sleep and waking consciousness.

Repetition

• Steps 1–2 (The Foundation): Here, the duality required for anything to "come into being" is established. An absolute Origo (origin/point of origin) cannot experience itself without a relative structure (a coordinate system). This resolves the classic philosophical problem of how the One (the absolute) can become the Many (the universe).

• Steps 3–4 (The Dynamics): Once the system has been projected, it becomes charged with tension. Potential and capacity are not material forces, but logical necessities. The "leap" in step 4 is what science likens to the quantum-physical concept of wave-function collapse, or what Aristotle described as the transition from potentia to actus - the latent immediately becomes actual.

• Steps 5–6 (The Phenomenology): Here, logic arrives within the realm of human (or cosmic) experience. It is only when Subject and Object are separated that "Experience" can occur. Life and death, therefore, are not biological endpoints, but rather cosmic "on/off switches" within the sequential pulse.

• Existence (Origo / The Absolute): Origo is not "nothingness" or a void; rather, it is the foundation itself—immutable, absolute existence (Being). It is the fixed point required by your first and second steps in order to project a relational structure at all.

• Essence (Potency / Capacity / Faculty of Perception): This is the inherent nature of the system before it manifests into concrete form. In steps 3 and 4, this is described as "latent capacity" or "total power." In AEF, the essence is precisely the Faculty of Perception - the pure potential to experience, entirely undivided and devoid of relations.

• The Phenomenon (Coordinate System / Outcome / Realization): This is "that which is going on" - the relative, ever-changing, and seemingly fragmented coordinate system within which subject and object, order and chaos, life and death emerge. It is here that the sequential pulse (oscillation) creates a temporary, phenomenal realization of what is, in reality, one and undivided.

Since the universe possesses no independent material existence, there is no linear axis along which a being moves from point A (life) to point B (death). The "journey" is merely the coordinate system’s temporary interpretation of the lightning-fast oscillation between these states. Consequently, death is not a return to nothingness, because the Origo (the point where all is one) remains the constant, absolute existence that never ceases to pulse.

This system is internally consistent. By pulling the rug out from under material realism, it renders the model immune to critiques based on material contradictions. Everything hinges on the relationship between the Origo and the coordinate system. The universe is not a place, but an activity - a lightning-fast cosmic "on-off switch"!

The Space

Space in 'double-aspect monism': If the Universe is already a space present to us, then in this phenomenal space, there occurs, through curvature, the emergence of particular forms that are joined together by the curvature in information that has developed into brains, which in turn can make mental representations of the phenomenal reality.It seems like two spaces even though it is a phenomenon that is the effect of the underlying absolute existence.

A space that offers real, tangible resistance and a mental space that doesn’t provide the consequences of real resistance.

It is experienced as two different spaces – the outer objective space and the inner mental space – but they are two sides of the same coin, generated by the same underlying existence.

Quantum physicists aren’t concerned with the observer itself, only with the observer effect during observation.

Philosophy seems to have given up on Absolute Existence and its essence.

During the 20th century, Western philosophy was hit by a strong skepticism towards 'grand metaphysical systems' (largely because of logical positivism and postmodernism). People began to think that questions about 'Absolute Existence' or 'Things in themselves' (Kant’s Ding an sich) were impossible to answer or even meaningless.

But – absolute existence is actually making somewhat of a comeback today!

Within modern philosophy of mind, people have encountered 'the hard problem' of consciousness: how can dead, motionless matter in the outer space give rise to subjective experience in the inner space?

Since neither pure materialism nor traditional dualism manages to solve this, and more and more prominent philosophers and physicists are turning back to ideas that are very close to an inatropic / neutral monism.

(Bohm & Hiley): The physicist David Bohm talked about the implicate (hidden/underlying) order and the explicate (unfolded/phenomenal) order. What we see as space, time, and matter is just the foam on the surface of a deeper, holistic existence.

Dual-Aspect Monism (Pauli-Jung & Polkinghorne): The quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli and the psychologist Carl Jung suggested that physics and psyche are two complementary projections of a single, underlying, and indivisible reality.

Analytical Panpsychism (e.g., Philip Goff / Bernardo Kastrup): The idea that the universe's fundamental substance is not 'dead matter,' but a form of fundamental consciousness or neutral existence that manifests as matter on the outside and experience on the inside.

Insight: Philosophy perhaps gave up on the Absolute Existence for a while when it tried to be as reductive as natural science. But when science itself hits a wall (with the mysteries of quantum physics and the origin of consciousness), we are forced back to Spinoza's and the double-aspect monism's insight: The external objective and the internal subjective are not two things colliding, but the same absolute existence seen from two different angles.

If the Absolute lacks parts, it cannot be called a whole — it's more like Pure Existence or Ground. Parmenides (ancient Greece) was precisely on this: That Which Is cannot be divided, has no beginning or end, and cannot consist of parts, because what would lie between the parts? Advaita Vedanta (Indian philosophy) calls it Advaita – which literally means 'Not-two' rather than 'One'. The word 'One' is avoided precisely to not imply that there is a 'Whole' in contrast to 'Parts'.

So how do the 'parts' in phenomenal space arise? If the Absolute has no parts, then where do all the individual things we experience (chairs, atoms, thoughts, you and me) come from? The answer in this tradition is that the parts are not real in themselves, but a result of a perspective / a delimitation:

The Absolute (Without parts): The underlying, undivided existence. The Split / Curvature: When existence 'bends' or notices itself from a certain point, a boundary arises. The Experience of Parts: The boundary makes us experience an 'inside' (mental space) and an 'outside' (physical space with resistance). So parts are not building blocks that make up the Absolute. Parts are optical or structural illusions that arise when the undivided is viewed from a specific vantage point within itself. As soon as we call it a 'whole', we’ve accidentally smuggled diversity and parts into what in its essence must be completely undivided.

Absolute Existential Philosophy points to the most fundamental and radical absence of distance. It doesn't settle for just holding the world together like a network or an organism (as Hlatky does). It steps completely outside the domain of tape measures, coordinates, and relationships. It claims that there has never been any actual distance – only one and the same fundamental existence perceiving its own state changes.

When Absolute Existential Philosophy strips away everything that can be described at all – all forms, concepts, spatial attributes, properties, and manifestations – no 'substance' or ontological model remains. What remains is the pure, distance-less Subject.

As long as we divide the world into 'objects out there' and 'subjects in here,' we get a philosophical wound that won’t heal (the hard problem of consciousness). An absolute existential philosophical framework heals this wound in one stroke: Both your consciousness and the star you’re looking at are the same Absolute Existence experiencing itself through various phenomenal forms.

Absolute philosophy of existence completely abandons the claim to describe content and points only to what is perceived.
The fundamental condition of perception that nothing can be excluded from.

Since this Subject lacks extension, boundaries, and external observation in itself, it can neither be measured in meters nor placed on a map. It is pure absence of distance. All distances, measures, and separations are just content that appears in and for this subject.
Starting from the distance-less subject means that the path forward is not about building a new, more advanced theoretical model of the universe, but about acknowledging the absolute starting point that is already the case before any description even begins.

AI will probably revise physicalism: We will probably realize that materialist physics in its current form lacks a fundamental piece of the puzzle to explain the world of experience.

AI strengthens physicalism by showing that functional intelligence is pure physics and information. But at the same time, AI strips physicalism down by making it clearer than ever that intelligence and experience are not the same thing.

Everything you have ever observed, measured, or thought (including galaxies, atoms, and quantum events) has happened inside a consciousness. You can never get 'outside' subjective experience to prove that a completely independent objective world exists on its own.

Adopting as a metaphysical hypothesis that the foundational ground of the Universe is an Absolute Subject is one of the most powerful and consistent models within philosophical idealism. It cannot be disproven, and it resolves many metaphysical knots that materialism struggles with — but of course, it cannot be proven using today’s scientific methods. It’s a very strong candidate if one is looking for a philosophical explanation, but in science it is still considered a metaphysical hypothesis, which it also is according to the philosophy of Absolute Existence.

What the philosophy of Absolute Existence points to is a coherent and profound metaphysical model for how what "Is" expresses itself as everything that "appears."

The Absolute Subject is the only starting point that cannot be doubted.

The philosophy of Absolute Existence provides an ontology that neither denies the real resistance of the physical world nor dismisses consciousness as an “illusion.” It simply places both where they belong: as two unique expressions of the one thing that fundamentally cannot be doubted - Pure, Undivided Existence.

An 'Intelligence' behind the phenomenon

Intelligence is about distinguishing important information from unimportant information. To imagine that there could be contradictions in a fundamental assumption is, just as it sounds, an imagination.
The possibility that contradictory forces could exist is illogical in an absolute assumption. Contradictions are a phenomenal concept and thus not something that can serve as a starting point.

Setting an 'intelligence' as an absolute starting point (which is often done in theological or teleological arguments about a creator or a cosmic consciousness) becomes a category mistake. It is confusing the phenomenal tool (intelligence) with the essential principle of the fundamental absolute condition. The faculty of perception does not lead to any permanent essential extinction, since dreamless deep sleep is not the end of the ongoing phenomenon.
At the absolute existential level there is no content to resist.
At the essential level there is also no real resistance, but the sequential change of states is experienced as resistance in the phenomenal operational reality where intelligence/sorting takes place.

Inside the Subject.

Within the framework of Absolute Philosophy of Existence, a "conception" is neither an independent, random thought nor a pure product of isolated biological brains. Everything we experience as shared networks or individual focus points are secondary manifestations (state changes) within this single, original, and absolute Prime Subject.

So, is it possible, as in the Absolute Philosophy of Existence, to assume that we are inside an Absolute Prime Subject that experiences itself in the form of many perspectives?

It is actually entirely possible to assume this, and it is also a philosophical model with a rich and ancient history.

In philosophy, this idea is often called idealistic monism or cosmopsychism. Instead of assuming that matter is fundamental and that consciousness somehow magically arises from the brain (materialism), you flip the perspective: consciousness is the primary foundation, and the physical world is how this consciousness appears "from the outside." There are several powerful ways to understand and phrase this assumption:

1. The modern version: Analytical idealism

Contemporary philosophers like Bernardo Kastrup describe the Absolute Primal Subject as a universal consciousness. We individual people then function as dissociative states (or "alters") within this single consciousness. Just like a person with dissociative identity disorder can have different personalities that don’t share memories with each other, the universal consciousness has split into billions of limited "points of experience" – you, me, animals, and plants.

2. The classical philosophical tracks

Advaita Vedanta (Eastern philosophy): Here, the absolute subject is called Brahman. The individual soul (Atman) is essentially identical to Brahman. The illusion (Maya) is what makes the single Subject experience itself as separate beings.

German Idealism: Philosophers like Schelling and Hegel talked about the Absolute as exploring itself and becoming conscious of itself through nature and humanity.

Spinoza: He believed that everything that exists is a single substance (God or Nature), and we are all expressions of this single whole.

Why is this assumption attractive? It solves the so-called "hard problem of consciousness." If matter is all that exists, it’s almost impossible to explain how dead, feeling-less matter can suddenly give rise to the inner experience of the color red or the pain of a scrape.

If you instead assume that a primordial subject is the foundation, you don’t have to explain how consciousness arises from nothing – it has always been there.

In short: Thinking that a Prime Subject expresses phenomenal reality in order to be able to experience any form of existence at all, and this from infinitely many unique perspectives, is not just a valid assumption, but one of the most robust alternatives to the prevailing materialistic worldview.

Just because phenomenal reality seems like a huge organic entity doesn’t make the Absolute condition a composite organism.

On gaining perspective in reflecting on what is happening in the experience:

Being able to get a perspective on an experience by thinking about what remains in the resonance of memory doesn’t mean you can get perspective on the ongoing experience directly.
You can’t step outside and view it from an outside perspective.

You can’t gain an outside perspective on an experience while it’s happening. What happens when you try is that you create a mental picture of how someone else might perceive the experience in what’s being experienced and question the judgment in the actions expressed in the experience.

When you try to get perspective on what’s being experienced, the focus shifts and moves to examining the situation from another perspective. That mental image replaces the ongoing experience.

The outside perspective in the moment becomes a mental projection that creates an inner picture of how a hypothetical outsider would perceive the situation.
This projection leads to the experience being questioned by your own judgment in the action and expression. Instead of a neutral 'helicopter perspective,' the experience easily ends up in a judgmental, uncertain loop where attention gets disrupted and actions get pushed down by the shift in focus.

"Resonance" or "the genuine perspective" requires an early or emotional distance that needs to settle in memory to be clearly observed.
The ongoing experience can only be participated in, but never at the same time, since both occur with a certain delay where the ongoing experience is constantly reflected and mapped against the ongoing experience in a sequential state-switching.

So, it's not possible to both experience something and simultaneously observe the experience from the outside, because the very attempt to do so changes and destroys the ongoing experience.
All research results are always influenced by the experience of the investigation itself.

This also means that if the experience of unity is genuine, the forms of experience that interact at the same time are affected, even if they are perceived separately.
There is nothing that is separate that isn't experience.
It would be like claiming that what is actually experienced is not an experience, no matter how mysterious the experience is.
An experience is therefore always incomprehensible if it has never been experienced and become ingrained as the memory of the experience. You can certainly hear about it and read about the experience and make a mental projection of it, but if someone hasn’t actually tried something in the experience itself, they can never truly understand what the experience means.

If the universe were just a reflection:

If the universe were just a reflection of a fundamentally unchanging absolute unity, then there would be no distinct, permanently existing forms in the universe. Everything in the universe would then only appear as phenomenal mirror forms experiencing a unity from within this unity.

If the unity is not an entity, it is not an object you can point to. It has no boundaries, no properties (since properties require something to be compared with), and no definition. Unity is like what philosophy calls non-dualistic ontology or the Daoist concept of Dao – it’s not a "god" or a "force," but the very condition that allows form to arise at all. The condition is the faculty of perception that makes all experiences possible.

Experiencing unity as coming from within does not mean that it’s not about a “being” or a “divinity” dividing itself. Instead, the universe is a dynamic experience where the center is the “origin” from which the experience happens.

Each defined form of experience is not part of an entity, but a localized focal point where experiences occur.

Since there is no underlying “entity” holding the forms together, the impermanence of the distinct forms becomes even more complete. There is no fixed form in individual things. All form becomes purely relational because the forms only exist in relation to each other, like ripples in an energy field.

So it’s not a monism where “everything is one and the same thing (entity),” but rather a radical non-dualism where the division between “the one experiencing” and “the one being experienced” completely disappears. There is only the experience of existence as unity.

The development of science and the idea of its quantum vacuum seen from an ancient philosophical perspective by turning the scientific paradigm upside down.

When science does what is called 'vacuum' quantified, one has objectified something that is invisible.

The objectification is due to the fact that science, 400 years ago, removed everything related to subjective consciousness from the picture of pure methodology itself.

What science did was to remove the qualitative aspects related to experiences. Experiences, after all, cannot be measured in any other way than through surveys, and science is not allowed to be based on opinions or what someone theoretically believes about reality.

Opinions and tastes change over time and can’t be part of the equation when you need to be sure that what you’re planning to build can withstand the forces it might be exposed to.
The material holding together and not collapsing can’t be based on a shaky ground of what someone imagines in their head.

So it was by prioritizing technological development over subjective opinions that technology gained the upper hand.
The subjective simply had to be taken out of the calculation for methodological reasons.

This has led to an amazing technological development that now lacks an overview because of computers and what is popularly called artificial intelligence.
The reason it’s called artificial intelligence is that computers lack the subjective experiencer who uses language to navigate the changes of existence and all its different tensions and relaxations. In other words, the one who also knows the difference between dreamless sleep and being awake in the directed reality.
So what would happen if a person who can think in several steps heard that science has concluded that visible reality jumps out of a quantified vacuum that lacks the subjective quality of experience? If this philosophical thinker got the idea of putting the subject back into the philosophical thought about the origin of experienced reality, what could that lead to?

First, the philosopher might imagine that a vacuum is not a quantified invisible objective vacuum, but instead that it is a quantified subjective vacuum.

When the same philosopher thinks a bit more or lets someone else continue the thought experiment, they might come up with the idea that the subject doesn't need to be a quantitative subject at all, but instead can be an absolute qualitative subject without any internal parts.
This Ur-subject could then be thought of as having a perceptive ability as its inherent nature. This would then be the essential part of the philosophy.
This essence would then be what has the ability to sense differences in tension and relaxation. In other words, what knows the difference between dreamless sleep and wakefulness in reality.
The philosophy would thus have three distinct levels in the chain of thought.

1 An Absolute Existence as a fundamental Ur-subject.

2 Its Essence, which is the ability to perceive changes in events.

3 The Phenomenon as an effect of the experienced sequential differences in mirror forms as the consciousness of reality.

Consciousness is a phenomenon. The universe is a phenomenon. The ability to perceive is not a phenomenon. It is the essence, the inherent nature of the Existential subject's Absolute Existence.

What science sees as a material vacuum is, in this paradigm, a 'subjective plenum' in an absolute fullness of perceptive ability that allows phenomena to emerge from their state changes.

A potential doesn’t need anyone to press the button.
There is only one direction from potential to realization in a constant loop.
There is no will or choice behind a potential.

A reflex is not primarily a reflection of an image in an external mirror.
It is a reaction to a stimulus, like a jerk, but not a mechanical jerk—rather an experience of the difference between receiving an impression and not receiving an impression. Differences arise in the pause.
The mirroring is not made up of anything.
The mirroring is an experience.
You don't experience absence but realize phenomenally that absence has been relevant in a delay. It’s a logically meaningful circular reasoning.