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 describes 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 world 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).

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.

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.

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 exactly what you describe: 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.

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.