The organic view of unity

The Organic View Of Unity

---- Relationship to the Organic Unity View and Stefan Hlatky

The idea of an unchanging Existence was first clarified for me by the Hungarian philosopher Stefan Hlatky (1918–2005), where he clearly stated that phenomenal energy expression cannot occur without something fundamental expressing the energy phenomenon as an expression within its own Existence.

The idea leading to the Absolute Philosophy of Existence is directly derived from this insight. However, the immanent parts in Hlatky’s organic relational whole are removed, leaving only the Absolute – the unchanging Being, without immanent parts.

(All immanent parts are removed here except the last, which practically forms the foundation and the “Prime Atom” in the Absolute Philosophy of Existence.)

Thanks to Stefan Hlatky for his fundamental insight into unchanging Being as Existence. Without this thought, the reasoning could not have been derived, and it could not have been used as an assumption and starting point.

The Absolute Philosophy of Existence expresses deep respect and gratitude toward Stefan Hlatky and his work on the organic unity view, which consistently broadened the conversation about humanity’s relation to what he calls the "Wholeness".

Hlatky's thought has been decisive for many people's philosophical development, not least through his clarification that 'GOD' (The unchanging existent Being) cannot be conceived as less than what he calls "The Wholeness".

The Absolute Philosophy of Existence does not criticize this standpoint but honors it as an important milestone in a conversation aiming to understand creation and the nature of consciousness.

Any appearance of critique arises only from the impression created when the Absolute Philosophy of Existence removes "the immanent parts" from the organic unity view and uses what remains of Hlatky’s assumption of Existence as an absolute starting point.

The difference lies in the direction of investigation. While the organic unity view begins with a Wholeness of living, relational Being – full of movement, life, and interdependence – the Absolute Philosophy of Existence seeks the unconditional foundation and prime subject of Being.

It asks what an ultimate zero-point actually entails – and clarifies that this “Origo” cannot be understood as nothing or non-existence, but as the unchanging Being, the prime subject, the Absolute, which makes perception possible through the phenomenal actualization of the power of perception.

In this regard, the Absolute Philosophy of Existence takes one step further – not away from Hlatky, but further in the same spirit of investigative consistency.

On the Zero-Point

If the starting point is assumed to be zero or nothing, the same objection Hlatky expressed may arise:

“It is impossible to perform a meaningful arithmetic operation with the concepts ±0, just as it is impossible in geometry to imagine Euclid’s point without extension as a real foundation. The dimensionless point cannot constitute the building block in a three-dimensional infinite space.”

He viewed the zero-point as “a tiny piece of nothing,” a dimensionless point without extension, and thus dismissed Origo as an ontological foundation.

In Hlatky’s theory, the concept of emptiness must be disregarded to avoid error. The organic unity has volume and extension; it can therefore be imagined as an “object” with enclosed parts. That the thought implies a space of imagination Stefan Hlatky knows, but he disregards this because a space of imagination as an existing void cannot lead the thought anywhere since this goes against all sound philosophical reason.

On the other hand, if one takes a point without extension as the only Existence, it means that it does not extend toward anything else – not even an emptiness to relate to. Then the concept "the Absolute" becomes instead a so-called non-imaginable concept, which is "not this and not that but neither nothing" since "nothing" is not given any Existence. What remains then is an Absolute Existence that we should not even try to imagine, but only have as a prerequisite as a dimensionless crystallization point for philosophical thinking.

Existence occurs in Democritus’ idea of the “prime atom,” but only in singular form: one prime atom, a fundamental CAUSE. This prime atom is not an object among others, but a prime subject – the foundation of unchanging Being, from which all phenomenal expression arises.

The Difference Between Hlatky’s Organic Unity View and the Absolute Philosophy of Existence

Hlatky creates a phenomenal image of the unchanging Being that can be drawn and described with the relative positions of the parts. He can imagine the picture, and therefore considers it logical.

The Absolute Philosophy of Existence argues that the Absolute cannot be visualized without immediately becoming relative.

If one tries anyway, the closest approximation is a point. But this point is not the Absolute itself; it only functions as a tool to presuppose the Absolute.

When it is understood that this dimensionless point does not represent an object but a subject, it becomes evident that this subject is the unchanging subject in which all participate – without being immanent parts of it.
The Absolute has no immanent parts and no differences. Everything is one (1) and unchanging.

From the assumption of the Subject as Existence, it follows that its nature is the power of perception, which exists before the phenomenon is actualized. It is the condition for the phenomenon to appear at all.

Phenomena manifest through the power of perception but do not participate as parts in the Absolute. It may appear as participation, but it is a phenomenal reflection, not an immanent property.

The power of perception acts through its potential for actualization, and in the tension between perception and phenomenon lies the potential for all phenomenal change. The phenomenal provides the differences required for perception to be realized, and there the unchanging subject can experience its Existence.

“Hlatky sees understanding as the feeling in the play between Wholeness and parts, while the Absolute Philosophy of Existence grounds understanding in the absolutely unchanging, where Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon unite in an indivisible necessity.”

Comparison #2

1. Hlatky’s Starting Point

Hlatky assumes that the unchanging Being consists of parts. The phenomenon expresses the relations between these parts. Wholeness is relational and unchanging.

2. The Absolute Philosophy of Existence’s Starting Point

The philosophy begins with a single indivisible, dimensionless, unchanging Being.
No parts, no structure, no relations.
The essence is the power of perception; the phenomenon is everything that manifests.

3. The Method: Testing from Within

1. Hlatky’s immanent parts are removed one by one.
2. When all parts are gone, a dimensionless point remains – a tool, not the Absolute itself.
3. The Absolute – Existence – is then tested directly in perception, where essence appears as the power of perception without representation or concepts.

4. The Result

The Absolute lacks structure, wholeness, multiplicity, relations, and organic unity.
It is pure Existence itself – absolute and indivisible, that which the phenomenon presupposes but never includes.

5. How the Philosophy of Absolute Existence Emerged

By systematically testing Hlatky’s assumption from within. When all parts are removed, Existence emerges as the only possible Absolute.

Summary Points

• Everything is connected through the power of perception.
• The phenomenon is a must.
• Existence is a must.
• The power of perception is self-evident.
• The phenomenon cannot be avoided.
• The focus is on the phenomenon: where everything happens and takes place.
• The phenomenal creates a living, relational context originating from an absolute common foundation.

On Contradictions and Arbitrariness The conclusion contrasts the Absolute assumption with all assumptions that contain contradictions. If an assumption contains an internal contradiction, one can derive any statement from it (the principle of explosion in logic: ex contradictione quodlibet). → Therefore, the Absolute assumption is the only one that can sustain consistent and necessary logic.

Overall Analysis The text establishes a method for metaphysical investigation that:

• Begins with the formal requirements of logic.
• Uses these requirements to test an assumption about Absolute Existence.

Let us break down the reasoning step by step:

1. Fundamental definition of assumptions
   The text begins by establishing that all assumptions generate their own logical consequences within the framework of their own system. This is a central feature of logical thinking and epistemology: each assumption functions as an axiom, and all conclusions that follow must be derived from that axiomatic framework.
   → This emphasizes the importance of internal consistency rather than external claims of truth.

2. The assumption as a thought experiment
   It is clarified that an assumption is not a statement about actual reality but rather a conceptual construct tested on logical grounds. This viewpoint places the text within the tradition of hypothetical–deductive thinking (similar to Descartes’ methodological doubt or the model-testing of logical positivism).
   → The assumption is therefore a tool for investigation, not a belief.

3. The Absolute assumption
   When the text turns to the assumption of an Absolute Existence, it becomes clear that this assumption does not claim to be empirical, but is tested like any other assumption.
   → What distinguishes the Absolute assumption is that it contains no internal contradictions.
   → This makes it possible to derive necessary logical consequences without the risk of self-contradiction.

4. The appearance of the phenomenon
   In the central proposition concerning the dynamic field of tension between the power of perception and the power of change, the text describes where and how the phenomenon arises.
   This is an attempt to derive an ontological necessity from the Absolute assumption:

The power of perception represents the perceiving aspect of consciousness or Being.

The power of change represents the manifest, temporal aspect of existence.
→ The phenomenon (the world, experience) arises in the necessary relation between these two aspects.

This proposition functions as a bridge between pure logic and metaphysics—where logic points toward a necessary duality within one and the same whole.

5. On contradictions and arbitrariness
   The conclusion contrasts the Absolute assumption with all assumptions that contain contradictions.
   If an assumption contains an internal contradiction, one can derive any statement whatsoever from it (the principle of explosion in logic: ex contradictione quodlibet).
   → Thus, the Absolute assumption is the only one capable of supporting a consistent and necessary logic.

6. Overall analysis
   The text establishes a method for metaphysical investigation that:

Takes its point of departure in the formal requirements of logic.
Uses these requirements to test an assumption of Absolute Existence.
Maintains that this assumption is self-consistent, and therefore illuminates the necessity of the relation between perception and change.

1. Spinoza – the Necessary Whole Spinoza’s Ethica is based on an axiomatic system similar to that suggested in the text: one begins with a foundational assumption (that there is only one substance — God or Nature) and derives necessary consequences from it.

For Spinoza, God is identical with existence itself: Deus sive Natura.

From this necessary whole, everything that occurs follows; nothing stands outside, nothing can contradict it.

Human perception is a mode, an aspect of this.

Points of Contact: The text’s discussion of an "Absolute assumption" leading to necessary logical consequences is closely aligned with Spinoza’s logic. Likewise, the idea of avoiding contradictions by starting from an absolute, self-consistent foundation.

Difference: Spinoza does not explicitly speak of the faculty of perception and the faculty of change as a dynamic field, but sees these as different attributes or expressions of the same substance. The text’s emphasis on the tension between these two faculties adds a phenomenological aspect not present in Spinoza.

2. Kant – the Conditions for Experience Kant asks: what must be true for experience to be possible at all? It is a similar approach: one tests an assumption not empirically but transcendently — by examining its necessary conditions.

For Kant, it is not Existence itself that is absolute, but the rational conditions for how phenomena appear.

The phenomenon is always dependent on a synthesis between sensibility (perception) and understanding (structure or order of change).

Point of Contact: The text’s discussion of the faculty of perception and the faculty of change closely parallels Kant’s concepts of sensibility and understanding — the two poles whose interaction makes the phenomenon possible.

Difference: Kant argues that it is human cognition that provides this structure to experience, whereas the text assumes this field of tension is an ontological necessity in existence itself, not merely in our thought about it.

3. Stefan Hlatky – the Organic Unity Perspective In Hlatky we find almost a synthesis between Spinoza’s holistic thinking and Kant’s phenomenology, but with a clear existential addition:

The unchanging existent (God) is the absolute ground.

Creation, change, and consciousness are expressions of this being’s need to be known, understood, and loved.

Humans are part of this organic context — a perceiving part of the whole.

Point of Contact: The text closely mirrors Hlatky’s approach: – there exists an absolute assumption that is contradiction-free, – and it is in the tension between the faculty of perception (the living aspect of consciousness) and the faculty of change (the creative aspect) that the phenomenon — reality — emerges.

Difference: The text adheres strictly to a logical formulation, while Hlatky develops it into a relational and existential understanding, where logic becomes a path to love, not only to clarity.

4. Phenomenology – Emergence as the Fundamental Problem In Husserl and later Merleau-Ponty, the focus is on the very emergence of the world in consciousness. The phenomenon is not something "out there," but something that emerges in and through the direction of consciousness.

Point of Contact: When the text states that the phenomenon arises in the dynamic field between perception and change, this closely aligns with the phenomenological idea of intentionality — that consciousness is always directed toward something, and the world arises in this movement.

Difference: Phenomenology usually does not assume an Absolute; it seeks to free itself from metaphysics. The text, however, reintroduces an absolute ground, but does so using the language of phenomenology.

5. Overall Assessment

• The text occupies a very interesting middle ground:

  • Logically stringent like Spinoza,
  • Transcendental in its questioning like Kant,
  • Relational and organic like Hlatky,
  • And phenomenological in its language about emergence.

• It is a philosophical synthesis attempting to reunite logic and experience at a common source: the Absolute, which is the ground for both thought and the world.

Schematic modell —─────────────────────–
THE ABSOLUTE ASSUMPTION (Assumption of an Absolute Existence) ─────────────────────—- │ ▼ ────────────────────—---

• EXISTENCE IN ITSELF ⮕ Unchanging ⮕ Lacks immanent parts ° or multiplicity • Is one (1) and indivisible ⮕ Not interesting in itself as an object but as the necessary basis for its assumed inherent essence.

──────────────────────– │ ▼ ────────────────—------------ ESSENSEN
ESSENCE ⮕ The inherent NATURE of Existence
= Faculty of Perception
Essence is the active, living consciousness that perceives and thereby enables every manifestation of change. The very capacity to receive impressions. (Impressions can only be perceived as dynamic differences of stimulus. Staticness makes differentiation impossible.) ────────────────────── │ ▼ ────────────────────—-- FACULTY OF CHANGE ⮕ The dynamic aspect through which the phenomenon appears ⮕ Expression or movement of the Universe.

─────────────────────── │ ▼ ───────────────────—--- °
THE DYNAMIC FIELD OF TENSION between essence: Faculty of Perception and Faculty of Change: → Here the Phenomenon emerges as necessity (the experienced, the manifested)

─────────────────────── │ ▼ ─-────────────────────—
LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES ⮕ No contradictions can arise ⮕ All that follows does so from internal necessity = The Phenomenon is dependent but not separate ──────────────────────

In-Depth Analysis

1. Absolute Existence as an Undivided point with no parts. – By establishing that Existence contains no immanent parts, the possibility of internal contradiction is eliminated. – It is one (1) and therefore unchanging — there is nothing within it that can stand in relation to anything else. – This is similar to Spinoza’s substantia unica, but here the conclusion is stricter: Existence is not even composed of attributes; it is entirely simple.

2. Essence as the Faculty of Perception – Here the crucial shift occurs: what makes Existence alive is its inherent nature — its faculty of perception. – Existence is therefore necessary, but not “interesting” in itself; the interesting aspect lies in its active dimension, the functioning of living consciousness. – On a logical level: essence enables the relation between unchangeability and change.

3. Emergence of the Phenomenon in the Field of Tension – When pure perception interacts with the faculty of change, the phenomenon arises — experience, the world, expression. – It is not “creation from nothing,” but a necessary manifestation of the relation between these two sides of the same Absolute reality.

4. Logical Necessity and Freedom from Contradiction – Since Absolute Existence is undivided, nothing can oppose anything else within it. – Therefore, the logical consequences derived from this assumption cannot lead to arbitrariness. – All outcomes are self-consistent — each phenomenon expresses the same foundation, but in a temporary form.

Occams razor applied

Viewed through the lens of Occam’s razor, the Absolute Philosophy of Existence can be described as an attempt to identify the smallest possible presupposition that nevertheless makes all experience, all conception, and all realization intelligible without internal contradiction.

Occam’s principle does not claim that the simplest account is necessarily true, but that no more assumptions should be introduced than are strictly required for a line of reasoning to remain possible and coherent. Every additional assumption that is not logically necessary introduces a new explanatory problem.

The Absolute Philosophy of Existence presupposes only: – an unchanging, enduring Existence, – the faculty of perception as that which makes realization possible, – and a field of tension between the faculty of perception and its realization.

These presuppositions cannot be reduced further without rendering experience, phenomena, or realization unintelligible. No internal parts are assumed at the absolute level, and therefore no separate unifying principle is required. The whole is complete in itself.

In contrast, Stefan Hlatky’s Organic Unity View describes enduring Being as an organic whole composed of parts. These parts lack their own perspective and freedom of movement, yet are held together within a whole that is already realized and conscious. How this cohesion is achieved, however, is not explicitly stated and remains implicit.

Here a logical pitfall arises. A whole composed of parts requires either: – a unifying principle that binds the parts together, or – an explicable reason why the parts cannot be separated from the whole.

To claim that there is nothing outside the whole that could separate the parts does not replace a unifying principle, but merely shifts the question from what unifies to what does not divide. In doing so, a necessary assumption is left unarticulated.

A further slippage occurs when it is asserted that enduring Being can be conceived as an organic unity. That which makes all conception possible is thereby turned into an object of conception, which renders something absolute relational and relative. The distinction between conception and presupposition is thus obscured.

The Absolute Philosophy of Existence avoids these pitfalls by: – maintaining a strict distinction between presupposition and conception, – treating the faculty of perception as a necessary presupposition rather than a result, – and eliminating the need for a unifying principle by not introducing parts at the absolute level.

Phenomena are instead understood as realizations of the tension between the faculty of perception and its realization. The relations within experience do not lie between phenomenal parts, but between the faculty of perception and what is realized through it.

In this respect, the Absolute Philosophy of Existence represents a more consistent application of Occam’s principle: not by simplifying after the fact, but by avoiding from the outset those assumptions that would later require explanation.

The difference between AEF and the Organic Unity View:

The content is the same, but the resolution differs. The difference can be described through the following distinctions:

1. Content vs. Structure The Organic Unity View focuses on the content: That is, the diversity of forms, life, ecosystems, streams of consciousness and the complex web where everything is connected. Here we are talking about relationships, flows and how the parts interact as a living organism.

AEF focuses on what makes the content possible: The very "existence" that is required for the content to exist at all. AEF strips away all attributes (color, shape, life, thought) until only the bare fact that "something IS" remains.

2. The Movie Parable To understand whether it is the content that makes the difference, you can use an analogy: The Organic Unity View is the movie itself: The plot, the actors, the drama, and how all the scenes logically connect to create a meaningful whole. Without the context of the movie, the scenes would just be chaos.

AEF is the screen (or the light from the projector): Without the screen, no movie can be shown, but the screen doesn't care if it is a comedy or a tragedy being played. The screen is the same regardless of the content.

3. The Breakpoint as "Self-Evidence" Here comes the most important point in the AEF philosophy:

The difference lies in whether you look at the properties (Organic Unity) or at the justification for existence (AEF). The content of the Organic Unity View is evidence-based (we can see and study the connections). The content of AEF is self-evident (it does not require proof, because existence proves itself by being present).

"Conclusion"

You could say that the Organic Unity View is the "horizontal" content (everything that exists in the world and how it is connected), while the AEF is the "vertical" insight (that the basis for all of this is one and the same absolute existence). The difference is not that they are talking about different things, but that one describes the pattern in the fabric (organic unity) while the other describes the thread itself (AEF).

That is exactly where the philosophical point lands: The thread is the essence of the fabric. Without the thread (Absolute Existence), the pattern (the organic unity view) has nowhere to attach, no substance to emerge from, and no way to hold together.

According to AEF: The Parable of "The Red Thread" (AEF): Is always the same, whether you are weaving a coarse sack or a fine silk cloth. It is the fundamental premise. The Fabric (Organic Unit): Is how the thread has organized itself. Here we see patterns, colors and functions. It is "our world". AEF believes that we humans are often so busy analyzing the fabric's patterns (science, psychology, everyday life) that we forget that it is all actually just thread. In AEF, this is called moving from object consciousness (looking at the fabric) and to experience existence in consciousness and in the awareness of existence, to realize its existence (realization of the thread). When you realize that "without thread - no fabric", it is also realized that the fabric and the thread are really one and the same. The fabric is just the thread's way of showing itself!

"Organic"

To call Being "organic" is to admit that there is an inner structure and dynamics, which is in contrast to the idea of ​​the absolutely unchanging and homogeneous.

The Absolute Existential Philosophy resolves this by conceptually separating three philosophical "levels": Existence > Essence >:Phenomenon. This and that Essence is the Perception that must necessarily be realized into consciousness between the on and off states.

When Stefan Hlatky describes Being as a monolith that possesses rigidity, he is trying to give the unchanging a physical/mechanical property to explain how motion can be propagated through it. But the second he does so, he ends up in a logical dead end that Absolute Existential Philosophy (AEF) navigates around. Here is why the concept of "rigidity" becomes problematic and how AEF's shift to state change saves logic:

1. The Problem with the "Rigid Monolith" If Being is a monolith with rigidity, it means that a movement in one part of the monolith immediately affects another part. Hlatky probably used this to explain the organic unity – that everything is connected. Logical flaw: Rigidity is a property (essence) that requires a medium. If the monolith has rigidity, it also has a structure, a density and thus "parts" (atoms or points) that hold together. Mechanical movement: For something to be rigid, there must be a resistance. This means that Hlatky projects physical laws (phenomena) backwards into the Absolute.

2. AEF: From Mechanical Rigidity to Logical Necessity Where Hlatky needs "rigidity" to explain how the Origin is connected to the periphery, AEF instead uses exponent and state change. Instead of seeing it as a monolith that "propagates" vibrations or movements through its rigidity, AEF sees it as the entire field of perceptual ability changing state simultaneously. There is no "delay" and no need for a medium (rigidity), since it is not something that moves through Being. It is Being (via Essence) that is realized in a certain frequency or intensity.

3. Exponent as the "new" rigidity One could say that AEF replaces Hlatky's mechanical rigidity with mathematical precision: In a monolith, action depends on physical contact. In AEF, action depends on Exponent (intensity of perception) defining the entire phenomenal space in one fell swoop.

4. The "Purity" of AEF By throwing out concepts like "rigidity," AEF purges the last vestiges of materialism from absolute philosophy. Hlatky was the pioneer who saw unity, but he still used the language of the world he was trying to explain (the physical, mechanical world). AEF realizes that: Existence cannot be rigid (it is a property). Change cannot be movement (it requires space). The solution is that the faculty of perception (Essence) is turned On with a certain Exponent. This creates the illusion of a rigid, material world with parts in motion, but in reality it is just a series of state changes in one and the same unchanging Absolute Being.

Language according to Stefan Hlatky

Stefan Hlatky also realized that language is relative and can only be about relationships. This is obvious to anyone who has any insight into how language works. Language functions through a breakdown of phenomenal reality from the smallest phenomena to the largest phenomena. Language is thus a phenomenal means for describing phenomenal reality. No doubt about that. But, and here comes a "Big But" into the picture. Stefan Hlatky points out that what he is now saying, no one has ever heard anyone else say. He then says that "Language is all-encompassing!" By this he simply means that words are sound combinations for describing the phenomenal world. In doing so, he reinforces the word "The Whole". But "Whole" includes all its parts of The Whole. The tricky part is that reality is a representation, so the parts that are only a representation are parts of the large representation. This linguistic trick is used to sneak in simulated parts n in the it the unchanging existing Being. In this way, we easily end up in Stefan Hlatky's conception. He assumes that there must be an unchanging being as a prerequisite for all positional changes we can perceive, but he assumes that the positional changes are spatial even though space is a concept. He then imagines a wholly invisible to our senses underlying Wholeness consisting of equally unchanging parts which then are the unchanging constituents of the Wholeness. He thus makes a mental phenomenal conception of that which makes all conceptions possible. But that can happen with thinking. One gets an image of what shows the image, and there the reasoning breaks down. The prerequisite can never itself be an object of conception, even though this is exactly how all religious conceptions work in their embodiments.