Creation myths

Creation myths have historically looked somewhat different from culture to culture. Most of them deal with some form of natural dynamic tension between “Yin and Yang” as two states that interact so that the world emerges from a 'Dynamo-Hum' (Dinah-Moe Humm?) that crystallizes into an echo in the form of the universe. 'We do not know where it comes from. We then wonder whether what happens right “here” in the experience could come from somewhere “out there”?'

Myth and history are inextricably intertwined in the documentation of written civilizations. Origin myths have often been used in similar ways, across many different cultures, to create a sense of shared status.

Creation myths have historically looked a little different from culture to culture. Oral traditions have been told around the campfire after the workday is over and then sorted in terms of the dream's effect on the dreamer. There they are placed in a logical sequence that may seem more understandable during the dream state than in the waking state. Stories of clairvoyance in dreams are experienced as visions of reality from a new angle that has never been noticed before. That angle then has a decisive influence on future decision-making.

Clairvoyance can also be experienced in the waking state ans the same experience can arise that gives a completely new view of reality from a different angle.

Creation myths contain, among other things, a primordial water that is divided but which rather turns into watered-down conclusions that lead to a blind short circuit in the belief in the storyteller. There are stories of a GOD who takes clay and molds man and inflates him like a living doll with the breath he exhales.

When the mighty Aztec Empire was destroyed, this is usually linked to Aztec myths of the time that predicted the arrival of bearded white strangers with godlike attributes. Similar myths are said to have existed among the Incas

There are stories that man came to Earth from somewhere else and fell to Earth as an infuscated seed from the sky, or that aliens came to Earth in a vehicle that landed in the Andes, or whether it was something different in experience that was behind what shaped the creation myth.

Myths can thus reinforce history, but at the same time history can become part of the raw material for myth-making. Often, credibility is stretched to the limits of fairy tales. The Nazca Lines are an example of how these can be interpreted.

These stories are told in the next sequence and are then questioned by the audience with different types of questions, such as:

“Did a vehicle come from somewhere out there? Was it round, and did it have a motor, or was it something different? Did a vehicle fly along the mountains and find a place to park itself? Or did someone build a place or leave a space for such a thing to land?” Just to land in the Andes??? If these questions are determined to be true, they end up with the questions short circuit; “YES”!

The conclusion is that “that's how it happened” and this affects the group's opinions of reality. !

One can see signs of interpretation in the form of the enormous carvings on the mountain plateaus of the Andes that the indigenous people made when the myths were a living everyday life on the Inca Roads they traveled.

What can you believe? Did the Indians first carve up the calculations, then the plateau?

Maybe someone else thought it was a "crow's nest" that fell and became human upon impact? A booger bear?

If enough people say that this is true, it can be made into a truth that short-circuits further questions on the subject.

What it felt like to walk these Inca-roads when the myths lived their daily lives – that may remain hidden in the shadows of history. Maybe it felt just like walking to the beat of a cosmic marimba solo where every step carried a deeper meaning. That is where history ends and poetry and myth begin.

https://open.spotify.com/track/1OLT5z6hQdZuNdljDPhWbh?si=qPNl4iNmSX6Y16tkkvc1ZQ

("When you hear the guitar solo from Helsinki in September 1974 that occurs in a break 2 minutes into the song, you don't experience any problems relating to the phenomenal resistance of reality. It is then just a joy over Ruth Underwood's phenomenal performance on the marimba! "On Ruth, on Ruth, that's Ruth!" And that music is worth much over the phony forty-dollar bill you have in your hand!”)

Assumptions that an unchanging Existence is the ontological foundation for all ongoing dynamics have likely been made previously in history in various cultures, but have probably resulted in mythological anthropomorphic conceptions whose purpose was to make the intangible graspable and to give the cosmic drama human motives (will, wrath, love). These conceptions have led to conclusions that were subsequently reinforced and elaborated in a multitude of vivid colors with personifications of the interaction of the absolute primal source. These have ranged from white-bearded men to spider-women, but also as an organism that invisibly and spatially lies behind the visible reality as an organic unit in which we furthermore remain unchanged, like raisins in a cake or as living cells in a living body (even if this phenomenal conception only had a short and limited spread as the 'organic unit perspective').

Now we have instead obtained a myth that everything springs from a dimensionless point that has blown up in an exploding expansion, which spirally rises to what we today see as a container that continues to expand outward into all infinity.

That view, together with the lingering Copernican view, has made us only believe in what can be weighed and measured, instead of in the reflection of the absolute in interaction. Our view of reality has thus shifted, yet still stuck in the same mental trap as the conceptions.

From Mythology to Mathematical Mythology (Modern Cosmology) Big Bang theory in modern times has replaced the old gods with a new type of story: a dimensionless point that is blown up and rises to an expanding container.

It has the same effects on the human consciousness as the old myths. It becomes a linear creation story where we visualize the universe "from the outside" – like a bubble growing in an infinite void, which philosophically is a paradox because The universe by definition is everything that exists. The Copernican materialistically measurable prison: The Copernican revolution moved us from the center, which was necessary for science, but the effect became a radical materialism: We have developed a blind spot where we have reduced reality to the purely quantifiable. If it cannot be weighed, measured, or recorded by an instrument, we do not count it. This leads to us missing the reflection of the absolute in interaction. If we stop staring ourselves blind at individual "things" that are to be weighed and measured, we can instead begin to see that the dynamic – the relationships, the architecture, and the ongoing interplay – is the way in which the unchanging ground reveals itself.

Consciousness and Existence:
Schools within today's quantum physics are called non-dualism and emphasize relationalism.
The world is not seen here as a collection of dead objects in a growing box; in this school, it is considered a living, coherent reflection of one and the same fundamental coherent existence.

But by dismissing the absolute as an impossible notion, “non-duality” also gets stuck in the tyranny of measurement when it wants to lock the foundation into a conclusion. Conclusions lock thinking instead of opening the power of thought toward reality.

We have become rich in data but unwise when it is to be used in reality.
We have stopped thinking about the consequences.
Reality is no myth, but if we mythologize reality, then we all become mythomaniacs, and it becomes a competition over who will become the greatest mythomaniac.

The Absolute Existence Philosophy (AEP) fundamentally differs from how we usually approach philosophical or scientific problems.
AEP challenges to let go of the ready-made answers and instead test a specific, radical assumption. The core of the assumption: From "What" to "To". It is not about learning a new dogma or measuring a new particle. It is simply about shifting focus: The philosophy is based on an indivisible, immutable, and absolute being – Origo – which is not dependent on anything else.

The Role of the Phenomenon: The ongoing dynamics (everything we see, weigh, measure, and experience) are not independent "things," but a phenomenal solution to an essential question. It is through perception and interaction that the Absolute is realized and reflected.

The problem with our usual thinking is that we are so programmed by the materialistic and historical tradition that we automatically treat "absolute existence" as a concept among others. We place it into historical categories (such as classical non-duality or theism). We lock it in as finished, static knowledge instead of holding it as a living assumption to test.

When we do this, we mistake Absolute Existence as ontologically completed and isolated. Then we do not understand the relationship between the absolute and the ongoing as mutual.

The invitation to test the assumption is then about using self-evidence but without external proof (evidence). To examine through logical consequence whether it is possible to imagine an architecture where the faculty of perception

By logically examining whether it is possible to conceive of an architecture where the faculty of perception is not something that "arose" from matter after the Big Bang, but is essentially constitutive of our Absolute Existence, this gives a completely different view of reality. AEP offers a thought-provoking journey that requires one to set aside measuring instruments and phenomenal glasses for a moment and instead examine the very foundation on which the instruments rest. AEF cannot make the decision for you to test the assumption, but only present the offer. If one accepts that challenge, it results in stepping into the assumption, and in doing so, one simultaneously steps into the reality we in fact are already an ongoing effect of.

Apoptosis offers a new perspective on death:

Without "death" – no Life.
Death is not the opposite of life, but its prerequisite. (Apoptosis)
Death is not a failure, but a necessity.
If no one died, no one could be born, and then the dynamic interplay of nature would cease. Every day, billions of cells in the body die to make room for new, healthy cells. Death is the body's way of keeping itself young and functional. When apoptosis stops working, we often get cancer. Cancer cells are biological rebels who have forgotten how to die, and their immortality paradoxically becomes the death of the whole organism.
Life is not a line that ends with death, but a circle where death and birth constantly balance on a knife’s edge. Nature's greatest artwork is to use decay to create architecture. Reality can probably only be perceived as the sensation of differences from multiple perspectives of experience.

The condition for reality should not be able to be a static, objective monolith, only assumed to be the dynamic subjective interplay of the absolute condition. Then one could assume that reality is a dynamic composition that arises in the meeting between different perspectives.

In summary: If reality is a composition that arises in the meeting, it means that reality is not a noun (a thing), but a verb (an ongoing process). We are not just passive spectators looking at a finished scene; we are co-composers. We see reality through our senses in a dynamic projection. When we as subjects ("phenomenal angles") look out, it is probably the Absolute looking at itself through a limited lens. We experience "angles" of reality, but what we really experience in the depth of each experience is a reflection of Being itself. This is classical metaphysics – (what we experience) and constancy (what is).

Immanuel Kant argued that we can only experience the world as phenomena (as it appears to our senses and our intellect). But behind these phenomena there must be a noumenon – the Thing in itself. Phenomenal angles of perception receive impressions from this Absolute, without actually being directed at it, as if each subjective perspective is a compass needle originating from the same magnetic node: the Absolute has existed. If it is so that we experience reality through the unchanging Absolute, it means that the dualism between subject and object is actually an illusion. The dynamic interplay is not two separate things meeting, but the Absolute moving between two simple states. One on (1) and one off (0). In this philosophical-level consideration, death is not an interruption of life, but its engine. Nature is not a collection of static things (nouns), but an ongoing stream of transformations (verbs). Our view of death thus rests on the same cosmic misunderstanding as human experience of being separate from the universe (metaphysics). We have forgotten that death and life are merely interactions in one and the same dynamic process, which is the driving force of Absolute Existence.

Ontology and Metaphysics

In philosophy, we are here in the borderland between ontology (the study of what exists) and metaphysics or process philosophy (the study of what is happening). Here is a quick guide to how some of history's sharpest minds have tried to tie it all together:

1. Process philosophy: Everything that exists is just a temporary stop in what is happening. What if things do not "exist" in fixed form at all? The philosopher Heraclitus famously said that one can never step into the same river twice. The idea: The river is not a static thing; it is an ongoing process of flowing water. The answer: What is happening is primary. What exists is just temporary eddies in a torrent of constant change.

2. Substance philosophy: What is happening is just surface – what exists is eternal. In sharp contrast to Heraclitus, we find Parmenides and later Plato. The idea: If something is changing all the time, how can we even st If something is constantly changing, how can we even know what it is? Plato argued that there must be a higher, perfect world of ideas (that which truly exists). The answer: What goes on around us in everyday life is just shadows and noise. What actually exists is stable, eternal, and logical.

3. Phenomenology: (with thinkers like Edmund Husserl and Maurice Merleau-Ponty). The idea: We can never isolate "what exists" from our own consciousness. The world comes into being in the very moment we experience it. The answer: What is happening is the flow of experiences, thoughts, and sensory impressions. What is experienced are the "phenomena" that appear to us. The two are completely inseparable. A modern perspective: If we look to modern physics, philosophy and science meet. A chair seems to merely exist (static), but on a subatomic level, a high-frequency intense change of states is taking place. What appears is therefore only the result of nature's dynamic state changes that operate in the forms of one single large phenomenon called the Universe.

So instead of an explosion of a lump of matter, perhaps we are dealing with an intense exposure? The world may not stretch outward – it is perhaps an internal curvature.
It may not even have truly left the Absolute Existence.
The motion of curvature may create the illusion of a journey – a separation, a creation, a world full of billions of different things and beings. Perhaps the curvature at every microscopic point turns directly back to its origin, so that nothing has ever stepped outside the foundation of Absolute Existence.

This assumption implies that the physical reality we see through our eyes would be something 'other' than the Absolute Existence. Matter, light, and energy would not be by-products; in that case, it would be the Absolute Existence's own infinite frequency which, by bending back, experiences itself as a world. The illusion would then not be that the world does not exist – the illusion would be that it has left its origin. This is what is pointed to in the Öserländsk thought of 'neti neti' or in the Western 'apophaticism.' All that remains then is the concept-free pointing towards that which cannot be rejected, since there is nothing other than the Absolute Existence's experience of being.

Catch-22

It is a classic "Catch-22 paradox" to even try to talk or write about what precedes all thinking, as it risks locking thought into conclusions instead of opening it up.

Thus, it is not possible to make "a geometric abstraction" of "Absolute Existence," so absolutely do not make any representations of "the unchanging Being." The only thing that works is to just be still in "absolute existence" and not activate the brain's high-performance graphics card, because that results in a "Catch-22"!

By mentioning the unmentionable, the thinking machinery starts up and tries to grasp what precedes thought with a mental image in the mind of the one who hears the concept. The same goes for the concepts of "Absolute Existence" and "dimensionless point." These are merely "signposts" that "point" toward what must necessarily be assumed as the prerequisite for phenomenal reality. Absolute Existence cannot be communicated in any other way than indirectly, as Absolute Existence is immediately direct. All consciousness therefore occurs with a certain delay in the form of dynamic alternating interaction with the experience of what is experienced. A 'modulation' of the ability to perceive, so to speak.

As soon as a word is spoken, it acquires a phenomenal meaning.
As soon as knowledge is involved in a reasoning, it is about how one thing is connected to another. Language completely collapses if there is only "one thing" but not "the other."
Therefore, it is impossible to imagine "Being" as an object "from outside," and thus that thought must be abandoned immediately. (That thought is not on the map, as they say.)
Everything that can be said with words concerns the phenomenon and nothing else, for therein everything relative takes place, and the entire language is also a phenomenal means for all that is relative.
What is then not relative in itself is what must express the phenomenon.
If we assume that it is the "faculty of perception" that experiences the phenomenal, then it is impossible to "talk away" the faculty of perception, for it is the condition for even attempting to "talk it away."

And then it is also obvious that an ability cannot exist without a foundation in something unchanging that it out of pure necessity must be an inherent nature of. But this “subject” we cannot and should not imagine either, for it is these ontological conditions we must simply start from due to our own experience of perceiving existence through phenomena. But if we are now forced under threat to make a descriptive analogy, that analogy occurs in the form of something you probably already have as an “image” in your minds, and that is the dimensionless singularity with an infinite density that contains all the imagined content that today presents itself to us as the image of the universe.

This analogy might at best lead the thought somewhat in the right direction. The idea is then that everything could remain inside this dimensionless black hole, whose supposed perceptive ability can then emerge as exposed light reflected in intense cluster packages of information that the perceptive ability experiences through these very cluster packages. The idea is then that what phenomenally occurs is that all bodies function as temporary sequential receivers and, due to perceptive ability, experience phenomenal modulation. Being should therefore be able to experience itself in this way, for in Being everything that exists should be one and undivided. The faculty of perception then experiences only through the Phenomenon, which is then the only conception that can be experienced. What is impossible is to form a conception of something 'dimensionless'. All conception is based solely on dimensions. In his Organic Unit View, Stefan Hlatky also formed a conception of Being, but this is not done in the Absolute existential philosophy. There the recommendation is clear: for the sake of 'Being', do not make any representation of 'Being'.

“Being” cannot have any properties, no boundaries, no dimensions. It cannot be imagined because thought requires geometry (here/there, then/now, form/void). Since “Being” should not be able to experience anything other than “phenomenal difference,” an “overexposure” of its inherent faculty of perception would immediately create clusters of information where dimensions arise in the delay where light is refracted and bent and can be perceived as objects. The bodies and senses then function as prisms or sequential radio receivers in this “spacetime” where Being experiences the “phenomenon.” Trying then to make oneself an idea of “Being” is like trying to illuminate the sun with a flashlight, or trying to light a burning fire, or asking a camera to take a photo of its own lens from the inside.

When the philosopher Stefan Hlatky tried to organize and build a model of Being, he, in the very same moment, reduced “Being” to a phenomenon. It was a very intelligent attempt that gave phenomenal content and dimensions to something that out of necessity must be the condition for all dimensions. He made “Being” an object that can be conceived from the outside instead of “the ultimate Subject without content.” When the intellect tries to think about “Being,” it automatically does what it always does to understand something: it creates a split. It creates a “self” that looks at an “object” over there. But how can we place ourselves outside something that has no boundaries? To stand outside “Being,” there would need to be a place outside “Being” where “Being” is not, which negates the very definition of Existence. By trying to imagine the undivided, the intellect commits a kind of categorical error: The performance demands contrasts (light against darkness, form against emptiness, subject against object). “Being” cannot have distinguishable parts, no joints, no contrasts. It just “Is”.

As soon as one believes that one has "captured" Being in a thought or a model, one has in fact only built a "mental model", placed it in a corner of one's own experience, and stuck a label on it that says "Being". But the one observing the model is still "Being". It becomes an eternal regression if one tries to think of it, "a mental Catch-22". One cannot detach a piece of the immediate. That is why all real philosophy of existence must ultimately fall silent before the very ground, and realize that the only thing actually happening is the very perception – the phenomenon that pops up from the "imploding" dimensionless "Being". Hlatky divides the indivisible: He introduces the concept that God/Being consists of "original parts". He claims that we are unchanging conscious parts that exist alongside a whole, and then "connect ourselves" to biological bodies in order to be able to experience. He attributes “human flaws” to Being: His fundamental axiom is that God has a need – "a need to be known, understood, and loved by his like-minded parts." Creation then becomes God's project to communicate with his parts.

It is precisely the logical collapse that absolute Philosophy of Existence warns against.
It is a beautiful and vividly intellectual phenomenal description Hlatky makes of something that cannot be described in words. The very moment Hlatky says that Being has 'parts' and 'needs,' he has given 'Being' dimension. To imagine that Being also has a need presupposes, of course, a lack. A part presupposes a boundary. He has transformed 'the Absolute' into an actor – 'an object' or a 'God-character' – that acts within a cause-and-effect chain.
By making 'Being' a 'construction' with wave-mechanical rules in the form of a whole that actively expresses oscillations and vibrations between its parts in wave-mechanical movement, he has placed himself outside. He has created a conception, a cosmic blueprint.

In the Absolute Philosophy of Existence, this becomes absurd. The unchangingly enduring 'Being' cannot have parts, because no one can even conceive of an idea to split it even in thought. 'Being' is indivisible because there are no constituent parts to account for. “Being” cannot have needs, for there is nothing outside of it that can fulfill them. There is only “Being” – undivided, dimensionless – whose capacity for perception shines through the phenomena in this moment. Hlatky's "God and parts" is just yet another cluster package of information, yet another idea in the series of all others.

The ultimate irony with Hlatky – and with all metaphysical systems throughout history – is that they are and remain precisely phenomenal representations. The problem with all representations is that they are doomed to obey the laws of the phenomenal world. For the intellect to be able to build a model, it must use building blocks such as: Cause and effect (God has a need, therefore a solution is created). Geometry and distance (Parts that in some way must be connected to bodies at a distance, wherever they are). Time is then a process in which something is to be achieved or understood in relation to each other in an imagined space. But all these building blocks belong to that which appears "in the movie theater." They belong to the "projection on the screen," not the screen and the projector itself. When Hlatky or someone else creates such a well-thought-out representation, they mistake the map for the territory. They believe they are describing "Being," but in reality, they have only created an extremely advanced and beautiful "cluster package of information." They have taken the faculty of perception and dressed it in logical formulas.

The Absolute Philosophy of Existence, on the other hand, is uncompromising. It refuses to draw that map. It understands that as soon as you draw a line – no matter how spiritual or philosophical that line is – you have created a division in what is indivisible. Trying to reach the "Being" through a "phenomenal concept" is like trying to write a word on water; the very tool you use dissolves what you are trying to grasp. It is simply impossible to use dimensions to explain the dimensionless. The most bitter and central paradox of concepts is that they are a communicative dead end: the very moment we open our mouths to convey the idea of the dimensionless, we are forced to activate the faculty of conceptualization. And then the race is already lost.

Humans are evolutionarily and cognitively hardwired to visualize, measure, and spatialize reality. And science does exactly this all the time. When physicists talk about what is closest to the idea of a singularity (such as at the beginning of the Big Bang or at the center of a black hole) – they define it mathematically as “a point” with infinite density and zero volume. It is science's way of saying "dimensionless." But what does the human mind (and popular science) immediately do? Yes, we cannot help but imagine a tiny, super-dense, glowing dot floating in empty darkness. This is a monumental misunderstanding for two reasons: There was no "outside": The “dot” was not floating in a void; space and time (the dimensions) were born along with it. It is made into an “object”: Science treats the singularity as a "thing" in an equation, a phenomenon that can be observed or measured from. When science or mathematics tries to handle the dimensionless, it makes it an “abstraction,” an “extreme point” in a model. They reduce it to a coordinate – a “point” in a coordinate system. But a point in a system presupposes that the system already exists! That is why the philosophy of Absolute Existence is so extremely difficult to talk about. It does not speak of a geometric point inside a universe. It speaks of the dimensionless “Being” which is the prerequisite for there to be a universe at all, a science, or a brain that can think. As soon as someone listens, hears about, or reads it and nods and thinks: "Ah, I understand, a dimensionless point, like a black hole...", they have unconsciously built a three-dimensional image of “a black hole in the head.” They have taken the absolute insight and immediately packed it into a “phenomenal package.”

The philosophy of Absolute Existence cannot be communicated or described because language and thought have dimensions. At best, one can use words as “warning signs” that “point away” from all concepts and say, "For God's sake, do not make any concept of Being." The concept of “Being” takes care of itself, and we, as phenomenal perspectives of experience, can only go along with the concept. We cannot look at “Being,” because the phenomenon is experienced by “Being.” There is no map on which to place Being! Being is not on the map! So we just have to turn off the brain's graphics card, let go of the intellectual grip, go along with the concept, and simply sense that the faculty of perception is “the binary Nature” of “non-binary Absolute Existence.” To then simply "be in Being" through the phenomenon is more than enough. There is, after all, nothing else on the map to do!

AEP's Myth-allegory about the "Butt-Gnomes"

A reflection on ontology (the study of being) and epistemology (the study of knowledge).

Reality as missed information.

Most of reality probably occurs in the form of the information missed by it. Most of the information seems to be filtered out. The phenomenal reality seems constantly angled for someone experiencing the phenomena of reality. The objective objects appear in the form of clusters of information. The information clusters reflect each other into an unlimited space of imagination. We can reflect on if it would not act this way, how else could it be experienced? And then all the little "Butt-Gnomes" sit on their butts and ask: - " Arf Arf, Why does reality occur in this way?"

The experience of reality is thus defined more by what is chosen to be excluded than by what is allowed in. The brain and sensory organs are evolutionary compromises, designed for survival, not to register the total objective cosmic information steps. If at least 99.99% of all sequentially ongoing information were not filtered out, the experience would probably be drowned in a noisy blur.

Reality arises in the gap: It is through limitation – of missed information – that the contours of what is actually experienced become visible. Contrast requires imaginative space.

Clusters of information and the unlimited imaginative space:

The philosophical contemplation of seeing objective objects as "clusters of information" that reflect each other is close to both quantum physics (where "particles" are defined by their "relationships" and interactions with other "particles") and information-theoretical philosophy (such as John Wheeler's "It from Bit").

An object does not arise from a vacuum; it emerges phenomenally as a 'curved node' in a 'curved network of information.' When these clusters are reflected against the 'unlimited space of imagination' (consciousness/the phenomenal space), the theater we call the 'universe' arises.

The inevitable alternative

"If it were not to work this way, how else could it be experienced?" Logical reflection says it probably could not.

If all information were available simultaneously, everywhere, from all angles, there would probably be no unique "phenomenal experience angles." Everything would collapse into a single undifferentiated singularity. For experience to occur, there must be a "here" and a "there," a "I" and a "it" – and that requires division and filtering.

And then we have all the "Gnomies"...
(whether they are academics, hobby philosophers, or scientists) who sit on their butts scratching their heads and asking, "Why does reality occure in this way?", blindly unaware that the very question persists thanks to the phenomenon they are questioning.
They are all searching for an external cause or a hidden "purpose" of the phenomenon, without realizing that the phenomenon's very operation occurs because they have a butt to sit on and a brain to ask questions with. They want an explanation for the phenomenon, but use the phenomenon's own sequential little jumps in the form of filtered pixels to look for it.

Phenomenal reality probably occure this way because any other way would entail no experience at all.

If in a thought experiment we scale away the ongoing phenomenon of information – that is, the actual filtering, reflections, perspectives of consciousness, and dynamic clusters – then we move away from physics and deep into absolute metaphysics.

It is like turning off the "projector at the cinema". What happens to "the movie"? It stops occurring. But what remains of the cinema itself?

What, out of pure logical necessity, happens and what must remain is that time ceases its ongoing. No chronology! Time requires change, and change requires that a state of information transitions into another. Without the phenomenon of information, there is no "before" or "after." The "jumps of time" ceases. We would also no longer have any space (Spatiality): Space is the distance between clusters of information (between "here" and "there"). If the clusters do not persist and reflect each other, geometric space collapses. (Time and Space are also connected in physics in what is called “Spacetime.”) All separation would cease (Duality): The boundary between subject and object, between observer and the observed, is completely blurred. There is no longer a 'Nisse' who can look at anything else.

What, out of pure logical necessity, MUST remain: If we remove form, language, experience, and relationships, we can no longer speak of anything that is 'yours' or 'mine,' or even anything that is 'something.' But logic still requires that a foundation remains, for one cannot extrapolate away the very basis from which the phenomenon arose.

What remains is: The pure potential (The unlimited Being) If we empty "the unlimited Being" of all its reflections, we have not eradicated Being itself – we have only emptied Being of our phenomenal Universe. What remains is the unchanged enduring Being. In an allegory, it can be likened to a white canvas before the painting is made, or an Absolute Existence whose essence sequentially shifts between on and off and which in this can expose an infinite number of virtual particles. It is nothing (no-thing), but not a void of non-existence, rather an Absolute Existence whose essence enables everything-that-can-be.

The Undifferentiated Being In philosophy (especially Eastern philosophy such as Advaita Vedanta, but also among Western mystics and thinkers like Spinoza), one speaks of what remains as "the Absolute" or "the undifferentiated Being". Information is, by definition, difference (a bit is a difference that makes a difference – a one or a zero). If we remove the information, we remove all differences. What remains is that which is completely without difference, boundaries, or divisions. A totally Absolute Existence.

The Phenomenon as "the Medium"

For information to be able to persist and be reflected, a "medium" is required that reflects back the reflection. Even if the phenomenon ceases, the very ontological ground must remain.

If the constantly ongoing phenomenon of the Universe were not ongoing, we would probably end up in a fantastic logical paradox: For the Absolute Being to be able to experience itself at all, it MUST begin to filter and create phenomena of information.

The Absolute, undifferentiated Being that remains when everything is removed is then probably completely blind to itself. It has no mirrors, no angles, and no contrasts. For Being to be able to experience, Being must, through its essence, manifest phenomenally in billions of small parts, sit on their bottoms in different rooms where temporary memories can linger when there should be no memory in the Being itself. Here it becomes necessary to start filtering out at least 99.99% of the phenomenon – and then the "Gnomies" can ask: "Why does the phenomenal reality continue in this way?"

If we, in our thought experiment, then remove the reflection of the phenomenon, what remains is precisely the unchanged existing Being which, out of sheer necessity, must be assumed to bring forth the phenomenon in order to be able to experience anything at all.

The reason that the unchanging Being must be assumed to be timeless is that time is only the measure of change in the jumps of information.

Being is probably indivisible and without boundaries, for a boundary requires that something else takes over on the other side, but there is no "other." The unchanging Being is probably the basis of everything: It is the invisible substrate whose essence allows all temporary clusters of information to jump-dance, be reflected, and emerge as reality.

So while the "Gnomies" in our allegory sit on their butts and are completely occupied with analyzing the shifting shadows on the wall, it is this silent, unchanging foundation that actually supports both the bottoms, the rooms, and the questions. "The movie on the cinema screen can be a tragedy, a comedy, or a science fiction drama, but the screen itself remains completely unaffected, white, and intact through it all".

The Epicenter of Absolute Existential Philosophy:

If we follow the logical chain all the way to the bottom, the logical prerequisite is "the faculty of perception".

Why is this a pure logical necessity? Well, because if we strip away all objects of perception (all forms, thoughts, colors, filters, and clusters of information), we cannot strip away the very potential "faculty of perception".

Why the faculity of perception cannot be erased: If this original essence did not remain, the step from the "Unchanging, Persistent Absolute Existence" to a living, ongoing reality would be a logical impossibility.

"A dead nothing" cannot begin to reflect: If the primal ground were completely sterile and lacked any inherent faculty of perception, how could it ever shift states and expose "phenomenal perspectives of experience"? "From absolute nothing, nothing can arise!" If all information is removed, the ability to perceive anything at all ceases. If the reflection of the phenomenon ceases, everything becomes black. An original power would then be in absolute stillness.

The circle closes: From Primal Faculty to the "Gnomes" Questions

"The Butt-Gnomies sitting on their butts" and asking "Arf, Arf, Why does reality unfold in this way?" are in fact this original faculty of perception looking out at its own clusters of information and reflecting on what it sees. The cosmic joke is that the "But-Gnomies" look for an answer "out there" among the reflected objects, when the answer is actually the "One and only" doing all the different the looking. The ultimate question then becomes: 'Are we all effects through the essential perceptual ability that gives these "Butt-Gnomies" experience, or are there really no 'Butt-Gnomies' at all in 'Being'?' Then the insight occurs – There actually seem to exist only temporary "Butt-Gnomies" in the phenomenal reality!!

To assume, as in the nihilistic Western scientific culture, that blind, dead atoms could suddenly organize themselves so advancedly that they begin to reflect on their own mortality is actually quite a complicated and paradoxical assumption. The "Butt Gnomies" would just shake their heads at that and say "Woof Woof Arf Arf! They would realize that the simplest, most logical assumption is instead that Existence is primary. Everything we see, measure, and experience is just different forms and phenomena of one and the same Absolute Existence. Nature is not dead; on the contrary, it is a manifestation of a living, absolute foundation.

And the final question then becomes whether it should take over 60 years of free time to formulate this, and whether this "Mythological assumption" could logically replace any of the other myths about reality? Eat on that question - but don't let it choke your curiosity about reality!