Test of Concepts and Conceptual Order and the thinking of reality

Three (3) concepts: Existence, Essence, Phenomenon

Three (3) reasonable interpretations of Existence: Absolute / Empirical / Relational

Three (3) interpretations of Essence: Nature / What-it-is / Property

Three (3) interpretations of Phenomenon: Manifestation / Experience / Objective

1. Setup — what is being tested

• Three concepts × three interpretations each → 27 combinations.
• Purpose: to test each combination for logical viability when it is required to function as a true starting point (that is, to begin there and derive the rest without circularity or conceptual slippage).

2. Overview of the result (condensed)

• All combinations with Absolute Existence as the starting point (1–9 in our table) → stable starting points (Essence and Phenomenon can be derived without logical collapse).
• Combinations with Empirical Existence → unstable as a literal starting point (they already presuppose phenomena or relations; they risk an incomplete ground).
• Combinations with Relational Existence → collapse / circularity (relational existence presupposes something to relate to — it cannot be a first principle).

3. The conclusion (the logical fact)

• Only the order Absolute Existence → Essence (The Faculty of Perception as nature) → Phenomenon (the Universe) remains consistent through the entire test.
• This is not "any personal invention," but the consequence of the definitions and principles being tested.

4. Step-by-step procedure for anyone who wants to test it themselves

1. Preparation

   • Write down the concepts and their definitions clearly and unambiguously (Absolute Existence; Faculty of Perception as Essence; Phenomenon = actuality).

2. Systematize the variants

   • Construct all 27 variants (three interpretations × three × three).

3. Test each variant methodically: a. Ask: Can this interpretation function as a first principle without presupposing something that should come later? b. Follow the derivation: what is required for Essence to be intelligible? What is required for Phenomenon to arise? c. Look for circularity (something presupposes what it is supposed to ground) and conceptual slippage (a term changes meaning during the derivation).

4. Record the outcome (stable / unstable / collapse) and which concepts caused the problem.

5. Focus the analysis on the stable combinations (in practice those with Absolute Existence) and compare nuances in the interpretations of Essence and Phenomenon.

5. Where the other alternatives collapse — concrete fault points

• Relational Existence: already in its definition it presupposes a "between" → it needs a ground to relate, thus circularity.
• Empirical Existence: starts from what is observable → lacks the capacity to function as ground; risks explaining conditions by what is conditioned.
• Conceptual slippages (the most common linguistic errors):
  • the word "whole" immediately introduces parts/organism → pulls the phenomenal into the level of Existence.
  • words like "most important / heaviest" introduce metaphorical actuality into a potential or dimensionless context.
  • writing "is" without marking potential vs. actuality easily makes something appear already operative.
  • combining Existence and Phenomenon in the same sentence without clear markers conceals the level transition.

6. What the test shows for the one who performs it

• If one begins with Absolute Existence and consistently keeps the levels apart, one arrives at clarity: all consequences fall into their proper place (what is condition, what is property, what is consequence).
• If one begins from Phenomenon, or from a relational or empirical starting point, one may at best arrive at usable empirical analysis, but not at a stable ontological ground; at worst one ends in incomprehensibility or circularity.

7. Practical checklist to avoid slippage when writing or arguing

• Mark expressions that signal phenomenalization: whole, organism, part, connection, effect, weight, importance. Do not place them at the level of Existence.
• Always insert a clear marker when shifting level: for example, "given Existence (as potential) → Essence follows → only then does Phenomenon actualize."
• For every sentence, ask: Am I speaking about conditional potential ("the capacity to") or about factual actuality ("is" in the sense of acting)?
• If a reader objects: ask them to point to the exact word or sentence where they believe something has been actualized — then analyze that phrase.

8. Common criticism — and how it is handled within the test

• Criticism: "The starting point is untestable." → Response: the test is not empirical in the strict sense; it is a logical test: one tests for internal contradiction or coherence.
• Criticism: "Everything is based on subjective choices." → Response: yes, all reasoning begins with an assumption; the difference here is that the assumption is made explicit and its consequences are tested systematically.
• Criticism: "The concepts slide." → Response: precisely for that reason the definitions must be fixed and the levels kept distinct — the test procedure shows where the slippage occurs.

9. What the tester should expect psychologically

• Testing the order requires the ability to sustain subtle distinctions. It may feel unfamiliar, because language naturally seeks holistic images (organism).
• Carrying out the test carefully often produces an experience of clarity — but at the same time reveals how easily other readers fall back into phenomenal interpretation.

10. Short summary of the entire procedure and result

• One systematically tests 27 combinations of Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon.
• Only the variants with Absolute Existence as the starting point remain logically stable.
• The consistent order is: Absolute Existence → Faculty of Perception (Essence) → Universe (Phenomenon).
• Clarity depends on strict separation of levels and on resisting the linguistic pull toward organismic and phenomenal imagery.

Thinking About Reality

If we imagine that reality has agents, this will mean that we differ from each other and that everyone lives in a struggle against reality, and then our thinking is based on our own agenda. The assumption about agents risks leading to a reality-detached way of thinking.

If we imagine that reality has only one agent, we get a completely different starting point for thinking about reality. Then thinking occurs in interaction with reality. The assumption of one agent then more easily leads to reality-based thinking.

Mental health and intellectual sharpness are thus dependent on the standpoint we have for thinking about what it is that actually interacts in the form of reality.

Thinking in an inner monologue assumes that in reality there are agents with the self as the 'hero or the loser,' which in both cases often leads to reality becoming secondary to one's own will or 'agenda.' If thinking in an inner monologue assumes that in reality there are agents with the self as the 'winner or loser' behind all activity, it often leads in both cases to reality becoming secondary to one's own will or 'agenda'.

Detachment from reality occurs when reality does not cooperate with the agenda. To maintain one's worldview, one must start distorting reality instead of realizing that the perception is detached from reality.

A fragmented perception of reality with only one's own agenda in mind often leads to conflict with reality. One's own 'bubbles' that only focus on information supporting the own agenda, with the bios that the ego's goalkeeper keeps track of.

The Word "Reality"

An interaction in a change of state!

The Philosophy of "Actuality": Reality as Action In many Germanic languages, the concept of "reality" is not rooted in "things," but in work. While the English word Reality stems from the Latin res (referring to a static object or property), the Northern European tradition defines the world through the lens of impact and effect. An interaction in a change of state!

A fragmented perception of reality with only one's own agenda in mind often leads to conflict with reality. One's own "bubbles" that only focus on information supporting one's own agenda with the bios that the ego's goalkeeper keeps track of.

A psychic tension occurs when actual conditions do not match the conception of reality. Frustration, paranoia, or a sense of alienation can be the result of such thinking. Humility before reality is, after all, the prerequisite for a positive interaction with reality.

From "Working" to "Being" The concept is built upon the ancient root for "to work" or "to produce an effect" (cognate with the German wirken). In this linguistic tradition, to exist is not a passive state; it is an active verb.

The Deed: A "work" is an act or a deed. The Agency: To be "real" is to be operational—to be in a state of constantly bringing about a transition or a change.

The Philosophical Shift: Actuality This perspective aligns perfectly with the Latin actualitas, which originates from actus (an act or deed). The core idea is that what is "real" is defined by cause and effect. The literal meaning is "the quality of that which acts." In this sense, reality is not a collection of objects that simply "sit" there; it is a dynamic process that accomplishes something or creates a measurable result.

The Evolution of the Term Before this "action-oriented" definition took hold in the 16th century, people used terms that described the "essence" or "truthfulness" of things. Those older terms focused on what a thing was (its soul or its truth). However, they lacked the specific modern edge: the idea that something is only real if it does something. By shifting the definition toward action, we moved from a world of static "essences" to a world of measurable "consequences in interaction and a change of states!

This seems like the only possibile form of reality would not be whitout any experience of it. If lack of the phenomenal reality it would be no experience of anything att all. It would then probably be an infinite darkness instead of the bright interaction that occurs in the form of the universe's image.

If, instead, it is actually about an ability rather than a trait, the starting point suddenly changes from merely receiving to the potential in a realizable starting point. In this way, the starting point becomes a transformation. The only possible way for experience to occur then is if a potential ability as a starting point realizes the same starting point in a transformation in interaction with the starting point.

The impossibility of giving a phenomenal content to the starting point that makes all content possible should be obvious.

A prerequisite can never be included in any representation that includes the prerequisite.

Reality is derived in this context to the point where the absolute capacity for perception operates.

If the nature of absolute existence is the capacity for perception, then absolute existence is paradoxically "blind," since there is nothing to perceive.
The exposure (reality) is what makes the ability operative.

Separation is not a fault, but the very lens through which the phenomenal angles of reality are usually experienced. Experience occurs through a multitude of angles.

The idea of reality, from the absolute perspective, becomes like many angles on the same effect.

It gives a totally different mental state for someone who has this starting point for thinking.

But it is an expensive starting point for anyone who values their own agency as an agent, yet the absolute starting point actually opens up thinking in reality.

The transition from alienation to participation leads to no longer being a stranger in a cold world, but a specific angle through which the absolute agent perceives itself.

Not identifying with the personal "self" does not mean that one has lost memory of the events that shape judgment. There is no change in memory, but thinking occurs from the standpoint that enables all memories. The starting point then occurs from the capacity for perception and not from the individual "self".

What happens is that the difference between the perceiving 'self' and reality is replaced by the total difference in reality, which is then experienced as directly effective.
Access to the 'self's' accumulated memories remains, but without needing to go on the offensive or into a defensive stance as soon as one hears reality-detached speech.

The internal exposure then occurs as a sensation.

It would probably mean that reality would be the act of the absolute in reflexive exposure.

Regardless of the state of things, testing the durability of a philosophical assumption can lead to a way of thinking that opens up greater possibilities for the realization of solutions to problems in general.

Thinking is the tool we handle in relation to the constantly ongoing reality.
The ongoing nature of reality is connected to our absolute presence in the realization of problem-solving.

Without absolute presence, no problems will be solved by themselves, because if anything were solved by itself, there would be no problems.

Small wounds heal completely naturally if we are careful with them.
It is just as important as being careful with your friends.

It is just as important to know when to press the button as to know when not to press the button.
And reality lies in its frequency somewhere in between.