Test of Concepts

Test of Concepts and Conceptual Order

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

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).

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).

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.

Preparation
- Write down the concepts and their definitions clearly and unambiguously (Absolute Existence; Faculty of Perception as Essence; Phenomenon = actuality).
Systematize the variants
- Construct all 27 variants (three interpretations × three × three).
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).
Record the outcome (stable / unstable / collapse) and which concepts caused the problem.
Focus the analysis on the stable combinations (in practice those with Absolute Existence) and compare nuances in the interpretations of Essence and Phenomenon.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.