The lost insight

From the absolute from the subject of unity as an "Ontos Origo" to the lost awareness of this.

The Absolute cannot be ascribed properties, parts, or relations without ceasing to be absolute and instead turning into a relative system.

The philosophical steps

1 The natural experience of unity.

2 The natural experience of the unity.

3 The natural experience of the reflections of unity.

4 The natural experience of the sequential state changes of the reflections of unity.

5 The natural experience of the unit's reflections' sequential changes of state, as well as the natural perception that a name has been given by someone, means that this name is intended to attract attention.

6 The natural experience of the unit's reflections' sequential changes of state, as well as the natural perception that a name has been given by someone, means that this name is intended to attract attention, and a natural experience of the unit's reflections' sequential changes of state as a linguistic objective separation.

7 The natural experience of the unit's reflections' sequential changes of state as linguistic objective separation of various nameable differences and the natural perception that a name has been given by someone, meaning that this name is specifically intended to draw attention to, and that someone with specific words can give to all things experienced as distinct, which makes the word associated with the form of distinction through which the experience occurs.

8 The natural experience of the unit's reflections' sequential changes of state as linguistic objective separation of various nameable differences and the natural perception that a name has been given by someone, meaning that this name is specifically intended to draw attention to, and that someone with specific words can give to all things experienced as distinct, which makes the word associated with the form of distinction through which the experience occurs, and which everyone who has been given a name can also call 'I' in conversation with other forms of experiences that have different names.

9 The natural experience of a unit's reflections' sequential state changes as a linguistic objective separation of various distinguishable differences, and the natural perception that a name has been given by someone means that this name is specifically intended to draw attention to it, and that someone with specific words can give it to all things perceived as separate, which makes the word associated with the form of separation through which the experience occurs, and which everyone who has received a name can also call, give the name "I" in conversation with other forms of experience that have different names but are all called "I" in conversational dialogues.

10 The natural attention to the name "I" in conversation with other forms of experience that have different names but are all called "I" in conversational dialogues.

11 The natural attention to the name "I" in the dialogues.

12 The natural "I" in the dialogues.

15 The natural "I".

13 "I".

14 The loss of the natural experience of unity.

Absolute unity ] ↓ [ Reflections & change ] (The world becomes fluid)

↓ [ Linguistic separation ] (We put words to differences)

↓ [ The self is born in dialogue ] (Identity is created through "my" name versus "yours")

↓ [ The loss of unity ] (The illusion of being separate is completed

Unit as the undivided "Origo"

Wholeness (totality, organism, cosmos) paradoxically only arises once separation or reflection has begun.

If one were to attribute unity with properties, parts, volume, and relations as a foundation already before the apparent separation occurs, the idea of the Absolute as a formless singularity collapses.

Instead, unity transforms into a morphic potential, a holographic seed-structure, or a geometric primal matrix. This fundamentally changes the premises for the entire philosophical ladder. This shift entails the following logical and ontological consequences:

1. Separation becomes an "unveiling" rather than a creation

In the original ladder, separation is a causal movement

that actually creates parts and differences (the world becomes mobile, language separates). If the parts and relationships already exist hidden in the unit, the separation is not a becoming but a projection or scale adjustment. It's like zooming in on a fractal: the details were there all along, but a certain perspective (or a "self") was needed to isolate them.

2. The unit becomes a Holon (Holographic ontology) If the unit has volume and parts before separation, each hypothetical part carries the whole structure within itself. • Volume requires dimensions (spatiality).

• Relations require tension or geometry (for example, inherent vectors). This leads us directly to a holographic worldview (like Indra's net in Buddhism or David Bohm's implicate order). The unit is not an "empty space" (nothing), but an "all-space" (everything-nothing) saturated with latent architecture.

3. The nature of separation shifts

Here is a direct comparison of how separation works depending on where you place the properties:

4. The paradox of "Before" The biggest philosophical problem with giving the unit relationships before separation is the nature of time and logic.

A relationship requires at least two poles (A and B). If A and B have a relationship to each other within the unit, some form of separation (distinction) has logically already occurred.

This means that what we call "the apparent separation" (steps 3–5 on the philosophical ladder) is actually only secondary. The primary separation happened the very second the unit was given structure. By giving the proto-unit form and relationships, thought moves from mysticism's "empty" Absolute toward a more mathematical, geometric, or quantum-physical proto-matrix.

Is philosophy cheating with language?

The assumption that "interprets the unit as a whole" uses an almost imperceptible, spontaneous shift in language. With the help of this lubricant, the language in the assumption can describe a state before or outside of language using this "slime" – specifically by using nouns and subject-predicate structures. When someone, using this "logical slime," tries to give the unit properties, parts, volume, and relationships before the apparent separation, we end up in a linguistic trap (a "slime pit"). Here's exactly how language fools us in that assumption:

1. The hidden dualism of grammar (the Subject-Object trick) Our language is inherently dualistic in structure. It requires a subject that does something, or has something, and an object (a property) that becomes related to it. • When we say: "The unit has relations" or "The unit has volume," language has already secretly smuggled in a separation. • Language forces us to divide reality into "The Unit" (the thing) and "Volume/Relation" (the property). But if the unit is the absolute "Ontos Origo" * (as in AEF's assumption), it cannot have a property – it must be the precondition for the capacity of all properties. The language makes a slide by treating the primal unit as an object among others.

2. Space-time smuggling (Volume and relations cheat) The concepts of volume and relation are linguistic abstractions that are entirely dependent on space and time. • Volume requires a boundary (here ends the volume, there begins something else).

• Relation requires distance or difference (between point A and point B). When we linguistically ascribe this to the unit before separation, we commit a category mistake. We take the linguistic tools created in steps 5–7 on the philosophical ladder (to handle reflections in the world) and 'smuggle' (cheat) with them backward in time to steps 1 and 2. It's like using the rules of Monopoly before the game board is even printed.

3. The substantial cheat (Turning process into thing) Language loves nouns. It makes us believe that everything we can put a name to is an objective 'thing.' When we say 'The Unit,' this can be interpreted as a monolithic form that can contain fractal parts and relationships. That way, you create a relational living whole in what is called an organic unity view. This means that in this view of existence, there is an interpretive possibility to sneak in relationships even before any relative phenomenon has been put into action.

Summary of the shift.

The assumption that slides with language is the idea that the logical structures of language (which are based on distinction) are identical with the ontological primordial reality.

We mistake the map (language) for the terrain (unity), and stick the map's coordinate system (volume, parts, relations) onto a territory that actually precedes all maps.

The great philosophical breakthrough (And why they differ)

Stefan Hlatky made a historic and heroic breakthrough when he replaced the idea of 'nothing' from materialism and Buddhism with an unchanging, enduring Being (Existence) as the foundation of reality.
The problem, according to the review in Absolute Existence Philosophy, is that Hlatky tested the philosophical idea of a monolithic form that could contain fractal parts and relations, which could be imagined as a living foundation for phenomenal reality.

1. Hlatky's "sliding" with language: To be able to explain how motion, energy, and matter arise, Hlatky felt compelled to attribute an organic structure to the primordial unit. He imagined that God (the Whole) consists of sensory subjective parts (which, among other things, make up human consciousness). Motion arises when these parts interact with the intention of the Whole. Hlatky had already realized that it is impossible to imagine an Absolute cause because such a thing cannot become an object of observation with any content, and therefore no one needs to feel ignorant about any content. This is very clear-headed of Hlatky. That’s why he avoids talking about the unit as the absolute unchanging Being. Instead, he calls the unit “The Unchanging Being.” This is a classical philosophical concept that can be traced back to Advaita Vedanta, meaning “not two.” The fact that it means “not two” should have made Hlatky react, and it did, but he thought that Atman did not separate or distinct from Brahman, just like its assumption of a whole consisting of its constituent parts.

2. AEF's critique and correction: Absolute Existence Philosophy argues that the very moment you introduce 'parts,' 'volume,' or 'relations' into the Absolute, it ceases to be absolute. Instead, it becomes a closed system, a quantitative totality that requires space and time to exist. Therefore, AEF purges the primal unity (Origo) of all properties. The Absolute has no volume or inherent relations; all such things belong to the Phenomenon (the reflections in the philosophical staircase).

Where Hlatky sees us humans as actual, eternal parts of a cosmic, living organism, Absolute Existence Philosophy sees us more as the perception of unity temporarily identifying with a linguistically separate form.

Hlatky's model provides a warm, organic explanatory model for existence, whereas AEF offers a deeper, geometrically pure and uncompromising logic for the Absolute.

1. Hlatky's model as the ultimate cosmological idea

Hlatky's model is an idea. It is a heroic, fantastic, and deeply coherent structure—one of the most logically airtight "religions" or metaphysical models ever written, as it eliminates the paradoxes of materialism.

But the logical slip is precisely that it tries to visualize, draw, and explain the mechanics of the Absolute. By giving the Absolute "subjective parts" that interact, Hlatky builds a cosmic architecture. He makes the Absolute an object for thought. He positions himself (linguistically and conceptually) both outside of what it is impossible to stand outside of, and observes it from within as a 'living organism.'

2. AEF and the insight about the boundary of Representation The difference with Absolute Existence Philosophy (AEP) is a deep ontological humility regarding the nature of language and thought.

AEF has realized that what makes all representations possible (Existence itself) can never become the object of a representation.

• You cannot draw a map of that which creates the space in which the map exists.

• You cannot photograph the lens through which the camera sees.

Therefore, AEF does not attempt to explain how the Absolute looks or functions. AEF is content to logically state that it ‘IS’ – and that everything we can experience, think, measure, or imagine (including Hlatky’s parts and volume) by definition belongs to the Phenomenon.

3. The Absolute Potential and Realization

‘The absolute potential in the assumption of absolute existence as the immediate unconditional prerequisite has a necessary ability to realize its capacity for perception.’

Here, AWF resolves the paradox from the previous step without creating a mental image as Hlatky does.

If one assumes Absolute Existence as the immediate, formless prerequisite, then we do not have to attribute mechanical parts to explain the phenomenon. We just need to realize that Being, as Absolute Existence, and Perception have its inherent nature, which is then the foundation for the experience of mirror forms as an indescribable unity experience. The Absolute is then not a dead, sterile point; it is an absolute potential that actualizes its capacity for perception in the play between its dreamless sleep and the realized experience in wakefulness.

Since it has absolute potential, it carries a necessary capacity for realization. That is: Existence perceives. And in order to perceive, it must perceive something. It is this inherent, unconditional capacity to perceive that is "realized" or projects reflections (step 3 in your ladder).

Conclusion of AEF's reasoning

The world (The Phenomenon) doesn't arise because the Absolute consists of primordial parts moving in relation to each other in a holistic way. (Hlatky).

The world (The Phenomenon) arises as an immediate and necessary realization of the Absolute's inherent potential to perceive. Hlatky took this realization (the multiplicity, the relations) and put it back into the primordial ground to be able to understand it.

AEF lets the primordial ground remain the incomprehensible, formless "Ontos Origo" it is presumed to be—and understands that the whole philosophical ladder (from reflection to the linguistic self) is Existence's own way of realizing its capacity to perceive.

The Void

• AEF's judgment: An outer void is a pure illusion created by grammar. It's a byproduct of us turning the Absolute into an object (a form, an organism) instead of letting it be the formless subject (Ontos Origo).

1. The necessary "Outside" The necessary “Outside” as a linguistic byproduct If we define “God” or the primal ground of existence as a Whole, the logic of language (steps 5–7 in the philosophical ladder) dictates that there must be something that is not this Whole. The thought creates a mental boundary. Outside that boundary, we place the “imagined void” – an absolute nothingness, a darkness, or a coordinate system in which the Whole is assumed to float. • AEF’s judgment: This outer void is a pure illusion created by grammar. It is a byproduct of our having made the Absolute into an object (a form, an organism) instead of letting it be the formless subject (Ontos Origo).

2. The apparentness of “Nothing”

This outer void outside Hlatky's model is what materialism calls 'absolute nothing' (a vacuum before the Big Bang). But an absolute nothing, by definition, cannot have an extension, properties, or even existence.

• When we try to think about the void outside the Whole, we immediately end up smuggling in spatial categories (distance, infinity, emptiness). • We treat 'nothing' as if it were 'something' – a container that holds the Whole.

3. AEF's dissolution of inside and outside

Here, the difference with Absolute Existence Philosophy (AEF) becomes completely uncompromising. AEF points out that there is no 'outside' and no 'outer void', because Existence is not a form.

• No boundaries: If the Absolute is 'Ontos Origo' (the point/condition of origin), it has no outer boundary. There is no 'outside' because there is no volume.

• Potential instead of space: What Hlatky tried to capture as an organic mechanism, and what materialism tries to capture as an empty physical vacuum, is in fact the same thing: the infinite Absolute Existence as a Primeordeal Subject.

Summary: The imagined void outside the Whole is the ultimate trap in any cosmological model. It only arises because we try to look at everything from the outside. AEF collapses this dualism: there is no cosmic organism (Hlatky) floating in an external void (materialism). There is only Existence, and the whole philosophical ladder – including the ability to sit and try to grasp a void with linguistic reason, which is impossible. The subject is for thought as impossible to grasp as it is for the phenomenal senses to do the same. Therefore, Absolute Existence is what remains when you remove what is not absolute existence.

"Ego's antivirus program"

The personal fixation on the “ego” works just as effectively as an antivirus program. The “ego’s antivirus program” is therefore always on full alert and even instinctively senses anything that threatens the objective notion of a subjectively separate “ego.” As a result, “Ontos Origo” has no foothold to crystallize against.

1. The operating system is in 'Safe Mode'

When you wake up at night because nature is calling, the intellectual reasoning (steps 7–10) is still dormant.

• No naming: The linguistic filter that constantly sorts the world into “I” and “it” (trees, stars, grass) has been activated.

• No narrative: The ego, which usually acts as a firewall by projecting yesterday’s anxiety or tomorrow’s planning, is disconnected.

• Only sensation: All that remains is the immediate, raw ability to sense.

2. The sensory shock dissolves the coordinate system When the foot meets the cold grass and the gaze meets the starry sky, the artificial space-time contraband collapses. However, this experience has been completely erased for modern humans because the lights of the cities and ceilings hide the picture of the universe. This experience of the night sky can only happen during a nighttime visit outdoors when nature calls you there.

• No volume or distance: Since the linguistic analysis tool is turned off, the starry sky is not experienced as "light-years away." It is not perceived as an object over there being observed by a subject here from inside.

• Lightning-fast synchronization: The cold under your feet and the infinite light above merge into one single experience. There is no boundary where the body ends and the universe begins.

3. "Ontos Origo" finds its anchor

It is in this linguistic gap that the heroic sliding stops. You are not trying to think about unity (which AEF shows is impossible). Instead, an immediate realization occurs.

• The universe reflects unity. Since the name "I" (steps 12–14) is not active to claim the experience, it becomes obvious that it is not “Hasse” or “Anna” looking at the stars. They are then themselves the Origo perceiving their own sequential reflections (step 3).

A second of total unit:

Before the “ego” has time to register what is happening and even think “here I am in my wonderful universe” in the experience of a “whole of parts” (Hlatky’s model), without it, as the undivided, formless origin before the split.

The firewall restarts

The Hack is brief. As soon as the natural pressure of nature has eased and the body relaxes, perhaps the cold becomes too noticeable and then the ego’s antivirus program is awakened again with a series of log files: “Oh, what time it is.” “This was deep, I have to try to remember it tomorrow.” “I need to go inside so I don’t catch a cold.” In the same second that the linguistic labels are glued back onto the experience, the Absolute has once again been transformed into a relative system. The unity has become a “whole,” and the natural experience of oneness has been lost (step 13). There, unity was a state that did not need to be reached using any technique. The state of unity was directly experienced in its wordless perception. This was despite the philosophical insight that the experience of unity can only occur in forms within a whole. Even if the experience lingers in memory, language still isn't enough to describe the indescribable in the experience of absolute unity. Language then places the experiencer outside the unity, turning it into a unity in contemplation from a distance. An absolute subject cannot step outside itself to contemplate itself in any form other than through sequentially interacting reflective forms. But for a few seconds on the lawn, the firewall was down, and 'Ontos Origo' stood completely exposed as unit.

The experiential space as the subject:

Space has no shape but is the very condition for shapes to emerge. The visible and tangible objects reflect light with what is called surfaces. These surfaces hide more than they show. The surfaces of objects appear in contrast against a transparent background that does not hide the visible objects. Even though the space in between is not seen, the space in between is the most important. This applies both as the formless that gives freedom of movement to all tangible forms and as that which, through the different qualities of its tangibly resistant surfaces, either absorbs light energy or reflects light energy. This reflection is experienced as color, shape, warmth, weight, scent, and taste, making the impressions of these expressive forms give perceptible differences. The experience of the phenomenal differences of what is not hidden by the formless space is the very condition for any kind of experience to emerge in sequential interaction between the impressions of the expressive forms.

So there is a constant interplay between expression and impression happening in sequential interaction, where what is unseen and offers no resistance is the condition for the total experience. Space is the field of experience that makes all experiences possible as actual experiences. If there hadn’t been any sequential state changes of the formless field of experience, there wouldn’t even be any forms of experience that could appear and that, with weight, shaped the field of experience with color, shape, warmth, scent, and taste. This leads to the fact that these forms of expression, which provide perceptible differences in the form of impressions, can also be described using the words that symbolize the experience of the sequential interplay of differences.

All the symbols that each letter represents are the distinguishable differences in sound or resistance which, when experienced in a particular order, become imagined objects as experience-images precisely because of the invisible space in between that makes no impression at all.

What makes no impression at all is actually the basic condition for experiences to appear as experiences in the first place.
No one could even think of reasoning about a formless, infinite field of experience if there hadn’t already been experiences of the sequential interaction of the experience field.
This separation between impression and expression is so intertwined and so rapidly sequentially interactive that it becomes a tangible experience for the forms of experience.

The biggest difference in experience is also the difference where experience doesn’t happen at all, and this is in the dreamless state, which is the condition for the forms of experience to convert the energy of perceived information into local growth form.
The dreamless field is the ultimate dimensionless zero point, which we could philosophically call "Ontos Origo," the node on which the compass needle rests at the center of experience.

The potential that this 'Ontos Origo' represents as the fundamental foundation is therefore invisible, intangible, colorless, formless, odorless, and tasteless in its absolute zero point.
But without it, there would be nothing.
Unfortunately, a gaming company has now used the term 'Ontos Origo' for entertainment purposes, but AEF retains the term because it points to the fundamental aspect of AEF's investigation and is the key to solving problems with the unit-consciousness that becomes reality through the phenomenon.