Region #2:

Within region #2 of the metaphysical system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, ‘You think therefore I am.’, evolves via Kant’s conversion of Aristotle’s passive system into an active system. It is Kant’s perception that the physical, upon being observed, changes. Thus through your observations the physical/the universe becomes what the universe is and it is into this universe, which I step as a virgin consciousness and thus the many ‘you’ assists the means by which the ‘I’ is able to develop as it chooses to develop. Without the many ‘you’s’ I would be an entirely different me for my choices would be entirely different.

Now this is not to say that I have no choice as to what I become, rather it simply says is that my springboard of choices emanates ‘from’ depends upon what ‘you’ made of it. The rest is up to the ‘I’, the ‘me’.

Region #3:

Now the reverse takes place when we examine region #3.

Within region #3 of the metaphysical system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, ‘I think therefore you are.’ evolves via a new metaphysical perception of an open non-Cartesian metaphysical system powered by a closed Cartesian System found ‘within’ the open non-Cartesian system. It is within this new metaphysical perception that the abstract, through my unique knowing, develops/changes. Thus through my observations of the physical, the universe became what the universe is and as such other ‘I’s’ prepare space/time for other ‘I’s to follow. And it is through the unique development of the ‘me’ that the whole of abstraction, region #3 becomes what it is in terms of potentiality of combinations of perceptual summations including the whole of summation of knowing itself. It is out of the universe from which I step as a virgin consciousness developing and thus the many ‘you’ through the ‘I’ are provided the means by which the ‘you’ is able to develop into an exponentially greater number of multidimensional combinations of knowing tessellations. Without the ‘I’, not only the whole but ‘you’ would be entirely different for your choices of knowing ‘what is’ would be entirely different.

Such a development within region #3 is not a function of the multiplicity of time but rather is a function of the seamlessness, of time. Time capsules of ‘being’ travel in any direction adding to the potential variations and permutations of experience within the abstract, region #3.

Thus the statements emerge:

1. I think therefore you exist.
2. You think therefore I exist.

What then becomes of the statement:

I think therefore I am.

Such a statement remains intact for could I not think, I would in essence not exist in terms of my personal perception; I would not exist to me although I may exist to you.

In short the statement:

‘I think therefore I am.’

is a statement of hope as opposed to a statement of fact, as opposed to a statement of actuality, as opposed to a statement of existence. The statement however is in error if taken as a statement of existence as opposed to being taken as a statement of perceptual existence.

The reason the statement remains as a cornerstone of logic is that without others ‘knowing’, my ‘knowing’ could gain no knowing.

From where then did God – ‘the initial knowing’ originate? That discussion must wait for Tractate 18: The End of the Beginning.

How something, which is unchangeable, can change and remain unchangeable
If we take a cross-section of the metaphysical system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, we obtain a cross-section of timelessness:

The system is what it is

We can now add an additional unit of knowing to the region outside the physical, outside the universe. Such a unit has evolved by means of its awareness having passed through the space/time continuum found within the physical/the universe. We thus obtain:

As we can see: The system is what it is and has not changed because no time exists between units and no time exists as a universal medium of the fabric within which the completed units of awareness, knowing, knowledge, find themselves to be.

In this state, one cannot be identified as ‘having’ existed ‘before’ another, for there is no ‘before/after’ concept to be found as a universal medium of region #3. The only location within which a medium of before/after concepts can be found to exists as the medium is within region #2 and within the individual units of knowing found within region #2 and region #3.

How then does the whole change? The whole, region #3 changes from our point of view since we are immersed within time. The whole from its point of view does not change but rather sees the state of ‘change’, growth, from simply the point of the constant ‘what is’. There is no past and no future within region #3 for there is not time or space found within region #3 as a part of the universal medium of region #3.

Growth occurs within region #3 but not as a linear progression but simply as an explosion of randomness of combinations of knowledge which have the potential to be pieced together in a multitude of multidimensional possibilities of knowledge tessellations whose potential possible combinations explode exponentially in a continuous manner.

Permanent stagnation, static existence, passivity, it is not. ‘Growth’ it may be. ‘Decay’ it may be. One or the other it is under such a metaphysical perception of the whole system. The mechanisms for the explosion or implosion of multiply dimensional combinations of tessellations, the individual units of knowing themselves, developing through the process of passing through a medium of space and time.

Are there other means of exponential explosion or implosion? Perhaps, perhaps not. What might account for other means of exponential explosions or implosion? Other distinct universes having a different form of medium than the space/time medium found within our universe.

The death of God
The death of metaphysics - the death of God, is there any difference? Actually, no there is no difference. The death of metaphysics is the understanding that there is no such thing as metaphysics. Kant with his perception of the death of Aristotelian concepts of ‘what is’ initiates an understanding that our very observation changes what it is we observe. Such a perception implies the creation of God’s, this thing we call the universe, is not His creation but our creation for we make the observations and God has nothing to do with observations for our observations are our creations not his.

1st principle then becomes ourselves not God. But without the universe we would have nothing to observe in a manner unique to ourselves and therefore the universe had to be here before we were here for without the universe there would have been nothing for us to observe in our own unique manner. We would therefore have had nothing from which to begin to develop our own unique individual observations and therefore the universe is 1st cause. On the other hand, we know we did not exist before some other we’s existed for we are the product of the union of a sperm and an egg and therefore without this union ‘we’ would not exist as we are. Thus other ‘we’s’, the you’s, had to come before the present we’s, before the ‘I’.

So which came first: I, the universe, or God? Kant was unable to reconcile this argument. The old, which came first the chicken or the egg, became, metaphysically, which came first: the I, the universe, or the creator. Kant being unable to resolve this argument suggested he had a whole new system of metaphysics, which in essence was not a metaphysical system at all, yet was irrefutable.

The only logical conclusion he could draw was that metaphysics, as we knew it, was dead. However, since we knew of no other form of metaphysics than the form of metaphysics we had had previously, in essence metaphysics was dead.

Kant was unsure of what this meant. It was Hegel who was to come along and move us one step closer to understanding just what this meant.

But we are speaking of Kant, and thus it is Kant we must address.

As such, lets look at what the concepts of Kant’s system suggest.

At this point we will acknowledge that is arguable whether or not Kant’s system was actually a system since Kant was unable to satisfy his own personal expectations of a system. Kant believed ‘a’ system, to be a system, must produce ‘a’ first principle, ‘a’ foundation. Since Kant could not extract this most fundamental of requirements, the debate emerges as to whether or not Kant’s system was truly a system at all.

Having acknowledged the issue regarding the validity of whether or not Kant’s system actually was a system, let’s began an analysis of Kant’s proposed ‘system’.

Analytic versus Synthetic ‘a priori’:

Were space and time innate characteristics of objects or were objects innate characteristics of space and time?

Kant suggested: Since we cannot perceive of objects without concepts of space and time but we can perceive of space and time without objects than it is objects which are the innate characteristic of space and time rather than the reverse.

In essence objects found themselves immersed within the medium of space and time.

Space and time therefore became the synthetic a priori of the physical. But did this establish space and time as the ultimate medium of metaphysics? If it did, it could be said metaphysics was dead for metaphysics dealt with three basic concepts: God, free will, and immortality. Some would suggest metaphysics dealt with knowing and knowledge but knowing and knowledge are aspects of God for by definition God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. God is, metaphysically speaking ‘all knowing’ of knowledge and the awareness of all such knowledge, knowing. Immortality deals with infinite time and between all knowledge and time, space is filled up. Individual units of knowing, individuality, become an issue regarding elements of the whole, thus humankind in the form of individuals becomes an issue of metaphysics.

What of space? Space becomes the location of such knowing and such knowledge, be it space in the physical sense or space in the abstract form. Kant suggested space was not physical for physical objects were the innate characteristic of space and time not the reverse.

And what of actions of free will? Actions of free will became an issue dealing with the active form of action versus passive form of action regarding subsets of knowledge and thus God, free will, and immortality became issues of metaphysics.

If the physical emanates from space and time and if space and time was all there was, God was space and time. As such, God perceptually emerged as being dead for space and time were not ‘knowing’ entities but rather brain dead abstractions.

It then followed that metaphysics was dead for immortality, being an element of time, became a part of the unknowing and free will became a part of an unknowing space and time. What then of God? Why God was an unknowing fabric, medium of space and time, within which ‘all’ was found.

Kant could not resolve his own paradox. The logical conclusion, which was to be drawn: God was dead.

Philosophers following Kant thus assumed metaphysics to have expired.

On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science to be their field and discussed questions such as: Did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, ‘The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.’ What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant! (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1988, p. 174.)

As such, philosophers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries believed: If Kant could not resolve his own paradox, then the only feasible explanation as to why Kant could not do so was because:

Metaphysics was dead.

God was dead.

This idea, that God is in fact nothing but an idea of our own making for use within our moral practice, is a thought Kant repeatedly expressed in his very last years. (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 5, P193, 1995.)

Kant did not seek to resolve the issue he should have been seeking:

If objects lie within the medium of space and time, are innate characteristics of space and time than is there a synthetic a priori of space and time? Is there a medium such that space and time cannot be conceived of being without the existence of this new medium itself? In other words is there a medium from which space and time emerge, is immerged within?

The answer to such a question could conceivable resolve the paradox Kant established, resolve the concept of the lack of a foundation for Kant’s system yet leave Kant’s system intact. This sounds like a lot of hypothetical impossibilities and the reason it sounds as such is due to the fact that Kant was examining his system rather than a new perception, which had not yet been proposed.

The next logical step of this tractate then becomes: to examine this new system and to examine whether or not such a system resolves Kant’s dilemma.

We begin with:

This is Kant’s perception. Now lets add an outside to the system:

Since space and time exist within the median of no space and time what then is the medium within which space and time find themselves existing? It could be that space and time exist in what we think of as abstractual knowing, a form of active abstraction existing in a medium of passivity itself. But aren’t space and time abstractual? Perhaps, but are they a form of knowing? As far as we know space and time are not a form of knowing but rather ‘unknowing’ abstractions. As such it would be possible that the knowing, awareness, of space and time concepts would graphically appear as:

Now does this necessarily mean the knowledge, which exists no longer, exists? No for with the concept of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, symbiotic panentheism, we find synthetic ‘a’ priori now becomes apparent to Kant’s questionable system. The new addition of an outside to space and time, a synthetic ‘a’ priori to space and time takes on its own functionality and becomes:

Time now becomes an analytical ‘a’ priori to ‘Knowing’, the whole, and the concept of individual ‘knowing’ becomes an analytic ‘a’ priori to space and time through the analytic emanations of objects emerging from space and time itself. In essence we obtain ‘knowing’ knowing ‘Knowing’. We obtain ‘knowledge’ of ‘Knowledge’. We obtain the ‘active passive active’ sandwich. We obtain ‘being’ being ‘Being’. We obtain circular understanding of not just the significance of ‘Bering’ to ‘being’ but of ‘being’ to ‘Being’. We obtain an understanding of a symbiotic relationship, a symbiotic functionality between ‘being’ and ‘Being’ through the very action of being.

To better understand how it is a physical being interacts within an unobservable abstractual existence we must examine three concepts: The Causal, The non-Causal, and The Boundary between the Causal and the non-Causal.

The Causal
Almost everyone exists within the causal

The Causal is the realm of cause and effect. I like the effect; I examine what created the effect. I react by repeating the casual actions, which cause the effect I enjoyed. I go fishing. I catch a fish. I enjoyed catching the fish so I go fishing again. I enjoyed it again so I buy a boat of my own so I can go fishing. I go fishing. I catch a fish. I enjoyed catching a fish…

The process can be diagramed as:

This in no way implies the action of fishing re