Existence: In and of Itself
Part I: The Four Elemental Particles of Existence
Introduction: The circle and the plane
A circle divides a plane into how many regions?
Many would say a circle divides a plane into two regions
A circle divides a plane into three regions
Regardless of how many people would agree, the truth of the matter is that a circle divides a plane into three parts:
- The part that lies inside the circle
- The part that lies outside the circle
- The circle in and of itself
Such a concept does not apply simply to a two-dimensional existence of a circle and a plane. The concept applies to a one-dimensional existence of a point and a line. The concept applies to a three-dimensional existence of a sphere and space. The concept applies to a four-dimensional existence of a sphere existing time-space continuum which we more frequently refer to as a four dimensional existence. All these examples apply to what we could call dimensional existence i.e.: one, two, three, and four-dimensional forms of existence.
Physicists and mathematicians speculate that reality is composed of more than the four dimensions: height, width, depth, and time. As the numbers of dimensions increase, the number of regions into which multi-dimensional existence is divided by a single entity remains the same:
- Inside the entity
- Outside the entity
- The entity in and of itself
In terms of the most primal of perceptions, the question becomes:
In terms of reality, existence divides reality into how many parts?
The answer to the question is:
Existence divides reality into three parts:
- Inside existence
- Outside existence
- Existence in and of itself
It is because philosophers, theologians, and cosmologists have ignored the basic concept, existence divides reality into three parts, that academics have been unable to resolve the endless sparing on the parts of monists, dualists, phenomenologists, existentialists, nihilists, atheists, theists, closed-universe astrophysicists, open-universe astrophysicists, expanding universe advocates, string theorists, nothingness advocates,
Although mathematicians acknowledge the concept that the circle itself is composed of points and points have no dimensions and thus the circle in and of itself is composed of nothing but a concept, mathematicians, nevertheless accept the concept of the circle in and of itself exists and its very existence allows for the further advancement regarding the mathematical understanding of reality.
So it is with existence. Existence does not divide reality into two regions but divides reality into three regions.
Existence divides reality into the three regions:
- What lies inside existence
- What lies outside existence
- Existence in and of itself
Understanding the concept of a circle dividing a plane into three regions helps mathematicians understand reality and in particular understand the corporeal/physical using the non-physical/abstract/incorporeal.
Understanding the concept that existence divides reality into three regions can help philosophers, theists, and cosmologists understand reality. In particular the understanding of existence can help all people understand the concepts of morality, ethics, good, evil, relative moralism, absolute moralism, the significance of the individual, the significance of society, the value of the individual to the whole, and the value of the whole to the individual.
All this understanding is not beyond human comprehension. All this understanding merges from an understanding of existence in and of itself. But if this understanding can come from an understanding of existence in and of itself, then why havent we found the answer before this point in time? We have simply not asked the questions: What is existence, in and of itself? Where is existence? Why does existence, in and of itself, exist? How does existence, in and of itself, e
The New Initial Question
To understand existence in and of itself, we must approach the understanding of existence from a different direction than has been previously used by theologians, scientists, and philosophers throughout the last twenty-five hundred years.
Historically the questions initiating the philosophical discussions regarding existence, emanated from two basic questions:
- Does the Physical in and of itself exist and if the physical exists what is the physical?
- Does the Abstract in and of itself exist and if the abstract exists what is the abstract?
The two questions compose the internal discussions generated by those labeled as monists and the internal discussions generated by those labeled as dualists. The internal discussions surface from a perception that both the physical and the abstract exist. The monists and dualists then proceed to take their understandings and debate between each other. Whatever the case may be, monist-to-monist, dualist-to-dualist, monist-to-dualist, or dualist-to-monist, all previous debates regarding existence have been initiated from primal concepts regarding the existence of the physical and/or the abstract rather than initiated from the conceptual argument regarding the existence of existence itself.
If we refuse to accept the existence of existence existing in and of itself, then we revert to our previous status of having to argue our seemingly irresolvable philosophical paradoxes and social dilemmas over and over and over again.
The new approach, beginning philosophical discussions regarding reality with a discussion of existence in and of itself, refocuses the debate with existence itself and then proceeds to the discussion of the physical and/or the abstractual.
The new approach thus inserts a new question into the dynamics of the debate and re-prioritizes questions one and two into questions two and three. The new list of questions thus becomes:
- Does existence, in and of itself, exist and if existence itself exists what is existence?
- Does the physical, in and of itself, exist and if the physical exists what is the physical?
- Does the abstract, in and of itself, exist and if the abstract exists what is the abstract?
The answer to question one need not be Yes, existence in and of itself exists. However, in terms of this work, to presume existence does not exist in and of itself exist is a response, which goes against all rationality we have at our disposal. If there is no such thing as existence then the physical does not exist, the abstractual does not exist, and this very attempt to understand reality is mute for reality itself does not exist.
But what of non-existence? Isnt it possible existence emerges from non-existence and thus existence, in and of itself, does not exist?
In terms of this work, we are going to discard the concept that non-existence precedes existence.
Does the act of discarding, within this work, the concept that non-existence precedes existence suggest the arguments regarding the existence of nothingness will also be discarded as discussion immersed within irrationality? Absolutely not! The concept that nothingness does not exist because nothingness precedes existence is irrational but the concept that existence precedes nothingness is not irrational and as such nothingness may well not only exist but nothingness may well have functionality in Reality. Volume II, Tractate 10: The Error of Heidegger: Resolving the problem of the void of a void is found within The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception. Tractate 10 thoroughly addresses the issue regarding nothingness in regards to nothingness emergence out of existence, nothingness functionality in regards to reality, and how it is that levels of existence could conceivable emerge from nothingness. In short the Tractate 10 pointedly demonstrates an understanding regarding the potential existence of nothingness as well as the functionality of nothingness emerging from rational thought. Tractate 10, demonstrates the rationality of existence preceding non-existence as opposed to the irrationality regarding non-existence preceding existence. In short, the illogic of spontaneous generation now becomes applicable to philosophy as well as to science.
One of the many problems of historical philosophical, theistic, and scientific approaches to the discussion of existence is that past discussion regarding existence quickly developed their own camps/schools of thought/advocates for this and advocates for that. The historical approach became mired in irresolvable disputes regarding the abstract and the physical and as such the debates became emotionally heated rather than dominated by the most important tool available to metaphysicists, ontologists, and cosmologists, namely: rational thought.
To understand existence we have little choice but to reject the old techniques and take a new tact since the old tact has demonstrated for twenty-five hundred years that it is incapable of developing a consensus amongst philosophers, theologians, and astrophysicists as to what existence is, where existence is, why existence is, and how existence affects reality.
The new tact has no alternative than to introduce a new question or it will not be a new tact. The new initial question thus becomes:
Does existence in and of itself exist and if existence in and of itself exists what is existence?
There are only two possibilities regarding existence:
- Existence in and of itself exists
- Existence in and of itself does not exist.
With the advent of the new question, if existence exists in and of itself, then it is the elements found within existence, it is the elements embraced by existence, which are composed of the physical and/or the abstract.
With the advent of the new initial question, we can now state, regarding existence in and of itself:
- The primal elements of existence in and of itself are not physical in nature
- The primal elements of existence in and of itself are not abstractual in nature.
If existence in and of itself is neither physical in nature nor abstractual in nature, then what is it that comprises existence?
It is because we have perceived existence to be composed of the physical and/or the abstractual that philosophers, artists, and scientists have been unable to establish an understanding as to what existence in and of itself is.
A preliminary look at existence in and of itself
Does Existence in and of itself exist and if existence in and of itself exists then what is existence?
Existence in and of itself is neither physical nor abstractual. Existence in and of itself is potentiality.
The primal element, existence in and of itself, is analogous to a point having no dimensions. The potentiality of existence is itself composed of four primal elements:
- being vb (non-italicized not contained in quotes): the passive state of being
- being vb (italicized not contained in quotes): the active state of being whose most prominent characteristic is that of having free will
- being n (non-italicized contained in quotes): multiplicity, the parts of the whole
- Being n (non-italicized contained in quotes): singularity, the whole
The concept may be illustrated as: