The focus of the work
In response to the naysayers
The complete work

Part I: The Four Elemental Particles of Existence

Introduction: The circle and the plane
The new initial question
A preliminary look at existence in and of itself
Understanding what the Vessel ‘Existence’ contains
Sixth: The order of things
What then of the physical
What then of the abstract
Put more simply
Defining the terms
‘Existence’ in light of science and art
Opening the door to understanding existence

Part II: The ‘vessel’ existence in and of itself

Part III: Outside the ‘vessel’ existence

Part IV: The dynamic interplay of the three parts

Part V: The Whole is not composed of Parts

---

Part I

The Four

'Elemental Particles'

Of

Existence

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?

1. The part that lies inside the circle
2. The part that lies outside the circle
3. 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:

1. Inside the entity
2. Outside the entity
3. 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:

1. Inside existence
2. Outside existence
3. 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:

1. What lies inside existence
2. What lies outside existence
3. 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 haven’t 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:

1. Does the ‘Physical’ in and of itself exist and if the ‘physical’ exists what is the physical?
2. 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:

1. Does ‘existence’, in and of itself, exist and if ‘existence’ itself exists what is existence?
2. Does the ‘physical’, in and of itself, exist and if the ‘physical’ exists what is the physical?
3. 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’? Isn’t 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:

1. Existence in and of itself exists
2. 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:

1. The primal elements of existence in and of itself are not physical in nature
2. 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:

1. being vb (non-italicized – not contained in quotes): the passive state of being
2. being vb (italicized – not contained in quotes): the active state of being whose most prominent characteristic is that of having free will
3. ‘being’ n (non-italicized – contained in quotes): multiplicity, the parts of the whole
4. ‘Being’ n (non-italicized – contained in quotes): singularity, the whole

The concept may be illustrated as: