The physical: is/are components of reality, which can presently be defined as being aspects of reality, which literally encompass matter/energy, space, and time. As science progresses other universal aspects of the physical, may very well emerge.

The abstract: is/are components of reality, which can presently be defined as being aspects of reality, which literally do not encompass matter/energy, space, and time As art progresses it reveals other universal aspects of the abstract.

Existence

1. Is the basic structure within which all physical and abstract elements are contained
2. Is itself composed of four basic sub-units each of which are neither physical nor abstractual in nature.

Experiencing

1. Is the ability of existence to be aware of its physical, abstractual, and/or existential form(s) and event(s).
2. Is experiencing occurs in three states:

Experiencing with no awareness or knowing

Experiencing with awareness of its experiencing but having no knowing of said awareness

Experiencing with awareness of its experiencing and have knowing of said awareness

Knowing
To recognize (One can be in love, experience love, and love without being aware of one’s awareness of love. This again goes to Gurdjieff’s description of an individual going through life in a state of ‘sleep’. Dogs, cats, and many humans go through life in this state. One can, however, not only experience love, have a conscious awareness of love but one can be ‘awake’ to such an existence and thus ‘know’ of ones awareness of such an experience. Poets are good examples of such people

Meaning

1. Is the ability to impact existence through a conscious effort characterized by free will.
2. Action characterized by the free will to act as opposed to having no control over action.

Art
The expression of the abstract

Science
The expression of the physical

Art and science are concepts requiring a more in-depth analysis for although they are more commonly used to describe our understanding of reality than are terms such as existence, knowing, and meaning, they are nevertheless also associated with the more complex aspects of experiencing. One might say that ‘because’ the concepts of art and science are understood in greater depth than concepts such as existence, knowing, and experiencing, our frequent use of these terms is more prolific the terms existence, knowing, and experiencing, and as such we refer to scientific and artistic concepts in greater philosophically contradictory fashions than the terms of meaning, knowing, and existence.

Although our present comprehension regarding art and science is understood to a greater degree than concepts such as knowing, experiencing, awareness, and existence, in terms of the new approach regarding existence, art and science are as new to us as the former mentioned concepts.

As such we will begin our in depth analysis of what it is the vessel of existence contains through the analysis of the physical and abstractual. In addition it is the physical, which distances human abstractual experiencing from the awareness and knowing of the individual entity. Similarly it is the abstractual, which distances physical experiencing from the awareness and knowing of philosophically speaking – ‘Being’, ontologically speaking – God, mathematically speaking – the whole.

It is worth noting that introducing the term God at this point in time is intentional. Philosophy and science (represented by its language of mathematics) are not the only potent forces influencing humanity at this juncture of our historical development as thinking entities. Religions play a major role in influencing humankind’s meditative thoughts concerning existence and meaning.

Although the term God will not be used frequently within this dialectic, it must be understood that theology, in the form of ontology, is, throughout this work, fully respected for its influence upon humankind’s philosophical and scientific and artistic thinking. As such, the concepts regarding the purity of God, ‘Being, and the Whole are understood to be interchangeable within this work.

Existence in Light of Science, Art, and Philosophy
Art is to the abstract/the intangible

As

Science is to the physical/the tangible

There is a direct correlation, which exists between science and art. Understanding the direct correlation which exists between science and art leads to a clearer understand regarding the correlation which exists between the tangible/physical and the intangible/non-physical which in turn leads to a better understanding concerning the vessel existence.

In the previous section, ‘Understanding the vessel of existence’, we initiated a new beginning to the debate through the introduction of the discussion of existence itself being ‘composed’ neither of the corporeal nor the incorporeal but rather being composed of the potentiality of the four forms of being. The potentiality then explodes into the four forms themselves existing with the advent of experiencing. As we saw, the four forms of experiencing formed a container, formed a vessel, within which experiencing was both ordinally and cardinally ‘contained’.

Rather than begin the discussion of existence in light of the physical and/or non-physical, we began the discussion of existence in light of the purity of existence in and of itself.

It is the naive perception that existence is, in and of itself, composed of the physical and/or the abstract that prevents us from understanding existence in and of itself. As we have seen, the four primal components of existence are not composed of the physical/tangible nor are the primal components of existence composed of the abstract/intangible.

The four basic building blocks of existence, being, being, ‘being’ and ‘Being’, are identifiable as independent elements existing simultaneously along with the corporeal and incorporeal. In another sense one could say the four basic building blocks of existence, being, being, ‘being’ and ‘Being’, are the very components from which both the physical and the abstractual elements emerge.

As such:

The elemental components of existence are not physical in nature nor are the elemental components of existence abstractual in nature.

Understanding existence is a concept that has haunted philosophers and humanity alike for thousands of years. It is because we have perceived existence to be composed of physical and/or abstractual components that philosophers, artists, and scientists have been unable to reach a consensus as to what existence is.

This work examines the concept of existence from a different perspective than has been previously used by scientists, artists, and philosophers. (Ontologists are in essence theological philosophers specializing in the field of Systematic Theology and as such within this work will be, for the most part, incorporated as elements within the field of philosophy.)

The ‘old’ concept that existence is composed of the physical and/or the abstract, led not only to the establishment of many of our most prominent metaphysical and ontological paradoxes but led to most of our present day social dilemmas. We can better understand existence and begin to dismantle our existing metaphysical paradoxes, ontological paradoxes, and social dilemmas if we understand that existence is composed neither of the physical nor composed of the abstractual.

As was previously stated, understanding existence to be something other than the physical or the abstractual leads us to the three questions:

1. What is ‘Existence’?
2. What is the ‘Physical’?
3. What is the ‘Abstract’?

Through understanding that existence is neither the physical nor the abstract but rather existence is an entity unto itself, we can begin to understand not only the concept of unique individuality but we can begin to understand how it is that unique individuality existing has function/meaning to the whole of existence/singularity of existence/God.

The significance regarding the meaning of an individual’s existence goes to the heart of the question: Does the unique individual actually exist?

Without meaning, philosophically the concept of existence existing becomes debatable. Philosophically if we have no meaning and then die, did we really exist at all?

To understand the relationship that exists between the physical and the abstract we need to understand the connection that exists between the tools used to elucidate the abstract, i.e. art, and the tools used to elucidate the physical, i.e. science.

The question then becomes: How is it that art and science are linked?

1. Art uses the physical to portray the abstract – Science uses the abstract (mathematics) to portray the physical
   Art uses clay, stone, paint, the pen, musical instruments, … to portray the abstract – Science uses mathematics to portray the physical.
   
   
2. Art speaks of the abstract – Science speaks of the physical
   Art explores abstract reality and through the use of a physical medium and portrays, through the use of the physical, paints/writing/musical instruments/…portrays what has been revealed. Science explores physical reality and through the use of the abstract, mathematics, portrays what has been revealed.
   
   
3. Art manipulates the abstract through the use of the physical – Science manipulates the physical through the use of the abstract
   Art manipulates the abstract through the use of the physical medium: paints/writing/musical instruments/…– Science manipulates the physical through the use of the abstract medium, mathematics.
   
   
4. The artist is the engineer of the abstract – the Scientist is the engineer of the physical
   Art not only manipulates the abstract but also yearns to do so. Science not only manipulates the physical but also yearns to do so.
   
   
5. The artist seeks truth. The scientist seeks truth.
   The artist seeks truth within the abstract and uses the physical medium as their means of portraying that truth. The scientist seeks truth within the physical and uses the abstract, mathematics, as their means of portraying that truth.
   
   
6. Art reveals the abstract – Science reveals the physical
   Art exposes reality in a manner as to make abstract reality meaningful, experiential to the individual in an abstractual manner. Science exposes reality in a manner as to make physical reality meaningful, experiential to the individual in a physical manner.
   
   
7. Art reveals abstractually what is but has not yet been revealed – Science reveals physically what is but has not yet been revealed.
   Through art we learn of that which existed before but was never before revealed. Through science we learn of that which existed before but was never before revealed.
   
   
8. Art initiates unique experiencing, which has never before been possible. Science initiates unique experiencing, which has never before been possible.
   Art does not occur by itself. Art is the product of action taken by a knowing entity in touch with the abstract. Science does not occur by itself. Science is the product of action taken by a knowing entity in tough with the physical.
   
   
9. Art has a purpose in reality. Art provides the means by which new awareness emerges through the revelation of the abstract/intangible using the physical medium. Science has a purpose in reality. Science provides the means by which new awareness emerges through the revelation of the physical/tangible using the abstractual medium/mathematics.
   Art has a purpose. Art provides the means by which the total summation of abstractual experiencing/knowing/Being expands its summation of experiencing/knowing/Being. Science has a purpose. Science provides the means by which the total summation of physical experiencing/knowing/Being expands its total summation of experiencing/knowing/Being.
   
   
10. Art reveals abstract reality in a meaningful manner to the individual and science reveals physical reality in a meaningful manner to the individual. Art and science create a means by which the individual can experience both the abstract and the physical in a meaningful and unique manner.
    It is experiencing which thus takes on meaning and it is the abstract portrayed through art initiated by the artist and the physical portrayed through science initiated by the scientist/mathematician, which expands our ability to experience both the physical and abstractual aspects of reality uniquely.
    
    At first glance it appears that what is being suggested is that science and art are simply revealing what already exists but has not yet been revealed to us as humans. Such a statement is correct, however, such a perception is only the ‘first glance’ scenario.

If we place the two statements:

1. Art reveals the abstract/the intangible reality in a meaningful manner to the individual, which in turn allows the individual to experience reality uniquely.
2. Science reveals the physical/the tangible reality in a meaningful manner to the individual, which in turn allows the individual to experience reality uniquely.

under greater scrutiny we find the most revealing affects of the two statements lie in the phrase: ‘meaningful experiencing’.

What is being said is that the key to ‘meaning’ lies in ‘experiencing’.

When we speak of ‘experiencing’, we understand ‘experiencing’ refers to the interaction with the physical and/or abstractual.

But when we speak of ‘meaning’ are we referring to the ‘meaning’ of the physical and/or abstractual or are we referring to the meaning of ‘existence’ itself?

Actually we are referring to both. However, we will need to examine the ‘meaning’ of ‘existence’ in and of itself before we examine the ‘meaning’ of physical and/or abstractual existence. One must begin with the basics, begin with the noun, begin with ‘existence’ before one adds the complexity of the adjective, before one begins to examine the type of existence, namely ‘physical’ and/or ‘abstractual’ existence

Science is the tool that provides the most obvious means to understand the physical. We can expand meaningful experiences of the physical through science.

Art is the tool that provides the most obvious means to understand the abstract. We can expand meaningful experiences of the abstract through art.

The question then becomes: What means do we use to understand ‘meaningful experiencing’ itself?

Rationality provides us with the means of understanding what ‘meaningful experiencing’ itself means.

Since it is philosophy that examines what it is science and art cannot portray, it is philosophy to which we look as we examine ‘existence’ itself. We are not referring to ‘what it is that exists’ but rather we are looking to understand the very nature of existence itself.

So it is that philosophy using the tool of reason becomes our tool for understanding three concepts introduced up to this point:

1. Existence
2. Experiencing
3. Meaning

We cannot fully understand any of the three concepts, meaning, experiencing, and existence, without understanding the concepts, which precede them in the list.

It is understanding of existence in and of itself therefore that takes on the need of a unique new approach for the historical approaches to understanding existence has not served us well in our attempts to understanding experiencing and meaning.

Strangely enough, although it is this work, Existence that lays down the foundation to understanding the first six volumes, it is not this work, which comes first in the sequence of seven volumes. It is understanding how we can unravel the many philosophical, ontological, scientific, technological, and social paradoxes, which presently exist which leads to our understand existence in and of itself.

Opening the door to understanding ‘existence’
Having laid out the fundamental undertaking of this work, let’s get started with our next task, the understanding of existence in and of itself. Deciding upon the manner in which we will apply our tool of reason to understand existence could, in itself be a formidable task. Fortunately for us a preceding philosopher has already opened the door that will allow us to apply reason to the task of understanding existence in and of itself.

It was Kant who initiated the discussion regarding existence when he said:

‘Existence is not a predicate’