The point: The Cartesian/physical/universal fabric of cause and effect is imbedded within the ‘greater’ universal fabric of the non-Cartesian/the non-physical/the ‘greater’ underlying universal fabric of timelessness and spacelessness.

Faith, like observation, lacking the foundation of reason to support its conjectures and premises, cannot achieve its full potential.

19. W. Ockham (1285-1347) -Q1:

Do we possess free will or are our actions determined?

… In his philosophy, he was primarily concerned that an over-emphasis on "universal" forms would undermine the theological doctrine of free will.

S: The argument of concern to Ockham was:

Either free will exists or free will does not exist.

Again it must be emphasized that the statement not only could be altered with the ‘and’ scenario

Free will exists and free will does not exist.

but in fact the ‘and’ scenario resolves more of the issues than does the ‘either/or’ scenario.

Within the model of symbiotic panentheism, ‘being’ being ‘Being’, individuality, found within the physical universe, is in some instances governed by both the laws of physics and the laws of free Those entities of individuality which are comprised of both the physical and the abstractual are examples of the ‘and’ scenario. Entities of individuality comprised solely of the physical are governed solely by the laws of physics. It should be noted at this point that we may be unaware of entities within the physical that are composed solely of the abstract but should such be the case, such entities may potentially be subject to the laws of free will, to the laws of abstraction (should such laws exist), or both.

While in the physical there is little doubt that some forms of actions are predestined by nature. ‘Predestined by nature’ simply put, suggests the physical universe is subject to physical laws. There is little reasonable bases to deny our physical existence other than the argument that the physical is simply an ‘illusion’. The argument that the physical is an illusion is founded upon the principle that the abstract is the only form of reality. In a model where the abstract is reality, the physical becomes either an illusion or an innate characteristic of the abstract.

The reverse of the argument can also be made in which the physical becomes the real and the abstract becomes the illusion. The model of symbiotic panentheism suggest both models are incorrect yet correct. Symbiotic panentheism suggest that both the physical and the abstract are simultaneously real and separate entities but entities which depend one upon the other. (See Tractate 8: The Error of Einstein, Resolving the Problem of Imaginary Numbers and Tractate 9: The Error of Russell, Resolving the Problem of Non-Members).

It may or may not be that entities of individuality exist within the physical but the model of symbiotic panentheism suggests such entities do exist. Symbiotic panentheism clearly implies that an existence of multiplicity/individuality can be found both within the purity of the physical and within the purity of abstraction. (see Postscript: Chaos, Complexity, and Metaphysics)

It is within the purity of the physical where free will is often checked by the laws of physics. It is only within the purity of abstractual existence where free will of the individual takes on the purity of free will unrestricted by the physical. Such lack of restriction becomes limitless within the parameters of Metaphysical System 28/symbiotic panentheism/’being’ being ‘Being’. (See Tractate 13: Introducing Metaphysical System 28: Introducing the Problem of Metaphysical Systems # 7 & # 9.)

The point: It is only through the metaphysical model being suggested within this work that limitless free will emerges as a form of existence in and of itself. It is only through the metaphysical model being introduced within this work that eternal recurrence is a non-issue.

19. W. Ockham (1285-1347)–Q2:

Do we possess free will or are our actions determined?

S: Regarding four conjectures found within the description of Ockham given in Tractate 18:

… For him, God’s freedom is incompatible with the existence of divine ideas. God doesn’t use preconceived "ideas" when he creates, but creates the universe as he wishes. Consequently, human beings have no natures or essences in common.
And why not? If there is a ‘greater’ reality within which our personal universe is located, as the model of ‘being’ being ‘Being’/symbiotic panentheism suggests, and if such a region is permeated with a universal fabric of timelessness and spacelessness then there would be ‘room’ for a limitless number of universes. Each and every one of these unique universes could conceivable be ruled by different laws or lack of laws. Universes may be as unique as individual entities found within our particular physical universe.

… Because God is free, he can create the universe – and its rules – as he wishes. Fire could be cold rather than hot.
The whole/God is independent and free of all ‘outside’ influences including the concept of limits because there is no existence ‘outside’ God. God is by definition both, the whole of existence and non-existence and as such limits may be found ‘within’ aspects of God but not as a universal characteristic of God

… Light might be dark, rather than bright. Ockham distrusted our ability to find the truth of things. Instead, he relied on "probable" arguments to support his position.
The concept of there being other forms of universes, within which the laws of physics or lack of laws, as we know them ‘to be’ or think we know them ‘to be’, does not preclude our being capable of ‘knowing’ our own universe. We live within what appears to us to be an ordered existence of physicality moving towards chaos or perhaps chaos moving towards complexity/order as emerging fields of science suggest The metaphysical model of symbiotic panentheism again would suggest the perception of either chaos/disorder emerges from complexity/order or complexity/order emerges from chaos/disorder is again a paradoxical scenario created by an either/or conjunction. The resolution to such a paradox once again becomes obvious. We simply replace the ‘either/or’ concept with the ‘and’ scenario. (See Postscript: Chaos, Complexity, and Metaphysics.

… A vital principle in his philosophical method was that "plurality is not to be posited without necessity." This economy of thought is often referred to as Ockham’s Razor
There is no denying the metaphysical model of symbiotic panentheism/’being’ being ‘Being’ introduces plurality/multiplicity to the system as opposed to exclusionism and inclusionism produced by our two existing systems: The Cartesian System and the Non-Cartesian System.

The Cartesian system is a system of multiplicity: the multiplicity of individuality/unique entities. The Non-Cartesian system is a system of singularity: the singularity of wholeness/lack of individuality. If we refer to the metaphysical system of the Cartesian as multiplicity and the metaphysical system of the Non-Cartesian as singularity then both systems are less complex than the metaphysical system of the Cartesian being within the Non-Cartesian. Ockham’s Razor would therefore imply one or the other of the simpler systems would be the correct perception of reality since the dual system is more complex. It would appear, therefore, that the metaphysical system introduced by this work, would then defy Ockam’s principle of simplicity until one includes Ockham’s qualifier: ‘…plurality is not to be posited without necessity.’

The point: Since neither the Cartesian system nor the Non-Cartesian system can resolve the issues surrounding philosophical and social paradoxes and the new metaphysical system of symbiotic panentheism can resolve such issues, the case has been made for the ‘necessity’ regarding the simultaneous and independent existence of the physical and the abstractual, determinism and free will, multiplicity and singularity.

20. The Collapse of Scholasticism Q1:

What can we know?

In the 14th and 15th centuries, the critical philosophy of Ockham began to undermine the scholastic project of synthesizing the traditions of philosophy and religion into a single and comprehensive system of thought. Many argued that the attempt to unite religion with philosophy had failed. Many prominent thinkers of the time – Jean Buridan (1300-1358), Nicholas of Autrecourt (1300-1350) – felt that such a synthesis wasn’t possible.

S: Science had not fully developed by the 14th and 15th centuries. As such, the concepts of an expanding universe, contracting universe, complexity theory, chaos theory, string theory, matter’s natural tie to energy, the mathematical relationship existing between matter/energy and time/space (Einstein’s equation of relativity), microbiology, organic chemistry, genetics, cloning, artificial intelligence, mimicry, Non-Cartesianism, , the uncertainty principle, anti-matter, electrons/positrons, sub-atomic physics, the physics regarding the fusion process, topology, entropy, along with a myriad other concepts were not even comprehensible during the 14th and 15th centuries.

It was science, which would advance our knowledge of the physical universe, of the Cartesian, far enough for us to rationally speculate regarding the concept of a potential ‘outside’ to our physical existence. As such, it was to be science, in its effort to limit reality to the ‘observable/measurable’, that introduced the concept of there being an outside to the physical. It was science which inadvertently reintroduced the rationality and reasonableness regarding there being an ‘outside’ to the universe, a ‘beyond’ the physical.

And what is the study of a region located ‘beyond the physical’ as it relates to the physical? The field of study which examines the physical and what it is the physical lies ‘within’ was named by Aristotle thousands of years ago. The name of the field is metaphysics.

We exist within the physical and as such we can ‘know’ the physical.

But what of the abstract? Do we live ‘in’ the abstract? The model of symbiotic panentheism demonstrates how it is that the physical exists within the abstract and thus we exist not only within the physical but we exist within the abstract. Since we exist within the abstractual, we can not only ‘know’ the physical but we can ‘know’ the abstract.

It may be more difficult to ‘know’ the abstract since the abstract is once removed from us by the physical but the abstract is ‘within’ ourselves and as such this innate characteristic of ‘knowing’ (innate to our ‘being’ not necessarily innate to our physical existence) provides us the means by which we can ‘know’ the abstract. This characteristic of innateness of knowing is not necessarily found ‘within’ all physical entities and therefore ‘knowing’ abstraction is not necessarily found as a characteristic of all entities of individuality.

Philosophy may not have been capable of being united with religion in the 14th and 15th centuries but it appears, as clearly demonstrated through this work: The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, that philosophy, through the advancements of science, is now capable of such a union. Not only does this work demonstrates such a union is possible but it demonstrates such a union need not, in fact should not, destroy uniqueness existing between religions or the lack of religions.

The point: It is possible to unite religion with philosophy but such an effort took more knowledge regarding the nature of the physical than the philosophers and theist had at their disposal in the 14th and 15th centuries.

20. The Collapse of Scholasticism Q2:

What can we know?

… Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), who deliberately embraced contradiction in trying to unite religion with philosophy made one final attempt. Cusa argued its logical consistency was, therefore, unimportant.

S: Ah but if ‘…logical consistency was, therefore, unimportant’ then philosophy was unimportant since reasonableness is demonstrated through logic as well as other means of reasoning and rationalizing. Without ‘logical constancy’ philosophy by definition becomes unimportant.

This would appear to imply Cusa was incorrect in his ‘… argument that if God’s perfect unity can encompass contradictory qualities, then the contradictions evident in the philosophical tradition should also be embraced in a single comprehensive whole.’ Such is not the case however.

Contradiction to ourselves is simply that ‘contradiction’. Contradiction occurs from a lack of broad perception.

We create ‘either/or’ scenarios, which in turn appear to be contradictions when in fact they represent positions of principles based upon shortsighted analysis. The means of circumventing such contradictions is briefly described within Volume II: Introduction: A New Tool For Conflict Resolution. A detailed application of this new tool, metaphysics, is demonstrated throughout the sixteen hundred pages of this three-volume set.

The point: It is through ‘knowing’ the physical and knowing the abstract that we can then fuse the two systems into one system through philosophy/reason. We can do more than build a basic foundation for philosophy and religion, we can build a fundamental foundation for all three means we have of understanding reality. We can build a fundamental foundation for: philosophy, religion, and science.

The three - science, religion, and philosophy – can remain unique and independent from one another and still embrace a common foundation. The three can find grounds for a common foundation in terms of their perception of reality itself. From a common perception of reality emerges the very independence each field of study wishes to maintain for itself.

A common foundation established by symbiotic panentheism is no more stagnant then the whole of the system itself. The common foundation is what might be called a ‘living’ foundation, a foundation which changes as we learn, ‘know’, more regarding the whole of reality itself.

The source of change, which knowledge generates, emerges from new ‘knowing’ the independent studies of science, religion, and philosophy generate. The remaining two fields of study must accept any change in the common foundation generated by any one of the three fields. In short consensus is a basic principle applied to the foundation of the three. Confirmation by each of the three fields of study, to the best of their ‘knowing’, to the best of their ‘knowledge’, becomes a key element, cooperation becomes a key premise for establishing a common foundation, establishing a concept that would benefit all three equally.

In essence philosophy and religion can be united through what it is we ‘know’ of the physical and
the abstract and what it is we ‘will know’ of the physical and the abstract.

What then of ‘nothingness’? Can we know of ‘nothingness’? The answer is yes for ‘nothingness’ is found within the whole. (See Tractate 10: The Error of Heidegger, Resolving the Problem of the Void of a Void)

21. The Renaissance – Q1:

Why is the individual important?

… Beginning with the Renaissance, philosophers began to move away from theology as a vital part of their work. … Instead, there was a new focus: the individual. …There was a renewed emphasis on individual freedom and choice.

…By emphasizing the importance of direct observation, Renaissance thinkers created the foundation for a completely empirical view of the world, a view of the world that was completely new. This "new science" coincided with – and was made possible by – new advances in instrumentation and optics. Without these tools, an accurate empirical study could not have been made.

S: But why is the individual important? The Renaissance philosophers may have moved away from theology but they were unable to explain why such a move was logical. To move from theology, the study of the whole/God, to the individual was significant but was unexplainable in terms of defining the purpose for individuals existing in the form of individuality.

The movement from one concept, singularity/theology, to another multiplicity/individuality – was initiated by philosophy through an intuitive sense that the individual was important but the question as to ‘Why is the individual important?’ found itself to be irresolvable.

Science was simultaneously beginning its quest of multiplicity. Science was beginning its initiative to understand the concept regarding the multiplicity of the physical/the many laws and interactions regarding the subcomponents of the physical, both living and nonliving.

But why was multiplicity/individuality important and in the case of human beings: Why was the individual important? Neither the Cartesian model of reality representing multiplicity nor the non-Cartesian model of reality representing singularity were able to answer the question without reducing the individual to a position of ‘lesser’ significance relative to the whole.

Symbiotic panentheism, however, is a model of reality, which both demonstrates the equality of significance for singularity/the whole/God and multiplicity/individuality/the individual through the process of illustrating a critical purpose for multiplicity/individuality/the individual as regards the model of reality itself.

Was the move from theology, the study of the whole/singularity/God, to science, the study of sub-elements of the whole/multiplicity/individuality, necessary to fully understand reality and the importance of the individual to the whole? Understanding the elements/multiplicity/individuality (i.e. the individual) and how multiplicity relates to the whole/singularity (i.e. panentheism) and (symbiosis) how the whole/panentheism/singularity relates to its elements/singularity/individuality is only important if the whole is composed of elements/multiplicity/individuality.

By moving humanity’s energies from theology/the whole/singularity to individuality/multiplicity , the Renaissance movement validated the intuitive understanding that the individual must play some significant role to the whole. What significance the individual/multiplicity/the Cartesian plays to the whole/singularity/the non-Cartesian would be revealed later with the advent of symbiotic panentheism.

The point: The individual within the model of reality demonstrated by symbiotic panentheism is important because 1. Individuality/multiplicity provides ‘a’/’the’ means by which the whole avoids stagnation/eternal recurrence. 2. Without the individual/multiplicity the whole would not be what the whole is. 3. Without individuality/multiplicity the region of the ‘you’ as opposed to the ‘I’ would not exist. (See Tractate 2: The Error of Aristotle, Resolving the Problem of Cartesianism.

21. The Renaissance – Q2:

What is the purpose and meaning of life?

… philosophers defined four distinct areas of philosophical enquiry: metaphilosophy, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

S: Symbiotic panentheism, ‘being’ being ‘Being’ specifically addresses the four distinct areas of philosophical enquiry the Renaissance established: Symbiotic panentheism addresses the four areas not with questions but with answers.

1. Metaphilosophy: What is the purpose of philosophy? Does it have a place, generally, in humanlife? The fundamental purpose of philosophy is to accomplish two tasks: (1) Develop a reasonable/rational model of the whole of reality and (2) Develop an understanding regarding the function/purpose of the elements found within said model and in particular establish an understanding regarding the significance of the individual. The two tasks must reach a degree of reason that is acceptable to our sense of faith, and is capable of being substantiated by our ability to observe. A mission statement of this type does not establish an ‘absolute’ model of reality but rather establishes a model approximating reality as best we are able from the knowledge we have at hand. The construction of such a model allows faith/religions, observation/sciences, and reason/philosophies to come to a consensus as to what reality is. The establishment of a common perception of reality in turn allows each area of study to move forward with their research and debates. This work demonstrates how to accomplish the task of developing a common model of reality as well as outlines ‘a’ model, which could accomplish such a feat.

2. Ethics: How do we judge and evaluate human behavior? What is "the good" and what motivates our moral actions? Without the support of religious belief, is a moral life possible? A moral life is possible. Morality, however, is based upon one’s perception of reality. It is from one’s perception of reality that an understanding emerges regarding what one’s function/purpose is within reality. As long as science, religion, and philosophy are diametrically opposed to each other’s positions, conflict will exist as to what a ‘moral’ life is or is not. In short one cannot ‘judge’ morality without a definition/model of reality and purpose. The only way to resolve the issue regarding what is a moral life and what is not a moral life is to establish a consensus as to what reality is and from such a model establish a consensus as to what our function within such a reality is.

3. Metaphysics: Does God exist? We cannot determine if God exists if we do not know to what it is we are referring. This work suggests the first three characteristics of God are omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. Such characteristics mathematically describe ‘the whole’, scientifically describe the whole, and philosophically describe the whole. The personality attached to the whole/singularity/God is left to the religious field of ontology. The question then becomes: Does the whole exist? Science, mathematics, philosophy, and religion would all appear to agree that the whole does exist.

What is the universe? The universe is what it is, the physical, our reality, which in turn is located within the ‘greater’ reality of the abstract.

What is the meaning and purpose of the universe? The purpose of the universe is to act as a ‘virgin’ region where ‘virgin’ newness can emerge as ‘untainted’ newness in order to grow established existence

Why are we in the universe and what is our purpose? We are in the universe to accomplish our purpose, which is to become unique in our individuality without interfering with others.

Epistemology: Is certain knowledge of the world possible? What does it depend upon?
Certain knowledge is not possible. What is certain is that we can define knowledge to the best of our ablility. Having defined knowledge, as best we are able allows us to move on with our search for new knowledge. If at some point we discover knowledge is not what we thought it to be we then redefine knowledge and move on from that new point.

The point: Questions regarding the meaning of life are answerable through modeling the whole of reality as demonstrated throughout this work.

22. Political Philosophy - Q1:

What is morality?

When secular authority replaced ecclesiastical authority as the dominant focus of interest, there was a shift of attention from religion to politics … But political philosophy during the Renaissance was essentially dualistic. It recognized a conflict between two opposing points of view: political necessity and general moral responsibility.

S: Again we see the conflict and negative social results of an ‘either/or’ scenario. In this case the ‘either/or’ scenario became:

Either political morality or general morality applies depending upon….

So it is morality became relative to the situation rather than relative to the category of the entity. And just what is the difference? Morality based upon the situation implies there is no specific purpose for an organism as it functions within the whole of reality. For instance, rocks, sticks, water, mountains, stars… most likely have no morality involved with the actions they generate since they appear to have no ‘choice’ in what it is they do. Their actions are actions lacking the element of ‘free will’ and it is this lack of ‘free will’ we describe as the absence of moral choice we assign to individual humans.

It is the existence of perceived ‘free will’, which imposes the element of what we perceive to be moral and immoral characteristics to our action.

It is the ‘either/or’ scenarios, which then add the characteristic element of ‘relativistic morality’ to morality itself. So it is morality/ethics became an issue of politics/political ethics/morality, society/social ethics/morality, business/business ethics/morality, person/personal ethics/morality, religion/religious ethics/morality, medicine/medical ethics/morality, …

Humans and perhaps other life forms within our universe, on the other hand, appear to have the ability to ‘choose’ their actions ‘based’ upon what it is they perceive to be ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ which in turn is based upon what our three tools of perception perceive reality to be.

Again, the means to resolving the conflict, the means to establishing morality as morality, is to replace the ‘either/or’ conjunctions with the ‘and’ conjunction.

Morality is not ‘relative’. Morality is based upon what actions impact the whole in the manner ‘best’ for all of us since we all eventually become directly a part of the whole as opposed to our present irrational perception of being simultaneously both ‘within’ ‘and’ ‘not within’ the whole. (See Volume II, Tractate 9: The Error of Russell, Resolving the Problem of Non-Members.)

The point: There is no difference between morality and ethics. There is no difference between one form of morality and another. We, as a specie, have defined and categorized various forms of morality and ethics but this does not make it so. Our actions to categorize morality, create relativistic forms of morality and ethics, has emerged as an intellectual exercise. This exercise has in turn has been absorbed into our cultures, traditions, and individual perceptions.

Morality/ethics is not relative. Morality/ethics are absolutes. We can reestablish the concept of ‘absolute morality’ if we bring faith - represented by religions, observations – represented by science, and reason – represented by philosophy together and have them construct a model of our realty upon which they can all agree. It is from the model of ‘where we are’ that the three can then define ‘what we are’ and from that point define ‘why it is we exist’. The immediate response becomes: That will never happen. The reply should be: ‘It definitely won’t happen if we don’t try to make it happen.’

22. Political Philosophy – Q2:

What is our function within society?

… Many philosophers of the time, including Machiavelli and Hobbes, attempted to resolve the conflict between these two positions. Both struggled with the conflict between institutional power and human freedom. By different means, they both concluded that only with a strong institutional base could morality flourish.

S: It is not the strong institutional base, which allows morality to flourish. An institutional base has no awareness of its own. The ‘institutional’ base, be it strong or be it weak, may act as a foundation but the institutional base is composed of the individual or individuals who in turn define the morality, which the strong institution is intended to support.

Individuals develop/define morality based upon their perception of reality.

1. Perceptions of reality being the physical naturally lead to moralities based upon the
   physical and thus physical hedonism emerges as the bases for morality.
2. Perceptions of reality being the abstract naturally lead to moralities based upon altruism and thus abstractual hedonism emerges as the bases for morality.

Once again it becomes clear that it is our perception of reality, which generates our perception of morality, and our present perception of reality is that reality is either the physical or the abstract.

It is difficult to deny the physical for we see, feel, hear, smell, taste, in essence we experience the physical outside ourselves day and night.

It is difficult to deny the abstractual for we are immersed within emotions of joy, hate, boredom, interest, curiosity, longing, memories, … In essence we experience the abstract within ourselves day and night.

The ‘either/or’ controversy of reality again confronts our basic instincts: Either the physical is real or the abstract is real.

The controversy of which is real, the physical or the abstract, is what causes our inability to resolve the issues regarding morality/ethics. If the multiplicity of the physical is what is real then we perceive morality and ethics to be multiply unique concepts each of which can be divided into multiple categories and subtopics of ethics/morality. If the singularity of the abstraction is what is real then we perceive morality and ethics to be ‘a’ singular concept of black and white.

The issue has not been resolved nor will the issue ever be resolved as long as we perceive reality to be power struggle between religion/singularity/abstraction and science/multiplicity/physicality.

The point: Reaching a consensus as to what our function is within society will only occur with the implementation of the ‘and’ conjunction: the physical is real ‘and’ the abstract is real. The answer to the question of which lies within which must come from the metaphysical application of the ‘and’ conjunction, which generates the model: The physical lies within the abstract and the abstract lies within the physical. (See Tractate 13: Metaphysical System 28, Introducing the Problem of Metaphysical Systems 7 and 9.). In short: Metaphysical perceptions are important. Metaphysical perceptions generate actions. Actions generate reactions. Reactions generate social ambience. And it is social ambience generated by Metaphysical perceptions, which wash over each and every one of us from the beginning of our living within the physical to the end of our living in the physical live
.
23. Niccoló Machiavelli (1469-1527) – Q1:

Is there a difference between ‘appearance’ and reality?

On initially reading his work, the impression is given that his main concern is solely with maintaining the power of the state, with little regard for the moral consequences of doing so. … The term "Machiavellian" is often used in present times to refer to someone who is politically deceitful and unscrupulous. But this is a mischaracterization of his real attitude towards morality. For Machiavelli, the unification of Italy was of prime importance. In order to make this unification possible, … he believed that only a strong state – based upon the ancient Roman virtues – could provide the proper environment for morality to flourish.

S: Morality is not a ‘Roman’ virtue. Morality is not a ‘human’ virtue. Morality is itself what it is. Morality is not something we ‘define’ to our personal semantic liking. Morality is and as such, morality is something for us to ‘uncover’, discover, and understand. Morality ‘is’ rather than being what we want morality to be.

We have the perception that morality is what we make it ‘appear’ to be. In our present state of social development, we do not understand that morality is defined by what ‘reality is’ as opposed what we wish reality would be. We develop a model of reality for ulterior motives. We develop a model of reality to suit our needs, desires, wishes knowing that ultimately the way we describe reality determines what we consider morality to be which in turn, if we do not give the ‘correct’ appearance as to what reality is, will cause us to fail at accomplishing what it is we ultimately wish to accomplish based upon our personal motives.

Reality is not an ‘appearance’. We may temporarily confuse the issue and define reality for what it is not, give reality the ‘appearance’ of being something it is not but somewhere, somehow, truth triumphs and reality’s true appearance will emerge and as such truth will emerge and with the emergence of ‘truth’, true morality will emerge.

One principle emerging from the complete picture of reality as opposed to emerging from an ‘appearance’ of reality which will help us identify the true morality is: Morality must apply universally to the whole as well as to the elements of multiplicity comprising the whole.

To understand what morality is, to understand moral behavior/actions one must understand what the whole is and what the active sub-elements of the whole are which comprise the whole. One must understand the characteristics of the whole and the characteristics of the sub-elements. One must understand what is the innate and what is the primal source of the innate. One must understand what is absolute longevity and what is not. One must understand the whole of all and the sub-elements/multiplicity of its existence if such sub-elements/multiplicity in fact exists.

All this ‘uncovering’, ‘discovering’, and ‘understanding’ is the very function of metaphysics. Such a process best begins with a sequential unveiling regarding the answers to the questions prioritizes as: Location: Where are we? - Substance: What are we? - Function: Why do we exist?

These are the very questions, which act as the nucleus of this work, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception. These are the questions, which have haunted the minds of individual humans since the beginning of our historical development.

There is no such concept as ‘appearance’ to morality any more than there is an ‘appearance to reality. Reality is what reality is and it is through an honest, unbiased, uncompromised revealing of the whole of reality that we can come to understand morality not as an ‘apparent’ morality but as an universal absolute morality emerging from an absolute reality.

23. Niccoló Machiavelli (1469-1527) – Q2:

Why is the individual important?

… Unlike the ethical philosophers, Machiavelli held that success in the public arena was distinct from private morality. The question, for Machiavelli, is not what make a human being good, but what makes him a good prince. A good prince will use any means necessary in order to create the foundations of a stable state.

S: Morality exists for the individual. Morality does not exist for itself. But does morality exist only for the individual or does morality exist for the ‘greater good’ itself?

The concept of morality existing simply for the individual emerges from a metaphysical perception that the physical/multiplicity/multiple individuality exist be they entities of knowing or entities of non-knowing. The concept of morality existing simply for the individual ignores the metaphysical concept of singularity/non-Cartesianism. As such the whole is not ‘the’ whole’ but rather the whole is the existence of multiple ‘wholes’ and no single ‘whole’ exists. An exclusive system of multiplicity establishes a void of ‘a totality’/’a summation’/’a ’universal’ set of all including the all of nothingness itself’.

The concept of there being multiple ‘wholes’ and no single ‘whole’ leads to the concept that any whole which is capable of being created, such as ‘a’ ‘state’ leads to the concept that such a creation has the ‘right’ to protect itself, dominate other ‘wholes’. A ‘right’ granted to ‘a’ state to protect itself generates the rationale regarding the ‘right’ of the state to call upon its ‘sub’-elements, individuals found within the state, to protect the state at the expense of the individual.

Such a social condition supports the concept that the individual’s purpose in society is to ‘serve’, ‘serve’ the state, ‘serve’ established authority, ‘serve’ corporations, ‘serve’ institutions, ‘serve’ religion.... In such a state the authority figures, the organizations within the state, and the state itself acquire the highest ‘level’ of significance and the individual becomes secondary, becomes ‘relatively’ insignificant.

In such a state there is no ‘whole’ of all and as such there is no single ‘greater good’. In such a state there are multiple ‘greater goods’ each of which is established a power broker and it generate the power broker who is given ‘control’ of the individual through the rationale established through the metaphysical system they have established or chosen for the purpose of ‘retaining control’.

The metaphysical model of symbiotic panentheism clearly defines ‘a’ whole of all and as such it is not the state which is recognized as ‘a’, ‘the’ ‘greater good’ but rather the whole is recognized as the all of knowing, the all, abstraction within which even the physical is located. The individual is recognized as the entity of multiplicity.

The element of primary importance within this metaphysical system becomes the individual because the individual has the function of not ‘serving’ the whole/singularity but of actually ‘causing’ the whole to become more than what it is. Thus the function of the state within such a model becomes secondary to the individual. Within such a state, the state’s function becomes to serve the individual rather then the individual serving the state.

The point: Within the model of symbiotic panentheism, ‘being’ being ‘Being’, the individual becomes of primary importance because the individual is the element within the whole, which directly impacts the whole. The state in turn becomes of secondary importance because the state’s function is to facilitate the very development of the individual which in turn directly affects, grows the whole. The importance of the state is not to be ignored for the existence of the state allows for the development of the individual but on the other hand the state is secondary to the ultimate propose of physical reality, is secondary in terms of physical reality’s purpose for existing.

24. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) – Q1:

What is the purpose and meaning of life?

… A century later, Thomas Hobbes – tutor to Charles II - proposed the idea of a "social contract." Hobbes believed that the life of man in the "state of nature" was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." … This "commonwealth" would provide the environment for liberty, freedom, cooperation, and contentment.

S: Humanity living in the state of nature implies humanity living in the state of the physical and ignoring the abstractual aspect of the individual. To ignore the abstract and focus upon the physical is nothing short of mimicking animals. Is there any wonder such a life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." How is it possible to expect anything other than a life of mimicry if one decides to live by the physical/material alone?

If we perceived the individual to be a part of the whole as this work demonstrates and if the whole of reality is not the physical but rather the abstractual within which the physical itself is located, then we would perceive the individual/’man’ to be both abstractual in nature as well as physical in nature. Recognizing the dual aspects of ‘man’, science would be compelled to observe both the physical and the abstractual/paranormal equally. Simultaneously philosophy would likewise be obligated to provide equal consideration regarding the purpose for physical existence and abstractual existence. And religion would view the individual, as being both the physical and abstractual/divine in nature and as such would find itself morally obligated to respect and show due consideration for both the unique physical and unique abstractual/emotional aspects of the individual.

We have found that when the individual lives to serve the state, individual liberty, freedom, cooperation, and contentment become secondary issues to the state and as such these issues eventually become lack of liberty, lack of freedom, lack of cooperation and lack of contentment.

… Thus, in order to live in a civilized world, it was necessary to create a "social contract." Within this social contract, we would be expected to surrender our individual rights in order to benefit from the security of a stable society.

S: To expect the individual to ‘surrender their individual rights in order to benefit…’ is to suggest the individual has no purpose for existing other than to exist. The lack of purpose existing for the individual generates the very
rationale that the individual should concede its ‘rights in exchange for ‘stability’, ‘comfort’, ‘materialism’….

If the individual has a purpose for existing other than simply to exist, then to concede one’s ‘rights’ to pursue one’s purpose for existing in exchange for personal physical gain is more than a ‘simple’ request uttered as a minimalistic bargaining position.

But what is the purpose and meaning of life? Answering such a question is the very point of not only philosophy but the very point of science and religion. As such it is the three together that must answer the question as best they can in a consensus fashion in order that the individual may move on from such a consensus and attempt to accomplish their very purpose for existing without compromising such important endeavors based upon a bartered agreement to give up their rights in exchange for what Hobbes calls ‘stability’ and ‘security’.

The point: We can come to a consensus regarding the answers to the three questions: Where are we? What are we? And why do we exist? The consensus can be reached through a cooperative effort by the fields of science, religion, and philosophy. The process to reach such a consensus is best known as ‘making the effort’. The tool to be used to reach such a consensus is outlined in the Introduction to Volume II: A New Tool for Conflict Resolution