I have run this tractate by a respected friend and trusted critic of philosophy. Upon reading the title, ‘Husserl, Hawking, and I – a Search for Truth’, he looked up, stated simply, ‘Intriguing’, and then in his own casual manner, set the article aside until he would be able to isolate and immerse himself in the article. I proceeded to then leave him in his favorite state, a state of quietude where he is able to turn over ideas and examine them as he mixes, churns, brews, and ferments them with the ideas of other philosophers. Like a cook, he likes to spice the mix with dashes of his own insights and then upon completion, dramatically reveal his response much like a painter dramatically revealing his latest creation.

We as a specie are about to step into a new millennium. As such I have always perceived philosophy to be symbolically entering a new age. I have viewed myself as being fortunate to be one of but a few philosophers in the unique position of bringing our specie into this age. As such I have felt a strong obligation to see that philosophy steps into the new millennium on a positive note as opposed to the despairing state of existence it appears to be wallowing in at the end of the second millennium AD. Seeing myself as one of a new breed of metaphysical philosopher, I must admit I was anxious to listen to his thoughts regarding the article. So it was, that six days later, upon my urging, he paused, mouth half open, and then, as if to be nonchalant, he casually, slowly, and simply drawled with his Irish accent, ‘so where is the ‘I’ part?’

Considering myself to be an emerging metaphysicians breaking upon the scene of a new age, the age of the human specie emerging into the near reaches of space, one would think this would be a rather deflating comment. But that would be the response of the ‘old’ age philosophers represented by the last of its bred in the likes of Heidegger and Wittgenstein. We new philosophers are Einsteinian relativists rather than Newtonian immutables.

As such we see life to be simply a matter of non-judicable actions. We see life as coming from an existence of abstraction and proceeding to pass through the ‘non-real’ world of a concrete universe as we move to reenter the real world of abstraction once again. The new age metaphysicians see this journey as two-fold in nature. First as we move beyond ‘life’, we carry with us what we learned on our journey through ‘reality’ and secondly we leave our perceptions and results of our actions in ‘reality’ for others to ‘view’. As such we see Einstein as having done the same. We see Einstein as having come from abstraction. We see Einstein as having touched the ‘unreal’ reality of the concrete and then move on once again to abstraction. Having come into this universe, what we perceive to be our reality, Einstein touched reality and left it changed by his presence. And with his passage he left reality changed forever, which in turn would forever change the abstraction into which his eternal essence was about to reenter. Through this process, Einstein entered, journeyed, and then left this reality and through this process Einstein left behind the concept of relativity. Through this process Einstein changed two existences. Einstein changed concrete reality and how we perceived it and Einstein changed eternal abstraction and what would forever be impacting it.

Einstein was perhaps the greatest modern day metaphysician for he left behind not only a concept of physics but more importantly, he left behind a perception of life. For we ‘new age metaphysicians’, Einstein left behind the concept of one’s life, one’s contribution to reality, having no more relative value than another. Einstein left behind the understanding that no one is capable of judging the relative value of one principle or one life over another for the value of one principle or one life may appear to be of more significance than another in the short run but in the long run the most prominent of fundamental principles or lives cannot survive without its ‘lesser’ components.

And so it is that I myself have thrown the simple comment, ‘so where’s the ‘I", in with the title of this article in order to allow it to mix, churn, brew, and ferment with the likes of greats such as Husserl and Hawking. It was after the cooking was completed that I realized where the ‘I’ was in all of this.

The ‘I’ was in the third fundamental, the third principle: Examine the impact. It was for this reason that I have included myself. It was for this reason that I inserted the statement, the three principles, of the last paragraph of this article. It is because I feel so strongly about the third fundamental, ‘Examine the impact,’ that I included myself with the likes of Husserl and Hawking.

This is not to say that I have earned a place with Husserl and Hawking. Whether that be the case or not is up to others to decide. Rather it is to say that no one ‘knows’ if they are or are not at one ‘level’ or another. No one ‘knows’ just what it means to be at one ‘level’ or another. No one ‘knows’ what position one ‘level’ or another takes relative to the others in terms of ‘importance’ in the grand scheme of it all. So it is that Einstein and his idea of relativism represents the dawning of a new age in philosophy.

Einstein introduced one of the most interesting and encouraging perceptions we all can embrace with optimism, hope, and comfort. It is Einstein’s concept of relativity that allows us all to say with a certain sense of conviction, ‘… and just who is to say for sure just how significant or insignificant my life and ideas are compared to someone else’s, for all things are relative.’ This new perception brings with it the increased sense of ‘equality of all men’. It is this new perception, which forces us into redefining social, environmental, and medical priorities

It is Einstein I perceive to be the father of a new age of metaphysics, an age of relativistic philosophy. It is Husserl, with is ideas of, bracketing, reduction, and intentionality that I perceive to be the one who has developed the process for creating a universal philosophy. It is Hawking I perceive to be the one who defined the characteristics of a universal philosophy. And what of myself? Why I simply wish to state that one must not forget to ‘examine the impact’ after having created a model of such a concept, a universal philosophy.

With that in mind, I now leave you to the article so that you may decide the relative value of such a statement, the relative value regarding the principle, ‘Examine the impact!’

Husserl, Hawking, and I - The Search for Truth

Introduction
If we united religion, science and philosophy, what would it offer us? What would if offer us as a species? It may provide us with a means of coming to a consensus regarding what it is we believe we are and why it is we believe we exist. It was Carl Sagan who best expressed it when he said:

"We are privileged to influence and perhaps control our future. I believe we have an obligation to fight for others, who came before us, and to whom we are all beholden and for all those who, if we are wise enough, will come after. There is no cause more urgent, no dedication more fitting then to protect the future of our species. Nearly all our problems are made by humans and can be solved by humans. No social convention, no political system, no economic hypothesis, no religious dogma is more important."

The means of developing such a consensus is through the development of a concept defined by Stephen Hawking as a ‘universal philosophy.’ This ‘universal philosophy’ could be achieved by using a process developed by Husserl: using ‘bracketing’ and applying the process of ‘reduction’ as outlined by Husserl. ‘Bracketing’ is the process of eliminating any superfluous and irrelevant perceptions that are a part of our everyday lives until one is left with life’s primary essentials. ‘Reduction’ is the process of examining what remains, the primary essentials – to make sense of ones ‘intentionality’. In short, it is Husserl’s development of process that helps us to develop Hawking’s concept of a ‘universal philosophy’. It is the process of ‘bracketing’ and ‘reduction’ that helps us to formulate answers to the three basic questions: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? In essence, it is Husserl who has defined the process and Hawking who has named the product of that process.

A search for purpose is in essence a search for a ‘universal philosophy’ based upon ‘truths’. This ‘universal philosophy’ - this means of modeling a ‘universal ethic’ upon which we and all life throughout the universe can agree - needs to be found in order to resolve the many socially divisive issues we confront as a species. Perhaps more importantly, we need to develop this understanding, this model, before we confront other life forms with which we may have decidedly differing views. If our species does not put such a consensus in place, we may once again find ourselves divided and in conflict. As history has shown over and over again, we will find ourselves at war with each other. Once more, we will find one half of our species attempting to dominate the other. We will be a divided species attempting to cully favor with differing intellectual life forms which we will undoubtedly encounter as we push the limits of our presence beyond our earth, to the far reaches of our solar system, our galaxy, and to the very edge of the universe itself. To prevent this, we need to develop a ‘universal philosophy’ capable of supporting and embracing all religions, scientific thought, variety of philosophies, and perceptions that we as a species have so uniquely developed. Once we have developed such a philosophy, we will need to test it. We need to be sure it embraces the uniqueness of the individual, the uniqueness of individual perceptions. We need to be sure it unilaterally encourages the concept of creative thought and freedom of action. For if a model of a universal philosophy does not take on this characteristic of free action and thinking, it can never be considered ‘universal’. Once a model of a ‘universal philosophy’ has been developed, it can be tested in terms of its validity as a universal philosophy by observing the degree of constraint it imposes upon the individual. The less constraining the model, the more universal it will be.

This process of building a model of a ‘universal philosophy’ - that will act as a foundation for our present perceptions - is in essence a search for truth. Perceptions are concepts we form regarding what we understand to be ‘truths’. As a species, we appear to have three means of forming what we believe to be ‘truths’:

1. We form ‘truths’ based upon what we ‘believe’.
2. We form ‘truths’ based upon what we ‘observe’.
3. We form ‘truths’ based upon what we ‘reason’.

For the purposes of this essay we will attempt to focus in upon the most prominent fields of study involved with each of these three means we have of developing perceptions. As such, for the process of developing:

1. What we ‘believe’: we will examine religions.
2. What we ‘observe’: we will examine science.
3. What we ‘reason’: we will examine philosophy.

Due to the enormity of each of these fields, we will focus our attention on a particular branch of each one. In terms of what we believe (religion), we will concern ourselves with the field of ontology. Ontology is the study of what lies beyond the universe, beyond what we perceive as our concrete reality. Ontology is the discussion of God but without the presuppositions of established religions. It is the study of religion without the dogma, a study of God – the greater Reality – within which our universe and reality exists. It could be argued that the most prominent religious figure of Ontology is St. Anselm, once an Archbishop of Canterbury.

In terms of what we observe (science), we will concern ourselves with the field of cosmology. Cosmology is the study of our universe, or what we often call our reality. Cosmology is the study of what lies beyond ‘time’ – the study of our universe that lies within time and why it does so. In the case of cosmology, it could be argued that the most prominent contemporary figure is Stephen Hawking. It is he who gives us an understanding of both the universe and of a ‘universal philosophy’.

And finally, in terms of what we reason (philosophy), we will concern ourselves with the field of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of three entities: the ‘individual being’, the universe or what we call reality and what lies beyond the universe. Metaphysics is the study of how and why the ‘individual being’, the universe, and what lies beyond the universe interact with each other. Metaphysics is the study of whether or not all three, or for that matter if any of the three, exist. Metaphysics is the study of how and why the three interact, if in fact they do exist. Metaphysics is the pondering over the questions: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? It could be argued that Descartes was one of its more prominent figures with his initiation of the concept of ‘knowing’, of existing, when he said ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ (I think, therefore I am).

Modeling our present perceptions, that we as a species seem to have accepted, is not a difficult task. It is, in fact, quite the contrary. The building of such a model will be the focus of this essay. But before we begin building the model, there are two basic fundamentals that need to be clarified regarding any religious, scientific, or philosophical model we build as an attempt to clarify what it is we believe, observe, or reason:

1. First, models are not meant to be ‘absolutes’.
   
   
2. Secondly, as we pass through existence - to experience and learn the model - four points will be noted about the model:
   
   

1. It will be reinforced by our three means of perception - by what it we believe, observe, and reason OR It will need to be changed slightly OR
   
   
2. It will need to change significantly OR
   
   
3. It will need to be totally dismantled and replaced with another model that fits our perceptions more accurately.

But that’s for the future. For the present, lets begin to build our first simple model of ‘what is’ in order to understand three questions: Where we are? What we are? Why do we exist? Let’s begin to build the model that has never before been built. Without the model, we cannot begin to visualize the answers to those three questions. We have tried to find the answers but we have never, as a species, come to a consensus regarding them. Perhaps using a model will help us resolve these issues. Being a visual creature, the building a model appears to be a logical way to proceed. Once having built a rough form of the model, we can begin the process of modifying it. And just where does all this lead us? It leads us to the beginning of the process. It leads us to looking for the material with which we will build the model.

Building a ‘universal philosophy’ or ‘knowing the mind of God’ requires a willingness to take the risk of being considered arrogant. It is this willingness to take the risk that allows this essay to be created and presented. But just where does one begin the endeavor of building a universal philosophy? One begins by finding ‘truths’ for it is ‘truths’ which will act as the building blocks of the model. We will begin by establishing ‘truths’ as best we can perceive them to be. And just where does one look for ‘truths’? We look to where our 10,000 years of traveling this earth has led us. We begin where the rivers of blood, pouring out from the veins of our ancestors, seems to be taking us as we ride the rapids of violence, subjugation, abuse, and intolerance. We begin by following the rivers of blood in the hopes of finally reaching the quiet pools of understanding so that we may rest for a while and enjoy each other’s company. So, we will begin this journey with an examination of what it is we consider to be ‘universal truths’ in order that we may use these truths to build a ‘universal philosophy’ capable of supporting each of our own particular religious beliefs, scientific observations, and philosophical reasoning. And so it is, that we will begin our journey with the search for ‘truths’, in order to find the answer to our three most perplexing questions confronting our species: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? And why is it that we should seek answers to these questions? It is the answers to these three questions that hold the key to why we are such a violent species. With understanding comes change. With understanding, we may find a solution, or a significant partial solution, to the problem of abuse. No new solution has been brought forward in recent times to significantly reduce abuse within our species. Perhaps the construction of a universal model will provide us with the key to a new perception of ourselves. This, in turn, may help us to eliminate the abusive acts we inflict upon each other and our environment.

We begin with the process of finding the material with which we can build a model of a universal philosophy. We begin with a search for ‘truths’ using ‘bracketing’ - the process Husserl developed as he initiated the concept of phenomenology. ‘Bracketing’ is the process of setting aside assumptions about things that stem from scientific thinking.’ We begin a search for ‘truths’ using bracketing because, as paradoxical as it may seem, by eliminating our observations of what we ‘observe’ - the concrete - we are able to focus upon the abstract. This in turn provides us with a unique means to use our most prominent sense - our ability to see - in order to find solutions to some of our most pressing social problems.

Once we ‘bracket’ off our multiple layers of distracting observations, we can begin to use Husserl’s concept of ‘reductionism’. ‘Reduction is the act of identifying your own intentionality on the way you see things after you have bracketed out the intentionality of science.’ This process, as defined, was intended to apply to the ‘individual’ because it was the individual Husserl was considering. But the concept must also be applied to a species for it is the species as a whole that represents the summation of the collective of individuals comprising that species. Likewise, the concept of reduction must also be applied to all intelligent life forms within a particular universe. They also, as a collective, represent a unique collective knowingness within a particular universe immersed within what it is immersed within, or as religions put it, immersed within the total omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence.

And this is exactly where a universal philosophy is intended to go. It is intended to provide an understanding of where it is we think we are, what it is we think we are, and why it is we think we exist as an entity. The more universal the philosophy, the more encompassing it is in terms of what it means by the word ‘we’. Husserl would say, ‘we’ means the individual. Therefore, we need a philosophy capable of allowing the individual to understand the answer to the three questions. Carl Sagan would say that ‘we’ means the individual within a species. Therefore, we need a philosophy capable of allowing the individual as an entity, as well as our species as an entity, to understand the answer to the three questions. Hawking would say that ‘we’ means the individual within the species within the universe. Therefore, we need a philosophy capable of allowing the individual as an entity, as well as our species as an entity and other intelligent species in the universe, to understanding the answer to the three questions. But I would say, ‘we’ means the individual within the species, within the universe within all universes located within the medium embracing the infinite universes yet to be discovered by us. Therefore, we need a philosophy capable of allowing the individual as an entity, our species as an entity, other intelligent species in the universe as an entity, and the summation of all abstraction capable of contemplating its purpose for existing as an entity, in understanding the answer to the three questions.

Whatever level of inclusion we use, the point remains that to build an understanding of ‘intentionality’ as Husserl calls it, is in essence nothing other than building a model of a ‘universal philosophy’ as defined by Hawking. To build a model of a ‘universal philosophy’, we will need to quarry - extract from the superfluous - the building materials for our model. It is this very concept, which leads us into the substance of this essay. And just what more relevant building material can we use for a universal philosophy than ‘truth’? For, ‘truths’ spill not only beyond our own galaxy and up to the very boundaries of our universe, but they proceed to erupt through the walls of these boundaries and wash over and through the boundaries of other universe as well.

And just where do we begin to look for the building materials for our model of a universal philosophy? Since this model is going to take the term ‘universal’ literally, we will begin by looking for ‘universal truths’. ‘Universal truths’, in this case, are special ‘truths’ that will provide us with answers to questions such as: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist?

Since we are going to attempt to build a model of a ‘universal philosophy’ that attempts to answer such questions, it may help to first examine what it is these questions orient themselves around. These questions deal with abstraction as opposed to the concrete. Therefore, it would appear that we should look for building material which itself lies in the abstract rather than the concrete. We must find abstract materials with which we can build this model. Since we are going to attempt to build a model of what is called a ‘universal’ philosophy of life - a philosophy that reaches beyond humankind - we are going to need to find building materials that embrace, yet transcend humankind.

At this point, questions begin lighting up like stars in the sky. Perhaps the most pointed question to be heard above the din of shouts and protests is, ‘Just what abstracts can we find which we can be fairly certain embrace us as humans yet transcend our species? What ‘truths’ can we find which reach not only to the boundaries of our universe but beyond these very boundaries?’