‘If we do discover a complete (unified) theory (of the universe) it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientist, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason for then we should know the mind of God.’

This seems to be such an arrogant endeavor. How can we, as mere mortals, ever assume to be ‘able to know the mind of God’? This is what has acted as an invisible barrier separating us as humans from what we have always wanted to know. This attitude - this fear of being arrogant - is what has always made us shy away from the wonderful potential generated by the building of a model of a ‘universal philosophy’, building a model of the ‘mind of God’. So, the question now becomes, Can we ever ‘know’ truths? Can we ever know the ‘mind of God?

We do not know what ‘truths’ are. This may sound contradictory to what has just been laid out, but it is not. Rather it is simply being truthful and after all how could we begin the study of truths on a basis of being anything other than that? And so it is that we must begin by conceding that we cannot ‘know’ truth to be ‘fact’. Rather, we must concede that we can only define ‘truths’ as best we can and then proceed from there.

There are three means we use to understand ourselves, our universe, and what lies beyond our universe.

1. First, we form perceptions of what we call ‘truths’ based upon observation. One of the most prominent fields of observation is science.
   
   
2. Second, we form perceptions of what we call ‘truths’ based upon reason. One of the most prominent fields of reason is philosophy.
   
   
3. And thirdly, we form perceptions of what we call ‘truths’ based upon beliefs. One of the most prominent fields of belief is religion.

Within these three fields, we will attempt to find ‘truths’ that most of us can agree upon as being ‘truths’. Once we’ve defined these ‘truths’ as best we can, we will use them to construct ‘a’ model capable of answering the three questions. We will build this model because it is the model itself that will lead us to understanding how we are to interact with each other. It is the model that will lead us to the means of solving socially divisive debates. It is the model that will assist us in understanding how to assist others as they attempt to defend themselves against abuse from others. It is the model that will help us understand how we are to defend ourselves against abuse we allow others to inflict upon our own journeys. In fact, it is the model that will help us understand how we are to defend ourselves from ourselves - help us to understand how we are to defend ourselves from committing abuse to our own bodies and journeys.

One of the characteristics of a universal philosophy, as defined by Stephen Hawking, is that the concepts be understandable by all. As such, we will use the ‘bracketing’ of Husserl and shuck away all the aspects of science, philosophy, and religion until we have nothing left but one truth from each means of perception. As we reduce science, religion, and philosophy to their simplest single elements, we must be certain to leave standing a truth: ‘a’ ‘truth’ that is simple and basic. For it is only by keeping the ‘truths’ simple that we, as a species, will be able to come to a consensus as to their being ‘truths’. And it is only through consensus that we can declare ‘truths’ to be ‘truths’ for by definition ‘truths’ are what we, as a species, perceive them to be. There will be no denying that these ‘truths’ may be refutable. On the other hand, to refute the ‘truths’ we choose would place us into an entirely different mind set than that which we have historically been oriented.
The truths we use to build a ‘universal philosophy’ must themselves be ‘universal’, even inter-galactic, if they are to be the building blocks for not only our galaxy but for other galaxies as well. As a side point, if we are going to expend the effort to find ‘truths’ to build a ‘universal philosophy’, we may as well extend our vision of ‘truths’ to include other universes as well. It most likely will only be a matter of time before we conclude that such universes exist. This approach may seem to be an unnecessary expenditure of energy at this point but it would save us a lot of time and effort later.

We must remember to keep the number of ‘truths’ we wish to define to a minimum in order to keep the model simple. The fewer the number of ‘truths’ we use for our model the more basic the model will be. Simplicity is the key to building models of anything new and different.

I. Husserl: Find the materials for a universal philosophy

• Truths: the building materials for a Universal Philosophy

From philosophy - what we reason - comes the first building block for the model of a universal philosophy:

Truth One: You Exist
It is philosophy that leads the way in terms of this ‘truth’, not religion or science. It is reason, over even faith and observation that provides us with the greatest assurance that we exist. Without you, without your existence, nothing has relevance to you. This perception applies equally to all other individuals as well. Like you, if they did not exist, nothing would have any meaning, any relevance for them. Some would say, ‘I can’t accept this, God is more important than I am.’ This is a terrific altruistic position but the fact of the matter is that without your existing, God would have no meaning, no relevance for you. Without your existing, for you, God would not exist. Without your existing your altruistic defense of God would not even be taking place in terms of your participating in this discussion. You come first not because you want it that way but because without you God is dead to you. An interesting side point here is that if there is no eternal life, if you have no ‘soul’, which continues after your death, then for you God dies when you die.

If this concept of God dying is first applied to other individuals before yourself and these individual bits of knowing are removed from the whole - one at a time - through death until nobody is left but you, then if the fundamental concept of death is applied to you, no knowing or knowledge remains. Once this process is implemented, the destruction of all knowing - omniscience, God by definition, God by the only means religiously, scientifically, or philosophically by which we can understand God - is gone. God no longer exists.

Your existence is a basic premise of philosophy. This concept is supported by our basic ability to reason, the basic premise of Philosophy put forward by Descartes, which says you exist – ‘I think therefore I am.’ Without you there is no significance to you.

This concept is supported by basic observations, the basic premises of science, which demonstrates to us through what you observe that you can see you exist. Science - a second fundamental means we have of developing perceptions - confirms your existing through the process of observation. Without you, the study of the universe (science- knowledge) has no significance to you.

’You exist.’ is further supported by our basic beliefs, the basic premises of religion. The centerpiece of religion is the interrelationship between you and God: the soul and God. Without you, there is no relationship between you and God. Religion, a third means we have of developing perceptions, confirms your existence, through the process of faith, to be a ‘truth’.

You play a vital, an irreplaceable role in religious perceptions pertaining to the relationship comprised of yourself and God. You play a vital, an irreplaceable role in the scientific observations pertaining to the interactions that occur between yourself and the universe. And lastly, you play a vital, an irreplaceable role in philosophical reasoning pertaining to the reasonableness of it all.

It would appear that you exist. It would appear that without this ‘truth’, without this cornerstone, nothing would have any significance to you. As such, it would appear that one must start with this ‘truth’ as one of the three basic building blocks for a universal philosophy. One must start with the concept of self in order for anything, concrete, abstract or otherwise, to make sense to you. Without ‘self knowing’, nothing - not even God - would appear to have any significance to you, the individual. Philosophy, science, and religion all confirm the significance of the first ‘truth’: you exist. All three appear to agree with this ‘truth’. There is no doubt one could spend hours debating whether or not this is the ‘first’ truth. But, that is not the point. The point is that all three means we have of developing perceptions of ‘truths’ appear to agree that ‘you existing’ is a ‘truth’ and as such we can now proceed to use this ‘truth’ as one of our building blocks for a universal philosophy.

From science - what we observe - comes the second building block for the model of a universal philosophy, universal ethics:

Truth Two: The Universe Exists
It is science that leads the way in terms of this ‘truth’, not philosophy or religion. It is observation over even reason and faith that provides us with the greatest assurance that the universe exists. Without accepting this basic truth as a fundamental truth for a universal philosophy, we have few building blocks with which to work and an independent location for your existence would be questionable. One can build a model using one type of material but it would appear that there is more to our existence than just you.

The existence of the universe is a basic premise of science. We see the universe and we experience the universe. Science is unsure of the nature of the universe, but believes the universe exists nevertheless. Even if the universe was created out of nothing science would still supports the ‘truth’ of ‘the universe exists’. Science, through its present day fundamental principles, acknowledges the concept of the abstractness of a concrete universe. Science has recently been exploring the idea of the universe having been initiated from a ‘primal atom’ but has not yet speculated beyond this point as to the origination neither of the primal atom nor of what it is the primal atom would be immersed within. Science has acknowledged the existence of the universe by the very fact that it is the understanding of universe - through the process of observation, the concept that seeing is believing - for which science was established. It is the fact that we can observe the existence of the universe that the existence of the universe appears to be one of the most basic ‘truths’ of science, a ‘truth’ that may prove to be more illusionary than concrete, but a ‘truth’ nevertheless.

The concept of ‘the universe exists’ is supported by philosophy – reason – rationality. It seems almost as reasonable to conclude that there is a place for your existence, your ‘knowing’ to travel as it seems reasonable that you exist.
It is further supported by religions which profess the concept of creation, supports the significance of the soul as it travels throughout the universe, journeys, supports the essence of the individual and the relationship it must, does, and should have with God.

The summation of the net forces, the vectors of action, actions and reactions of the universe may produce a net summation of ‘0’ with the resultant net effect of reducing the concept of time to nonexistence. But who are we to deny the concept of the existence of the universe as a means of our existence being able to experience, gain in awareness, expand our concept of ‘knowing’? Who would be so bold as to deny the belief we have, the obvious observations we make, the rationality of, the second apparent ‘truth’, the universe exists.

Who would refute what science, religion, and philosophy all appear to agree upon; the universe exists. They may not all agree the universe was created, or the universe was formed from ‘nothingness’ or the universe will dissolve into ‘nothingness’. But they all, for the most part, agree that the universe exists.

From religion, what we believe, comes the third building block for the model of a universal philosophy, universal ethics:

Truth Three: Causation Exists
It is religion, which leads the way in terms of this ‘truth’, not science or philosophy. It is what we believe, faith, over even observation and reason which provides us with the greatest assurance that Causation, God, exists. It is religion which began the process of thinking in terms of the earth, man, woman, animals, the firmaments themselves as having been ‘created’, initiated by a ‘force’ which they proceed to name.

The existence of Causation is a basic premise of religion. Strip away the dogma of religions and they all say basically the same thing. God/Causation/the Causative Force exists. They all embrace the concept of creation. They all embrace the concept of omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. Some would say atheism rejects this idea, but atheism simply rejects the existence of a ‘Supreme Being’, ‘popular’ gods, what they call ‘superstitions’ of religion. Atheism does not necessarily disregard the concept of a beginning to the universe as such, to the universe being immersed within ‘something’, there being an outside to the universe. But this is another topic for later discussions. The point is that religion leads the way in the perception of their existing an outside to our universe - a causation to the initiation to our universe: to Causation.

The concept of causation for our universe existing is supported by science. Its theories: our universe originating from an explosion, our universe originating through the process of the ‘bulging off’ from the original universe, our universe existing as one of many levels of potential vacuums. Whatever the case, the basics are the same – each goes back to an origination or beginning. This implies something existed before the origination of the universe. Our universe is filled with the concepts of beginning/end. Our universe appears to be immersed within time or time within the universe. As such, we are constantly confronted with the concept of all things originating at some point. We find it difficult to disregard the implications that ‘time’ persistently confronts us with, what we observe, that the universe had a beginning and as such ‘something’, we will call it ‘Causation’, exists.

’Causation existing’ is further supported by Philosophy; ‘Causation existing’ is a reasonable assumption. It is so reasonable that to speculate otherwise leaves one at a complete loss as to discussing the questions that have been haunting our species since before we can remember. Without the concept of the Causation existing, arguments, debate and speculation comes to a standstill regarding any attempt to reason out answers to the questions regarding where the universe is, what we are and why do we exist?

Once one takes away the first ‘truth’ - the concept of your existence, and takes away the second ‘truth’, the existence of our universe, and the third ‘truth’, the existence of origination, the summation of ‘knowing, the summation of abstraction, then there is literally nothing left to talk about or discuss. Once one eliminates these three ‘truths’, and the very possibility of the three ‘truths’, there is nothing left of which we have any comprehension whatsoever. Once one eliminates these three ‘truths’, all rational, and for that matter irrational discussion ceases.

Regardless of how many levels of the universe there are, mirror images, parallel or sister universes or sets of universes, or dimensions we discover we still come back to the concept of origination, causation. Regardless of how many levels of the universe there are, we still come back to the third ‘truth’, Causation exists.

All three of our means of perception appear to be saying the same thing. You exist. The universe exists. Causation exists. It is by using these ‘truths’ that we can find the same answers regarding the three questions: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist?

II: Hawking: Build a model of a universal philosophy using the materials at hand

• A model of a Universal Philosophy built upon a foundation of truths

Using the concept of ‘bracketing’ Husserl introduced, we are able to shuck away the superfluous and nonessential perceptions cluttering up our thoughts as we attempt to understand our purpose for existing. Through the process of ‘bracketing’, we have been able to pare down the essentials of existing to three ‘truths’: you exist, the universe exists, and causation exists. We can now use Husserl’s process of ‘reduction’ to examine what it is these truths tell us in regards to our intentionality, our purpose for existing. In short we can, using a second process Husserl established - ‘reduction’ - move from these ‘truths’ to building a concept of Hawking’s, that of modeling a universal philosophy. In this case, the process follows the progression outlined by three questions: Where are we? What are we? and finally, Why do we exist?

Where are we? Placement: We are ‘within’ the whole
There are only three parts of the puzzle we are going to examine in this essay: you exist, the universe exists, and the whole, origination, Totality, the initiating force, the causative force, causation exists. In the first section, we began with philosophy. In this section, we will begin with religion.

Religion, science, and philosophy all concur with the concept: if the whole exists and the whole is the entirety of all things, we and the universe are a part of the whole. We are a part of Totality. Since we are calling this ‘whole’, this Totality, Causation – let’s examine the statement that all three forms of perception: what we observe (science), what we reason (philosophy) and what we believe (religion) concur with the concept that we are inside Causation. As we do so, let’s keep in mind that Totality is nothing less than what religion defines as ‘the’ initiating Force, ‘the’ Creator, ‘the’ Causative force of our universe and everything which lies within it, including ourselves. As we begin this process, let’s not overlook the concept that whatever force created ‘our’ universe would be quite capable of creating other universes. Keep in mind that whatever concepts we apply to our universe in terms of ‘universal’ philosophies, ‘universal’ ethics are not truly ‘universal’ unless they apply not only to our universe but to other universes as well. So, let us begin with the most obvious, the most vocal, the most influential proponent of the concept of Causation.

We will begin with the proponent of Causation, which has renamed Causation with a term that has become the sore point of both science and philosophy. Let’s begin with the field of perception that has given Causation the name ‘God’ and used this name as a rallying cry for impacting the world. We will begin with the oldest of the three means we use to develop perceptions of ourselves. We will begin developing a model of what we perceive to be, by examining what we believe, through faith, through religion to be true.

Let’s examine what appears to be a ‘primary’ truth of religion, which in turn appears to be supported by both science and philosophy. The ‘truth’: Totality exits. Once we have done this, let’s examine one of the characteristics of this ‘truth’. Let’s examine a characteristic of Totality that all religions appear to be unwilling to discard, the characteristic of omnipresence. After doing so, lets see how science and philosophy both support such a concept through their development of the very primary principles, the very foundation upon which they have allowed themselves to be built: observation and reason.

The foremost proponent of the primary characteristic of Totality being omnipresent is religion. Religion begins its discussion and definition of a Causative Force as being the three forms of omni- (all): the all presence, omnipresence within which all knowledge, omniscience, and all power, omnipotence resides. Granted the order of the three Omni’s could be debated but that is not the focus of this essay.

If a total summation of presence is later shown to be false, then what? Then religion will tackle that problem when it gets to it. If it becomes necessary to change the concept of ‘the whole’ because our understanding of our universe changes - if we ‘prove’ our existence and the existence of our universe is significantly different than we presently perceive it - then at that point we may have to alter our model of what we perceive God to be. Our perception, the issue of the existence of the ‘whole’, may in the future prove to be incorrect but this is no reason for our hesitating to understand why we exist based upon what we know at this point in time.

Science supports the characteristic of the first ‘truth’ – omnipresence tailored by the perception of what we believe religion. Our observations indicate there exists a universal fundamental principle to our universe. This principle embraces the idea that within this part of our universe, symmetry is the rule. As such we assume that this principle also applies to the rest of the universe. By applying this concept, to the universe as a whole, one can, through physics, formulate some interesting perceptions regarding the composition of the universe in terms of its location.

Symmetry implies matter has its counterpart, anti-matter, which we know to exist. Symmetry implies energy has its counterpart, anti-energy, which we have not yet found to exist. These four concepts, matter, anti-matter, energy, and anti-energy allow for the speculation of our being in one of four parallel universes. This in turn allows for the scientific speculation of there being a myriad of such four leaf clover universes within Totality. The scientific concept of symmetry demonstrates a logical means by which the universe could be dissolved into ‘nothingness’ which in turn explains, in simplistic terms, the process of constructing universes from ‘nothingness. The point is that scientific reason demonstrates that the universe may very well lie within ‘something’ and that the universe may very well have been initiated from nothing by a ‘force’ of some type (science has long ago discarded the concept of creation through the process of ‘spontaneous combustion’).

Science also implies that the summation of all vectors and their opposites equals zero – ‘nothing’, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Once again, science implies a sense of ‘nothingness’ to our universe.

The connection of the universe possibly evolving out of nothingness does not stop here. Science speaks using a language we call mathematics. Set theory, one aspect of mathematics, presents perhaps the most understandable form of science that we can use to demonstrate the concept of an omnipresent existence beyond our universe. By placing a dot, you, within a sphere, the universe, and the sphere within a cube, Totality, one can picture omnipresence. But one may argue, ‘there is an outside to the cube. This is true, but remember the definition of Totality, of God, is simply the ‘greatest thing of which we can conceive’. Since we cannot at this point in time conceive of anything beyond the cube, the cube remains our perception of God, Causation, Totality, the location within which our universe lies.

It is science that has lead us to the understanding of an ‘outside’ to our universe. It is science that has expanded our perception of our universe having a limit. It is science that has expanded the concept of God from being the whole of the universe to being the whole of all universes and whatever it is they lie within. It is science that expands the concept of God as defined by St. Anselm, by ontology. It was St. Anselm, a man canonized by the largest religious organization in the world, who defined:

‘God is that, the greater than which cannot be conceived.’

And so it is that science has expanded the size of God, of causation, of Totality to include what lies beyond the universe. In fact, it is science that has expanded the concept of Totality to include all the universes that exist in addition to what it is these universes lie within.

If any of these perceptions are ever shown to be false, then what? Then science will tackle that problem when it gets to it. Understanding that we may actually learn the laws of nature change as one enters different parts of the universe is not perceived by scientists to be a likely event. Should this event occur, then science will have to modify its perception of the model of the universe. Likewise, we may have to change and modify the model we create of a universal philosophy. That is why it is called a ‘model.

Philosophy – reason, also supports the characteristic of the first ‘truth’ – omnipresence, Totality, supplied by the perception of what we believe.

It is philosophy that takes St. Anselm’s definition of God, Totality and expands it even further than science. By definition, God is the greatest thing of which we can conceive. What greater entity can we conceive of, at this point in time, than the summation of the whole, omnipresent (an all present)? As such, it is unreasonable to discuss an outside to an omnipresent entity for by definition it does not exist.

And if there is no ‘outside’ to this omnipresent entity, it is unreasonable to discuss this entity ‘creating’ a ‘universe’ outside itself. Therefore, there would be no reasonable location to place the universe being ‘created’ than ‘within’ this entity, this existence defined as an omnipresent being for by definition this entity has no outside.

Reason, philosophy, would say there can be no outside to ‘everything’. But reason goes even further than this. Reason would say that if we define Totality to be the summation of all things of which we can conceive, then this implies there are things of which we cannot conceive. As such, we have conceived of the inconceivable; we have acknowledged the inconceivable might in fact exist. Our being able to conceive of this very concept places all inconceivable concepts within the definition of Totality, of the summation of all things, of Omnipresence.

All this implies that we must be a part of the whole or the whole is not the whole. This implies that you and I, the universe, has no place else to be but within the whole. In short, religion, science, and philosophy all imply that we are within Totality, within God.

If the perceptual understanding of ‘the whole’, omnipresence, is later shown to be false, then what? Then philosophy will tackle that problem when it gets to it. If philosophy resolves the issue by proving the concept of reason and rationality changes as one enters different parts of the universe, then philosophy will have to change its understanding of the universe, change its understanding of existence, of what it is you and I are located within. At this point, we may have to change and modify the model we create of a universal philosophy. That is why it is called a ‘model’.

Religion, Science, and philosophy: all saying the same thing, that the concept of the ‘whole’ - of something greater than the universe within which the universe could reside, is a believable, mentally observable, reasonable concept.

What are we? – Placement generating definition: We are a part, a piece of Causation, God

We as a species have never before been able to come to a consensus, religiously, scientifically, or philosophically of defining what it is we believe we are. It is for this reason we will place philosophy in the position of molding, of defining, what it is we think we are. We will do this in the hopes of being able to reach a consensus regarding this question.

Religions have attempted to find the answer to the question, What are we? but religions have been unable to come to a consensus with each other. Science has attempted to answer this question but has been unable to come to a consensus with religions and philosophies.

Philosophy has the ability to use reason to fuse what we believe with what we observe. It is the process of using all three of our means of forming perceptions, observations fused with beliefs using reason, that creates the potential for this model to be ‘a’ model of a universal philosophy. It is the ability of reason to unite the age-old concepts of faith with our new ability to assess what it is we observe that provides the potential for the building of a universal philosophy called ‘symbiotic panentheism’. It is the building of this model that can then act as the starting point for the development of a universal philosophy for our species.

Philosophy, metaphysics, acknowledges the concept of the three ‘truths’: you exist, the universe exists, and Totality exists. The concept of a universal philosophy is no stranger to metaphysics. Metaphysics has long sought to bring our species to an understanding of itself through its discussion of the individual, the universe, and what lies beyond the universe.

Philosophy implies that if we can conceive of a ‘whole’, a summation of everything of which we can conceive and of everything of which we believe, we will ever be able to conceive, including the summation of independent as well as parallel universes. In addition, philosophy implies the whole includes in its summation everything we as individuals will never be able to conceive of. This concept is nothing other than what religions have long professed, the concept of the whole as described by their use of the terms: omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. This concept is nothing other than what science has long professed, the concept of the whole as described by its use of the set theory term: the universal set.

Location provides the means of defining what we are. The rationality of philosophy – ‘I think therefore I am.‘ (The first ‘truth’ - you exist) then moves on to become, ‘and if I ‘am’ then just what am I?’

So far in this essay three ‘truths’ have been established as the building blocks for our model: you exist, the universe exists, and Causation or the ‘whole’ exists. In this section we will be referring to Causation as the ‘whole’. We are going to leave the concept of personality and degree of interaction often associated with the ‘whole’ out of this section of our discussion. We are not going to discuss the degree of interaction between the ‘whole’ and it’s parts within this discussion because such discussions complicate the issue and move us out of Husserl’s concept of bracketing.

If we are within Causation, within God, within the ‘whole’, then reason would suggest that we are a part of the ‘whole’. Reason would suggest the ‘whole’ couldn’t be ‘whole’ without you or without me.

Reason would suggest we are a part of what it is we are a part of. Philosophy gives us a clue: the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. Some would contend this is mathematics, but in this case we are speaking about a point of perception. There appears to be no other alternative more reasonable other than we are a part of the ‘whole’.

Although there may not ‘appear’ to be a more reasonable alternative for our perception of what it is we are, there may be one, and if we are going to build a universal philosophy, a universal ethic based upon a model, we must not rush to a conclusion. We have an obligation to closely inspect such a model and eliminate all possible and more plausible models before we come to a consensus.

So it is that through philosophy, through reason, we conclude that we are a part of the ‘whole’. We conclude through reason, philosophy that the whole, Totality, is what it is because we are a part of it. Take us away from it, take yourself out of the whole and the whole is no longer the whole, it becomes a different entity.

And just what is so important about our understanding the answer to the question, what are we?

We are perhaps the only species on earth that is what it ‘thinks’ it is. We take action based upon what it is we think we are.

1. If we think we are superior to others we act superior and abuse others.
2. If we think we are inferior to others we allow others to abuse us.
3. If we think we are a superior race we act accordingly as demonstrated by the KKK and the Nazis.
4. If we think we are God’s voice, we act as such as demonstrated by the Inquisition and Bosnia turmoil.
5. If we think we are animals, we act as animals as demonstrated by our actions in the Sudan and the settling of the Americas.

The concept of a model defining what we are, which is part of the process of developing a model of a ‘universal philosophy’, is extremely important. Our history of abusive behavior, of inhumane behavior has been long and vicious. Each outbreak of vicious behavior was entrenched within a perception we had of ourselves. We may not have verbalized it officially but we believed in our perceptions and we acted accordingly. The same is true of our humane behaviors, the ones with which we are proud to be associated.
A universal philosophy model must not forget to examine both forms of behavior, the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’. In the case of the model of a universal philosophy being developed, a model called symbiotic panentheism, the model molds itself in such a way that the positive behaviors are not excluded by it. On the other hand the negative ones are significantly reduced. (As a side point: it must also be recognized that part of the process of defining the terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ behavior are relative terms and a model of a universal philosophy includes an implied definition of what ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ mean for our species.)

A universal philosophy we come to accept as individuals within a species and therefore as a species, has the potential to generate major repercussions for ourselves as well as others we may meet as we begin our exploration of outer space. A universal philosophy has the potential to generate major repercussions because it generates perceptions regarding what it is we think we are which in turn generate actions, which generates reactions, which generate the social ambiance within which we all become immersed.

Religions lead the way regarding where it is we appear to be located: we are in the whole. Reason and observation, philosophy and science appeared to support religion in regards to this concept.

Philosophy leads the way regarding what it is we are. Reason would appear to imply that we are a part of what we are a part of. We are a part of the ‘whole’, a part of Totality.

Religion has long supported this concept through its fundamental belief in the idea of Omnipresence, the whole being literally the Whole, the total of what is, the idea of Omniscience, the summation of all knowledge being within the Whole. This implies that you are within the ‘whole’. After all, how can something be ‘all’ knowing, be the total summation of knowledge without containing your ‘knowing’, your knowledge, your experiences? This would imply your having nowhere else to be but within the Whole and thus a part of the Whole, a piece of the Whole.

If religion stands by its concept of omnipresence and omniscience, then religions and we have little option, in terms of reason, but to include ourselves as a part of this whole, a piece of this Totality.

Religions would have to concur with philosophy and conclude that we are a part of the Whole regardless of what words you use to name the Whole.

The concept of our being a part of what it is we are a part, our being a part of the Whole within which we lie, is further supported by science. This all sounds so complicated so let’s use the genius of science, the concept of building models to build several pictures of what this looks like. In other words, let’s build a picture to demonstrate what it is we are saying up to this point.

Picture One
It is science, through the language of mathematics, which stressed the concept that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts.

It is science that now believes our universe is not the ‘end all’ and ‘be all’ of the Whole. A model of such a concept would place a point representing you or I or anyone for that matter, within a sphere representing our universe as we perceive it to be today and as we may in the future perceive it to be. The sphere in turn would then be placed in a cube which would representing the Whole – everything we can conceive of today and everything we could possibly conceive of in the future and everything of which we are incapable of conceiving.
With this drawing, we become a part of the ‘Whole’. This is a pictorial drawing of the model we are building. There is a Greek term for this perception. It is called Pan (all) en (in) theism (God, Causation, but in this section we said we would use the word the ‘Whole’) – Panentheism (as a side point: this term is often confused with the term Pantheism but is in fact a radically different concept.)