Tractate 17 : The Beginning - Theoretical Metaphysics - Introducing the Problem of the End (continued)

Paradox 3
Free will and determinism exist simultaneously independent yet dependent upon one another

Resolved
Paradox 3: Resolving Boethius’ simultaneous existence of divine foreknowledge and free will does nothing but open up the potential for new paradoxes.



Paradox 4
There is a region where Centricism dominates and there is a region where non-Centricism dominates

Resolved
Paradox 4: Resolving Copernicus’ simultaneous development of the sole existence of Centricism does nothing but open up the potential for new paradoxes.



Paradox 5
Omni-benevolence is not an ‘Omni…’

Resolved
Paradox 5: Resolving Leibniz’ issue regarding theodicy does nothing but open up the potential for new paradoxes.



For whom does ‘????’ exist?



The model of symbiotic panentheism demonstrates we exist as a part of the whole and demonstrates that as a part of the whole we have a function to the whole. If the ultimate whole is the physical, as the Empiricists suggest, then we can begin to understand our function and therefore our responsibilities for existing lie in a form of materialism, physical hedonism. . If, on the other hand, the ultimate whole is the abstract, as the model of symbiotic panentheism suggests, then we can begin to understand our function and therefore our responsibilities for existing lie in a form of altruism, abstractual hedonism.

But what if we discover that the ultimate whole is something other than the abstractual or the physical? The concept of the ultimate whole being something other than the physical or the abstractual leads to the question which theoretical metaphysics is created to explore:

Can we know of ‘?’ ?
Can we know what lies beyond what it is we are presently capable of perceiving?

As far as we are aware only the physical, abstraction, and nothingness exists but what of that which we do not know?

If we are composed of abstraction, the physical, and nothingness is it possible to know of that which one is not composed?

Again the answer is yes and no. At this point in time we can know what the ‘?’ ‘is not’ but until we learn what ‘?’ is, we can only know it in the form of what ‘?’ is not. We will have to wait for future developments if we are ever to know of ‘?’ in the form of what ‘?’ is.

Will such an occurrence ever occur? We have known of the physical for a long time. We have known of the abstract for a shorter period of time. We have known of nothingness for an even shorter period of time (See a Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea)

Will a new understanding emerge? Why not? The physical emerged. Abstraction emerged. Nothingness emerged. Why not ‘?’ emerging.

This work has demonstrated to us that it is because the abstract is the ultimate ‘location’ within which we find ourselves to exist that it is the abstract, altruism, abstractual hedonisms towards which we must ultimately aspire.



If ‘?’ does emerge as a ‘location within which the whole of abstraction exists:



then we will find ourselves unable to state anything less than: It is the ‘?’ which is the ultimate form of existence towards which we must aspire for we are a part of ‘?’ and ‘?’ is incapable of being the whole without all of its parts. It is ‘?’, ’?’- ism, ‘?’ hedonisms towards which we must ultimately aspire for the whole (?) exists for us and we exist for the whole, we exist for the ‘?’.

The statement that the ‘?’ exists for us and that we exist for the ‘?’ in no way brings us back to the concept of not understanding our purpose for existing. The statement in no way suggests we cannot begin to understand our purpose for existing. It is the philosophical desire to mince words, twist concepts, debate simply for the purpose of debating that leads us to an immediate sense of hopelessness regarding ever knowing the answer to the question: Why do we exist? It is the immediate desire on the part of the philosopher to question the ability to ‘know’ that traps us as individuals within the seemingly hopeless quagmire of linguistics, which generates the perception that there is nothing we can ‘know’ and therefore it is impossible to ‘know’ why we exist.

With the advent of this work, metaphysics not only explains why it is we can ‘know’ we have a purpose for existing but also explains what that purpose is and what our responsibilities are regarding that very purpose.

The ‘?’ is not a question of uncertainty but rather a simple statement that another layer of reality may exist and there is no reason for us to fear examining such a concept for examining such a concept in no way changes the principles now established by this work:

1. We/multiplicity/individuality exist for the whole/singularity/’Being’
2. The whole/singularity/’Being’ exists for us/individuality/multiplicity