γ. Because metaphysics is not testable but only arguable, it cannot produce significance. Scientific validity calls for both experimentation and argumentation leading up to theory-formation. The phrase "metaphysical experiment" involves a contradictio in terminis. So it follows all speculative inquiries done by theoretical philosophy are simultaneously insignificant and highly relevant. Metaphysics holds a very special place. As a heuristic of science, valid & critical theoretical philosophy is crucial in providing totalizing frameworks and in letting the scientists do they jobs, i.e. produce facts using tests & theories. Its insignificance is not factual, but the consequence of metaphysics being untestable.

∫ As soon as the philosopher becomes a scientist, inspiration vanishes. As soon as the scientist becomes a philosopher, subtlety is out.

δ. Metaphysics articulates a totality. Critical process metaphysics grasps this as impermanent (dynamical) and interconnected. There is much hope in both.

δ.1 Absence of permanence means all things can enter all things, for the absolute isolation given with the permanent thing is not present. This fluidity of the impermanent stream of actual occasions optimalizes the possibilities of change & transformation. The low can turn into the high and vice versa. Optimalizing duality, this extreme heralds the coming of that extreme. We are never stuck.

δ.2 As all actual occasions are interconnected and produce novel togetherness, the singular ego has "a place to move to", namely to all those countless suffering others.

∫ A metaphysics of hope fosters unity & harmony. Non-substantial, unity is a perfect style of movement, whereas harmony is the cosmic law, "Maat" or "Dharma" ruling interconnectivity between all possible actual occasions, shaping negentropy, non-redundancy & reduced randomness.

LEMMA 40

Scientific propositions are significant because they reflect the objective findings of the community of sign-interpreters. They may be relevant or not, i.e. appeal and be of (inter)subjective use.

Metaphysical statements are not significant but not necessarily pre-Baconian, i.e. picturing the world we would like instead of the way science thinks it is. Immanent metaphysics stays near (or next to) the findings of science and tries to place these in a general picture. But valid metaphysics is highly relevant, allowing us to grasp the possible unity and harmony of the world.

D. Limitations of a Possible Speculative Discourse.

§ 1 Logical Limitations.

α. Because metaphysics cannot be tested, it must present strong arguments. But these are based on logic, involving certain choices like logical operators and rules of argumentation. These must be accepted beforehand. Formal and informal logics prevail. Although identity, non-contradiction and excluded third figure in most, this is not always the case (cf. paraconsistent logics and intuitive logics with included third).

β. Any kind of arbitrariness forms a limitation. The validity of metaphysics cannot be absolute. Not only because new facts constantly emerge, but also because the axiomatic choices demanded by logic are (inter) subjective. Unlike science, metaphysics can never actually test its hypothesis. This is the unavoidable logical limitation of metaphysics.

LEMMA 41

All conceptual elaborations are based on logic. Down the centuries Aristotelian logic (not unlike Euclidean geometry) has  been considered as the only possible way to establish the truth-value of statements. But just as Riemannian geometry showed two parallel lines indeed may intersect, non-formal logic and alternative formal logical theories provide evidence of the importance of establishing the logical rules to be applied beforehand.

Certain phenomena investigated by science, like the particle/wave paradox or the superposition state of the wavefunction, defies the principle of non-contradiction deemed the cornerstone of correct thinking. Indeed, quantum logic calls for a different set of first principles and so cannot be approached with classical formal logic. These limitations apply to any kind of conceptual system and so in that respect, both science and metaphysics share the same limitation.

§ 2 Semantic Limitations.

α. The contents of scientific knowledge is based on sensate & mental objects. The contents of metaphysics on mental objects only. There is no way to test speculative statements. Their relevance is heuristic, inspirational & inventive. The semantics of science leads to a better understanding of the manifold and so to technology. The semantics of metaphysics leads to an understanding of the whole based on speculative statements derived from the best of science and so able to inspire the latter.

β. Creative concepts throw a vast number of meanings together, shaping powerful symbols. These ingredients of the grand story of the world-system are pertinent mental objects. The need of a critical metaphysics is most pressing here. No sufficient ground can be invoked. Mental objects are not inherently existing substances, possessing their properties from their own side, they are other-powered. This means their properties derive from the process of interdependence & wholeness, not from absolute isolation and autarchy. Past metaphysical system were substance-based, not process-based. They included the ontic ego and/or ontic (higher) self existing independently and separately.

γ. A valid critical metaphysics works with the absence of sensate objects and the unwanted tendency to reify mental objects. Not a science, metaphysics is not bound by scientific (experimental) methodology. Theoretical philosophy is not to copy the ways of science. Remaining irreversibly interlinked, both are distinct domains of conventional knowledge, the one aiming at particularities, the other at generalities.

LEMMA 42

The semantic limitations of science and metaphysics differ. The former are primarily defined by sensate objects. If all swans are deemed white, the discovery of a black swan indeed introduces a considerable shift in meaning regarding the word "swan". Metaphysical statements are limited by the discoveries of science and the ability of the speculative system to grasp the whole in a comprehensive, non-reductive and arguable way. Of course, an advance in these only calls for better mental objects, and does not entail the discovery of any novel sensate object.

§ 3 Cognitive Limitations.

α. The activity of science is conceptual in a formal sense. Valid scientific knowledge stands between the knower and the known. Thanks to theory & testing propositions of fact come into existence. This production leads to a complex hierarchical network of scientific propositions with a central core ; the current scientific paradigm.

β. Immanent metaphysics cannot be eliminated from the background of argumentation and experimentation. But its mode of cognitive activity is creative, not formal or critical. Immanent metaphysics (using hyperconcepts) brings science to greater unity, inspires it to pursue the production of valid (significant) scientific knowledge and invents a possible panoramic view of the world.

γ. Transcendent metaphysics is altogether a different matter. Here an ultimate mind is posited, one able to directly know the absolute in its absoluteness. This unveils the world-ground of the world-system as apprehended by an ultimate mind of Clear Light*, namely the mind of God*.

LEMMA 43

Science and metaphysics do operate in another mode of cognition. Formal and critical thought apprehend their objects as possessed by an empirical ego. The latter is not a substantial entity, nor are the objects of science in any way substantial (although they do tend towards essentialism). The propositions of science merely reflect a truth-for-the-time-being, and so cannot have any definitive pretence whatsoever. Being conventional knowledge, they aim to solve problems to enhance the functional efficiency whilst dealing with objects. The ultimate nature of these objects is not under investigation. In that sense, science should always entertain a high dose of humility, not stepping outside the domain of appearances.

Contrary to this, creative thought apprehends an ontic self trying the grasp the totality substantially. Here thought seeks a self-sufficient ground and cannot find any ! The tendency of conventional knowledge to reify is actualized, leading to the apprehension of an underlying reality behind the mental & sensate objects of formal & critical thought.

Lastly, while selfless nondual cognition does away with this substantializing approach, discovering the impermanence of all possible objects of thought, it does lead to a direct experience of the ultimate truth of all possible phenomena, namely their impermanence and interconnectedness. This ineffable experience, which cannot be conceptualized, is nevertheless very definitive in a non-conceptual way, leading up to the mind of Clear Light* apprehending the absolute nature of all phenomena.

1.3 Transcendent Metaphysics.

While immanent metaphysics, by positing a series of limit-concepts to define the so-called "periphery" of the world, stays within its confines, critical transcendent metaphysics identifies this endeavour as rather artificial. How can the world have a periphery ? If the world is all there is, then there is no "outside" of the world. The Platonic division, so cherished by classical transcendent metaphysics, between a finite, derived world of becoming and an infinite, primordial world of being is devoid of sense. Is this not more based on cognitive limitations than on ontological divisions ? The world, insofar as conceptual rationality is concerned, is indeed quasi-finite (i.e. limited). So how can an actual infinity exist as part of the world ? But in terms of nondual cognition, the world-ground is infinite. So the distinction is epistemic, i.e. rooted in the way the subject of experience cognizes the objects it possesses. Moreover, conventional knowledge posits a world of seemingly independent objects, and only in this context has "periphery" any actual meaning. Realizing, by way of ultimate logic, no inherently separate entities exist does immediately away with any fixed notion of "outer" and "inner", for both are interdependent and so arising simultaneously.

Viewing objects conventionally, they are limited (quasi-finite). Viewing the same objects ultimately, they are unlimited (infinite) ... Substantalizing the distinction brings about the apory between an inherently existing finite world and an inherently existing infinite transcendent self-sufficient ground "outside" the world.

To ask how the world looks like when nobody is apprehending it cannot possibly be known, for object and subject also arise or coexist together. Conventional knowledge and its conceptual rationality cannot move further than designating a limited world and a series of limit-concepts like designer, conserver and the mind of Clear Light*. Suppose it imputes an Author or Creator, then it moves beyond the possibilities of conceptual reason.

Non-conceptual nondual cognition directly experiences the world-ground as infinite and inseparable from the mind of Clear Light*. It also prehends the ultimate mind of God*. So from the point of view of conceptuality and its immanent approach, the world-ground is transcendent and infinite and so is its (ultimate) apprehension or prehension of it.

Insofar as nondual cognition and its transcendence is concerned, conceptuality is immanent and finite and so is its (conventional) designation of the world. In terms of nondual cognition, the ground of the world is infinite, but the exceptional direct experience on which this is based is ineffable. If we limit ourselves to conventional and conceptual knowledge -shared by most-, considering this to be the norm, then we say the world is finite, for the common experience on which this is based can be articulated both by science and immanent metaphysics. But the latter are, although valid, mistaken, for the ultimate nature of the world, its ground, is infinite and beginningless. Indeed, conceptuality conceals the ultimate nature of phenomena, and if it tries to grasp this absolute without the benefits of ultimate logic, this ultimate will be defined as inherently existing, i.e. as independent and separate (self-powered from its own side). Then the world-ground has been reified.

Traditional transcendent metaphysics, defined by Platonic or Peripatetic ontologies, posits a supreme substance "outside" the world-order. Pre-existing this unchanging, permanent, static supersubstance is the Creator-God fashioning the world "ex nihilo". Critical transcendent metaphysics introduces the transcendent, absolute, ultimate nature of all phenomena as (a) the absence of substantiality, (b) an infinite number of material & informational possibilities, virtualities & potentialities manifesting as finite actual occasions prehended by (c) the absolute or ultimate mind (of God*). And these non-temporal formative elements are themselves not concrete actual occasions. The world-system is then both potentiality (the world-ground of pure possibilities empty of substantiality) and actuality (the world as interdependent phenomena), both mere possibility and actual occasion, both world-as-potentiality and world-as-actuality.

Of course, this difference is merely epistemic, i.e. depending on the mode of cognition with which the world-system is apprehended. Valid conventional knowledge apprehends phenomena as interdependent but -given scientific methodology- reifies them. Invalid conventional knowledge posits objects which cannot be validated by science. These too are grasped as existing from their own side, possessing their properties inherently. Here the degree of delusion of truth-concealment is optimal.

To simultaneously grasp the world-system as, on the one hand, conventional, limited (quasi-finite) and interdependent and, on the other hand, as ultimate, infinite and empty of inherent existence, is apprehending it as it is, i.e. in its suchness/thatness. This is a bewildering paradox for reason and an enlightened Divine phenomenon designated by the mind of Clear Light*. The direct experience of this can only be prehended by power of nondual cognition ... and remains ineffable.

A. Jumping Beyond Limit-Concepts.

Conventional knowledge is always conceptual. It cannot move beyond. But concepts are deceptive. While valid conventional knowledge correctly identifies efficient operations, it nevertheless tends to grasp the properties of mental and sensate objects as subsisting in its objects. They are then deemed independent & separate from other objects. The universal interdependence of all phenomena is not clearly seen, if at all. So conventionality, devoid of the fruits of ultimate analysis (uncovering the non-substantiality or process-base of all possible phenomena), leads to the illusion concealing their ultimate truth, namely the absence of inherent existence. This illusion is the result of mental obscuration or ignorance. This ignorance is the root-cause of suffering.

Ultimate knowledge is always non-conceptual and so ineffable. Although a datum of direct experience, it cannot be cast into the mould of conceptual object/subject relationships. It cannot undo the un-saying of its prehensions. Ultimate knowledge no longer grasps at objects as autarchic, but simultaneously observes their interdependence and lack of substantiality. This is called the "prehension" of the ultimate truth, the union of bliss & emptiness, of compassion & wisdom, of dependent-arising and the lack of self-power.

Mental obscurations and epistemological transgressions always walk hand in hand. These lead to ontological transgressions, the mistaken identification of entities as possessing their characteristics from their own side, i.e. without being other-powered. These wrong views on entities build transgressive metaphysics. By identifying the correct object of negation, namely inherent existence, one deconstructs the objects of the mind and remains aware of the margin to be drawn next to the ongoing stream of conventionalities. In this margin, the false exits are identified as reifications, annihilating the disruptive influence on the mindstream. Then one may accept the functional ongoingness of conventional reality as apprehended by conceptuality while simultaneously prehend their fundamental lack of inherent existence, i.e. directly experience or "see" their being empty of own-self or own-nature in the light of them being full of otherness.

§ 1 Epistemological Transgressions.

α. To grasp at sensate & mental objects in terms of valid empirico-formal propositions and valid speculative statements always implies a certain amount of reification.

α.1 Epistemology (together with ethics & aesthetics), decrees rules one cannot deny without using them. These are transcendental and so critical concepts. This critical system of knowledge production is not grounded in anything. It is pre-ontological and pre-scientific (but not pre-logical). Transgressions happen when the objective & subjective conditions of the game of true knowing are rooted in a reified, self-sufficient, substantial (essential) ground before knowledge, in a "being" preceding "knowing". There is no epistemology without object (idealism) or without subject (realism). Both ideas of reason regulate and operate two interests in truth, one focused on correspondence and the other on consensus.

α.2 Coarse, subtle and very subtle obscurations endure as long as, using substantial instantiation, self-power or essence is attributed to objects. Even the conceptual structure in which conceptuality unfolds (like space, time & the categorial schemes of normative philosophy) should also be viewed as not existing on its own. Lastly, lack of inherent existence or emptiness is merely a property of objects, and so not an object on its own. This emptiness of emptiness is only realized with great difficulty. Hence, as long as there is reified conceptuality, there is mental obscuration and so suffering due to the ensuing supposed isolation of objects and/or subjects.

∫ Positing emptiness as a substance is indeed destroying the antidote to ignorance.

β. To reify the object of knowledge is to consider any sensate thing as existing from its own side, independent & separate. The identification or imputation of any sensate object is always dependent of a cognitive act from the side of the conceptual mind. This happens because of a failed attempt by this mind to stabilize properties as inhering, which, after in-depth ultimate analysis, are merely found to be changing or impermanent (although interconnected).

β.1 Given object A, one may ask : is this a compound or not, can this be further subdivided or not ? As all objects of the conventional mind are compounds, the same question may be posed regarding the various subdivisions etc. In this way, nothing final is found. A regression ensues.

β.2 If the regression is stopped ad hoc, then a hardly convincing ontological (reified) self-sufficient ground is designated. It cannot pass the test of ultimate analysis and so this hippopotamus cannot be found.

γ. To reify the subject of knowledge is to understand the mind and its empirical ego as existing from its own side. But if we ask where the mind or the ego is, nothing is found except sensate objects, volitions, emotions, thoughts and moments of consciousness. These are found to be impermanent and hence no inhering, self-sufficient stability can be traced. Again the reification fails and the empirical ego (with its sense of permanent identity) as well as the ontic self (designating itself as a mental substance) cannot -under analysis- be found.

δ. Due to the power of these mental obscurations, scientific propositions or even some speculative statements seem to be correct. Validity or truth-for-the-time-being is confused with absolute truth. Because of reification, sensate & mental objects merely appear as independent and permanent. Believing our own imputations, we create a reality/ideality of our own making and then blame the illusion not to remain ! Thinking things are independent, we temporarily make them so. But because they are ultimately impermanent, we are bound to suffer from our own mistakes.

ε. Even the formative elements of the world-system (the world-ground composed of primordial matter, primordial information and the transcendent aspect of God*) are not permanent. God*'s impermanence does however not preclude His continuity as symmetry-transformation.

ε.1 Empty of themselves, they are full of an impermanent material & informational pure possibilities and an ongoing process of Divine evaluation and adjusting. These properties do not act as pre-existing substances inhering in the "primordial", but pre-exist as possessed by the virtual togetherness of the propensities of the world-ground.

ε.2 The emptiness of emptiness is precisely this : the lack of inherent existence is not a superobject, nor an underlying self-sufficient ground. The world does have a ground or fundamental stratum, but this too is empty of itself and so in no way substantial. It is sufficient, but not self-sufficient.

LEMMA 44

The first step is a wrong view. Start with that, and end in confusion, ignorance, obscuration & distraction. Reification is the great culprit. This is the ultimate epistemological mistake. Once identified, one needs to return and return to the ultimate logic of its undoing, for the mind entertains a strong habit of grasping at inhering properties.

§ 2 Ontological Transgressions.

α. Reifying the object of knowledge at the level of ontology, i.e. considering the absolute touchstone of that what is as existing on its own and separate from the subject of knowledge, makes it easy to argue realism, the ontological view accepting objects exist from their own side as part of a real world "out there". The most fashionable of these ontologies, materialism or physicalism, adds all objects are fundamentally nothing more than physical things, i.e. compounded material aggregates composed of particles, waves, fields & forces and their relationships. Although non-material stuff like information or consciousness may be accepted (as in emergentism), reductionism brings them back to matter. This is the case of epistemologies articulating how the object constitutes the subject. Classical examples : Aristotelism, empirism, materialism, (logical) positivism & physicalism.

α.1 Consider any macroscopic material object. Composed of a large number of molecules made out of atoms, the influence of gravity is paramount and so this cancels the effects of quantum uncertainty (cf. the principle of indeterminateness of Heisenberg operating the atomic & subatomic levels). On this macrolevel, position and momentum behave in a conventional, common sense, "classical" or Newtonian way. The object is not between everywhere and nowhere. But this continuity & definiteness are illusionary. Dividing the object into smaller and smaller pieces will eliminate the effect of gravity and eventually, at the atomic and subatomic levels, the constituent parts are only probability-waves yielding specific quantities when observed by an observer. At this point, the conventional, physical object/subject relationship breaks up, and the separateness, definiteness & locality of objectivity is gone.

α.2 Only when a subject of experience interacts with the probability-wave does it collapse, turning an infinite number of possibilities into a single one. As all macroscopic objects are erected upon their atomic foundation, conventional realism is merely apparent and the difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics depends on temporal & spatial scaling. On the fundamental level, object and subject cannot be defined as independent, separate and local. The deep-structure of matter calls for the intimate, continuous interaction between the observer and the observed, between the knower and the known.

α.3  Lacking objective mooring, i.e. without a definiteness independent of and separate from a subject of experience, the conceptual mind has no way to grasp, impute or possess its object. Like waves on water, mental elaborations cease. This is the beginning of the purification of the conceptual mind, ending in the exhaustive, thorough arrest of all substantial instantiations ; the annihilation of reification.

α.4  Considering the apparent solidity of macroscopic objects, realize atoms consist of space without mass. The atomic core (of neutrons and protons) is good for 99.9% of the atomic mass, but it occupies as much space as a grain of rice hanging in the centre of a football station. The reason why macroscopic objects appear as continuous (as solids, liquids or gases) is the electro-magnetic bonds between the constituent atoms, not because of the presence of "solid" mass.

∫ To build relationships is like bonding togetherness.

α.5  Consider the apparent immortality of electrons, photons & neutrinos seemingly left undisturbed. As all particles interact with other particles, this absence of disturbance is relative. Not a single material thing part of conventional reality subsists forever, for all phenomena arise, abide, cease & reemerge. Interconnected (organic) impermanence & absence of inherent existence are fundamental to all possible actual occasions. Even the world-ground itself, although not nothing, lacks own-nature and is therefore without properties inherently existing in it. The primordial domains are the properties of this virtual world-ground.

∫ The virtual is the father of the concrete. The possible is the mother of the actual.

β. Reifying the subject of knowledge at the level of ontology, i.e. considering the subject or community of sign-interpreters as existing on their own ontic (noetic) plane and separate from the object of knowledge, leads one to argue idealism, the ontological view the object is constituted by the subject, the community of subjects and/or their mental operations (like arguing and establishing a consensus). Although material objects are accepted, they are merely the reflection of non-material, mental activities. This is the case of the subject constituting the object (cf. Platonism, rationalism, psychologism, transcendental idealism, existentialism, etc.).

γ. Realism reifies matter. Idealism reifies the mind. The former reification turns the conventional world into a subsisting materiality, the latter brings in a supermind transcending the world, originally creating it and sustaining it. Realism reduces the world to the order of the actual world. Idealism deems the latter to be the creative result of an original, primordial supermind eternally existing from its own side.

LEMMA 45

The second step is a wrong intent. Once a wrong view is realized, either in terms of a reified object of knowledge or a reified subject of knowledge (in epistemology), the reification (or substantialization) needs to be reified itself (in ontology). Finally, substance is essentialized. The seal is sealed. This by letting the subject establish the object (based on an epistemology without object) or by inviting the object to establish the subject (based on an theory of knowledge without subject).

The solution is to never grasp the object or the subject as permanent.

§ 3 Transgressive Metaphysics.

α. Building complete worldviews on the basis of epistemological & ontological transgressions leads to static, uncompromising, unworkable, inefficient and unscientific approaches to the major questions of life : Why something ? What about the universe, life & consciousness ?

β. A metaphysics of idealism fixates a supermind and attributes an inherent existence to it. It thus turns the activities of the mind into either a perfect, ideal "true" reflection of this supermind, or into an imperfect approximation of it. Non-physicality is pivotal. The distinction is between an absolute mind and a totally useless, imperfect and thus rejected physical state of affairs. Rather, one should make clear facts are not exhaustively intra-mental. The ultimate distinction is between, on the one hand, impermanent mental states and moments of consciousness and, on the other hand, the imposed (projected, imputed, attributed) inherently existing properties of the (super)mind.

γ. A metaphysics of realism posits a real, objective, external & substantial world "out there". Physicality plays a crucial role. Despite possible emergent properties, the role of physical, molecular, atomic & subatomic events is emphasized, and complex phenomena are -if possible- reduced to their material parts. Realistic activities of the mind correspond with the Real. The distinction is between an absolute objectivity stimulating a receptive cognitive apparatus, and thus between what is Real and what is merely subjective or unreal. Rather, the difference between perception and sensation should be reminded, as well as the constituting activity of the subject. In the co-relative activity of producing conventionality described by the valid empirico-formal propositions (of science), the organizing & intending work of the Ideal is at least as important as the Real.

δ. Metaphysical idealism turning religious will invent an omnipresent, omniscient & omnipotent supermind. These qualities inhere in it and are absolute. Hence, this supermind must be a superbeing, a Creator-God. As the subject constitutes (imputes) the object, this God creates the world "out of nothing", i.e. as an act of His Free Will. This worldview fails to understand such a supermind cannot be found and if it would, it could not create, produce, cause or effectuate anything.

ε. Metaphysical realism turning materialist will invent an objective, physical world producing all possible phenomena. The latter are physical. The non-physical is rejected. If accepted, as emergent properties, then the non-physical is caused by the physical (downward causation is deemed absent). Materialism cannot be articulated without a subject of knowledge. Moreover, perceptions are not sensations. Finally, the non-physical interacts with the physical, and both matter, information & consciousness are aspects of every single actual occasion.

LEMMA 46

The third step is a wrong object. Having reified the conditions of knowing and secured the justificators (the ideas of the Real and the Ideal), these two objects are totalized. This results in either a static, substantial, eternal mundus or gives birth to the idea nothing really exists (while all things are merely empty of themselves, not of something).

Metaphysical transgression is not primarily the polarization of what exists in the vertical and horizontal vectors of the mundus, but follows from the need for reification. Finding a ground is not enough. Not even a sufficient ground suffices. Indeed, a self-sufficient ground is designated. In this view, the world has to be finite in an inhering sense ! But if the world-ground is not a self-sufficient ground, nor an actual occasion, it must be a process, a dependent-arising, a coherent symphony of abstract possibilities. Then world and world-ground are not different, but distinct entities ; the former actual, the latter abstract.

§ 4 Deconstruction & the Margin.

α. Deconstruction does not destroy its object, but merely its reification. Weaponed with ultimate logic, all possible inflexible, static, solid, eternal and substantial objects are investigated and found not to exist as they appear. Found to be impermanent, they are non-substantial. Eliminating their tendency not to move, pushing away their inertia, is to realize the absence of own-nature in each of them. They do not exist as separate and independent objects, but merely as interdependent happenings or display of actual occasions.

β. Radical postmodernism (as the end of the "grand stories") remained dependent of modernism. As modernism lacked internationalism and multi-culturalism (being mostly Western), moderate postmodernism integrated the global perspective. Building a deconstructed worldview is the task of hypermodernism, multiplying a global perspective with ecological & social sustainability.

γ. The margin is an imagined space defined by a dividing-line drawn parallel to any text. This space is used to mark all reified concepts present. They are identified and marked. These are the transcendent signifiers one cannot avoid but -to satisfy parsimony- must keep to the bare minimum. Two are identified : the mind of Clear Light* and God*.

δ. Deconstruction is not a passive analysis post factum, but happens in the heat of the action. Like a swimmer or a singer, complex forms emerge in and by the action itself, not by anything "from the side". The moments constituting the stream are never identical and never return. All is constantly permanently lost.

∫ Finding not a single substance, the wise dine & wine on wisdom.

LEMMA 47

Avoiding three wrong steps, namely wrong theory of knowledge, wrong ground and wrong totalization, deconstruction focuses on all possible reified objects. Both on the side of the subject of knowledge, as on the side of the object of knowledge, the solidification, isolation, fixation and substantialization of the Real or the Ideal are identified. At some point, when this has happened repeatedly, the mind stops to impute independent & separate existence and stops grasping at the supposed own-nature of things. The "seal of emptiness" is placed on all sensate & mental objects (cf. the "mahâmudrâ"). As a result, objects no longer appear as they do, but unveil their other-power, i.e. the fact they merely exist because of determinations and conditions outside themselves. They are something, i.e. not nothing, because they are functionally related. Without this efficient bonds, they do not exist, and if they appear to exist from their own side, the mind is necessarily deluded & obscured.

B. Conceptuality & Non-Conceptuality.

When the mind cognizes, it grasps at an object and possesses it. Nearly simultaneous with this, to further identify it, the mind conceptualizes and so imputes a concept, name or label. Between the act of cognizing and the moment of conceptualization, a small gap occurs. Between two moments of conceptualization, another isthmus, "bardo" or interval is at hand. Cognizing and conceptualizing are not simultaneous. Grasping the object and naming it are indeed two consecutive steps.

This can clearly be felt in ante-rationality, in particular mythical and pre-rational thought. In these early modes of cognition, the concept is not stable. In mythical thinking it is psychomorphic, taking on the shape of subjective experiences. In pre-rational thought, it has a certain kind of stability, but still vanishes quickly due to a plastic semantic field. While proto-rationality works with mature, stable concepts, they are not abstract but concrete and so are defined by the context in which they appear. This gives them a semantic multiplicity, a fluidity prone to confusion. Ancient Egypt and pre-Classical Greece feature these kinds of opaque conceptualizations. Clear meaning can only be established by lengthy comparisons and minute studies of all available contexts. Even then, precise meaning can only be suggested, not inferred.

The empirical subject knows the momentary field of consciousness as (a) the direct, experiential, phenomenological horizon with its central ego cogitans, (b) conscious contents and ongoing fluctuations, (c) together forming the mindstream consisting of consecutive moments of sentient activity, mental activities organized and ruled by the mental operators associated with the various modes of cognition. Now thanks to the abstract concept, all mental operations are boosted by the application of context-free relations between stable concepts, leading to conceptual elaborations and the correct & valid use of conventional knowledge. The noetic aspect of the "Greek miracle" is precisely this comprehensive use of abstraction, leading up to the concept-realism of Plato and Aristotle. The latter is an exaggeration unwarranted by critical reason.

Kant did not accept the non-conceptual (cf. his rejection of "intellectual perception"). He considered this not to be given to everyone and so too exceptional to be part of a criticism of pure reason. The notion nonduality is a mode of cognition calling for a cognitive act (featuring object & subject) is based on the direct experience born out of study, reflection and meditation on ultimate truth. With enough effort, this is the share of every human being wishing to end ignorance on the most fundamental level possible.

§ 1 Conceptual Thought.

α. When, from specific instances, a general idea is inferred or derived, this abstract is called "a concept". With the "Greek miracle", the ante-rational stage of cognition, with its strong pragmatic mental closure, had been superseded. Formal rationality imposed both contents & form.

β. Ante-rational concepts are either a-conceptual, pre-conceptual or concrete. In myth, they are psychomorphic and make no distinction between inner & outer, obscuring the distinction between sensate & mental objects. In pre-rationality, concepts are unstable and therefore mere pre-concepts. In proto-rationality they are stable but concrete, defined by context only. In all cases, a confused type of cognition ensues. There is no stable mental form, except in the immediate coordination of movements. Symbols only persists for brief moments or as part of designated (and unstable) contexts. Signals & icons persist (especially in the earliest two modes of cognition). With the coming of rationality, ante-rationality is pushed in the unconscious.

∫ The more a culture is refined, the less instinct & emotion need to be subdued. The outstanding feature of Western rational culture is to dominate instinct & emotion for "a good reason". This is the origin of pettiness & silliness.

γ. Conceptuality overlays or superimposes a general name, label or symbol on sensate and/or mental identifications of spatiotemporal variations in a set of actual occasions (caused by a finite number of sensuous impulses and/or mental cogitations). This involves a logical mistake, for how to justify the leap from a finite number of concrete sensuous and/or mental elements -leading up to a pre-conceptual identification- to an infinite number of such elements in the three times as defined by an abstract concept ? Both what is identified, the identifier and the process of identification are impermanent and so prone to change.

δ. The distinction between the pre-conceptual apprehension of sensuous impulses projected on the neocortex and the moment of conceptual overlay is crucial to understand how the name or label associated with what has been identified differs from the latter. These pre-conceptual sensate objects, indeed resulting from the earliest moments of interpretation, are nevertheless not yet concepts, i.e. abstractions, generalizations, static names or labels. And they are certainly not the reification of such concepts as in concept-realism, attributing own-nature or substantial sense to concepts.

ε. Note these distinctions. The mechanism of the conceptual process involving sensate objects involves three phases : in the first, the sensate objects (projected by the thalamus on the neocortex) are pre-conceptual and identified by way of a variety of actual occasions present in the direct, phenomenological field of the observer during the act of (total) observation ; in the second, this concrete information is generalized and so named and labelled. Here the conceptual mental operation is at hand, one identifying a universal and its instances ! In the third, the subject of knowledge apprehends the general concept or name, superimposing it on all subsequent manifestations of a similar sensuous stream of actual occasions. In all forms of pre-critical rationality, the third step leads to reification, positing a substance existing from its own side, keeping its own inhering properties, separate and independent from others.

LEMMA 48

Conceptual thought operates abstract concepts and brings these together in opinions, notions, hypothesis, theories & speculations. Thanks to generalization, the cognitive act is liberated from context. Eventually, the structure of conceptual thinking itself can be apprehended, leading to a logic devoid of contents, i.e. formal. Despite the fact classical formal logic is not the only possible logic, concept-realism is thoroughly dedicated to it. Of all the basic principles, non-contradiction rules supreme. The Newtonian world also ran in absolute, linear terms. But this proved to be a good approximation only. Indeed, the fundamental nature of physical objects involves quantum logic defying strict non-paradoxality. And most living systems, including the human brain, has an architecture, a software executing a chaotic logic. So although conceptual thought is crucial to escape context & content, it is not an absolute tool, but merely a relative waymark to keep track of the conventional, common-sense worldview. This sobriety gives the power to climb the mountain of meta-rationality, if such an undertaking is deemed necessary at all. Like ante-rationality, rationality has mental closure. Moreover, because of the limit-concepts of immanent metaphysics, the creative mode of cognition is not necessary to solve the problems of conceptualization (namely reification). So the leap enabling us to face absolute truth is an act of freedom. From the side of reason, it can be nothing else but a leap into the absurd ... So be it !

§ 2 Ante-rational Regressions.

α. The realization of rationality does not guarantee the absence of unwanted returns or regressions to the earlier stage of cognition. It is crucial to grasp ante-rationality, although made unconscious, is still prevalent in instinctual and emotional matters, i.e. those areas where context plays a important role. Signals and icons are defined by our ante-rational mentality, given shape by libidinal, tribal & imitative foci of consciousness, by an antique ego fed by the memories of the earliest experiences of conscious life as a human being.

β. In the chaotic sea of ante-rational thought lurks the Leviathan of irrationality. The absence of its reemergence needs to be checked again and again. If this effort is unrelenting, regressions can be avoided. But due to habit, the mind settles down and breeds bad defences.

γ. Ante-rationality, because it has mental closure, can fabricate a number of fantastic stories and implement the terror of concrete words. Without rationality, a single deity turns into billions ; each with its own silly walk or Moon dance. With rationality, formal and critical, the substantial God is unmasked and the God* of Process dawns.

LEMMA 49

Aware of the presence of instincts and emotions, the integrated rational mind, formal & critical, no longer subdues nor renders unconscious the various processes stemming from an ante-rational approach of the world. Training these eventually leads to emotional intelligence as well as to a gut-feeling assisting the proper functioning of the mind. Of course, at the end of the day, in this mode of cognition, only reason judges. But because even the critical mind cannot eliminate the need to reify, such judgments may be mistaken. Only absolute truth brings to light the fundamental true nature of all possible phenomena. Because of this reifying tendency, reason cannot completely compensate for instinct & emotion. Only wisdom realizing emptiness can.

§ 3 Meta-rational Transgressions.

α. The complexification of cognition moves beyond rationality. Creative and nondual thought make way for cognitive horizons far beyond the capacities of the mind working out in the rational stage of cognition. To limit the mind to what seems to be given to the majority, is to make the infinite serve the finite ; an absurdity. Both define their own domain, the finite world finding its infinite potential in its own world-ground. The intellect crowns reason. Where reason apprehends, intellect prehends.

∫ Abstraction has to be paid by lack of inventivity, creativity & novelty.

β. Situated between ante-rationality and meta-rationality, rationality represents the Middle Way between instinct and intuition. Without the latter, rationality lacks the ability to create novelty. With too much of this, cognitive activity is either confused or lacking purity (i.e. a perspective on the end of reification).

γ. Creative thought prepares intellectual prehension by serving as a purgation for the subtle forms of reification. Totalizing and the reification of a totalizing object need to be distinguished. Creative thought first allows reification to explode. Positing the ontic self in its "mandala" it then annihilates the reified totality. This is like ending ignorance with one single blow.

δ. Insofar as creative thought posits an ontic self, its creativity is sullied, leading to brontosauric statements. The latter are not devoid of dramatic exaggeration and have no other use than to totalize the creative object of knowledge. They do reflect the power of novelty and inventivity, the ornaments of consciousness. They evidence the establishment of a higher-order mental level, albeit one covered by the fixating imposition of an ontic self possessing itself and its properties from its own side, inherently, imputed as an eternal self-powered, self-identical & nondependent mental substance. It goes without saying that to the ante-rational layer of mind, such megalomanic display is very appealing, stimulating the re-emergence of instincts & emotions, signified by signals & icons. However, it merely serves -by way of paradoxical intention- the end of reification. The ontic self makes way for the transparant self, ending in selflessness.

ε. The higher ontic self is not a strong object of negation, but its emptiness is. This self needs to be thoroughly identified before it can be emptied of itself, thus not leaving naught, but the very subtle transparant self-reflection present in the cognitive act. This "prise de conscience" is a totalizing awareness of consciousness as object and so if not reified, the portal to the selfless self-awareness of nonduality. The creative mode merely prepares the mind, refining it to the point it apprehends the totality of its sensate and coarse mental objects as empty of itself, i.e. as a process without own-nature ("svabhâva"), with "no self" ("anâtman"). This means they are not themselves, neither are they not something !

∫ Avoid both extremes of eternalism and nihilism.

ζ. The reification of the higher self, designating an ontic, substantial self or subjective own-nature, can also be a stepping-stone to the reification of the transcendent object itself.

ζ.1 When emptiness is designated as a ground not to be emptied of itself, absolute truth is raised to become a different ontological entity, plane or level, giving birth to the idea of the absolute being high up (Heaven) versus the relative being down low (Earth).

ζ.2 For emptiness to be empty of itself, the absolute must merely be a property of every possible actual occasion, existing conventionally in every possible apprehension of sensate & mental objects.

∫ When Two Truths become a single Truth, how can the shepherd mind his flock ?

LEMMA 50

Ante-rationality needs reason to solve its problems, but reason cannot silence instinct & emotion. While for a rational human being reason has the final say, the decisions of reason lack the capacity to encompass the various semantic connotations invoked by instinct & emotion. Rationally, these signals & icons seem outlandish and irrelevant, but as far as these ante-rational mental imprints are concerned, reason speaks a foreign language and so imposes a misunderstood rule. Rational analysis cannot integrate ante-rational information.

Another false path is to replace reason by meta-rationality. As if the latter is not imputed on the basis of conceptual stability ! To make the choice to totalize, ontologize & then desubstantialize is the prerogative of free study, in particular metaphysical studies. Meta-rationality does not yield a superobject nor a supersubject, but merely a panoramic perspective on the process of the mundus and a philosophical reflection on the transcendent object based on its (direct) prehension. As soon as a speculative discourse invoking the absolute becomes an eulogy of the "thing of things", possibly inventing a theo-ontology, it transgresses the "ring-pass-not" of critical thought. The transcendent object being empty cannot act as nondependent or ontologically different from the relative.

§ 4 Direct Experience & Cognitive Nonduality.

α. To introduce nondual thought, reason & contemplative experience have to be distinguished. Ultimate logic only eliminates the reification of the concept. It does not end conceptuality, for the latter belongs to the valid processes of the conventional world ruled by relative truth ; valid but mistaken. Compassion and meditation on the emptiness of all possible concepts, involving a deep reconditioning of the mindstream, bring about the end of the reification of concepts. This is the purification of the conceptual mind. Concepts are not the problem, their reification is.

∫ Prehension no longer grasps, but finds objects as they are.

β. A direct introduction to and discovery of the natural light or the mind of Clear Light*, does not cause something, but rather, as a perfect mirror, reflects, when secondary causes manifest, the movements of energy and the processes appearing in it. The natural light of the mind cannot be observed, for it is the very thing observing, perceiving only the suchness/thatness of the actual occasions without conceptual interpretation. This light is a potential, an open space of possibilities. It is the nature of the mind as it is by itself, its witnessing clarity.

γ. Nondual thought is not discursive, nor conceptual. In other words, the apex of thought is non-verbal. Myth, the beginning of cognition, is also non-verbal, but opaque & non-reflective (and, mutatis mutandis, non-reflexive). Nondual thought, the end of cognition, on the contrary, is highly reflective (dynamical, differential, energetic) and sublimely reflexive, with the absolute subject prehending the absolute object. But this is no longer "inner" knowledge, nor even arguable (immanent) metaphysics, for it lacks all forms of conceptual duality and cannot be symbolized, except in sublime poetry. Perhaps as a direct, self-liberating, self-transforming, wordless, instantaneous awareness of the unlimited wholeness of which one's nature of mind is part. If this highest, nondual awareness is called "wisdom", then wisdom transcends the concept, be it concrete, formal, critical or creative.

δ. Because the nature of mind is ultimate reflectivity & reflexivity (the absolute I knowing the absolute Other), the original mind of Clear Light* is thus (a) self-clarity, like a Sun allowing itself to be seen or as a lamp in a dark room lighting up the room but also itself, (b) primordial purity, or the absence of conceptual elaboration, (c) spontaneous perfection, self-liberating all reifying flux within consciousness, (d) unobscured self-reflexion, as in a polished mirror, transparency in variety, like a rainbow or as water taking on the colour of the glass and, as space accepting all objects in it, (e) impartiality.

ε. Although without conceptual object, this subjectivity is "aware". It is the "awareness of awareness", self-settled, wordless, open and reached by a pathless path leading to a pathless land. It is clarity, but without differentiating anything. The fundamental nature of the mind is not part of consciousness. This nature is simply always present to and aware of the state of absolute absoluteness it finds itself constantly in. This is an absolute & blissful selflessness only aware of its absolute object, the lack of substance in all things, itself included. This is an absolute experience of duality, and therefore a nondual dual-union, non-conceptual and so paradoxical. Although not a consciousness, it is a mode of cognition and so definable in terms of the transcendental duality, but then in an absolute sense. But in the case of nondual cognition, a special dual-union pertains. Nondual awareness is not induced by any immediate prior condition. It has no cause. It cannot be determined by a previous moment of consciousness. It is a self-settled, wordless, non-conceptual, open awareness, without a place ("epi") on which a subject might stand ("histâmi") and so pre-epistemological.

∫ These ideas are not the result of any reasoning, but poetical elucidations.

ζ. This original nature of mind is absolute. So it will, if not deconstructed, act as a transcendent signifier. Hence the distinction between immanent & transcendent metaphysics. Despite non-conceptuality, direct experience apprehends this open, clear awareness or very subtle mind of Clear Light* present in nondual cognition as a direct encounter with the something not found among sensate or mental objects, with i.e. absolute reality nakedly, purely & primordially united with absolute ideality.

η. The display of phenomena arising out of the empty all-ground or world-ground features (besides primordial matter and primordial information) a cognizing luminosity, presenting (a) an original nature of mind and (b) a primordial enlightenment-being ("Âdi-Buddha") or God* (not to be confused with the self-sufficient ground of classical ontology).

η.1 The non-separation between the absolute all-ground and the original nature of mind is the experiential fruit of directly experiencing this ultimate nature.

η.2 While this experience is ineffable, mystics never stop talking about it. When they do they are not scientists, nor philosophers but merely poets.

LEMMA 51

When pursuing absolute truth, conventionality is not considered a negative, like something imperfect or useless. Why ? Because there is nothing outside the world-system. The world-system is all there is. Its infinite, absolute ground is not a self-sufficient ground, but a dependent arising empty of itself, but full of an abstract "something" shaping the possibility of all possible concrete actual occasions. Together, this primordial consciousness or mind of Clear Light* (of God* and of all other beginningless mindstreams), pristine information and virtual quantum plasma, make out the set of formative abstracts. They represent the world insofar as it is merely potential, virtual, possible. Although an infinite truth transcending the relative, finite world, it is nevertheless not a different kind of being, not another "class" of actual occasions. Hence, unmistaken absolute truth is revealed in every cognitive act and this simultaneously with its valid but mistaken relative appearance. The absolute exists conventionally. Not in a "higher" topologically distinct from the actual world, but precisely at the very, momentary instance when the actual world is observed. The absolute is always-with-the-world.

§ 5 The Epistemological Status of Nonduality.

α. The experience of nonduality is a first person prehension of the nature of mind, recognizing its Clear Light*. This hidden & ineffable observation is "mystical" and cannot be described. This prehension by the absolute subject (the mind of enlightenment) of the absolute object (the lack of inherent existence in all phenomena) is the observation of its suchness/thatness, or momentary presence with nothing more. This is unmistaken, without obscurations, veils or concealments.

β. The logic of the tetralemma ("catuskoti") offers the best conceptual approach of nonduality. This tool frees consciousness from all possible reifying conceptualizations, namely by negating all substantial views, introducing all phenomena as without inherent existence, eternal substance, absolute identity or immortal essence ; impermanent but not random. In logic, the particle "not" has no other function than to exclude a given affirmation. The tetralemma therefore excludes everything by exhaustively analyzing what emptiness is not :

1. it is not as it is (identity) : things are always connected with other things and if change by way of determinations & conditions is accepted, then all identity is impermanent and devoid of inherent existence, own-nature or substance ;

2. it is not as it is not (negation) : likewise, the negation of anything cannot be done without negating other things, making what is being negated interconnected and thus impermanent ;

3. it is not as it is and as it is not (mixture) : to say this clause has meaning is to utter a meaningless "flatus voci", except if differences in time, space & persons are introduced. In the latter case, the mixture is a new identity, and (1) applies ;

4. it is not beyond as it is and as it is not (included middle) : only if (1) & (2) cannot be clearly defined may this clause apply, but it is rejected as invalid. Denying the included middle implies the excluded middle.

γ. Using the "reductio at absurdum", the tetralemma negates the four options given by formal logic. Accepting the first two is "nominal", and no valid path to liberation, for suffering is what is common to everything. Identity has to be renounced and its emptiness realized, i.e. conceptualizing the impermanence of everything results in the end of reifying conceptualization. Accepting the last two is "irrational", for in classical logic, non-contradiction & the principle of the excluded middle are necessary (although many-value logics do not accept the principle of the excluded middle).

δ. By restriction ("nirodha"), each clause removes, dissolves, evacuates & drives calm the final obstructions of knowledge (cf. "jñeyâ-varana"). The result being a conceptual mind close to or approximating the nondual state. The tetralemma expresses the inapplicability of ordinary, nominal conceptual language to the absolute. The idea behind the tetralemma is to establish a view without concepts, i.e. employ logic to reach beyond logic. This can only be prepared, leading to the purification of the conceptual mind. Indeed, the "wisdom" of meditative equipoise cognizing emptiness is not induced by an inferential consciousness segueing into emptiness. The conceptual "operation" of the tetralemma is not a process by which conceptual thought is spontaneously transformed into the highest possible wisdom.

ε. Conceptuality cannot be the cause of non-conceptuality. Ultimate logic proceeds to eliminate reification but does not and does not need to annihilate the concept. Hence, there is no conceptual "operation" establishing the nondual view, no path to the final step, the apex of cognition.

ε.1 One needs to completely use up the fuel of the "fire" of reifying conceptual elaboration (this is "nirvâna"). So negating what must be negated, namely inherent existence, is the supreme antidote to cancel the poison of ignorance.

ε.2 Only prolonged spiritual exercises (combining calm abiding or tranquility with insight or analysis) are able to properly prepare the mind to experience emptiness directly. This is not like propelling it into "seeing" emptiness, for non-conceptuality arises at the precise moment the highest, purest veil of the conceptual approximation of emptiness is pierced.

LEMMA 52

The fabrication of suchness/thatness by applying the rules of ultimate logic is the ultimate preparation approximating "seeing" full-emptiness, the union of dependent-arising & emptiness. This preparation is however conceptual and so not yet nondual. No doubt advanced, it is not yet direct, seedless, without means, unfabricated.

After having made the mind supple, conceptual preparations must be exhausted. A generic concept of emptiness is then realized. But this is not the same as unfabricated suchness/thatness, the direct, unmediated experience of the absolute nature of all possible phenomena. So epistemologically, the transcendent holds no conceptual truth-claim and has no conventional validity, but only ultimate validity (in terms of the act of prehension, itself beyond validation). It is not an object of science nor of immanent metaphysics. Neutral to both, it cannot enforce. There is no coercion in salvation. Nevertheless, by directly observing the ultimate nature of all things, thus entering the wisdom realizing emptiness, an unmistaken, non-conceptual experience is possible.

In the teachings ("dharma") of the Buddha this experience is nothing less than awakening ("bodhi"), establishing the mind of enlightenment for the sake of all sentient being ("bodhicitta"), the unity of bliss (compassion, method) and emptiness (wisdom). Such an enlightened mind is omnipresent and omniscient (aware of past and present). Although superpowerful, it is not omnipotent. The mind of Clear Light* is valid because reality-as-such is prehended. Because it does not make things appear differently than they are, it is also unmistaken.

C. Irrationality versus Poetic Sublimity.

If nonduality cannot be conceptually appraised, it must be understood as a highly subjective experience. Relevant no doubt, it has no direct significance whatsoever. So is it irrational ? This would be the case if nonduality would eliminate the conceptual mind. But just as rationality does not eclipse ante-rationality, non-conceptuality does not preclude conceptuality. Awakening does not stop one from thinking in terms of conceptual relationships. Devoid of the reifying tendency so active in the rational mode of cognition, such a mind simultaneously prehends emptiness & fullness, absolute (ultimate) & relative (conventional).

Precisely because nonduality is non-conceptual, it cannot argue and so through argument validate the experience of the ultimate. Therefore, as soon as one tries to argue nonduality, irrationality lurks. Apologetics are off. Only direct experience is at hand. This can be prepared, no doubt, but not a single correct preparation causes nonduality ! It can merely be pointed out, introduced or recognized. If not, nothing else can be done.

Nondual experience impacts conceptual thinking and therefore proves its significance indirectly, namely in the behaviour of those in which such a profound state is fully realized. Indeed, great compassion or limitless charity is the activity of the mind of Clear Light*. Aware of the vastness of suffering, such a mind engages to alleviate the pervasive suffering present in conventional existence (or a life defined by the determinations & conditions of conventional knowledge). Hence, such a mind has a very powerful intent to end the suffering of all sentient beings and the unmistaken, realized & forceful potential to do so.

§ 1 Featuring Irrationality.

α. Irrationality cognizes without the inclusion of rationality. Its spirit is not dampened by the diabolus in logica, non-contradiction. It either lacks universalia (as in ante-rationality) or does not appreciate the validity of concepts (as in invalid transcendent metaphysics) and so lacks the capacity to identify its mistakes. It has not yet arrived at the cognitive level introducing concepts (as in myth), is unable to establish a stable concept (as in pre-rationality), is bound to context (as in proto-rationality) or cherishes a dogmatic view held true for no good reason, as in blind faith and pre-critical forms of conventionality.

β. The many forms of irrationalism all try to undermine reason, introducing absence of sense. In general, nonsense does not accept the power of logic to decide between valid and invalid, between true and false, between mistaken and unmistaken. Making use of logic to defend its dogma, as a form of apology, it mostly tries to seduce others into uncompromising salvic moves.

∫ The deceptions of irrationality may fool some for some time, but never succeed in bamboozling everybody all the time.

γ. Like myth, nonduality is non-verbal. But while myth is a priori non-reflective and non-reflexive way, the ultimate mind is highly reflective and sublimely reflexive. Precisely because of this, the indirect influence of this mind is very powerful. When turned towards others without enforcing anything, triggering spontaneous attunement & metanoia, it identifies ultimate truth in every moment of its awakened mindstream. This is not scientific nor metaphysical, but existential in a poignant, instantaneous way. Spontaneously liberating all ignorance in every moment of the mindstream, suchness is complimented having its own index of truth. Possessing the ultimate clarity. Very subtle reification needs to be avoided, for the absolute is empty of itself !

∫ The awakened mindstream prehends the absolute object. This is like the son jumping into the lap of his mother.

δ. Irrationality always tries to limit & darken the rational mind. This disruptive activity is ongoing, for the imprints left by the ante-rational mind are powerful emotions & instincts. Come to its own, the mature rational mind cannot eliminate the latter. They provide the vital emotionality with which the desperate search for a self-sufficient ground is clothed. If coarse irrationality leads one to overt insanity, then subtle irrationality is the power of the grip clinging to substance. Very subtle irrationality is making the self-sufficient ground transcendent & eternal, the ultimate spiritual stabilization in self-contradiction.

ε. Due to its coarse irrationality, the ante-rational mind becomes confused and stays in permanent, unresolved conflict. The rational mind mediates the contextual problems with abstract concepts and defines the finite world by way of tangential limit-concepts. Here, irrationality feeds on the tendency of the rational mind to reify. Substance-thinking being the subtle form of irrationality. Lastly, when the mind of Clear Light* is reified in terms of an absolute mind-substance (eternal soul) or an absolute object-substance (God), very subtle irrationality is introduced.

∫ Do organized religions hold a monopoly on very subtle irrationality ?

LEMMA 53

Coarse irrationality is often associated with afflictive emotions and violent instincts. These can be identified with ease. Mental disorders like schizophrenia provide case-studies proving how those minds lack the ability to even take care of themselves in the most essential ways. In psychosis visual, auditive, tactile hallucinations occur. Mental retardation or the uncontrolled activity of ante-rationality also display irrational intentions, volitions, affects, thoughts and states of consciousness.

Subtle irrationality, because of its pervasive activity, is more difficult to identify. Here the hallucination is mental, in particular the projection of the imago of the eternal substance. It always involves fixating some object, some subject or both. It can be conscious, as in metaphysical realism or metaphysical idealism, or unconscious, as in the uncritical, untrained conventional mind of "homo normalis". But one cannot introduce an abstract without a logical leap from a finite set to an infinite set, without the "deus ex machina" or "trick" to save the corrupt plot.

Very subtle irrationality hallucinates a hallucinating being. However, in critical philosophy, no reified concept of emptiness or reification of emptiness are possible, for the world is a sea of process.

§ 2 Transcendence & Art.

α. The sublime is beyond excellence & exemplarity combined. As an intensity of meaningful presence, it captivates every moment of consciousness. Offering clarity, it puts interdependence to the fore. Empty of itself, it is the all-comprehensive prehension of otherness.

β. Sublime works of art unfold a unique evolutionary process of spiritualizing states of matter and testify of the continuous process characterizing the natural, nondual, Clear Light* mind. They are our grand ancestral examples. They do not coerce, nor do they unfold in any hesitant way. They are more enduring cultural compounds, bringing the laws of beauty to their highest efficiency & finality.

γ. If art, the making of beautiful objects, is a medium for the direct experience of emptiness, then the tale of un-saying can indeed be told, not only with symbols, but also with icons & signals as in a "Gesamtkunstwerk". In terms of the written text, the poetic style excels as a potential carrier for all possible mystical elucidations.

δ. Poetry, in addition to, or in lieu of, its apparent meaning, adds aesthetic features to any text. Sensate aesthetic features are denotations based on sensation. Evocative aesthetic features are affective, volitional, cognitive & conscious connotations based on denotations. Excellent poetry combines these features in an exquisite, functional whole.

ε. Aesthetic judgement of excellence is not based on the aesthetic features themselves, integrated as they are in an excellent organic whole, but on their total or partial aesthetic meaning. Turning free creativity into symbols, icons & signals, excellence points to qualities beyond the conditions imposed by sensation. A higher-order form is at work. All what matters, is the way these differential changes in exquisite aesthetic features are an expression of consciousness. One does not seek beauty (as in pleasure & satisfaction), but shows how beautiful beauty is (as in excellence). The exemplary moves further.

ζ. Poetry moving beyond excellence is exemplary. The aesthetic judgement of example is based on a spectrum of possible abstract forms of harmony, ranging from the entirely subjective to the entirely objective. These abstract forms, rooted in transcendental aesthetics, are necessary and formal (cf. Criticosynthesis, 2008, chapter 5). The transcendental object is a sensate object, a text, the subject an expressive poet. All harmonisations necessarily involve this pair. Positing, comparing, denying, uniting & transcending are the five models of harmony. The sublime moves further.

• Positioning : affirming the object without the subject or affirming the subject without the object ;

• Comparing : considering the object more than the subject or considering the subject more than the object ;

• Denying : rejecting the object or rejecting the subject ;

• Uniting : identifying object with subject and subject with object ;

• Transcending : zeroing out of all harmonization, without object or subject.

η. Beyond excellence and exemplarity, poetry is sublime. When an artist displays his or her natural mind of Clear Light*, sublime realizations result. In these, everything is permeated with the open potentiality present in the mind of the sublime artist. Poetically thinking this Clear Light* is the object of a transcendent metaphysics, backed by an arguable philosophy of totality and inspired poetry. Clearly nothing truly valid or arguable can be said about the sublime. Because all sentient beings possess the potential to awakening, they all can respond to sublimity.

θ. Given the sublime harmony of the mind of Clear Light* cannot be conceptualized, it stands to reason only poetry and great compassion are left. The former is suggestive of its profoundness, while the latter brings about its most cherished intent : to awaken all possible sentient beings. At their best, the holy scriptures of the organized religions, and the "sûtras" of those trying to say something about what cannot be put into words, are examples of such sublime poetry. If not, like all forms of katapathic transcendent metaphysics, they are merely dangerous deceptions. And the same goes for the present speculations ...

∫ The value of a poem is for the actual reader to decide.

LEMMA 54

Given nondual cognition is non-conceptual, nothing can be said about the phenomenology of prehension, the cognitive capacity to think in a nondual way, fully entering the wisdom realizing the empty truth of all possible phenomena. Only direct experience remains possible.

Breaking silence is merely for apologetic reasons ; as the history of the religions shows. Then the highest level of cognition is monopolized by a katapathic soteriology. To designate the "highest name" to the "highest Being" was a way to conjure it, to allow rationalizations of what cannot be rationalized. Beyond being, non-being, being & non-being and neither being and non-being, this level of cognition does not allow for any labelling or name-giving. Working at the level of direct perception, this prehension is beyond conceptual description. Though it can be felt and though it can direct action, no valid, in this case, arguable statement can be made concerning it.

Transcendent metaphysics is not rational but meta-rational. This means it must be poetical, for only poetry allows the sublime to be prehended in a written text. Like music, it has the capacity to evoke a "mandala" or "Gestalt" and its interdependences. Like mathematics, it is a fluid and sensitive structure born out of mental balance. But poetry has no truth-claim, no conceptual stability and no a priori logic. Swimming the free style, sublime poets merely point out, but do not instruct. This medium is excellent for all possible spiritual elaborations using conceptual reason (and so text). Never dogmatic but ever discreet, sublime poetry is only revelatory in the sporadic spur. It builds no Babel.

1.4 Ontology.

"Philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles. Weakness of insight and deficiencies of language stand in the way inexorably. Words and phrases must be stretched towards a generality foreign to their ordinary usage ; and however such elements of language be stabilized as technicalities, they remain metaphors mutely appealing for an imaginative leap." - Whitehead, A.N., PR, § 6.

Let us take heed of this warning. The speculative study of those features shared by all possible actual occasions is not a science. It does not advance any sensate object, but, when valid, merely brings greater order in and larger scope to our mentality or set of mental objects. This is provisional and dependent of the advancements of science.

Process philosophy devised a very specialized technical language to explain the phenomenology of actual occasions, making it for example suitable for metaphysical inquiries into quantum mechanics. This is possible because despite technicalities, metaphysics in general and ontology in particular call for an imaginative leap. Grand stories are told because they inspire, not because they are eternally true.

In his Physics, Aristotle deals with material objects or entities. Metaphysics, "what comes after Physics", takes as its object the immaterial, non-physical entities (beyond or behind the physical world), with theology at its core. Moreover, Metaphysics also studies being in general or being as such, i.e. the study of what is shared in common by all possible entities. This "first philosophy", dealing with the most basic principles based on what all possible things share, is a study of being qua being, leading to the most general concepts or categories of being. What being makes beings be ? Christian philosophy (sic) forged an alliance between theology and this first philosophy. The God of scripture was deemed that Being. He sent His holy word for humans to follow and all the rest of it. In the XVIIth century, first philosophy divorced theology and became general metaphysics. In 1613, the term "ontology" was coined as another name for "metaphysica generalis". And so this became the task of ontology : what do all possible beings have in common ? Process ontology asks : what do all possible mental & sensate processes have in common ? And when this is established : What is there ? and What is truly there ? These questions inevitable leads one to ask : What is the absolute ? Theo-ontology is thus merely an instance of ontological inquiry.

A. Defining Ontology without the Nature of Being.

Before Kant, "General Metaphysics" or ontology was substantialist, essentialist and so seeking a self-sufficient ground, i.e. the self-sustaining & final substantial level of all what is. The presence of such an independent, autarchic "hypokeimenon" was not in doubt. To seek a "ground" goes with the territory, for ontology determines the common features of every possible thing. But to define these general concepts covering all possible phenomena as (a) existing from their own side and (b) forever remaining the same or permanent, is the cul-de-sac of pre-critical metaphysics. We need a sufficient ground, but not a self-sufficient one.

In an absolutist view, valid science & valid metaphysics are eternal. So the absolute nature of all possible phenomena must be eternal too. Hence, the ground of this understanding concerning the general features of all what exists must be something permanent, substantial, essential. Criticism unmasks this eternalization assumed by substantialist foundationalism as an illusion. The common ground argued by ontology is a speculative understanding of what all phenomena share. This metaphysical knowledge, even valid, is not lasting, but, as all conventional knowledge, valid or invalid, provisional, relative and likely to change.

Pre-critical metaphysics, unwilling to embrace radical nominalism, was unable to conceptualize a non-substantial ground. The origin or "arché" was eternal, unchanging, own-powered, with a nature existing by its own, with inhering properties. This own-nature is either an objective "substance of substances" or a subjective "self", both possessing their own-form or isolated, essential, unique & unchanging character. Single, dual or triadic, the first principles of the ontology of old were substances.

Thinking a non-substantial ground is affirming it is not self-powered but other-powered and "present" since "beginningless time". Given physical space & time came into existence with the Big Bang, the ground of the totality of the world, also called the ultimate ground of phenomena or world-ground is virtual or potential, i.e. nothing with the potential to become something. It is not a primordial or ultimate cause of the world, but its mere possibility. This virtual world-ground is the infinite set of propensities making the finite actual next moment of the world possible or likely. The world-ground is not another ontological order, "hidden variable" or a different substantial & deterministic world behind, beyond, before or within the world, for there is only one ontological order, namely the world of actual occasions. It is more like an abstract, virtual world preparing concrete actuality.

If there is only one world, as naturalism extols, then the ground of Nature cannot be an ontological explainer, an ultimate self-sufficient cause abiding in a "Hintenwelt", for there is no Platonic "chorismos" or rift between two ontological worlds. Hence, there is no God creating the world "ex nihilo". Paying compliments to God* is one thing, but taking them serious is quite another ! Before the world physically existed, the primordial quantum plasma pre-existed as one of the three non-temporal, infinite formative elements characterizing the infinite world-ground (together with primordial architecture and primordial sentience). In process cosmology, these designate the limitless possibility, potential, likelihood or propensity of creative disturbance, deflection or "clinamen" of selected probabilities, making another Big Bang (after a Big Crunch or Big Evaporation) very likely.

Both world and world-ground make out the world-system. The world is the sea of concrete actual occasions rising from infinite possibilities, featuring primordial matter, abstract forms of creativity (unity) & absolute sentience (the dual-union of the nondual mind of Clear Light* of the absolute mind of all possible enlightenment of all possible mindstreams). The world-ground is called "ground" because of these formative elements, covering potentialities pre-existing outside space and time. This non-temporal & non-spatial order of propensities is grasped in terms of the fundamentals of the possibility or probability of process, but then in absolute terms : absolute sentience, the creative laws of the world and the primordial quantum field. In this way, these three formative elements of the world tie in with the three ontological aspects of every actual occasion at work in the mundus ; matter, information & consciousness.

The world of actual occasions hic et nunc is like the "music of the spheres", the actual ongoing cosmic symphony of togetherness of countless interdependent actual occasions. The world-ground is then like the "voice of the silence", the material, creative & sentient probabilities or potentialities making possible the next moment after this moment in the infinite histories of the worlds.

§ 1 Place of Ontology in Metaphysics.

α. Critical process ontology asks  this : What do all possible mental & sensate processes have in common ? The answer to this question, aiming at what all objects share, directly influences the outcome of any metaphysical inquiry. It determines the fundamental concepts of the worldview in question. Any error at this level harms the precision of the arguments targeting specific objects. But given a well argued ontology, the general argument dealing with the totality of the world cannot fail (for if not derived from this, dependent on it).

β. No theoretical philosophy features strong, coherent unity without a valid ontology. A general perspective cannot be derived from a finite set of specifics. It has to be solemnly inducted. This is an intuitive, creative moment. Eliminating ontology from philosophy is like painting without paint. The soundness of ontology reflects on the coherency of the worldview. Logic and argument are all what are left. In both cases, the choice of logic is paramount. This brings in the question of style (cf. supra).

γ. Ontology makes a fundamental choice. It designates the ultimate object, namely the one object or ontological principal shared by all possible phenomena. Reifying the object/subject relationship necessary in all possible cognition, classical ontology invented substantial objects and/or substantial subjects, acting as self-sufficient anchors to stabilize their foundationalist systems of being. This resulted in (a) the substantial, ideal (super)subject of subjectivism and its spiritualism, (b) the substantial, real (super)object of objectivism and its materialism (or physicalism) or (c) the substantial duality of rationalism, with matter interacting with the non-physical mind.

δ. The fundamental choice is intuitive. Singling out a common feature calls for a creative act explained in the course of its well-formed elaboration, defining a hermeneutical circle. This cannot be avoided. The Eureka !-moment cannot be caused. Neither is it void of determinations and conditions. In the past, the extremes of spiritualism & materialism excelled in the drama of knowledge. Derived from reductionism & foundationalism, these metaphysical extremes have had their best time. Instead of identifying their first ontological principle with either the object (materialism) or the subject (spiritualism) of the concordia discors, ontologies of the extremes are avoided by asking what both object and subject have in common ? Hence, materialism & spiritualism are unmasked as incomplete answers derived from an unsuccessful reduction (of mind to matter or of matter to mind).

ε. If something exists, it does not merely exist because it appears to an observer to exist. Absolute idealism is rejected. If something does not exist as a substance with inhering properties, is may exist as some thing in process. Relative (conventional) realism is retained.

∫ The Middle Way fares well between the extremes of absolute affirmation and absolute negation.

LEMMA 55

Because all objects are deemed to share a finite set of first principles, ontology is "first philosophy". These first principles orient all further possible speculation. Process ontology seeks a series of concepts dealing with the fundamental properties of all possible phenomena. The latter are deemed processes, not natures (or substances). Given the two sides of the transcendental spectrum of conceptual rationality, classical ontology reduced either subject to object (eliminating mind, as in absolute objectivism) or object to subject (eliminating matter, as in absolute subjectivism). Subject-ontologies fail because they cannot explain the tenacity of some sensate objects. Object-ontologies fail because they cannot operate without a subject possessing its object.

Process ontology wants to establish the common ground between subjectivity (mind) and objectivity (information, matter). It finds this in the concept of "actual occasion" or isthmus of actuality. This is a moment x of that what exists hic et nunc with differential extension x.dt

§ 2 Objects of Ontology : What is There ?

α. When the view, in casu process-based phenomena, has been established, ask : What is there ?  The exactitude of objects, their quality of having high accuracy & consistency, refers to their ontological status, namely to what kind of object is at hand. Four categories of objects are distinguished : (1) absolutely nonexistent objects, (2) fictional objects, (3) relatively existent objects and (4) absolutely existent objects.

β. Absolutely Nonexistent Objects : That Which Is Not.

When an object does not exist, nothing can be identified corresponding to it and so nothing ostensibly refers to it. Absolutely nonexistent objects are always analytical nonexistent objects involving a contradictio in terminis. They are a forteriori nonexistent in an absolute sense. A square circle, a triangle with four angles, a curved flat space etc. cannot correspond to anything, although by themselves the words "square", "circle", "triangle", "angle", "four", "curved", "flat" and "space" do make sense. But when combined, a mental clash occurs eliminating any possibility of even imagining something associated with the combination.

∫ The void is not the empty set of potentialities, of nothing (infinite emptiness) becoming something (finite fullness).

γ. Fictional Objects : That What Deceives.

Fictional objects like Hamlet are deemed not to exist, although in Shakespeare's play called "Hamlet", the Prince of Denmark is a leading character. Nobody versed in English literature agrees with the statement nothing is aimed at when the name "Hamlet" is mentioned, but when asked where Hamlet precisely lives, no answer can be provided ! He is not in Denmark, nor does he "exist" in the text of the play named after him. But when the play is actually performed, no member of the skilled audience will have any difficulty identifying Hamlet.

γ.1 In the case of the unicorn, we assemble two existing objects (namely a white horse and a large waved horn) and this combination exists in our imagination. Sometimes these objects are merely a private fantasy, sometimes they can -through trickery- be made intersubjectively available. Indeed, before recent times, the horns of a rabbit, the hairs on a fish, the wings of a turtle, a unicorn or a pink flying elephant, etc. could not be pointed at as moving and/or three-dimensional objects. By rapidly projecting digitally manifactured pictures on a white screen, any fiction conjured by our imagination may be generated on it. Even depth can be holographically manifactured. In that way, what used to be merely private imagination can be made intersubjectively available "on screen" repeatedly. While nothing more than tricks with artificial light, these objects may move us, influence us and prompt us into action.

γ.2 Fictional objects are either private or public. Dreams and personal fantasies, ranging from the fruits of a fertile imagination to psychotic hallucinations are not available to others. They can only be identified by the subject to which they appear. Nobody else is available to grasp at them. They nevertheless exist as fictional objects. Intersubjective imaginal objects, like fictional characters, cinematographic objects, artistic objects, collective projections or objects appearing as the result of collective hypnosis, also exist because one can indeed aim at them, but this identification is intersubjective, very limited in time, unstable and, most importantly, based on a trick, i.e. an intended deception.

γ.3 Fictional objects exist because a conscious agent intends to fool. To do so, elaborate trappings are introduced. These may be physical (mechanical devices or electronic systems), or psychological (as in suggestion, hypnosis and placebo). Without this intent to trick, i.e. to misrepresent reality, positing something which cannot possibly be there, fiction would not exist.

Summarizing : fictional objects are relatively nonexistent objects.

δ. Relatively Existing Objects : That Which Conceals.

Relatively existing objects are those apprehended by the normal waking consciousness of most, if not all, human beings. These are sensate objects and non-fictional mental objects. Their "normality" is defined statistically (a majority apprehends them as they appear), normatively (given all necessary conditions, they must be apprehended as they do) and existentially (their apprehension is co-relative with a particular observer). They are mostly intersubjective, relatively stable, nominal, conventional and independent of conditions put in place with the explicit intent to deceive. They can also be intimate & private, or reflective of automatic & unconscious activity. Except for non-fictional mental objects (like accurate memories, the activity of imagination, volitions, affects, thoughts and states of consciousness), they are always shared with other conscious agents. Although they change as a function of spatio-temporal conditions, these alterations may be slow, small and nearly imperceptible, as in the extreme case of a mountain, the life of a star or the existence of the universe. They may be quick, large and obvious, their existence deemed ephemeral, fleeting or transient, as is the case for climatic conditions or the position & momentum of observed atoms. These objects define what we understand by "normal" reality, one shared and delimited by others, and hence conventional. These objects are not fabricated or manifactured by any human intent to deceive others. They are what is nominally "given".

δ.1 Among these conventional objects, some misrepresent physical reality without the artificial intention to deceive. They may be optical illusions one can eliminate, as when a stick immersed in water -merely appearing as very large- is removed from the water. Maybe they cannot be turned around, as the apparent daily movement of the Sun, actually the rotation of the Earth on its axis, or a Hunter's Moon. Maybe these objects are no longer validated by science, like caloric fluid (phlogiston) flowing from hotter to colder bodies. Among conventional objects, some temporarily represent existence in a valid way. These are the objects of science. The validation of these objects is defined by the principles of logic, the norm of theoretical epistemology and the maxims of the process producing valid knowledge about relatively existing objects.

δ.2 The objects of science constitute the valid paradigmatic knowledge of the historical era in which these conventional objects appear. They represent the common ground between experimentation and argumentation, between being regulated by, on the one hand, an idea of truth focusing on the supposed correspondence between theory and conventional objects, and on the other, an theory of truth regulated by the idea of the consensus between all involved sign-interpreters. A sign-interpreter is a conscious, cognizing consciousness operating signals, icons and symbols in a well-ordered way, according to principles, norms & maxims producing meaning by way of meaningful glyphs, or states of matter infused with information.

δ.3 Relatively existing objects or conventional objects appear as inherently existing outside the subject apprehending them, inviting the division between "inner" and "outer". In this valid but mistaken view, they seem independent, self-powered, and existing from their own side, by their own "inner" nature, essence ("eidos"), substance ("ousia"), or own-form ("svabhâva"). But as ultimate logic proves (cf. infra), this is merely an appearance concealing their suchness/thatness or that what they truly are. These conventional objects do not appear as they truly are, and so conceal their ultimate, implicit process-nature lacking inherent own-form. This is the case for all fictional and conventional objects. Even when the stick is removed from the water, and thus smaller than it was when immersed, its conventionality still conceals its suchness/thatness. While (a) a deception, (b) the subject of an optical illusion (immersed) and (c) a valid scientific object, the solid stick continues seemingly not to depend on conditions outside itself to appear as it does, independent & localized. It still manifests as an object "out there", cut off from its observer. But when prehended in the nondual mode of cognition, each object is simultaneously cognized as empty of substance and fully interdependent. This means the absolute nature of each object is nothing more than one of its properties.

∫ Again : the ultimate exists conventionally.

ε. Absolutely Existing Objects : That Which Is What It Is.

These objects are apprehended by the wisdom mind of Clear Light* no longer bewitched by the illusion posed by any objects. Such a mind directly sees the suchness/thatness or full-emptiness of all phenomena, i.e. simultaneously apprehends how all phenomena (a) are empty of themselves and (b) full of otherness.

LEMMA 56

Classifying what exists brings about two broad sides ; the conventional and the ultimate. Conventional truth is conceptual and rational, based on experimentation and argumentation, on valid science and valid metaphysics. Ultimate truth is non-conceptual and intuitional, based on direct nondual prehension, on argumentation and sublime poetry. Transcendental metaphysics does not argue, but merely points at the Moon.

In philosophy, both truths are in fact epistemic isolates (of the conventional and the ultimate aspect of every object, of its full and empty properties). In mysticism, they are the datum of a direct and unitary experience, prehending them simultaneously and this ongoingly (swimmingly).

§ 3 Monist, Dualist & Pluralist Ontologies.

α. The fundamental ontological choice is either monist, dualist or pluralist. Only one, only two or more than two fundamental ontological principles prevail. Mindful of Ockham, the monad is preferable. By adhering to parsimony, the number of ontologically different entities is limited.

β. The monist posits a single fundamental ontological principle. This is the most clear-cut and economical choice. If such a principle can be found and argued, a well-formed ontology ensues. With a single principle, all possible entities share the same fundamental ground and so can fully participate in each other ; their differences are nothing more than a measure of their distinctness. No ontological differences exist.

γ. With more than a singularity, difference and distinctness are no longer the same. Ontological differences divide the world up in as many fundamental principles as designated. Dualists, like Plato & Descartes, settle for two fundamental ontological principles. Leaving the monad, his ontology mirrors the epistemological dyad of knower & known characterizing knowledge. From this point on, a dangerous confusion creep in : How can two ontological different principles explain the unity of the world ? If two things radically differ (grounded by separate principles), how can they exist together or form any relationships ? How can they ever interact ?

γ.1 In neurophilosophy, this question is rephrased. How can the non-physical mind interact with the brain without breaching the energy-conservation law of thermodynamics ? A dualist ontology mirrors the ongoing tensions of conceptuality and does not succeed in explaining the unity of the manifold. In Platonism this problem is more or less solved by identifying the world of becoming as an illusion, a pale reflection of the true world of ideas.

γ.2 In Cartesianism, the problems related to this duality eventually results in reductionism, privileging the physical (as in the realism of materialism & objectivism) or the non-physical (as in the idealism of spiritualism & subjectivism).

δ. The pluralist tries to solve the basic ontological problem of dualism by introducing a "tertium comparationis". A closure is at hand, one leading to a triune concept, reflecting, to invoke synthesis, the third factor back to the first, the triad to the monad. Without this return to unity, only the triad is given and by addition of unity the "Ten Thousand Things" follow. Moreover, adding one or more fundamental ontological principles does not eliminate the basic ontological problem facing duality. On the contrary, to explain the difference between two elements with a third invokes another difficulty : how can two different factors be bridged by another different factor ? This seems like multiplying problems.

ε. The proposed process ontology is a monism. Only a single ontological building block is assumed and called "actual occasion", the momentary actuality characterized by extensiveness. This moment, instance or droplet of Nature has properties. These can be understood when the temporal extension of any duration is progressively diminished without arriving towards a duration as its limit. Such understanding is an abstractive set converging to the concept of Nature at an instance.

ζ. Something is always going on everywhere, even in the so-called empty space of Torricelli. Nature abhors the void. Both the electromagnetic field & the lowest energy state (or uniform zero-point field) evidence the absence of an absolute vacuum in physics.

η. "Actual occasion" is the building-block of process ontology, the differential phenomenal moment (as particle) starting the stream of moments (as wave). All entities share actual occasions.

LEMMA 57

In ontology, tcreativityhe monist has the advantage. The totality of all phenomena in actuality is understood in terms of a single ontological constituent, thereby simplifying the basic ontological scheme. The issue here is not to explain difference, but to assure the complexity of the manifold can be prehended from the vantage point given by a single constituent.

To ensure actual occasions are conceptualized to accommodate rather than to hinder their creative togetherness with other actual occasions, process ontology seeks a phenomenology of the actual occasion.

The void does not exist. In empty space, energy is present. Substance cannot be found. The fullness of the mundus is given as the interdependence between all actual occasions entering each other's histories. The emptiness of the world is the absolute absence of self-powered, inherently existing objects with their likewise eternalized properties. This emptiness is not an entity, but merely a property of every actually existing thing.

§ 4 Failures of Materialist & Spiritualist Ontologies.

α. Reductionist monism cuts existence in half. Add essentialism and one half is imputed as the self-sufficient ground, the other half is denied or deemed illusionary ("mâyâ"). All possible subjects of knowledge (knowers) possess objects belonging to two and only two mental categories, namely "sensate" or "mental".

α.1 Materialist (realist) monism considers sensate objects to be fundamental and mental objects merely derived or emergent (with no downward causality). In its essentialist version, matter exists from its own side, independent & separate from the subjects apprehending it.

α.2 Spiritualist (idealist) monism considers mental objects to be fundamental and sensate objects constituted by the former. In its essentialist version, the "Geist" exists from its own side, independent & separate from the objects it constitutes (as a Creator-God of sorts). Both reductionist strategies fail to explain the totality of the world-system, both as actuality & as possibility. Materialism cannot explain the transcendental unity of apprehension with the manifold, and spiritualism cannot explain the manifold by way of the intra-mental alone.

β. Materialism fails to apprehend the intra-mental subject of experience correctly. The impact of conscious choice on material process is either non-existent or of no importance. If it does accept the reality of the non-physical in its own right, it cannot deliver a material (efficient) process to explain these non-physical (final) determinations. Moreover, the unity of the manifold cannot be explained by matter alone. If materialism is "true", then neither are logic & argumentation possible ! Hence, a priori materialism cannot provide its own apology. Bound to become dogmatic and in alliance with the media power and money, materialism is as grotesque as the ecclesiastic powers of old.

γ. Spiritualism fails to apprehend the extra-mental object of experience correctly. The efficient determinations of material process on the non-physical are evident. To be cognizing, the mind has to possess an object. This is not an intra-mental but an extra-mental entity. To explain the working of free will without the laws of matter, or worse, to allow matter to be constituted by mind, cripples our understanding of the reality of the physical. Moreover, the variety, differentiation & multiplicity of Nature cannot be explained by the unity of the mind alone. Tending towards unity, mind cannot be made responsible for all possible physicality without damaging the rational understanding of the world. In its dogmatic form, spiritualism verges on the irrational.

∫ What can be worse than fools & folly running the world ?

LEMMA 58

Process ontology does not seek its fundamental principle in either the mental or the extra-mental. The object/subject dualism is left intact and a deeper common denominator is found : the actual occasion. All phenomena, objects, events, entities etc., in short : all in existence is basically an actual occasion. Objects are moments with a certain extensive properties and creative advance.

Materialism and spiritualism fail to face the whole world. These are ad hoc monisms. They stop their analysis by reduction, not by integration. The latter means as many phenomena as possible are made part of ontology. Exclusivism becomes inclusivism. There is always something going on then and there. This is the one unit factor in Nature. Whether objects are mental or sensate, both can be reduced to actual occasions of which they are merely aggregates.

§ 5 Voidness, Emptiness & Interdependence.

α. The absolutely nonexistent is the category of the collection of nothing at all. The empty set thought of as absolutely nothing with no potential whatsoever to become anything is called "the void".

β. The void is an empty set with no possible members. Emptiness is the set of nothing becoming something. The void does not exist. Emptiness exists as pure potentiality, possibility or probability (the likelihood of something). In what follows, the concept "empty set" only refers to emptiness. If the empty set with no possible members is meant, the term "void" will be used.

γ. All numbers can be bootstrapped out of the empty set by the operations of the mind. Suppose the mind observes the empty set. The mind's mere act of observation causes the set of empty sets to appear. The set of empty sets is not empty, because it contains the empty set. By producing the set containing the empty set, the mind has generated the first number, or "1". Perceiving the empty set and the set containing the empty set, the mind apprehends two empty sets and has generated the second number, or "2" out of emptiness, etc. upward to infinity.

δ. The entire natural number system can be generated by the play of the mind on emptiness and this in the absence of the need to refer to anything material or countable. Numbers are non-physical phenomena making no reference to physical systems for their existence. Numbers do not exist from their own side (as Platonic ideas), but dependently-related manifestations of the working of the mind.

ε. Nothing comes out of nothing (the void) ; "ex nihilo nihil fit" ! Cosmology & physics cannot touch the question of the before of the Big Bang. As time & space commence with this singular explosion, to ask what was before is deemed nonsensical. But logically, any term is subject to a certain order or sequence. Ontologically therefore, the issue can thus be approached in terms of a logical progression and as such make perfectly sense.

ε.1 If before the Big Bang nothing is identified (or identifiable), then the void logically precedes the becoming of the physical universe. But if this is the case, then the Big Bang could not have happened. The fact of this singular beginning of the physical universe and the void as absolute nonexistence are thus incompatible. If there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang, not even the possibility of something, then the Big Bang would be nonexistent too. But this science tells us is not the case.

ε.2 To consider the Big Bang ontologically, emptiness must pre-exist. Not as any thing, i.e. as any concrete, worldly actual occasion, but merely as the potential or virtuality of such actuality. The potential of the Big Bang lies hidden in the world-ground, the mere possibility of the next moment of the world. What primordial determination & conditions made the Big Bang possible ? These formative abstracts are primordial operators conditioned (not by their own-natures like in a co-substantial Divine Trinity) but solely by their primordial interrelatedness or virtual togetherness.

ζ. The absence of substantial existence is the absolute property of all possible objects. This means the object is empty of an inherent nature or own-form, but this in full participation and togetherness with other objects. In this immanent approach, emptiness is merely a non-affirmative negation of substantiality. But for those having a direct experience of this transcendent signifier, emptiness is the potential to connect every thing with every other thing. And when the emptiness of the mind itself is seen, it is observed as the Clear Light* inseparable from the world-ground, the virtual pre-existence of the next moment of the world.

LEMMA 59

Emptiness is not something, but nothing becoming something. When a concrete, worldly actual occasions emerges, there is no longer (virtual, formative) emptiness but full, actual interdependence. This nothingness of emptiness cannot be absolute nothingness (the nihilism of the void), but merely absence of own-form with the potential for infinite interactions shaping the unique plenum.

Note this : the potential of emptiness, of form emerging out of the formless, cannot be apprehended but only prehended. Its experience falls therefore outside science and immanent metaphysics. "Seeing" emptiness is directly observing how absence of own-nature fosters creative advance through increased togetherness of actual occasions. Only non-conceptual, nondual prehension possesses such an absolute object.

As identifying absence of own-form is conceptual, ultimate logic is no doubt "philosophical". Given "seeing" emptiness involves non-conceptual cognition, it may be called "yogic" or "intuitive". The former is given to all intelligent beings. The latter to those enjoying the hard work of their emancipation.

B. Perennial Ontology ?

Perennial philosophy cherishes the idea that within all spiritual traditions & religions, a mystical stream is present, acting as the repository of the wisdom of humanity after it made contact with a supernatural, basically non-physical higher-order reality. Although in general terms this is correct, a divide can be identified.

The phrase "perennial philosophy" was coined by Agostine Steuco, a Catholic Bishop and Old Testament scholar, who, in 1540, dedicated his De Perenni Philosophia Libri X to an effort showing how many ideas of the sages & philosophers of Antiquity were in fact in harmony with the "magister fidei" of Catholicism in general and with the teachings of the Roman Church in particular. Later Leibniz would also reintroduce the phrase.

It cannot be denied speculative activity has architecture & momentum. So certain recurrent regularities and logical organizations (software or information) can indeed be identified. Western philosophy is rooted in Antiquity, and -in the case of Europe- was directly influenced by the sapiential wisdom-teachings of the Ancient Egyptians (cf. The Maxims of Good Discourse or the Wisdom of Ptahhotep, 2002). Add to this the "Greek miracle" and the "wisdom" coming from the Middle East and the Far East via the trade routes, then a common Western vision may be discerned.

The ante-rational, multi-millenarian storehouse of experience of the Ancient Egyptians (cf. Hermes the Egyptian, 2002), and their "magic" of sacred words (cf. the hieroglyphs and their power : To Become A Magician, 2001), inspired the "minors" of the syllogistic inferences loved by the Greeks, an activity spawning their concept-realism. This Greek synthesis formed a common tread in Western spiritual thought, Hellenizing Hermetism, Judaism, Christianity & Islam. Until recently, it remained even unchecked at work in materialism, instrumentalism, scientism & materialism.

Western intellectuals maintain a common ontological interest. Likewise, Eastern philosophy (in India, Tibet, China, Japan, etc.) outlines a common metaphysical & ontological view. Perennial ontology, as a common view on things, can only operate if the common denominator covers what is shared by humanity East & West. No doubt this is a considerable amount of information, rooted in the perennial pre-Neolithic shamanistic  environment (involving the return to the "first time" of myth by way of mythical thought). Nevertheless, perennial ontology must also consider the "Dharma difference" between both visions.

Grosso modo, the West tries "to save" a self-sufficient common ground. This is a substance possessing its properties from its own side, inherently, separately and independently from other things. The West emphasizes the objective features of this self-sufficient ground. This substantial own-nature is an essence ("eidos", "ousia", "substantia"), exists inherently, by ("causa sui") and on its own (absolute aloneness). A kataphatic theology (cf. infra) is possible.

By and large, the East, foremost trying to clarify the subjective features of experience, turns inward. The experience of a "fourth state" ("turîya") of consciousness besides waking, dreaming & the dreamless sleep, dramatically shaped the speculative endeavours of Jainism, Buddhism & Vedânta. As a consequence, the impermanence of determinations & conditions leading up to subjective experiences was strongly felt and thematized. This gave rise to the important difference between "Dharmic" and "non-Dharmic" views. In the former, held by Taoism & Buddhism, all "dharmas" or existing things only possess interrelationality or togetherness, but no enduring substantial essence whatsoever.

The presence of the Dharma difference divides perennial ontology in two sets of views ; on the one hand, the substantivist, own-nature view, on the other hand, the dharmic, process view. This distinction returns in contemporary philosophy as the divide between, on the one hand, materialism (physicalism, instrumentalism, scientism) and, on the other hand, the philosophy of relativity, quantum mechanics, chaos theory and process thinking. Process considers only architecture (software or information), momentum (hardware or matter) and sense (userware or consciousness). Besides the continuous ongoing togetherness of these three operators and the creative advance or novel togetherness of all aggregates of actual occasions, there is nothing. Not a single substance can be identified.

Under ultimate analysis, all reifications perish.

§ 1 The Ancient Egyptian Nun & the Pre-Socratic Ground.

α. In the Old Kingdom (ca. 2670 - 2198 BCE), the virtual clause "n SDmt.f", i.e. "before he has (had) ..." or "he has (had) not yet ...", was used to denote a prior, potential nonexistent state, namely one before the actuality of that state had happened. To be nonexistent, precludes actual existence hic et nunc, but does not preclude the possibility of becoming existent (expressed by the verb "kpr", "kheper", "to become", which also means "to transform").

β. There is some thing before every thing, pre-existing before the order, the architecture and the life of creation. This is called "Nun" (cf. Liber Nun, 2005). The world manifested as a transformation or change from this nonexistent, virtual state to an existing actuality. The virtual state is therefore not actual, but informs possibility, latency and potentiality. As a potency anterior to creation, the Egyptian theologians of Memphis, Heliopolis, Hermopolis, Abydos and Thebes conceived this pre-existent state as something very special, a primordial state existing before "form", i.e. anterior to space and time, and so before the creation of sky, Earth, horizon and their "natural" dynamics.

γ. The virtual, pre-existing state is not the origin of order. It cannot serve as a self-sufficient ground ! The emergence of the world, of light and life are envisaged as spontaneous (autogenesis) and without any possible determination ("causa sui").

γ.1 Precreation is the conjunction of this undifferentiated state and the sheer possibility of something pre-existing as a virtual, autogenous singularity called "Atum".

γ.2 Precreation is this mythical dual-union of dark Nun and clear Atum, of and infinite, undifferentiated energy-field and a primordial atom, monad or self-powered and self-sufficient absolute singularity. Atum is the "soul" (or "Ba") of Nun ! The efficient power of pre-existence.

δ. Creation emerges from a monad, floating "very weary" in the dark, gloomy, lifeless infinity of Nun. Within the omnipresent oceanlike substance of Nun, the possibility of order, light and life subsists as a pre-existing singular object capable of self-creation "ex nihilo". Hence, although Nun is nowhere and everywhere, never and always, it is the primordial, irreversible and everlasting milieu in which the eternal potential of creation creates itself.

δ.1 With this distinction, the Ancient Egyptians had divided what creates and is not created (Nun) from what creates and is (self)created (Atum). The next step, namely between what is (self)created (Atum and his Ennead) and what is created but does not create (the world) is also made.

δ.2 The whole order of the world needs to "return" (by means of the magic of the "Great House" or Pharaoh, the divine king) to the primordial moment when Atum creates Atum and -within Nun- the world with its order (Maat) came forth.

ε. The Greek philosophical mentality was unique, but it did not come forth "ex nihilo". It was the result of the network of forces triggering the so-called "Greek Renaissance", based on traditional Minoan & Mycenæan elements, but made explicit by a series of "new" concepts derived from Mesopotamia, Iran and, last but not least, Ancient Egypt.

ε.1 According to Anaximander of Miletus (ca. 611 - 547 BCE), the cosmos developed out of the "apeiron", the boundless, infinite and indefinite (without distinguishable qualities). Aristotle would add : immortal, Divine and imperishable.

ε.2 Within this "apeiron" something arose to produce the opposites of hot and cold. These at once began to struggle with each other and produced the cosmos. The cold (and wet) partly dried up (becoming solid Earth), partly remained (as water), and -by means of the hot- partly evaporated (becoming air and mist), its evaporating part (by expansion) splitting up the hot into fiery rings, which surround the whole cosmos. Because these rings are enveloped by mist, however, there remain only certain breathing holes that are visible to men, appearing to them as Sun, Moon, and stars. Comparative schemes were developed.

ζ. The self-sufficient ground sought by the Pre-Socratics is "arché", "phusis", "kosmos", "aletheia" (truth) & "dike" (justice). For Homer and Hesiod, the sky or "Ouranos" is a brazen roof or a seat set firm. The Greeks, with a few exceptions like Heraclites  (540 – 475 BCE), could not grasp the continuity of the architecture at work in every momentum, of the style or kinetographics of movement.

ζ.1 For substantivists, "solid" and "eternal" per definition imply lack of movement, absence of change or some kind of fixation in a self-sufficient, Olympian ground, an underlying reality ("hypokeimenon").

ζ.2 Seeking this out, irrespective of Platonic or Peripatetic inclinations, is the root of concept-realism and of the Western essentialist and thus eternalizing view on ontology. Serving this view has been the endeavour of Western philosophy until Kant.

η. Although the cascade is never the same, it does have some unchanging patterns holding its dynamism away from sheer randomness. Likewise so for the swimmer or the ballet dancer. A stochastic ontology does not preclude eternal, unchanging form, albeit as a form of movement, as a differential equation covering all specifics of an actual dynamic flow of dynamic relationships between movements.

∫ Is the holomovement of a Buddha not the perfection of his or her unique form of movement ?

θ. Discovering the sharp blade of the Sword of Wisdom brings the end of all possible reasons for substantialism. This does not leave us with nothing, for some thing is left after substance has been cleared ; this is sheer process, ongoing flows of actual occasions featuring momentum, architecture and sense.

LEMMA 60

Distinguishing between pre-existence and existence, on the one hand, and, funerary ritualism, on the other hand, co-emerged. The first suggestive evidence of this is found in the Cave of Pech Merle (ca. 16.000 BCE). By it, the relative world, given to properly functioning senses and a modular mind, is distinguished from an absolute realm, one deemed to exist "before", "next to", "above" or "behind" these relative states of matter, information & consciousness. In the "natural" mode of cognitive functioning, one given to ontological illusion due to the constant (ab)use of the substantialist instantiation, pre-existence was envisaged as a deeper stratum of existence ; eternal, timeless, spaceless & undifferentiated. In this "dark ocean", a creative potential was afloat. Pre-existence is not a dead nothingness, a void, but filled with the (passive) potential to create (light, spacetime, life & love).

In Hermetism, as well as in the Qabalah, pre-existence points to more than just a void. But these metaphysical systems, while abstracting the absolute as a category, fill it with the ultimate essence of God Himself. God is then the "substance of substances" (or "image of images", "power of powers" - cf. The Cannibal Hymn to Pharaoh Unis, 2002). Acting as the world's underlying self-sufficient ground, the ultimate level is substantialized. The same happened in the theologies of the three monotheisms, in Jainism and in Hinduism. The fact this crucial ontological distinction is brought into play is not the problem, its reification is. The world-ground cannot be a substance or the world would never have come into existence. No becoming would have been possible. The presence of this world need not to be explained. How this presence came to be is the question. Logically, what precedes the Big Bang ?

§ 2 The Logic of Being & the Fact of Becoming.

α. Parmenides of Elea (ca. 515 - 440 BCE), inspired by Pythagoras and pupil of Xenophanes (ca. 580/577 - 485/480 BCE), was the first Greek to develop, in poetical form, his insights about truth ("aletheia"). In his school, the Eleatics, the conviction human beings can attain knowledge of reality or understanding ("nous") prevailed. But to know this truth, only two ways were open : the Way of Truth and the Way of Opinion ("doxa"). These are defined in terms of the expressions "is" and "is not". If a thing both is and is not, then this either means (a) there is a yet unknown difference due to circumstances or (b) "being" and "non-being" are different and identical at the same time. This answer is relative (circumstantial) or contradictory. If a thing is not, then it cannot be an object of a proposition. If not, non-being exists ! This answer is pointless. As the last two answers must be false, and only three answers are possible, so the first answer must, by this reductio ad absurdum, be true, namely : the object of thought "is" and equal to itself from every point of view.

β. With Parmenides, pre-Socratic thought reached the formal stage of cognition. Before the Eleatics, the difference between object and subject of thought was not clearly established (cf. the object as psychomorphic). Myth and unstable pre-concepts prevailed. Moreover, the basic formal laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction & excluded third) were not yet brought forward and used as tools to back an argument. Logical elegance was absent, and a thinker like Heraclites was deemed "dark". The strong necessity implied by the laws of thought had not yet become clear. But with the Eleatics, the mediating role of the metaphor is replaced by an emphasis on the distinction between the thinking subject (and its thoughts) and the reality of what is known.

γ. The idealism of the Eleatics, thinking the logical necessities of thought, nevertheless confused between a substantialist and a predicative use of the verb "to be" or the copula "is". That something "is" (or "Dasein" - x) is not identical with what something "is" (or "Sosein" - x). Properties (accidents) are deemed to exist apart from the "being" of the substances they describe. But as Kant would point out much later, the verb "to be" only instantiates the properties of an object, not a deeper sense of "being-there".

δ. For the substantivist, non-being is pointless. The empty set equals the void. Hence, only an all-comprehensive "Being" can be posited. We know Parmenides asserted further predicates of the verb "to be", namely by introducing the noun-expression "Being". The latter is ungenerated, imperishable, complete, unique, unvarying and non-physical ... He did not conceive the absence of certain properties as non-being, nor could he attribute different forms of "being" to objects. What he then calls "Being", is an all-comprehensive being-there standing as being-qua-being, as "Dasein" in all the entities of the natural world (and their "Sosein"). A view returning in the phenomenology of Heidegger.

ε. Democritus of Abdera (ca. 460 - 380/370 BCE), geometer and known for his atomic theory, developed the first mechanistic model. His system represents, in a way more fitting than the difficult aphorisms of Heraclites, a current radically opposing Eleatic thought. Instead of only relying on the formal conditions of thought, the origin of knowledge is given with the undeniable evidence put forward by the senses. Becoming, movement and change are fundamental. Hence, non-being exists as empty space, as a void. If so, being is occupied space, a plenum. The latter is not a closed unity or continuum, a Being, but an infinite variety of indivisible particles called "atoms". The latter are all composed of the same kind of matter and only differ from each other in terms of their quantitative properties, like extension, weight, form and order. They never change and cannot be divided. For all of eternity, they cross empty space in straight lines. Because these atoms collided by deviating ("clinamen") from their paths, the world of objects came into existence (why they moved away from their linear trajectories remains unexplained). Objects emerge by the random aggregation of atoms. Things do not have an "inner" coherence or "substance" (essence). Everything is impermanent and will eventually fall apart under the pressure of new collisions.

ζ. If all things are atoms, then how can rational knowledge be more reliable than perception ? Moreover, how can atomism describe atoms without in some way transcending them ? In epistemological terms : how can the subject of knowledge be eclipsed hand in hand with a description of this "fact" ? There is a contradictio in actu exercito : although refusing the subject of knowledge any independence from the object of knowledge, the former is implied in the refusal. This important problem is shared by all materialist & mechanistic models. It can be solved by positing a deeper ontological principal (encompassing both object & subject), like the actual occasion, and attributing to this both physical, informational & sentient properties.

η. Concept-realism returns under many guises : objectivists versus subjectivists, realists versus nominalists, empirists versus rationalists, physicalists versus spiritualists etc. Every time either the subject of experience or the object of experience is eliminated, crippling one's understanding of the possibility & advancement of knowledge. The conflict is rooted in an ante-rational & substantialist prejudice seeking a firm, eternalized self-sufficient ground existing on its own, in an by itself. Such a ground can however not be found ! To clear obstructions to understanding the mind and its workings, it must be done away with. Critical epistemology realizes the discordant truce as the fundamental fact of reason.

LEMMA 61

With the Greeks, the mythological element was put between brackets and so clearly identified. Science deals with sensate & mental objects only. These operate in a formal way, i.e. irrespective of context. Unlike ante-rationality, Greek rationalism was able to transgress the borders of its own geomentality, and establish international, panoramic perspectives. Discovering both the necessities of logic (operating our mental objects) and the importance of facts, its concept-realism forced it to seek an absolute, substantialist (essentialist) grounding of the objective and/or subjective conditions of experience & knowledge. As a substantial, self-sufficient ground cannot be found, this dramatic quest will never come to an end. For objects merely appear as independent & separate.

§ 3 Greek & Indian Concept-Realism.

α. A trans-empirical, Platonic idea is a paradigm for the singular things which participate in it ("methexis"). Becoming participates in Being, and only Being, as Parmenides taught, has reality. The physical world is not substantial (and so without self-sufficient ground) and therefore a mere reflection. If so, it has no true existence of its own (for its essence is trans-empirical). Plato projects the world of ideas outside the human mind. He therefore represents the transcendent pole of Greek concept-realism, for the "real" moves beyond our senses as well as our minds. To eternalize truth, nothing less will do.

β. The Peripatetics reject the separate, Platonic world of real proto-types, but not the "ta katholou", generalities conceived, as concept-realism demands, in terms of the "real", essential and self-sufficient ground of knowledge, the foundation of thought. So general, universal ideas do exist, but they are always immanent in the singular things of this world. There is no world of ideas "out there". There is no cleavage in what "is" and there is only one world, namely the actual world present here and now. The indwelling formal and final causes of things are known by abstracting what is gathered by the passive intellect, fed by the senses, witnessing material and efficient causes. The actual process of abstraction is performed by the intellectus agens, a kind of Peripatetic "Deus ex machina", reflective of the impasse of realism : Where is the subject ?

γ. With the gradual decline of Buddhism in India from around the beginning of the Common Era, Classical Hinduism emerged as a revival of Vedic traditions. The Advaita Vedânta consolidated by Shankara (788 - 821 ? CE), represents the pinnacle of the revival of Hindu intellectualism during the Gupta Period (4th to 6th centuries) in the North and the Pallavas (4th to 9th centuries) in the South. This was the "golden age" of Indian civilization. Between the 2nd BCE to the 6th century CE, the six systems of Hindu philosophy slowly emerged (viz. Sâmkhya, Yoga, Nyâya, Vaishesika, Mîmâmsâ, and Vedânta).

δ. Considering the Absolute in its Absoluteness, i.e. Brahman, the Vedânta is consistent with what in the monotheisms "of the book" (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) is called the "essence of God", or God as He Is for Himself Alone. That God is a Supreme Being can be known (by the heart and by the mind), but what this Being of God truly is cannot possibly be known. His essence is ineffable and remains for ever veiled. The essence of God is only for God to enjoy ! He is the One Alone, for ever separated from His Creation. God and Brahman are the One Alone. Brahman exists as a well-known entity : eternal, pure, intelligent, free by nature, all-knowing and all-powerful. In the root "brmh" resides the ideas of eternality, purity, etc. The existence of Brahman is well known from the fact of It being the Self of all ... for everyone feels that this Self exists (sic). This is the pre-creational, pre-existent Supreme Being, creating the world "ex nihilo". The pivotal difference between Vedânta and the monotheisms is the idea the innermost "soul" or "âtman" is ontologically identical with Brahman, whereas in the West no creature is able to deify to the point of total, absolute identity with God. The realized Vedantin however proclaims : "I am Brahman !" ...

ε. Considering the Absolute in its Self-manifestations, Hindu concept-realism makes way for henotheism, for Brahman, the absolute substance existing from its own side, manifests as Îshvara and the latter is grasped as a multiple variety of Deities, all epiphanies of Brahman, or aspects of "mâyâ", the magical force of Brahman. Brahman is a magician and involved in creation, fashioning, sustaining & destroying it. Îshvara (Brahmâ) is the personal face of Brahman, but this face is never singular, but involved with the world in terms of an endless variety of epiphanies. Although Brahman is "without a second", Its personal dimension ("saguna Brahman" or Îshvara) is, as the theology of Amun has it, "one and millions". In the Vedânta, realization is the removal of the superimposition of the illusionary forms on Brahman. In Classical Yoga, enlightenment or "samâdhi" is the elimination ("nirodha") of the last element of flux ("vriti") from consciousness ("citta"). In both forms, the mystic returns to the original, inherently existing station-of-no-station of the Absolute in its absoluteness. It pre-existed, exists and will continue to exist. It is absolutely removed from anything except Itself, completely independent, eternal, imperishable, permanent and therefore the sole "substance of substances".

LEMMA 62

The drama of concept-realism spread over the globe. The objects of reason were ontologized, ideas became things. In the East, the notion of an absolute, inherently existing Supreme Being creating the world was also explained in categorial terms. The six schools of Indian philosophy provide ample evidence of this impact of substantial instantiation on Hindu thought.

§ 4 The Tao.

α. The Tao (cf. The Tao, Emptiness & Process Theology, 2009), has one absolute (non-differentiated) and various relative (differentiated) stages. These stages represent the absolute, self-existent Tao in various moments of self-determination. Each of them is the absolute Tao in a secondary, derivative and limited sense.

β. The absolute Tao is non-local, non-temporal, non-differentiated, nameless, and empty of substance or inherent existence, without permanent and unalterable distinctions. This absolute Tao is beyond conceptualization and object of ecstatic, nondual apprehension. The absolute Tao is not turned towards phenomena, nor is it wholly self-referential. This "abstract of abstractions" cannot be conceptualized and named. It is Nameless. To reach the ultimate and absolute stage of the Way, we have to negate the opposition between being and non-being, positing "no no-non-being". This level can only be apprehended ecstatically, and this absolutely ineffable if for Lao-tze the "Mystery of Mysteries". Mystery ("hsüan") originally means black with a mixture of redness. The absolute, unfathomable Mystery or "black" does reveal itself, at a certain stage, as being "pregnant" of the "Ten Thousand Things" or "red" in their stage of potentiality. In the Mystery of Mysteries being and non-being are not yet differentiated. Although the absolute Tao cannot be said to be turned towards the phenomena, in this utter darkness of the Great Mystery ("black"), a faint foreboding of the appearance of phenomena lurks ("red"). The Mystery of Mysteries is also the "Gateway of Myriad Wonders". Hence, the "Ten Thousand Things" stream forth out of this Gateway !

γ. When Lao-tze introduces the Way as "the Granary of the Ten Thousand Things" (Tao-te Ching, chapter 62), he aims at a stage slightly lower than the Mystery of Mysteries, the absolute Tao. At this stage, the Tao begins to manifest its creativity. The image of a "granary" conveys the sense all things are contained therein, not actually but in a state of potentiality. He refers to this aspect of the absolute Tao as "the eternal non-being", or "wu". At this stage, the absolute Tao is potentially already Heaven and Earth, i.e. being. Hence, the non-being referred to is not a passive Nothing, pure negative absence of being or existence (naught or zero), but a "something" in the sense of an "act", the act of existence itself or Actus Purus. It exists as the very act of existing and making things exist. This is called "the One". This Actus Purus does not exist as a substance. In order not to reify it by way of concepts, the One can only be ecstatically intuited by "sitting in oblivion" (Chuang-tze). The One is darkness not because it is deprived of light, but because it is too full of light, too luminous, i.e. Light Itself.

δ. When it enters its first stage of "pure" self-manifestation or mere self-determination, Lao-tze admits the One or active non-being assumes a positive "name". This name is "existence" or "being" ("yu"). The latter is also called "Heaven and Earth" ("t'ien ti"). The Way at this stage is not yet the actual order of Heaven and Earth, but only all possible things as "pure" being, i.e. again in potentia. The One begets the Two : Heaven ("yang") and Earth ("yin"), the cosmic duality. They are the self-evolvement of the absolute Tao, the Way itself. The One is the initial virtual point of self-determination of the Way, the Two bring about (as a mother) the possibility or probability of actuality and carries this over into actual reality. In this way, the One is the ontological ground of all things, acting as its ontological energy, while the Two develop this activity ("Ch'i Kung") into a particular ontological structure, Yin and Yang and the Three, i.e. the blending & interaction between these ("Tai Ch'i"). Hence Heaven is limpid and clear, and Earth is solid and settled ...

LEMMA 63

In Chinese philosophy, especially in Taoism, a process-mentality was and is everpresent. Nothingness is posited, but again, within it, a very subtle creative potential is identified (cf. black with a mixture of red). A balance between natural flow & spontaneity (pragmatic naturalness) and emptiness (absence of inherent existence) is at hand. Where India & Tibet favoured the quick release from this world (represented by the dorsal "yang" channel), China focused on balancing the energy by letting it run in an orbit (making the upward movement of the "yang" channel flow into the ventral "yin" channel). This reinforces the life-force ("Ch'i") at the abdomen and aims at the Great Harmony between the powers of Heaven and Earth (at the heart). The wisdom realizing emptiness able to understand these "mechanisms of heaven" as dependent arisings, operates the complete spectrum of human possibilities, not just one. Here, the absolute truth is not the single focus. Hence, the conventional and ultimate truths cannot be turned into a Single Truth. The danger of moving to much upward (toward Heaven) without being firmly rooted (in Earth) does not exist.

§ 5 The Dharma Difference.

α. The notion the world is composed of existing things or phenomena as it were carrying or holding their properties in accord with the cosmic law, i.e. of a certain characterizing nature (cf. "dharmata"), Buddhism shares with Hinduism. It differs though in terms of Buddha's Second Turning of the Wheel of the Buddhadharma, teaching the absolute truth ("dharma") about all phenomena, namely their lack of inherent existence ("shûnya"), the fact of their have absolutely no self-nature or essential own-nature ("nirsvabhâva").

β. Because a perfect understanding of Buddha's crucial wisdom teaching on the fundamental nature of all possible phenomena, one encompassing both the reality of sensuous objects as the subjective ideality of mental activities, is a difficult simplicity, it has led to countless attempts to save inherent existence in some way or the other. Only an absolute negation prevails (cf. the apophatic approach to mystical experience).

β.1 Logically (and a forteriori philosophically), the strict Prâsangika-Mâdhyamaka approach found in the work of Nâgârjuna, Chandrakîrti, Shântideva, Atisha and Tsongkhapa is correct & definitive (cf. Emptiness Panacea, 2008 ; On Ultimate Logic, 2009). Hence, the non-affirmative negation of inherent existence eliminates all possible reified concepts.

β.2 Experientially however (as Yoga & Tantra put into evidence), a direct non-conceptual experience, gnosis or prehension of the absolute nature of all things is possible. This involves a cognitive act of an absolute bodhi-mind apprehending an absolute object or totality "as it is". Nondual & non-conceptual, this experience is not without knowledge-content. The common treat in the poetical evocations on the basis of such graded meditative experiences involves a world of pure luminosity without shadows & edges, undefiled and unborn, pure and complete, much like "nirvâna", identified as permanent, constant, eternal and not subject to change.

β.3 While philosophy remains immanent, yogis & tantrics dance on the rhythms of the poetical tale of the transcendent. These scientists & artists of the inner planes do not prove anything, they merely point out.

∫ What a community this would be if those who prove the end of proofs and those who experience emptiness were the same !

γ. In the Flower Garland tradition, in particular Fazang in the seventh century, Buddha's teachings on wisdom are lifted out of the Indo-Tibetan emphasis on the other-worldly, on absolute reality. Absence of inherent existence was laid to rest in the fertile Chinese soil of the magic of the natural world, the quest for longevity, social order and the actual operation of how things exist conventionally, namely interdependent & interpenetrative.

γ.1 Because gold lacks inherent existence, a craftsman was able to make an object of it - say, Empress Wu's Golden Lion guarding her palace hall. This gold is "li", principle or noumenon, the gold qua gold. The shape it takes in this case (the lion) is "shih", or phenomenon. Suppose gold would take a bar-shape, then it would actually ceases to be gold in lion-shape. Gold is therefore equivalent to "gold in x-shape" ! Fazang's gold is not above or behind the shape it takes. The Golden Lion is gold, there is no gold behind the lion, nor is the lion an emanation of gold. Gold only exists as having some form or another, in this case Empress Wu's Golden Lion. When the lion shape comes into existence, it is in fact the gold coming into existence ! The shape does not add anything to the gold.

γ.2 The phenomenon is the noumenon in its phenomenal form. The ultimate is not elsewhere but here and now, even in the smallest, meanest thing. Ultimate truth exists conventionally. In this brilliant analysis, Fazang makes use of the logical necessity between lack of inherent existence and dynamic (artistic) flow. He does so to integrate strict nominalism within the Chinese vision of enlightenment as living in harmony with the Tao, with the natural flow of all things ("Tai Ch'i"), and this based on the work of "ch'i" ("Ch'i Kung"). Indeed, the word "li" also carries a positive connotation, namely the "true thusness of mind", inherently pure, complete & luminous.

LEMMA 64

The Dharma difference defines a crucial divide. On the one side, we find metaphysical systems seeking out substance and an unchanging, self-sufficient ground existing from its own side with inhering properties. They are "self-advocate" ("âtmavâdin"). Theirs is the substantivist approach. Its futility is unmasked by asking : "Show a substance as defined ?". On the other side, own-form or self-nature is totally relinquished and only the architectures of process remain. Its extreme accuracy is suggested by the precision of Schrödinger's wave-equation. This most fundamental of distinctions defines the ontological principal. This is not inherently existing substance, but interdependent process.

The architecture of process implying change is fundamental but not random. If process were merely stochastic, then order would be impossible. Precisely because of the need to explain order did the Greeks and the Ancient Egyptians before them posit a self-sufficient ground. But seeking such a solid foundation has sidetracked Western philosophy since Heraclites, who's message was not understood. No two moments are the same, the "same" river cannot be entered twice. The way up and the way down are, by enantiodromia, the same way. While a cascade is never the same, it can be distinguished from another because of certain constant elements in the way its water moves ...

Process thinking identifies the stages of the differential changes as well as their form or style. Random movement (white noise) has no style and so can carry no information. But as soon as movement is coordinated, a structure can be discerned and insofar as this has constancy it can be described and repeated. There is no need for a self-sufficient ground to "stabilize" form, for the stability of change is not a kind of substantial channel or invisible matrix in which flow happens, but merely the particularities or forms of definiteness (or predictability). These are the kinetosyntax of change, whereas the purpose of change is its practice (or kinetopragmatics) and its sense or meaning is the sentient activity suggested by it (or kinetosemantics).

C. Against Substance & Foundation.

The core insight underlying the philosophy of process is absence of inherent existence. Only this radical negation of substance or essence makes it possible to consistently think movement and transformation, in short change and impermanence. This cannot be thoroughly realized as long as some inherent object or subject prevails. If substance goes, so does a self-sufficient ground. The difference between ground-level, object-level and meta-level can be maintained, but the ground-level is not a permanent, inherently existing seat made firm ! Instead of trying to find an underlying reality, process thought focuses on the momentum, architecture and sense of the flow of actual occasions. As the links of interdependence expand throughout the entire universe and this all the time, in the totality of interdependence or in the world as it is, phenomena are mutually interpenetrating. Taking the world of actual occasions as the only possible world, the absolute nature of phenomena is not sought behind or outside it. The transcendent is a property of the ongoing flow of actualities in just the same way as the immanent is.

§ 1 The Definition of Substance.

α. Substance ("substantia" or "standing under") is the permanent, unchanging, eternal underlying core or essence of every possible thing, a self subsisting own-nature or self-nature ("svabhâva") existing from its own side, never an attribute of or in relation with any other thing. Hence, a substance solely exists by the necessity of its own nature and intrinsic identity ("svalaksana"). Its action is determined by itself alone. Traditionally, it is the principal category of "what it is" (cf. "ousia"). For Spinoza, there was only one substance, namely Nature or God. This substance had infinite attributes, of which each expresses for itself an eternal and infinite essentiality (Ethics, Part I, definition VI).

β. If a substance would be determined by something external to itself, then it would be not inevitable, compelled & necessary, but rather constrained. A substance is always Pharaonic. Without the presence of an absolutely free & omnipotent Caesar, the bond uniting things seems to be lost. Without substance, the properties of objects seem not be carried or inhere. But things are just be a dynamical flow with a certain kind of movement (momentum), shape (architecture) and intent (sense). And this the substantivists wrongly deem not to be enough for science, philosophy, ethics, economy & politics ...

LEMMA 65

Substance is always linked with the idea of some thing existing on its own, by itself alone. Although objects can be isolated in a relative sense, they are never so in an absolute way. This means there is no self-identical core remaining untouched by change. But absence of substance is not absence of order. Order is possible because processes are not random and they are not so because movement can have coordination, structure, style etc. These kinetographic features are overlooked and identified as the vestiges of essential, non-accidental properties or essences. This is were the substantialist error creeps in. Logically, this difference is given with the distinction between the actualizing and the existentializing quantor.

: "there exists" : affirming object x momentarily exists ;

The actualizing quantor confirms x, or  x. A set of predicates attributed to object x is present to the senses or the mind. This presence is spatio-temporarily defined, and hence impermanent, i.e. featuring arising, abiding and ceasing. Object x arises when its presence is identified or registered by a subject or subjects of experience. It abides as long as this actuality, in all cases limited by space & time, continues. It ceases when it can not longer be apprehended or pointed at.

: "there is" : affirming persistent existence of x ;

The existentializing quantor confirms x. A set of predicates attributed to object x is present to the senses and/or the mind, but these predicates are merely accidents of the substantial self-identical core of x, a universal of sorts x, hence x x. With x, the substantial or essential nature of x (or x_s) is confirmed. If this x_s = x changes, then x is not longer x, in other words, x can no longer be identified as such.

§ 2 The Münchausen Trilemma.

α. The problems of foundational thinking are summarized by Albert's Münchhausen Trilemma. Its logic proves how every possible kind of foundational strategy is necessarily flawed. The trilemma was named after the Baron von Münchhausen, who tried to get himself out of a swamp by pulling his own hair ! An apt metaphor to indicate the futility of trying to find an permanent underlying base, i.e. satisfying the conditions of the postulate of foundation. The latter states valid knowledge must in all cases be absolutely justified, in other words backed by a self-sufficient ground existing from its own side, inherently.

β. Every time statement A accommodates the postulate of foundation by way of an absolute justification, three equally unacceptable situations occur. Such an absolute justification of the propositional form P of A implies a deductive chain C of correct arguments C', C", C''' ... with P as necessary final inference. How extended must C be in order to justify P in this way ? Three "solutions" prevail :

(a) a regressus ad infinitum :

There is no end to the justification, and so no foundation is found (C', C", C''' ... does not lead to P). The whole process of finding a last ground (needed to back justification) is undermined. A point at infinity is however not a problem per se. But it becomes one each time a final ground is needed. Then a regression disproves the logical attempt to articulate a foundation.

(b) a petitio principii :

The end P is implied by the beginning, for P is part of the deductive chain C. Circularity is a valid deduction but no justification of P, hence no absolute foundation is found.

(c) an abrogation ad hoc :

Justification is ended ad hoc, the postulate of justification is actually abrogated, and the unjustified ground (C' or C" or C''' ...) is emotionally accepted as certain because, seeming certain, it is deemed not to need more justification. This is of course unproven.

γ. The Münchhausen-trilemma must be avoided by stopping to seek an inherently existing absolute, self-sufficient ground for the possibility of knowledge and/or the cognitive act. This happens when one accepts critical science & metaphysics are terministic, i.e. fallibilistic and not eternalizing (nor nihilistic). But although the categorial system cannot be absolute, some of its general features (as given by normative philosophy) are necessary in a normative way (for we use them each time we think).

LEMMA 66

Backing arguments to establish a certain conclusion is not the same as trying to find an absolute warrant. Logical inference can be absolute, but not absolutely absolute. Once the logical system (basic axioms, operators, truth-tables and rules of inference) has been established and accepted among all involved sign-interpreters, an absolute conclusion on a relative basis can in certain cases indeed be drawn, but not an absolute conclusion on an absolute base. Change the basic axioms (like identity, non-contradiction or excluded third) and what is certain in logical system A might not be in system B, etc. This is often forgotten. Classical formal logic is not self-evident. Just as in Euclidian geometry, changing a single axiom may introduce important variations. What at first seems impossible (like intersecting parallel lines), in the end exists both mathematically (as a mathematical object) and physically (as curvatures of spacetime).

§ 3 Avoiding Dogmatism & Scepticism.

α. To avoid dogmatism is not to eternalize a position. No ad hoc abrogation is allowed. If a circular reasoning or a regressus ensues, then one must accept an absolute justification cannot be given and the aim of dogmatism (namely finding such an absolute ground existing in and by itself) is futile and so trivial.

β. To avoid scepticism is not to eternalize a contra-position. When a hidden agenda is present, scepticism it but a form of dogmatism in disguise. To criticize is to draw clear distinction. To be sceptical is to overuse negation. At best, it is a dialectical move needed to outwit a dogmatic opponent, but cannot deliver a constructive tale about existence, nor give us any important answers. It is a wayfaring strategy, not a stable station.

γ. The critic walks the Middle Way and has no affirmation or negation to defend a priori. Here only distinctions matter. They allow categories to emerge and organizations to unfold. These architectures or forms of information are always changing (have material momentum) and display intelligent design or conscious activity.

LEMMA 67

The extremes of eternalism (accepting the substantial nature of objects) and nihilism (rejecting the existence of anything regular) are examples of respectively a dogmatic and a sceptic position.

The eternalist stops the justification ad hoc, and posits an absolute justification on the basis of relative steps. The latter only lead to a relative justification. The leap made is logically invalid. Many strong relative reasons do not constitute an absolute base. Even a majority can err. So if an absolute justification is needed, then a self-sufficient ground must be found. The eternalist has negated too little.

The nihilist accepts there is nothing substantial anywhere. But this does not lead to the kinetography of process and so a forteriori lacks the perfection of process. This sceptic has lost grip on all things because this conceptual apprehension of emptiness as lack of inherent existence, although correctly understood insofar as the negation of substantial instantiation is concerned, does not lead to the view of dependent-arising. Process as a dependent-arising is more than merely a stochastic display with no inherent existence, it is a spectacular magical show with, besides momentum (matter), also architecture (information) & sense (consciousness, sentience). The nihilist has negated too much.

Distinguish between, on the one hand, the yogi of wisdom ("jñânayogin") and, on the other hand the sophist (sceptic), merely criticizing & arguing without speaking up for anything, and the dogmatist, who argues without staking his own view depend on the outcome of the debate. Dwelling in extremes is to be avoided. Things are not inherently something (x), nor are they nothing (¬x). They are a something manifesting properties (x) in the isthmus between inherent being and void nonbeing. Existence covers the middle ground.

D. Conventional Appearance.

Ontology addresses the two epistemic isolates in existence : the conventional properties of any object x and its ultimate characteristics. These are called "epistemic isolates" because to identify them a special & crucial differentiating cognitive act is necessary, namely one clearly identifying what is merely given (to the sense and the mind), the appearance of x, and one sharply establishing (realizing) the process-nature of x, in other words, x's lack of inherent existence. These two "natures", the conventional and the ultimate, are merely properties of x. The ultimate nature is not deemed "another" reality standing beyond, next to or within x. Like in the case of the Golden Lion, the gold and its shape are simultaneous. The first isolate  is the conventional reality or conventional truth about x, the second its ultimate reality or absolute truth.

Because the ultimate exists conventionally, there being no "ultimate" ontological plane or level, let us first analyse x conventionality. We already listed the objects of ontology, answering the question What is there ? We found absolutely nonexistent objects, fictional objects, relatively existent objects and absolutely existent objects (cf. supra). To draw the line between what is there and what is truly there will shed light on conventionality and its illusionary appearances. To add "truly" merely points to the possibility something might appear to be there while it is not. Object might appear and independent (inherently existing) & separate (isolated from other objects), while in truth they are not. Like optical illusions, this epistemological illusion (to be identified as an ontological illusion), can be grasped by conceptual reason but remains as long as this mode of cognition endures. Only nondual cognition takes it finally out. Then full-emptiness is (directly) prehended, namely "finding" the absence of inherent existence in all objects simultaneously with their universal interdependence and interpenetration, the union of bliss & emptiness. These considerations bring about the issue of universal illusion and the way this blends in with the valid conventional knowledge of science & immanent metaphysics. This is deemed valid, for producing functional knowledge, but mistaken, for appearing as substantial while this is found not to be the case.

§ 1 What is Truly There ?

α. This question seeks the truth-value of objects, whatever their ontological status as absolutely nonexistent objects, fictional objects, relatively existent objects and absolutely existent objects. This is measured in terms of validity and the presence of a mistake.

α.1 An object is valid when it can be identified, apprehended or grasped by a subject of cognition acting as object-possessor (note "prehension" is a special form of apprehension in that the subject cognizes in the nondual mode of cognition). An object is mistaken when it appears differently as it truly is, i.e. when it is incorrectly apprehended or misleading.

α.2 Validity refers to the presence of objects. Hence, valid or invalid objects may be mistaken or not. Indeed, valid objects (such as those of science), may nevertheless be appearing differently as they truly are. In fact, all fictional and conventional objects veil their true, absolute, fundamental nature or suchness ("tathata") by the illusion of own-form or self-nature ("svabhâva").

β. Absolutely nonexistent objects are invalid and mistaken. They are invalid because nothing can be identified to correspond to them, not even logically. Hence, as logic precedes function, they have no functionality whatsoever. Although we understand the words "square" and "circle", the combination, i.e. a square circle is nonsensical. They are mistaken because they appear to be something they cannot possibly be. Indeed, although it seems the phrase "a triangle with four angles" conveys some information, namely the presence of an object with three angles which has four angles, it is impossible to apprehend or imagine such a object at all. The phrase is therefore merely a string of black pixels on a white surface.

γ. Fictional, relatively nonexistent objects, are valid and mistaken. They are valid because, insofar as they are public, one can point to them. Because they move us, they are functional. But insofar as they are private, the act of apprehension is private too and so only valid for a single subject of experience (reality-for-me or the first person perspective). Fictional objects are mistaken because they represent something which is not as it truly is and this in a definite degree, i.e. by conscious deception.

δ. Conventional objects may be valid and mistaken. They are valid because they can be identified as logical and functional realities/idealities. Insofar as this validity is concerned, they are scientific objects. But they are mistaken not because of any conscious deception, but because they appear to possess a nature of their own ("svabhâva", "ousia", "eidos", "hypokeimenon", "substantia"), while they are truly other-powered, i.e. depending on conditions & determinations outside themselves. This is what ultimate analysis seeks to prove (cf. infra). Once this is established, the valid appearance of conventional objects is not changed, but only the mental obscurations or false ideation causing them to be experienced as self-powered has been removed. The elimination of this ontological illusion or substantial instantiation voids their ability to fool us and opens the way to actually see their dependence, universal interconnectedness with other phenomena & exclusively process-based nature.

ε. Conventional objects may be invalid and mistaken. Invalid because they cannot be logically and functionally identified, i.e. in no way apprehended by way of logic, argumentation and experimentation. The caloric fluid theory of old, the four humours or the epicycles at work in the Ptolemaic & Copernican models are good examples. These objects of outdated scientific theories have been disproved and so disbanded from the arena of paradigmatic scientific objects. These invalid conventional objects are also mistaken, for regardless of the fact they no longer function, they -just as valid conventional objects- posit characteristics existing from their own side.

ζ. Finally, among existing objects there are those which are beyond validation and not mistaken. They are beyond validation because they refer to something every subject of experience can potentially identify in every sensate or mental object but never name and correct because they appear as they are, i.e. do not conceal their truth. These ultimate objects are nothing more than conventional objects apprehended without any sense of self-power. They simultaneously reveal (a) absence or lack of independent existence  ("tathata") hand in hand with (b) dependent-arising ("pratîtya-samutpâda") or universal interconnectedness (interdependence & interpenetration). The objects prehended by the wisdom-mind of a Buddha are all of this category.

η. Nonexistent & fictional objects are not the first aim of ultimate analysis. Nonexistent objects are not because their ontological and epistemic status is irrelevant to the question at hand. Fictional objects are not because their deceptive nature is apparent and so unconcealed. Conventional objects are the prime target of ultimate analysis, for the fact their true nature is veiled is not apparent. Quite on the contrary, to the mind of Homo normalis, they are self-evidently existing extra-mentally and substantially, i.e. from their own side. Their accidents (qualities, quantities, modalities & relations) are deemed to adhere to their own essences, and this inherent existence is self-powered, i.e. isolated from conditions & determinations outside themselves. If these objects really exist the way they appear to the deluded mind, then it should be possible to separate the quantities, qualities, modalities and relations entertained by these objects from their supposed substantial core or essence ("svabhâva"). What remains after we remove all the accidents from an object ? Objects can be logically identified and do have functional effects. These can be found. But ultimate logic seeks to prove no objects exists in accordance with our common ideas about them, i.e. such own-form cannot be found at all. Remove its accidents, and the object as a whole vanishes ! Remove the (logical & functional) properties, and the instantiation of the concept given by the copula "is" is out. Nothing remains.

θ. Both natural and artificial conventional objects are deemed to possess characteristics independent of their observers. Indeed, we suppose these objects exist even if they are left unobserved. And of course, on the meso-level of reality, they do exist in a logical and functional way. But not substantially, i.e. without being subject to change. Indeed, the pivotal feature ultimate analysis seeks to disprove is the substantial, inherent permanency of conventional objects. So in terms of ultimate analysis, the fact these objects are found to be independent of conscious observers is not problematic per se, but the notion this independence is somehow an inherent feature of these objects is. Hence, inherent existence is the proper object of negation, i.e. the core feature of objects ultimate analysis disproves. The duality between objects & subjects is not a target, for suchness is directly apprehended by a nondual, non-conceptual, awakened mind.

LEMMA 68

What is truly there ? After having identified what exists, one divides the lot in valid & invalid, unmistaken & mistaken, ultimate truth & conventional truth.