There is no self-sufficiency in the Universe of Meaning and there never has been. Meaning was born from the Meaninglessness and needs the meaningless to define its meaning. The Universe itself needs the Void for us to be able to understand it through the capacity to situate it in a particular place (i.e., within the Void).
This lack of self-sufficiency has existed since the primordial beginnings of everything. The inanimate universe needed consciousness to make it known and, through being known, to exist. Consciousness needs the space and time, provided by the Universe to exist in. Everything is embedded with necessity.
To find it we need to open the concept up to the absolute condition: the meaning of Meaning lies in the reason for being, and as such is buried in the idea of why it all exists. The fundamental question that needs to be answered is, therefore, why does anything exist at all?, which has traditionally been a metaphysical conundrum (God willed it) but will only ultimately be resolved through a scientific understanding. However, the answer could also well be that there is no reason why the universe exists, and that might be resolved when we can be sure of how it came into existent (again, through science). But this does not negate the meaning of Meaning as such, it merely points to a condition that Meaning has evolved. In such case, the meaning of Meaning will need to be found by examining cosmological evolution (once more, through science).
If we seek the answer from a personal perspective, however, the process becomes far more convoluted, although it also starts from an absolute idea of Meaning. Ultimately, the meaning of my Meaning is the meaning for my being here, and this also bifurcates between the metaphysical idea of destiny and the natural, scientific observation of genetic propagation, and between these two there is the socio-psychological idea of the social destiny set out for us by our cultural identity and social indoctrinations. But this drags any personal solution to the enigma through a whirlwind of relativity that in turn devalues any attempt at tackling the conundrum and invites a nihilistic surrender – just get on with your life, for there can be no obvious purpose to it at all – and our task here is precisely to overcome all nihilisms. So, how do we turn back or leap over this demon of nihilism.
In order to make Meaning meaningful, it needs to be, above all, practical. Nihilism is so successful today because it offers a very lazy kind of pragmatism: no need to stress oneself with vain reasons for doing things, just accept that there are no good reasons for anything and get on with doing whatever you find enjoyment from. However, this philosophy that seems like a very workable kind of hedonism, ideal for our consumerist culture, eventually reaches the dead end it has always been rushing to and collapses in on itself, like a dragon devouring its own tail. To escape this void-creating tendency therefore, purpose has to compete on the pragmatic level with nihilism. And to do that we now have to ask ourselves, what is the practical side of the meaning of Meaning?
The answer to this question resides in what it avoids, for meaningfulness escapes nihilism. The practical side of discovering the meaning of Meaning is, therefore, that it liberates us from nihilistic pitfalls such as superficiality, emptiness, unfulfillment and depression. What’s more, because of its Absolute condition, the meaning of Meaning transcends the personal and offers solutions on a universal plane that also transcends political ideologies and cultural identities, animating the intersubjective, pan-human side of existence.
In order to know the meaning of Meaning it seems logical that we would firstly have to deduce what Meaning is, but Meaning in the absolute sense is hidden from us and is only intuited to exist or not exist at all. So, our problem now is: How can we know the meaning of something that is unknown to us? To discover Meaning at an absolute level means to decipher the meaning for the existence of the universe, and this can only be done through metaphysical speculation (which will never provide a satisfactory conclusion), or through a cosmological investigation. The latter, which is made more practical by being more tangibly and intellectually conclusive, will have to be carried out by a thorough cosmological analysis of the present state of the universe, an investigation driven by the question why?: Why has the cosmos evolved in this way and not in any other way?. This question will be partly answered by investigating how?: How have be come to be in this condition?. But as our general concern is Meaning, the fundamental part of our investigation needs to be concerned with why?.
(II)
Let us begin with a logical proposition: Anything that is meaningful is qualitatively better than anything that is meaningless. For a universe to be a good universe, therefore, it needs to be embedded in purpose or meaning. In the case, the term good now functions in the wider sense of anything that is meaningful. And what this also means, is that a universe devoid of purpose is bad.
Arguably, a nihilist could reason that none of this is important because these concepts of meaning and meaninglessness or good and bad are merely human concepts, and therefore ephemeral and transcendental in a cosmological sense, that have no absolute bearing on reality and so should not be taken seriously in any scientific analysis of reality – yet this also presents another truth, which is that the meaning of the universe is a psychological one only, and is therefore completely dependent on the complexity of intelligences capable of forming rational, ethical propositions, i.e., Meaning and its consequences depend on human rationality and this demonstrates our importance; our meaningful role in the meaning of Meaning.
(III)
In his General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, Husserl makes an interesting comparison between the factualness of things and the essence of them[i]. For Husserl, our individual experience of our existence in the world is universally contingent, a contingency that he calls ‘factualness’, but that the random behaviour implied by contingency is actually moderated by the essence of things that stem from the very shapes and forms of things comprising the Eidos of reality. It is through things like shape, form, or tone that individual items fall into an essential group of items, or species, and that: “Everything belonging to the essence of the individuum another individuum can have too.”[ii] Or, in other words, we, as individuals, are most definitely random, contingent entities, but everything belonging to the essence one of us can be a part of everyone else.
What this means is that we are united by our shared essence, i.e., by our humanity. And this also means that the best way to resist divisiveness is to accentuate this shared essence.
One of our essential human traits, for example, is the complexity of human language that we use to communicate and understand each other and the universe in which we live. Although we have thousands of languages and dialects, and many more that have disappeared, there is an essential quality of all those languages which is communication and comprehension, that is only possible between human beings, or between human beings and the animals that live with humans, or between humans and the machines that are built or programmed to understand our languages.
This means that a primary essence of being human is meaning. Without meaning language would make no sense; would be pointless; would not be used; and from this we can say that without meaning there could not be any humanity or human beings. Meaning then comes before language, even though it is language which has to uncover meaning.
The idea that the essence of humanity and, as such, of each individual human being, is meaning immediately creates a problem, for while we understand the general meaning of things it is not so easy to say what an absolute meaning of Meaning is: What is the meaning of our existence, of being human, of being here?
Ironically, the search for the meaning of that essential question has led to humanity’s greatest metaphysical errors – the idea of God, or the notion that is no meaning at all, or that the answer to the question of Meaning is elsewhere and impossible to grasp here.
If instead of God, we had used the term Meaning, and subsequently affirmed that the meaning of Meaning is Meaning, the history of humanity could have been a far less turbulent phenomenon. If, instead of claiming that God were the Alpha and Omega, we had understood that Meaning is the beginning and end of the universe. If we had been capable of understanding that the universe had to have emerged out of a void of non-meaning, and seen such an emergence embedded with, an albeit, purely intuitive purpose to create the meaningful; if we had understood how this process would have required the formation of cosmological conditions apt for the creation of and ability to sustain life-forms capable of evolving into sentient organisms that could ask and resolve the question of Meaning; and if we had been able to rationalise how by doing so, cosmic evolution was capable of making the meaningless universe meaningful, then we would now be able to appreciate the meaningful place of our own humanity within the domain of the Absolute that is cosmological purposiveness, and by so doing having a far more purposeful and confident, and less anxious, idea of our own selves and our shared humanity.
By looking for the meaning of Meaning by investigating our own inquisitive instincts that evolve from the raw question of Meaning that is such an integral part of the essence of humanity, we will allow the beautiful blossom of a Meaningfulness (in the absolute sense) that is being unravelled, uncovered and in a continuous state of becoming known.
It is this meaning, understood as an essence, that gives us our why and what for.
Through our intuitions we are able to sense an absolute Meaning to the universe, and it was such an intuition that created the concept of God. But it is Meaning that is the essence, not God. This essence can only be known vaguely, through intuition, because the nature of the essence as Meaning is only an intuitive one. Meaning as an essence is an intuition of what Meaning could be when the Universe which is the subject and final object of Meaning matures to the state of Absolute Meaningfulness.
In the beginning there was an intuition of Meaning.
Meaning as an essence needs a factual, material-world environment (with three dimensions of space and a forward, unilinear motion of time) in order for it to become existence.
For an essence to exist it must be given form. The form given to, or created by, the essence that is Meaning for us, is our Universe.
(IV)
If the essence of the Meaningful Universe is the intuition of Meaning, then everything in the Universe is imbued with Meaning via intuition, although this does not mean that all activity is meaningful.
The intuited Meaning has to be grasped, but, in order to grasp it, it needs to be located. An intuition of Meaning does not tell us what that Meaning actually is. Only when we can be completely sure of what the Universe really is and what it could be will we be able to clarify what Meaning is. At the moment we can know the Universe from what our cosmology tells us about it. We know it is expanding and that it will probably continue to expand until everything freezes and dies. However, reason tells us that this is an absurdity.
Via intuition we are told that there can be a thing we call eternity. Eternity, therefore, is a possibility in Meaning, and as Meaning will always gravitate towards meaningfulness, and abhor meaninglessness, the eternal is a logical component of cosmological will.
As for what eternity is for such a will, we define it as a Permanence of Being (wherein Being means cognitive existence – that which knows and is known).
Meaning in essence has no syntactical form: it is, in a grammatical sense, itself void of meaning. It comes out of its opposite, the Meaningless void and, from that antagonistic birth, is immediately imbued with positivism. Meaning is a will for the Meaningful. Creation of an inanimate, meaningless universe is not enough: Meaning needs the silent space to become animated and capable of possessing its own creativity.
In order to achieve the physical conditions allowing for conscious existence to be possible, in order for that to happen, life-forms needed to be created. The evolutionary process unto life was therefore a logical imperative imposed on the universe via Meaning. Living organisms that could reproduce, morph, adapt, evolve, learn, advance, and change the environment around them were necessary for the meaning of Meaning and the subsequent meaning of everything to become possible via consciousness. For the meaning of Meaning to be grasped the universe needed organisms capable of asking: What is the meaning of this universe?. And for Permanence of Being to be possible, the Universe needs a consciousness capable of acting according to the logical answers found around this ultimate of all questions which is What is the meaning of Meaning?.
[i] Edmund Husserl, General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, Martinus Nijhoff, 1983, Chapter 1, § 2, p. 7
Perhaps more than anything else, philosophy and religion have been locked in a seemingly impossible struggle with the conundrum of meaning. What is the meaning behind us being here? Or is that a mute question because, in the natural world that encases the ideal existence of our minds, there is no meaning? The nihilist will affirm the negative result, and many may applaud this conclusion because it allows them to wash their hands of the dilemma, but, for most of us (and the extent and persistence of world religion reinforces this assumption that we are the majority), the idea of an absurd, purposeless fabric of reality is disturbing and fundamentally impractical.
Purposefulness is an essential ingredient in all pragmatism, in order to do what needs to be done we need to know what needs to be done, but this fact does not assuage the reality that despite our gut instinct that a cosmological purpose must exist, we have not the slightest idea what that underlying meaning of everything could possibly be. Hence, the widespread acceptance of, for the most part, naïve explanations of the meaning of life, which are propagated by religious narratives, centring meaning within the idea of God, or the gods. For those, on the other hand, who find religion too innocent, too manipulative, or even too political, there are plenty of philosophical indagations to turn to, but, no matter where we look, for the question of meaning it seems there is always an underlying current of uncertainty that will undoubtedly persist until we have scientific proof and a clear demonstration of what the cosmological reason for existence has to be, if even it has to be at all. And because the former, it seems, is, at least primarily, impossible to prove, the latter becomes more palatable, and this explains the powerful gravity wielded by nihilism.
The truth, as such, can only really be truly affirmed by the normalisation given by science, but science, at the moment, ignores this task, regarding it as too metaphysical or too esoteric. Really, it seems perfectly happy pushing the problem straight back to philosophy – and hardly anyone listens to, let alone understands philosophy. Nevertheless, a deep, philosophical reflection on Meaning is necessary not only for the psychological well-being of individuals but for the whole of society, if not for the proper working of civilisation itself. Given the current state of human individuals being little more than machines of unbridled consumerism projected into the world to devour and contaminate it by producing growing mountains of consumption and waste, a deeper reason for being needs to be propagated in order to save humanity from ourselves. It is only by wrestling with this problem that humanity as a whole will be able to push forward in a meaningful way. Subsequently, we are now faced with the obvious imperative to resurrect the age-old philosophical interrogative and once more attempt to tackle the question of why we, and the universe, exist. To do this, there is a tautological knot that needs to be unravelled. We need to ask ourselves: What is the meaning of Meaning?
(II)
This meaning of Meaning may simply be to discover what Meaning is, or in other words, the meaning of Meaning lies in the act of attempting to answer the question “What is the meaning of Meaning?” As soon as the question is asked, Meaning becomes a transcendentally significant concept and could be considered an alternative to the very idea of God. This is because the secret of existence lies in the unravelling of this mystery and precisely defines what really happens when one goes looking for God – the search for God is a search for Meaning, and the idea of God is therefore nothing more than a mask, usually an andromorphic creation, of an otherwise abstractly conceptual fabric of existence. But any definition of the concept of meaning depends on a transcendentally ideal formulation of the interrogative itself. Or, in other words, there needs to be a mind that is complicated enough to be able to formulate questions like this one. And that means that the meaning of Meaning can only exist once someone or something exists that is capable of formulating the question regarding the meaning of Meaning itself.
By bestowing Meaning on existence we animate it. In the same way, nihilism, which denies meaningfulness, is a depressing force on existence. With nihilism one has to find reasons to go forward with, despite the fact that there are no fundamental reasons, and such an existence is absurd. Nihilism renders everything absurd through the relativity that is generated by meaninglessness, while purpose and reasons are transformed into Quixotic fantasies. However, by establishing that the meaning of Meaning is to ask what is the meaning of Meaning, we are already stepping beyond nihilism because part of the answer to the question is embedded in the mere fact that we are able to formulate the question. Our Meaning for being here is to be capable of formulating the biggest of all questions, and whether or not we can answer the mystery we know that the Meaning is wrapped up in our own existence. Or, in other words, the reason for our existence resides in the fact that we are capable of asking what is the reason for our being here. And from here, we have a starting point for going forward in a truly meaningful way because we find that the grounding point of meaning resides in our own common human condition, because, as far as we know, it is only in human consciousness, with the complex tools of human languages, that reality can be engaged. This is carried out, not as a static presentation of what simply exists but as a dynamic process in which each human subject is involved in a creative, subjective experience, both felt and imagined, of the universe we are a part of.
(III)
Individuals and societies mature by overcoming their own infantile beliefs, and faith in a mythical being like God is just as infantile as a belief in the idea of Santa Claus. However, the price of our loss of innocence cannot come at the forfeiture of all absolute and good reasons for doing things, because individuals and societies need to know that they are operating purposefully in order to develop in a healthy way, both materially and psychologically.
By analysing the meaning of Meaning in the absolute sense we leap beyond the figure of God and go straight into what would be God’s mind itself. The form of God, therefore, is now the form of the Universe, and the Mind is found in the reason why this Universe has evolved the way it has. That the meaning of Meaning lies primarily in the ability to ask and attempt to answer what Meaning is, elevates us, as ones endowed with such a capacity, unto the field of cosmological meaning itself. In our essence we are very much a real part of the Meaning of Everything.
The core of phenomenology is consciousness, whereas the essence of our philosophy is meaning. As it is meaning that allows for the creation of consciousness, this kind of philosophy could be seen as a pre-phenomenological investigation.
Consciousness is born from meaning’s lack. Likewise, meaning is the intentionality of consciousness.
When we see the circular relationship between meaning and consciousness it uncovers the tracks of a progressive way forward for our thought. In fact, by recognising the circular nature of the relationship, we can see that the authentic drive of consciousness is not circular at all, but lineal, from the idea of meaning into Meaning itself.
The traditional, Biblical, concept of existence “I am Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end,” implies a circularity (recognised by Nietzsche in his idea of the eternal recurrence) that has to pass through the omega or end-point of everything before it can begin again. However, Nietzsche’s sense of circularity is different. Ironically for the author of the Will to Power, eternal recurrence is brought about by a lack of meaningful power at the end-point, rendering it incapable of pulling us forward with enough force to drag us beyond the gravity of nihilistic meanings.
Nihilistic meanings are more dangerous than meaningfulness because they generate a false impression of authenticity, and it is this false sense of reality that dissuades us from looking for any essential authenticity in our search for meaning.
For this nihilistic trap to be overcome, a new perspective of reality has to be fashioned through meaningfulness that envisages a purposeful end-point, i.e. a philosophy that is supported by the perception of a meaningful teleology. This is the basis of our pre-phenomenological task.
Meaning is prior to language. Language is the tool used to express meaning, i.e. human meaning. The human relationship to meaning is a linguistic one: this means that whilst meaning is prior to language, it is dependent on language for its existence.
A circular relationship is thus formed between meaning and language. Language is the result of meaning and it would not exist without it, but it also stands before meaning in being necessary for meaning to be able to take shape in reality. Without meaning there would be no language and without language we cannot have meaning.
This kind of circle devours and is devoured by itself and is therefore well symbolised by the uroboros – the dragon swallowing its own tail.
It is the same uroboric-circle simplicity that we find in the relationship between the universe and self-consciousness.
The sapiens relationship to the universe is anchored in language. By naming things we give meaningfulness and form to existence and shape reality. A name is something we can grasp even if the thing being named is not present.
PROPOSITIONS:
In the beginning there was MEANING, and the meaning of the primal meaning was to GIVE FORM TO MEANING.
The meaning of MEANING once FORMED is to give CONSCIOUSNESS to and for the form.
From this we can see that Consciousness (as a universal psychic phenomenon of intentional cognition of experiences) evolves from Meaning (as the point of Meaning and as the meaning of Meaning) via Forms, and that, subsequently, Forms are embedded within Meaning, just as Consciousness is embedded in meaning. The simple fact that Consciousness exists in a universe of Forms that gives it something to be conscious of is meaningful.
The essential dynamic force of Consciousness lies firstly in its ability to uncover, unveil or discover the forms that Meaning has created in order for the birth of Consciousness to be possible.
From this dynamic of discovery, Consciousness enters a second dynamic of learning, and a third dynamic of creativity.
Through the dynamics of learning and creativity, Consciousness is able to develop the experience of Meaning in the universe through time.
*
It is important to remind ourselves that our consciousness is not an act of reflection needing a higher, absolute consciousness to give further reflection on what has been reflected on. The idea of consciousness created by an omnipresent mindfulness is absurd – because why would an omnipresent intelligence create what it is already full of? Creation comes from what is lacking. Meaning creates Consciousness because the Meaning itself is devoid of consciousness. Meaning will be fulfilled, and the absolute, cosmological and historical process will be fulfilled when Consciousness has evolved into an intersubjective, universal phenomenon.
Seeing the universe as a creation of Meaning implies that God does not exist, but that Its creation is a teleological part of the evolutionary process of the meaningful cosmos.
The object (and objective) of Consciousness is the universe. The object of an individual’s consciousness is a part of the universe. The object of Consciousness from Meaning is to become inter-subjective, or a conscious result of communicating, conscious parts.
If meaningfully structured, therefore, societies and cultures (even civilisations) should be constructs that favour meaningful communication between individual consciousnesses.
When civilisation, society or culture is not meaningfully structured, however, communication itself loses its meaningfulness. If consciousness cannot find its essential Meaning – which is the purpose for which conditions for creating consciousness were created – and has given up looking for it or has not even bothered to ponder the question of why consciousness should exist in the universe, then a dangerous cycle of nihilisms will take hold of the civilisation. Such is the case with our contemporary civilisation. We are spinning around a wheel that has become derailed from the track of Meaning.
*
Meaning is immanent in the universe, but that does not mean that human societies – as being within the meaning immanent universe – must be meaningful. Quite the contrary, the evolution of human societies has been a movement away from a consciousness of immanent meanings, anchored in nihilistic transcendentness.
Humanity languishes in transcendental nihilisms and ignores the immanent meaningfulness of the universe and, by doing so, it becomes alienated from the universe and, hence, from authentic purposiveness.
History as a mechanism to describe human progress or human development over the ages is a fallacy because human development has never rightfully taken place. Societies are no more human now than they have ever been, and where progress has taken place it has always been in the service of the interests and needs of wealth, never in favour of humanity.
We cannot therefore take the past on its own terms if we want to create more humane societies and develop a purposive, human future. The point now presently reached is the one in which we clearly see the nakedness of the emperor when we are told that he is parading his new clothes – the emperor here being a metaphor for the ugly nakedness of our civilisation. We should be all denouncing the crude reality, despite the narratives we are constantly being fed to accept the contrary. Instead, we get lost in the partisan ideologies that the emperor is naked only because he belongs to the party we never vote for, and that when our boys and girls are in power the emperor is or will be splendid.
The absence of human progress, however, does not mean that the narrative of history did not happen, but rather that the motives for its unfurling are very different to the ones we are usually fed. Once analysed from the perspective of humanity, the motives which have evolved throughout the world’s historical process are not at all favourable for the development and progress of any authentic humanity and the evolution of civilisation is quite simply a terrible error.
The problems in our societies are not the necessary results of any weaknesses in human nature, but rather in the fundamental greed of the general motor driving the mechanics of civilisations – and that pilot is wealth. Rather than seeing wealth as an integral part of human nature, it would be more correct to see it as the cultural of human societies that separates us from the possibility of truly embracing our human nature.
CIVILISATION – WEALTH = AUTHENTIC HUMAN SOCIETY
Since Voltaire and Hegel, then Nietzsche and Marx through Adorno, to Foucault and Žižek, we have been trying to subvert historical narratives in order to let humanity breathe the fresh air of a more authentically human future. That more than two hundred years of subversion has achieved so very little in terms of establishing authentically human narratives beyond the tyrannies of wealth is indicative of how powerful the self-interested discourse of wealth is. As Foucault said: “truth is not by nature free – nor error servile – but … its production is thoroughly imbued with relations of power.”[1]
[1] Michael Foucault, THE HISTORY OF SEXUALITY, Vol. 1, Penguin, London, 1990, p. 60
The burden of consciousness lies in its inevitable awareness of the fact that our individual self, and this individual consciousness itself, is only a temporal thing in a process of dying, i.e., movement towards non-existence. Add to this the spiritually crippling idea that everything is moving in the same abject direction and this ‘consciousness’ can be thoroughly devastating.
Truth is terrible, and terribly hard to bear. As such we create possibilities, alternative conceptualisations of reality that allow for a continuity and allow the universe and our existence in it to become a bearable, purposeful thing. Most of these fictional narratives take the form of religions, which are institutions that can, collectively, bolster anti-natural theses that will quell the burden of truth. Through these narratives, what our consciousness reveals about reality becomes a lie, a misperception of reality, because reality is far more subtle than human consciousness ever realises. But the negativity of religions lies not just in their fantasies but in the fact that, in humanistic terms, they are anti-human, oppressive forces, that diminish the importance of our humanity and have negative rather than potentiating effects on consciousness.
Neverhteless, it still remains true that the ugly truth revealed by consciousness needs to be transcended. To take this leap without humbling ourselves and subjugating our individual consciousness to an imagined monotheistic omnipotence, consciousness’s focus on ephemerality needs to be superseded by concentrating on the collective reality of human consciousness and the positivity and power that this change of perspective generates. For the systemic nihilism we currently suffer to be overcome, humanity must first develop itself authentically as Humanity (with a capital H), and develop societies capable of uniting rather than dividing the consciousness of the human race. Individual mortality can only be overcome if the collective memory of humanity endures. The seemingly inevitable process of dying can only be transcended via an enduring collective consciousness. Likewise it is only a well-tuned and well-exercised collective consciousness that will be capable of making the creative and technological advances that will allow humanity to dream of an eternal existence in which even cosmological-death scenarios can be remedied. To overcome the burden of consciousness we have to concentrate on making it eternal.
The ideas of the subject and the object become problematic when we consider them from the absolute perspective of the universe or the ontological problem of Idealism. What is the subject in Esse est percipi? Is it the perceiver or the universe perceived which allows the perceiver to perceive it? In our reality (or at least in our grammatical reality) the subject perceives things from a certain distance that allows for the subjective-objectification that makes knowledge possible. In a sense we are a kind of son of Jonah, born in the whale as an orphan. We are involved in a process of grasping at reality from within, with little faith that there could be anything without the environment that encloses us.
In the Phenomenology of Mind, Hegel says that the truth of the Absolute Spirit consists: ‘in becoming concrete actual self, reflecting itself into self, and being Subject’.[1]
If we interpret Absolute Spirit in an atheistic way, as the spirit or will of the cosmological-machine that is the universe, then Hegel’s idea must be perceived as that of a universe striving to evolve from the status of that which is perceived (the object) toward the grand status of being the perceiving subject itself. Of course, in the case of the Absolute, the only thing that can be perceived is its own self, for there is nothing beyond the Absolute, and so the teleological aim of the universe is to become Subject as well as Object. Subject therefore becomes that which can know the Object – in this case itself – from without – and thereby, know itself objectively.
For the universe to be capable of this seemingly impossible aim, it needs the evolution of reason, through the minds of the consciously complex, biological entities within it to flourish. But these entities are within the universe, not without, and this seems counterintuitive to our own perception of reality, for: how can something objectify itself from within? Nevertheless, in order to understand a possible Absolute objectivity this is what has to happen, and this development of inner-objectivity is made possible when sapiens minds are capable of applying logic and reason to their perception of reality. Hence there is a purposeful need and desire for the Absolute Spirit to have access to entities within itself that are capable of rationally perceiving their experience of their reality in the machine itself. As far as the whale analogy goes, therefore, it is no longer problematic in terms of the universe, because there is nothing beyond our cosmological whale to perceive. It is perception itself which objectifies reality for the otherwise non-perceiving universe. Limited as it may seem, our eyes are the eyes of the universe. The knowledge of the Absolute Spirit is derived from what rational beings like we humans know.
As Hegel put it: ‘.. spirit consists, not in being a meaning, not in being the inner, but in being the actual, the real. “Simple, eternal essential Being”’.[2] And it is only through the experience and the rational objectifications and abstract thoughts of sapiens minds that that Being can be realised by the Absolute.
[1] G.W.F. Hegel, THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND, Dover 2003, p. 448
In the Phenomenology of Mind,[1] Hegel introduces the idea of the willing of the self to be certain of itself, a poetic concept (in the philosophical sense) which, as philosophical poets, we feel urged to apply to our own indagations into the volitions embedded within the cosmological-machine we call the universe.
We believe that if the universe has a will, it must be a primitive will toward that which it lacks. And if this is the case, then the thing that was found to be most lacking by the unconscious motor of the cosmological-machine may very well have been an intuition of this lack of certainty of itself (in which would be embedded other intuited deficiencies, such as the lack of self-knowledge and the basic lack of being able to perceive itself).
By making this assumption, we place Lack of Certainty of Itself at the centre of the universe’s subconscious drive, or cosmological will. A drive which would have incited an evolution toward the complexity of biological life forms capable of perceiving and developing perception into consciousness, eventually becoming intelligent, sentient organisms within the universe that are capable of perceiving, for the universe, the cosmological-machine itself, and hopefully, eventually understanding it from the inside. A process which, from the point of view of the whole, allows the universe to understand itself from within and develops a certainty of itself from the observation and understanding of those within the self.
Certainty of itself can therefore be added to the other two primordial lacks we have found in the motor of the cosmological-machine, i.e., permanence and preservation, in order to create a metaphysical triptych of the cosmological drive.
So, Certainty, Permanence and Preservation are our Cosmological Trinity. A trinity which has evolved and is evolving, being driven by the primordial need of gaining that which is lacking and describing cosmological purposiveness.
First, there was a lack in what was and that lack was overcome when the state of being emerged out of nothingness into something. In this way, with the emergence of the first particle out of nothing, the primordial drive was able to fill the gaping hole of absolute lack.
Here, therefore, we now have a definition of the primordial drive, that it is the will to fill the gaping hole of lack.
Yet, for certainty to be a lack, as we propose, one firstly needs reason, and this creates a paradox, for reason needs certainty as lack of certainty is a gaping hole in reason. But how can that be?
What this means is that certainty and reason had to evolve together in a very slow process (the evolution of consciousness in the universe) and that the intuition in the drive that pushes the process forward is pre-perception and even pre-existence. For something to come from nothing there had to be an intuition embedded in the nothingness that could provoke a change of state.
Intuition of lack is, as such, the basic element of all existence and is buried in the very fabric of non-existence.
For Permanence to be lacking we must firstly have ephemerality and Permanence becomes the gaping hole in the ephemeral.
By seeing Permanence as this hole in the ephemeral, we can also understand the positive force of lack despite its negative connotations.
Lack is a gateway that is always opening us up toward other potentialities, which is not to say that all potentialities are desirable. Lack can be a gateway to the desirable and undesirable fields of possible existences.
Likewise, Preservation is a result of the lack in ephemerality. Preservation is a necessary tool for any possible permanence to take place.
*
The creative spirit of the universe, then, resides in Lack. Lack is the great artificer, that which gets things done even before the possibility of thought, and hence before the thought of what needs to be done, has come about.
In the beginning was not ‘the idea’, but the lack of that which was and this is the gaping hole of something within the absolute state of nothingness.
[1] G.W.F. Hegel, PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND, Dover, 2003, p. 384
The most dangerous, underlying problem facing humanity today, and that which is responsible for all our current woes, is the nihilism that is so deeply ingrained in the global world civilisation. This means that to untie the pathetically knotted disaster we have become entwined in will require a social, cultural, political, and economic revolution unto purposiveness. So easy to say, yet impossible to imagine it ever coming about. But why? Why is an authentically purposive-driven civilisation so hard to conceive?
To accept purposiveness implies duties stemming from that same purposiveness. In fact, duties must come from purposiveness. Alienating purposiveness from duty only makes duty pointless and absurd (which is very much the current situation in our nihilistic world). Yet the current human condition is absurd not because there is no meaning in the universe, but rather because any perspective of an all-authentic purpose is either overlooked or denied. While our civilisation operates within the chaotic cacophony of a million reasons for being and doing things, the authentic, a priori, purpose for Being in the greater philosophical-cosmological sense is ignored, and this makes us ignorant and blind to the problems of what-must-be-done. Only when an authentic human purposiveness is allowed to take first priority over other lesser purposes in any contemplation will it be possible to act according to what truly needs to be done.
Only once we have been able to establish the idea that the absolute meaning of our existence is tied, in both an active and passive way, to the purpose of the universe itself, and that our role in this cosmos lies in the development of our cognitive, rational faculties as sapiens to know and preserve the same universe we are immersed in, will human civilisation be able to operate in a meaningful way.
By bringing this philosophical-cosmological concept to the fore will embed duty in a development of our individual selves that is motivated by the purposeful development of the universal, for only when all the individual aspects of the universal are allowed to fully develop will the universal itself we able to evolve toward authentic fruition.
Each mind is a complete universe within the complete universe of the Universe itself.
Because of this, the authentically purposive society has to be one which can effectively tap into the absolute potential of each individual. To do this, the universal has to be capable of developing the talents required for the goals of its own purposiveness. A purposiveness that is grounded in the universal desire for survival and the eternity that is also implied in that desire. What needs to taught today is the idea that we are duty-bound to the preservation of our own existence in the universal sense, and that all other lesser concepts of morality must bow to this overall, authentically purposive idea whenever they clash.
pauladkin 