The immediate question concerning statement
(VII) is whether it is true or false. Statement (VII) is a
consequence of two philosophical experiments. As a
result of experiments (II) and (VI) on which we have to rely,
statement (VII) contains some truth about the real world. Dialectical
thinking may accept a truth like statement (VII), or we are rather
forced to accept dialectical thinking as a main step in our
thinking.
Statement (VII) is the result of the exertions
of thought about the limits of our knowledge. Beyond these limits,
the contradiction in this statement might indicate a deeper truth
which may only superficially assume from (VII). To refute contradiction
(VII) would be a mistake, much the same as to take statement (VII)
as an absolute truth would be a gross error. On closer look, this
contradiction might become transparent and so reflect a deeper,
non-contradictory truth, or some truth containing another
contradiction beyond which the profundities of the material
world should be better understood. The ultimate strata of profundity
might generate various levels of contradictions and hence these
strata might contain contradiction-generating elements. The ultimate
principles of the world cannot be uniform. They must be themselves
contradictory in a certain respect or must be contradiction-generating.
Let us observe that if experiments (II) and
(VI), which are as basic as there can be, are appropriately separated
from the associated mathematical and linguistic concept, and are
so regarded as experiments, then they might give insight into
a deeper world which should justify statement (VII) at the limit
deduced. Additionally, they might give insight into the dialectical
or dialectic-generating nature of the profound world. Statement
(VII) is valid at the limit of the notion of existence which was
employed in the experiment and in the subsequent reasoning. Otherwise
stated, it holds in terms of space-time existence. Delving further
beneath this skein of existence is tantamount to searching for
something beyond, but which might generate, the space-time existence.
Let us now assume that we know of the existence
of existence, while observing from-experiment (VI) that existence
is not ever, and examine the consequences deriving thereof. Indeed,
if we cannot grasp that existence is ever, then we have to
admit that it was born at a certain given time or that it arises
upon the beginnings of time. The immediate question is whether
existence arose at a given time, who gave the impulse,
hence who pre-existed existence ? And if this "who"
arose before existence, how did it come up ? Had there been another
one to generate this "who" ? The rise of existence at
a given time is conducive to the idea of the existence of a pre-existing
"who", hence to another existence (a meta-existence)
whose essence is different from that of the known existence.
That existence rise with time does
not preclude the idea of another existence, which may be
an essentially material source of existence, or an orthoexistence,
and not necessarily a meta-existence. The essence of orthoexistence
is not different from that of existence.
Hence, we may state the following hypothesis:
VIII. In addition to the space-time existence,
one should also consider the possibility of a meta-existence or
of an orthoexistence.
The space-time existence is seized byour being, in itself, in space, time and
motion. Existence isbeing experimented by us and is a concept resulting from our
immediatelife experience, from the ordinary functioning of the human body
and nervous system. We have not however managed to have an immediate
experiment on meta-existence or on orthoexistence.
Meta-existence appears as something assumed
alongside of nothing (which does not exist) and of existence.
Whatever the strivings of the human mind, meta-existence cannot
be immediately verified. We can however cogitate that something
which might exist beyond existence but cannot be straightforwardly
seized by the mind, at least at the present stage of human knowledge
and development. Some spiritual tinge in the human experience
enforce the idea of a meta-existence. However, meta-existence
ultimately means both idealism and God as a meta-existential all-being,
having will and an arbitrary right to intervene. The long historical
and religious experience does not furnish any experimental fact
about a like meta-existence. Hence, while recognizing the materiality
of the world, we shall have to search for an orthoexistence rather
than for a meta-existence.
4. What could then orthoexistence be?
For the beginning, it may be assumed to be a mere philosophical
operator having not a necessarily objective meaning.
Working with this operator, we shall assumethat:
IX. The existence = space-time
existence+ orthoexistence.
By (IX) we have obviously assumed a view,
which so far is not the outcome of a fundamental philosophical
experiment since we have not assessed the attributes of orthoexistence.
This view is rather the consequence of life experience and of
standpoint assumed by scientific and social activities.
In an idealist objective view,
X. The ideal world = space-time
existence+ meta-existence = f (meta-existence).
This reduces the wholereality to idea, space-time existence being derived or
inferiorto meta-existence.
In the dualist view, meta-existence is likewise
regarded as ideal and the world appears as a mixture of material
(space-time existence) and ideal (meta-existence). In the materialistic
outlook, the world is wholly material (both space-time existence
and orthoexistence) and if we consider the consciousness phenomena
at play in existence we cannot regard the world as a function
of orthoexistence alone:
XI. the world <>f(orthoexistence).
If the world = f(orthoexistence), then consciousness
should proceed from orthoexistence, and so we would be forced
to revert to a meta-existence or to a dual profundity. Expression
(XI) shows that the profundities are not the sole determinants
of the material world, which is also determined by space-time
existence according to expression (IX).
Assumption (IX) is referred to the fundamental
experiments (II) and (VI) using orthoexistence as a philosophical
operator. In compliance with experiments (II) and (VI), space-time
existence may go through "periods" when it exists and
"periods" when it does not. During the "periods"
when it does not exist, we are left with orthoexistence,
which may virtually have coordinates other then space and time
and unknown to us, rather than with nothing, which cannot
exist. Hence, the experimental statement (II) is definitely valid
under these assumptions, since in defect of space - and time -
related existence, material orthoexistence is always present and
nothing is out of place.
Statement (IV) which is a corollary of experiment(II), is still valid under the
following generalized from:
XII. the world (=
space-time existence+ orthoexistence) exists.
The Philosophical Experiment
87
