The Nature of Universal Existence

by Franc

'True wisdom comes to each of us when we realise how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us'.-Socrates.

It is presumed that our observations and perceptions are based, on the empirical and metempirical conceptions that are reflected, in the quondam experiences of living beings and quoddamodotative properties of the universe. The noscibility and apophasis of logic is the foundation, for the basis of our preliminary introduction to existence. This could be surmised, by the fact that existence is absolutely conducive to the philosophical concept of the universe. Thus, the symperasma of the hylism of existence could be deduced, from the theorem that states that monism has supervenience that corresponds to the universe. The explanandum would be hermeneutical and could exceed a metaphysical nature that was adduced, by a protreptical sciolism. Can we assume in a hypothetical sense that the ousia of human existence is concluded, as an indicative heterogeneity of the components of matter and form, and therefore, the hyparxis that would be determined would be revealed in a dioptric reality? That hypolepsis would be not interpreted, as a paralogism. Is the existence of the empsycha in the universe a verification of the development of the kylozois? Are human beings a noumenon of a greater evolution that is the universe? Or is the ultimate form of existence bound to the indeterminate boundaries of the universe yet discovered?

As human beings, we experience intra vitam the stoicheions of the occurrences of the universe and attempt to reason their causes. The attachment to our zoetic existence is apodictic, but the premise of that validation would not be dilogical. To prove that universal existence is consequential, any logical expression of a syllogism could be rationalised, by the irroboration of the proposition of a defined extrapolation and monothetic concurrence. To imagine the dynamic microcosm of the epiphenomenal anomalies of the universe, it is necessary to understand the diachronicity of the compoundable matters that have transpired in time forcibly. The magnitude of the antevenient nature of history could be construed, by the postdiction of the irrefragable nature of the events recorded in the annals of time. Thus, the inopinate circumstances of that time would be visible and compelling, in the orbit of the universe and the acceleration of time.

There is no denial that we are advanced beings composed of nous and noesis that represent the capacity of deprehendable optimality. The proemial argument to our existence is then proposed, by the probaliorism of our in esse and in posse states of being. If we inferred from the omnibus of the omnis, then the metaphysical and ontological correlation to the universe would seem an epistemic value of axiology. How are we to define a tralaticious nature of the recycling period of one form of existence to another? This could be realised, by analysing the quondam effects of something that occurred to something that has not yet developed into an occurrence. What is suggested is that time is always the chronicler of cosmic existence.

The disception about existence is contingent, on the maxim that everything in the universe is existent. There is a viable homoeomeria in the deictic contrast of the animated elements of the universe. The germaneness of the methexis is reflected, in the sphere of our consciousness daily. The diuturnity of time and the vivendum of the hypodoche are verified, by the hypostasis of logic. A logical philosopheme and aitiologisis that is dianoetically accepted, as being inductive and plausible.

The desition of the argument would be inconclusive, if we did not rationalise the symbiotic nature of life and death. Life is defined as animation and death as cessation. It is determined that life is sublunary, and death is presumed to be indisputable. No one can deny the phtoric nature of death in its indubitable composition and relation. However, human existence is not solipsism, since it would depend on the existence of the infinite cosmos. It would also imply that any form of synparxis with the cosmos must be compatible to the governable laws of the universe.

Existence is monadic to all living beings of the ecumene. Above all, there is no innominate variance of death, but there is of existence. The ingence of that revelation is attested in the changeable evolution of mankind. Perhaps what is misconstrued is the declared notion that anthropocentrism is at the core of the discrepancy, about existence as a quantum of the universe. Any apodictic argument must be supported, by a logical premise. We are aware of the fact that we are curious people by our pysmatic proclivity. The universe is the omphalos of existential matter and the transitivity. This would be collaborated by a cosmos theory and zeteticism. I prefer more the relativity of the Cosmosnoetos that is the intelligible universe of existing forms and intellect. Eo ipso, the hyperousia of that hypernoia would permit the integral understanding of the synolon of the inherent anthropos.

If we only apply ontosophy to the cyclopedia, then there would be no need for the apotheosis of an intangible theos. We could associate a refer to any intended refutation of reductionism that is an endechomen. This instrumental analogy if properly analysed would then be considered the normativity of metaphysics. Remember that all noetons or eonta of the universe are existential in one form or the other. What is called the heimarmene in philosophy is magnified, in the synedoche of existence. The adiareton megethos is immensely seen in the prodos of the world. The universe is not conditioned to the nomothetic assumptions of psilosophy or the preterition of the truth. Existence is not the teleion of the universe, but the corollary of inductive reasoning and logical absolutes.

Where and when does the boundary of the cosmos, begin and end? Is there such a thing, as eternity? If so, where do I find its exact point of no-return? It is necessary to use the criterion of relativity to make any argument feasible, in the commonality of a universal sense. Any form of purpose must be true to its full aspiration or proposition. If there was no purpose for any reasonable action or thought processed, then the intention or that purpose would imply an incoherence of logic and intelligence.

It is practical to believe that the universe is not conditioned to our existence, but to the relevance of the impending force of time and space. The actuality and the potentiality of the matter and forms of existence correlate, with a universal principle and variable that define our primary existence, as being definite. As conscious beings, we conceptualise from our observations, whether nomic or telic, the nature of our world. What we are is predicated on, who do we believe we are in function and who do we perceive ourselves as in essence?

We are a sui generis form of matter that has evolved, into physical beings that exist in nature and composition. We have an ipseity that defines our hypodoche as our identity that is perceived as invariability. There is the intimation of four causes of change of Aristotle that I have applied to universal existence. What is the reason? What is the cause of the reason? What is the origin of that reason? What is the reason for? The premise of existence is defined in the transparent manifestations of existence, such as matter, form, potentiality and actuality.

The assumption of a form of potentiality and actuality could be utilised, in the concept of a parallel universe. If there was a parallel universe would that world be more representative of the cosmos or the mere reflection of the opposite force of an existing surreality? What we know presently is that the exousia that defines the universe is comprised of the variable matter that exists in the tetragen of our world and other forms of matter in the physical universe, the actual dilation of space and the perceptible chronodiagramme of time. The universe is the source, for the energy of the cosmicity. It is the precise energy that we possess and is demonstrative, in the quotidian functions we display and activate.

The introduction of a syllogism is designed to ascertain an expository result that eschews the prolepsis to a doxastic anthithesis. Therefore, if the argument of existence was predicated on a valid premise, then the method of zeteticism and peirasticity would result, in the determination of the anticheimenon or the physical form of matter established. This method would permit the understanding and realisation of the reality of a quidditive state of being discovered in the states of the ipseity, the seity and the aseity. The philosophical question I interject is how do we define with absolute clarity, the difference between what I call the neminem that is the state of non-existence or the quindam the state of a possible existence?

There is another pending subject that I shall address, the complexity of the hen and the heteron and how they relate to the quoddamodotatity that is the certainty of being, the quondamity that is the previous state of being, the omnis, the entirety of universal existence and the nullibicity, non-existence. I shall utilise the criterion of time to correlate the cosmic states of existence. The distinction between the hen, the oneness and the heteron, the otherness is comparative to the singular and pluralistic states of being. I shall elaborate the analogy, with a calculative statement. As conscious beings, we are aware of the actuality of the singularity of a human being, and the potentiality of the multiplicity of beings. We are cognisant of the fact that evolution is the process of human birth, but perhaps not the extent of its ultimate conclusion. What most people are not conscious is about the relativity and process, between a single being and the multifarious beings that constitute universal existence. What is scientific is the variable form of matter and its form, but if perceived the presence of the one in our mind, and the power of the heteron would be equally conceived, as being equipollent in thought.

Universal existence is consequentially all that is the omneity or the state of being all in existence. It is also the omnitude or the state of being all in presence. When speaking about any form of existence, the concept of the amorphe that is the form of a matter that is existential or the first cause of something and the dyad that is the second cause of something existential is accentuated in philosophy. The universe is the first cause and the matter in the universe the second cause. This assertion is recognised, in the commonality of the representation of universal existence. There is a tendency to attempt to reason the conceptualisation of what existence means to us in the broader sense. The question is what does it really mean? There are in my analysis and paratirisis three general beliefs that people maintain or espouse. The mecum, the belief that we are the only existential beings in the universe. The nobiscum, the belief that we are not the only existential beings in the universe. The ocosmos, the belief that the only relevant world is the world we live on the planet Earth.

The philosophical argument on existence can be conveyed in the belief of hylomorphism that is the belief that every physical substance is the sum of its component matter and the form taken by that matter, or the belief of atomism that all matter is composed of very small indestructible and indivisible particles. If we based the inference of existence on the notion of the origin of the universe and its evolution, then the composition of existence must be defined and acknowledged, as either accidental or particular. If we assume that the universe had no origin and it is interminable in its reference, then the origin of the universe is nullified. However, if the universe had an origin, then that origin was either a particular or accidental phenomenon.

To comprehend the concept of the intelligentem that is the understanding of existence it is important to know about the concepts of the hexis that is the manner in which we exist. The hylism, the materialism or existence. The synaition, a necessary state of existence. The syncrisy, the comparison of existence. The hyzoloism, the thought that all matter has life. The arche, the origin of a cause of existential things. The eidos, the universal essence of being. The anticheimenon, the physical form of matter. All of these concepts in their explained contexts are intrinsically connected to the states of universal existence.

Every living being in the universe is a matter that has a form or idiomorphe. The universe is existential, because it is apparent and is the noema of existence. This vraisemblance can be conceived with a valid epagoge. I shall introduce the concepts of the hyparchein and the idion and how they relate to existence. The hyparchein is the state that belongs to an existential thing than can exist, without other existing things. For example the air is existential to our breathing, but it can exist without our breath. The idion is the property that belongs to something. For example the air is a property of the Earth. Thus, the universe could exist without our existence, but we as matter could not exist without the universe.

In the relativity of philosophy, the emphasis of human existence is demonstratively displayed, in the three forms of identity. The ipseity that is the oneself of something. The seity that is the quality peculiar to the oneself and the aseity that is self-existence of something. If I defined logic to these identities, the presumed conclusion would be that we are conscious beings that possess the qualities of the ipseity, seity and aseity. What is determined as being rational is recognised, by the ephigeneiacism and the hypodecnome.

To discover the alitheia, the universal truth must be applied. The universal truth is the invariable evidence of the universe that is overtly acknowledged, through the expressible form of wisdom. What it is not, is the abstruse thought of a pronounced supposition unanswered. Ergo, the argument of the universal truth is not directly linked to the cosmogonical or cosmological argument per se. There are omnifarious things in the universe that are explored properties, such as dark energy and matter, the possibilities of multiverses, with neutrons, protons, photons and electrons similar to our universe. The fine tuning or self-regulation that probes the cosmos, in the ontological sententia of its constancy and causative mechanism. These are putative magnalities of the phanerosis of existence. In the proposition for the universal truth, the following predicables are explored, the quare that is the why of an argument. The quis, the what of an argument. The quantus, the how of an argument. The quam, the when of an argument. The quisnam, the which of an argument. When each predicable has been established, then the basis for the premise of existence becomes more explicable and understood.

Within the universe there are innumerable intricacies about the nature of existing forms of matter. The question that is relevant to the argument of this discussion is what do we consider existence? That which is only material and not immaterial? If the response is that only corporeal matter and form is existential, then the relativity of the universe would be presumed to be undeniable to our observation. However, what if existence was immaterial also in some form of adaptation? To answer this precise question, the concept of evolution must be explored in the comparative notion.

Evolution is the recognisable change of a developing process that is called existence. Creation is an absolute correlation to that evolution. Every extant being known is a form of compressed energy and matter. Therefore, the essence of everything in the universe is either accidental or particular. It is also either something coincidental or natural. The elements of existence are demonstrated in the congruent properties of motion, change, time, force, space and creation. Existence consists of all of these cosmical properties and is conducive to the central point of inference that is the sole universe.

There are things known to us that are not the same, as the things known unconditionally. This was called by the Ancient Greeks, the haplos. Aristotle divided the universe into the terrestrial world, where humans dwell and spheres that were unchanging. The metaphysical investigation of existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. According to this concept, existence is always evolving in one capacity to another. The three philosophical elements of universal existence are causation, movement, and contingency. All of these elements are calculated, by the property of time.

Every person is presumed to be identical to his or her quiddity. According to Aristotle, the individual intelligibility is present in every being and in everything known. The world consists of substances. The substance can be either matter or form, or a compound of both in its entirety. The shape is that, in every being, is general, so intelligible. For example the shape of a human being is what is common to all human beings. The matter is what is especial and makes it unknowable. There would be a hierarchy of beings, matter informally unknowable to the pure form of a perfect intelligible of the universe.

It is necessary in the procurement of the catanoisis of the conception of existence that I include in the discussion the topic of non-existence. In the case of non-existence, the issue that must be addressed is what is the cataphasis and composition of this state of nothingness? If I applied the inclusion of logic, then I would conclude that non-existence is the obvious opposite of existence, even though it is not that simplex in nature or comparison. Nothingness is something that has no form of exact matter, but it does not preclude the possibility of any potential existence at any point of time. What we preconceive of the universe is still relatively undefined and unknown in its size and capacity.

Metaphysics considers the general questions about the implex nature of our reality. It includes the significant study of the elemental categories of things of ontology. Questions such as whether there are universals, events, substances, individuals, necessary beings, plausible worlds, numbers, ideal objects, abstract objects. Metaphysics as well includes unresolved questions about space, time, identity and change, mind and body, personal identity, causation, freedom, determinism, and the structure of action.

Aristotle had written in his Metaphysics: If there were no other independent things besides the composite natural ones, the study of nature would be the primary kind of knowledge; but if there is some motionless independent thing, the knowledge of this precedes it and is first philosophy, and it is universal in just this way, because it is first. And it belongs to this sort of philosophy to study being as being, both what it is and what belongs to it just by virtue of being.

Aristotle distinguished the coming to being from: growth and diminution, which is change in quantity; locomotion, which is change in space; and alteration, which is change in quality. This is connected to the antilipsis that existence manifests in several stages of clear evolution and sequences. If we applied this concept of metaphysics, then the actuality of existence could be traced to a prior stage and the potentiality of that actuality could possibly conclude, in a form that has evolved into a physical matter.

The thought that impels our need to know exactly the reason, cause and effect of existence is, because as human beings, we are constantly evolving in the world and are fascinated, with the material substance residing in the universe and the imperceptible form of energy that transcends our world and comprehension. We are sempiternally defined, by the existing nature of the universe that describes us as substantial matter. The philosophic deduction would be resumed, within the categorical assumption that existence is the only proof of a convergent reality.

The subject of reality is relative to the agency of existence. Reality is much more than an observing perception or confirmation of something that exists or has existed. It is what time, space, matter and the universe correlate as being realistic in nature. The intrigue that fascinates my inquisitiveness, is can reality be measured, by only the scientific method of meticulous investigation and examination? Or is it plausible that any form of existence is not strictly contingent to the perception of a sphere or plane that appears physical, but may be more representative of an indefinite composition that we have not defined, as existential in paragogis?

What should be learnt in philosophy about our human existence is the fact that we are conscious beings that have developed, into a universal form and matter that has evolved with the progression of the universe. Whether we live or die is inconsequential to the evolution and catachronon of the universe. All that is relevant to the universe is time, space and matter. Indeed, I am a participant of that time, space and matter. My existence is conditioned to the universe, but the universe is not to mine. I can choose to define myself as matter and my existence would be transparent as an illustration of that animation, or I could easily assume that I am nothing, except the divisible avatar of a contingency of cosmic consciousness.

Rate this submission


You must be logged in to rate submissions

Loading Comments