HOW COMPLEX IDEAS ARE MADE FROM THE SIMPLE IDEAS THAT WE RECEIVE THROUGH OUR SENSE-IMPRESSIONS

All the complex ideas, notions, concepts and theories that our minds are able to create or receive from nature come firstly as simple ideas, or simple impressions and these come originally from our sense-impressions and these sense-impressions that we receive from our senses which then become a form of sense-data due to the faculty of perception and then become a form of understanding in our minds as a type of conception or realization of ideas is either of things we have sensed directly through our senses or they are things we have read or pictures we have seen or things we have heard people talking about etc. Complex ideas can be created in the mind without directly experiencing with our senses some of the simple ideas that these complex ideas consist of and there are various reasons for this which I will enumerate in due course. It must also be pointed out that we do not experience a lot of these complex ideas directly with our senses either even though some of these complex ideas exist in an abstract sense within nature itself as part of reality. Complex ideas are created in our minds from the many simple ideas that have been put together to create the complex ideas of varying complexity that we have in our minds. It must be mentioned that even though all our simple ideas come from our sense-impressions that some of these simple ideas that our complex ideas consist of have been received by our minds in many and varied ways, for instance, simple ideas can be received through reading, by listening to music, by looking at pictures, paintings and photographs, from things people have said, from television, films,and cinema, from objects in museums and also directly through our senses etc. Another way our minds create complex ideas out of simple ideas is by the use of logic, reason, intuition, instinct, memory and all the other aspects of the a priori concept which I have mentioned already in my essay called " logical intuition and instincts". The complex ideas that are created in our minds are either real or they are imaginary, they either apply to reality or they are fictions made-up in our minds and have no real existence except in our minds. The faculty of our mind to receive and interpret sense-data from our sense-impressions is called perception and is a faculty that is mostly a part of our senses, the faculty of understanding on the other hand is a faculty that is a part of thinking and reasoning and exists mostly in this way. Simple ideas must exist in the form of sense-data for the faculty of understanding to process it properly, because without the faculty of perception then the information from our sense-impressions would not exist as sense-data or as simple ideas for our understanding to comprehend. There is an aspect of our minds which we can call the faculty of conception which is the part of the mind that fully realizes the formation of a simple idea from the sense-data that the faculty of perception has presented to it. The faculty of conception can be said to be a type of logical cognition or process which confirms the sense-data as being a simple idea for the mind to assess. Our sense-impressions usually produce a simple idea in us or they produce a simple feeling and usually if the impressions on our senses are strong our minds can create a simple idea that contains a strong feeling (emotion) and this can be said to be extremely vivid in nature. A simple feeling (emotion) can be viewed as being slightly different to a simple idea even though most emotions are produced by simple ideas. A simple emotion is an impression or feeling that exists within us irrespective of thoughts or ideas being experienced, a simple emotion is simply felt and experienced without thought.
A simple emotion is basically alike to an intuition, or instinct in its simplest and purest form, it can be said to be the things we know to be true without having to think about it. We know things to be correct and true not because we think them to be so purely by thinking, but because we think and feel them to be correct and truly real and this is because the truth is something that is not only thought, but is something that is felt also. Ideas are involved in thinking and reasoning and emotions are what we know and feel to be correct irrespective of thinking, but most emotions come either from our simple ideas or they exist as simple emotions directly from our sense-impressions and it is sufficed to say that our emotions in general are very complex in origin and also in admixture of actual origin either from ideas and also directly from our sense- impressions and this is known to have created many a confusion in emotional wrangles between people. The emotions, passions and instincts are all part of the physical form and this is the main reason why simple emotions are instinctually felt through our sense impressions without requiring thought as a certainty of the validity of certain truths. Most of the ideas in our memory are simple ideas because when we attempt to remember a complex idea we find ourselves piecing together one simple idea after another until all the correct simple ideas have been pieced together in such a way as to present the correct complex idea that we have chosen to remember in our mind. When we attempt to create a complex idea in our mind that we have never thought about before it becomes necessary to use imagination and intuition as well as logical reasoning in our attempt to create this complex idea whether it be a representation of reality or merely imaginary.
It can be pointed out that our imagination is somehow connected to our intuition and instincts, for example, our intuition appears to be a faculty that is connected to thinking and reasoning whereas instinct is a very physical thing and is connected to our senses. Sometimes in the dark we imagine things to be there in front of us, or in a corner which are not really there and this is a form of instinctual imagination and this type of imagination is connected to the fact that our senses can fool us and play tricks on us, but we also have a reasoning form of imagination that is connected to our faculty of intuition and this is the type of imagination that is used in art and literature and is also used in thought experiments etc. Our complex ideas begin to form and take shape once we have reflected on many of the simple ideas that our minds are furnished with and this introspection and reflection occurs due to the thinking, imagining, willing, doubting and connecting of simple ideas etc. Simple ideas appear to be mainly of two basic types which our senses are able register as a simple idea, the first is the intuitive and relational type such as you find in geometry, algebra and arithmetic and the second type of simple idea is usually intuitive, and is also a matter of fact that is generalized and particular, the first type is more static and eternal like universals and the second type is both universal and particular. I am sure that other types of simple idea can be found in nature if considerable thought is given to the matter of simple ideas. In the philosophical movements of "idealism" and "rationalism" many subjective and fancy concepts were created and developed by the philosophers of these movements. Many of the subjective and fancy concepts that were created and developed in the movements of idealism and rationalism were redundant and erroneous concepts and have lowered the quality of philosophy in general ever since and this negative and weakening influence of redundant and erroneous concepts in philosophy has lead to further despondency and illusion in the philosophy that came after and it has allowed more negative and subjective fancies to appear and be produced in a lot of the philosophy of the 20th century and also up until the present day.
For simple ideas, concepts and notions to be valid they must come from reality and experience, and this is because our simple ideas must correspond to known facts of reality if we are ever going to be able or capable of creating complex ideas that are of any real truth and validity from them.
Philosophy is a science that is empirical, real, factual and objective and true philosophy does not have anything to do with the subjective fancies of ignorant people and this is only because most truths are objective and this is because most of our simple and complex ideas of the truth come from our sense-impressions especially those ideas of eternal truths which seem so profound and moving and only some or a few truths can be considered to be subjective in origin and a lot of subjective truths are usually temporary and our subjective ideas and truths usually exist as part of the minor facts of our day to day experiences. Some of our subjective ideas exist also in the form of original ideas, or insights we might happen to have in our lives of which some are real, and true whereas some are merely subjective fancies and are usually imagined. Our "ideas" and "theories" of objective reality if they are true always correspond to reality objectively and can be proven empirically and are not mere descriptions by the use of words but are actual explanations and descriptions of objective reality and processes in reality. Objective reality does not exist in words alone it exists objectively as a fact that is a part of reality and philosophy explains, and describes reality as it is. Language was developed by our ancestors to communicate ideas of objective reality and philosophy is not a language game that is stuck in language or in erroneous concepts. I must state that ideas do not exist in the literal sense in nature and what we call ideas are merely attributes, properties, forms and moments of processes which are part of the continuum of nature. Our ideas of these attributes, properties, forms and moments in processes are either abstract or concrete. What we call abstract ideas exist as potential and possibility in reality but can only be realized by thinking minds as an idea, for instance, triangles and squares do not exist in nature but are abstract ideas or concepts in reality for thinking minds to realize. Some aspects of reality seem to be abstract but exist as an actuality, for example, gravity and the strong force seem like abstract forces but are actual forces because we cannot see them, but we can feel them and know them to exist. The reason that I mention that ideas do not exist in nature in the literal sense is because ideas are a product of thought, you need to be able to think to produce ideas and to think you need a brain. Nature in general is not a brain and does not have a brain therefore it cannot think ideas or consist of ideas, ideas cannot exist in an unthinking medium. The brains of human beings convert reality into simple ideas in our thinking because our brains can only handle and process one thing at a time or just a few, but not too many. I must mention that synthetic a priori ideas and knowledge contribute to many of our complex ideas also and this synthetic a priori knowledge is only possible due to our DNA inheritance which as I have mentioned elsewhere is a natural inclination and ability inherent within us to know these truths.

ON THE ABSTRACT AND THE TANGIBLE

Abstractions only exist because reality and its processes exist and abstractions should not be viewed as existing purely in our minds but should be viewed as being mental representations of processes in reality that are not always visual or fully tangible. Also abstractions in the normal sense of the word applies also as in abstract thinking existing in thought or idea but not necessarily existing in physical or practical existence. Abstractions are more useful when they are applied to reality in the sense of being conceptual representations of processes in reality that we have observed to exist but are not necessarily visually seen. A lot of the processes in reality are abstract and cannot be seen and abstractions cannot exist without actual processes in reality occurring therefore abstractions are analogous to processes in reality that are not always visual or not completely tangible. The a priori concept in some ways describes abstract processes in the sense of how people attain ideas and knowledge about the truth of reality which they have had and have not experienced directly through their senses. The many ideas that human beings have of abstractions must surely come from the fact that many processes in nature and reality itself seem very abstract. Also many of the processes in our genetic make-up itself and also in the workings of our minds seem very abstract and have their tangible source in the brain. Many of our simple ideas are abstract in either the imaginary or realistic sense of being a representation of something real. All simple ideas can be said to have an essence and nature of their own whether they be imaginary or real or whether in the concrete or tangible sense. All abstract ideas have an essence or distinguishing nature which enables us to know it and distinguish it from all other ideas and this essence and nature can be found also when simple ideas are part of a more complex idea that this simple idea may be a part of. The ideas that we have of imaginary abstractions come from the ideas we have of real abstractions and the ideas of real abstractions come from our sense impressions of reality and its processes. Ultimately all the abstractions that we can think of or conceive of come from the actual processes in reality, so that the best way to understand abstractions would be to attempt to understand the actual processes in reality and how they operate. The best way to try to understand the processes in reality or in nature generally is to picture them or think of them in an abstract way and also in a tangible way also whenever possible and this should be part of our thought experiments which in a lot of cases can yield good results except in situations where it is not possible to think of both of these things at the same time.

ESSENCE, CHARACTER AND INNER IDENTITY

Even though I have defined the concept of "being" as not consisting of a fixed essence, or entity as a whole, or in general it still becomes necessary to mention a very important aspect of the concept of "being" and this is whether human beings have an inner essence, or character that never changes and is what defines them even though their personality and being may change in general. This inner identity, essence, or character must exist in the form of a pivot, or foundational aspect. It is difficult to thing of anything substantial in nature that does not have a foundation, or base and this includes the concept of being also and this must be so even though the concept of being is a very progressive, and changeable thing and is not completely fixed as I have mentioned before in my essay called " being and becoming" and this is so unless we are mentioning inanimate objects, or inorganic matter which is fixed to a great extent and still comes under the category of being. Anything that is to rely on its own essence, character, will-power, and intelligence for its own identity is more real, and genuine than anything that simply adapts, and reconciles and tries to fit in, or please. These latter qualities of the personality that tries to adapt, reconcile, and fit into situations is more fleeting, and shallow. It should be pointed out that our character is the only thing that truly belongs to us as human beings because it is the only thing that we have a complete control over, aswell as it being a complete representation of us without any form of indirect expression, or ownership. To not be able to think for oneself is one of the greatest crimes one can commit to oneself but yet society, and certain people try to rob us of this privilege by expecting us to think in a way that is foreign to our very nature itself. Everyone appears to be born with their own personal character, and inner identity but then society and other people try to drown out this aspect of ourselves by their conditioning and a lot of people end up thinking through cultural, societal, and indirect means instead of developing their own true character, or will, and this is a shame. One can even come across many philosophers who quote other philosophers from the past saying so and so wrote this, and so and so wrote that instead of saying, or writing something they came up with themselves. It must be pointed out that it does take a lot of confidence, and belief in oneself to develop one's own way of thinking to its fullest expression but it is well worth the effort because a philosopher who cannot think in their own way is of no use to the philosophical, or thinking community because it is new theories, and new ideas, and original thinking which pushes philosophy forward and enables it to progress. There are people who think that because culture, and society exists as a temporary truth and we happen to live amongst its fleeting processes that we cannot somehow transcend it by alligning ourselves with more general, universal, and eternal truths which can guide us to a greater understanding of processes, reality, and truth of a more significant, real, and eternal kind, but this way of thinking is plain wrong because we can, and are able to transcend temporary truth to a high degree in our thoughts, and in our feelings but maybe not physically. Academic philosophers, and thinkers in general expect references, and quotes for all manner of truths to be found in the written works of others but rarely expect to find the truth in the processes of reality itself, but it is reality itself which is alike to the greatest book you will ever get around to study to find the truth if you so choose to find it. Another great fault of academic philosophers, and thinkers is the importance that they place on technical forms of argumentation, but this type of behaviour is counterproductive because attempting , and trying to describe the truth should not be about pursuing argumentation. In general philosophers, and thinkers spend too much time attempting, and trying to win discussions, and this behaviour leads nowhere, and is counterproductive because the truth is rarely arrived at by the use of this method. Philosophers, and thinkers should disagree only in a constructive way so that a conclusion about the truth can be arrived at through dialectical discussion. Philosophers, and thinkers in general should not be disagreeing simply to disagree so that they can be right and feel they have won some kind of imaginary competition of the ego. Argumentation and its development is a sign that one lacks knowledge of the truth of reality because the truth is self-evident and should be studied and accepted in this way. Knowledge of the truth of reality produces agreement, and not argumentation because the truth about reality is a self-evident thing.
To argue a point should be a last resort attempt to convince another thinker of the truth of your own point and how it relates to reality and its processes. In philosophy axioms and their development are more important than arguments, and their development should be encouraged, and sought after by all philosophers.
Axioms and their development in philosophy are a good groundwork, and base for all future endeavours in attempting to integrate truths aswell having a stable foundation from which to work from. There are even academic philosophers, and thinkers today who don't think that a person has the right to consider themselves a philosopher who does not have a degree, and profession in philosophy or does not use the methods of academia as if the philosophers of antique greece who stood around street corners debating the truth were not true philosophers. And it is this technical, modern, and erroneous attitude of academia that attempts take away the joy, and organic creativity out of philosophy, and it also tries to rob the individual person, or philosopher of his true essence, character, inner identity, and will. True philosophers have never claimed to be academic, or scientific, and have never claimed argumentation to be an important thing, they have merely claimed to be lovers of wisdom, and truth and they have attempted to figure it out, and describe it to others. A person can clearly change their own behaviour through conditioning, but it is much harder to change their own nature. A homosexual person can change his own behaviour, but he cannot change being a homosexual. We it seems can only partly change our own nature and we can only do this with those parts of ourselves that are least ingrained within us, we cannot change what is most ingrained within our own nature.

REASON, INTUITION AND INSTINCTS

The concepts of "a priori" and " a posteriori" can easily be replaced by theories of reason, intuition, physical instincts and the fact that our ideas of the truth come from our sense-impressions of experiences of objective physical reality as well as the fact that our DNA has information contained in it also. The truth as in knowledge corresponding to known facts of reality are mostly objective truths with a minor amount being subjective truths. When I mention that truth is mostly objective I mean to suggest that it exists irrespective of the influence of human beings, but human beings interpret the truth subjectively and then call it either subjective or objective truth. All of our ideas concerning the truth which are not subjective come from our sense-impressions which we have received from the objective physical world around us. Truths are not self-made realizations already formed within us because our ideas of the truth in the sense of "a priori ideas" are a combination of the ideas from our sense-impressions, or sense-data and the information that exists in our DNA combined with reason. The information in our DNA appears to be able to process the information from our sense-impressions or sense-data with the aid of our faculty of reason. It is a common misconception that a priori ideas are the same as innate ideas, or inner truths, because human beings do not have innate ideas, or ideas of the truth from an inner place, our ideas of the truth come from our sense-impressions of the objective physical reality around us. This ability to process, and store information within us from the objective physical reality around us occurs because of reason and the information in our DNA, and this process, and ability is called the faculty of "understanding".
It is obvious that without the cognitive, and retention abilities of our minds, and our brain to retain knowledge from our sense-data then our faculty of understanding would not have any real use and would be a superfluous faculty. A posteriori ideas are simply the ideas of the truth that we have from our experiences of the objective physical reality around us that we have received through our sense-impressions as sense-data, and it is the knowledge of the objective truth of physical events, and processes, and facts without any subjective influence on our part. Any truths, or ideas of truth which are purely subjective within us are only minor experiences which occur within the temporary truth of our experiences, and include things like original thinking, or ideas, etc. Our instincts, and our logical intuition are part of our physical form and DNA make-up and are partly responsible for our a priori ideas. Many philosophers in the past have tried to apply mystical, or hidden meanings to basic truths, or processes within matter, and reality, and are for example, that we have innate ideas, that we have a spirit, or soul, or that our souls transmigrate from body, to body, or that a priori ideas are due to some inner knowledge due to previous lives etc. Modern philosophers have to make a stand and accept that the truth is simpler, and more obvious than many of the philosophers in the past thought it was. There should be no room in modern philosophy for delusion, and fantasy. Modern philosophy should be a rigorous exercise of attaining to the truth of reality by the verification of simple, clear, logical, certain, and straightforward propositions, and statements. Statements that are verifiable should be "self-evidently true" in the sense of being logical, and rational, and statements should also be "empirically provable, and reproducible", or a combination of both empirically provable, and self-evidently true. Our physical form, and energy, or matter aswell as its processes within space, and time generally gives us all the answers to our questions, and the answers we seek do not need to be found in fantasy, or the mystical. Imagination is only useful in thought experiments based on reality, otherwise our imagination becomes fantasy, and delusion and leads us astray away from the truth, and this is never a good thing except in literature, or film. Metaphysical concepts, or ideas which are not verifiable are usually erroneous, and are useless as ideas in philosophy. Only metaphysical concepts, or ideas which stand the test of verification can be regarded as useful as working concepts, and ideas within philosophy, but this usually occurs if these concepts, or ideas can be adapted, and explained in such a way as to become useful to philosophers. Concepts, and ideas in philosophy are not static things but should be adaptable, and progressive to suit the times. A priori ideas, and knowledge consists of conclusions of things that exist in the cosmos that we have, and have not experienced directly through our senses, and is not limited to only our senses, and memory. A priori ideas, and knowledge is based on our senses, intuition, instinct, rational tendencies, understanding, memory, and will, etc. Einstein knew the speed of light is more constant than different frames of reference and never changes whereas frames of reference do vary. Einstein knew the speed of light is constant whereas frames of reference do vary because it is an a priori idea which has nothing to do with the experiences of our senses, einstein had to intuit this conclusion by using logic, and his instincts as well as using mathematics. Immanuel kant wanted to know how human beings could have synthetic a priori knowledge such as the kind that you find in geometry, and in logical ideas, for example, it is true that synthetic a priori truths and knowledge are not necessarily empirical but yet we can have them due to a combination of our instincts, intuition, logic, reason, and also because certain empirical a posteriori ideas contribute to these synthetic a priori modes of knowledge also. Instinct, intuition, logic, and reason are faculties and abilities that we already have in our DNA make-up due to millions of years of evolution and so it is our natural inclination, and ability to know these synthetic a priori modes of knowledge as being part of the truth of reality. Some people have opposed Locke's denial and refutation of the innate ideas concept by claiming that he was wrong because in nature we see some things that contradict his theory of a blank sheet of paper (or tabula rasa), for example, some people claim that pigeons have innate knowledge and ideas of some kind. Pigeons we all know when blindfolded and taken to a new location and relaeased know how to fly back home. The problem with the example of a pigeon having innate knowledge is that it is a flawed proposition to begin with; this is because a pigeon cannot be given knowledge of specific routes from certain locations to other locations as knowledge before they were born. Pigeons know where to go to fly home through sheer instinct and intuition; this instinct and intuition exists and comes from all the millions of years of evolutionary information that is stored up within their DNA make-up. Any knowledge or ideas that a pigeon may have of where to go to fly home springs from its instincts and intuitions and not the other way around.

OBJECTS AND SENSE-DATA

The true nature of a physical object is partly different from the associated sense-data that we receive from it as impressions, but also our understanding of the object in question can be said to be partly the same as our impressions of it also, and this is because our sense-data depends on our perspective in relation to the object, and also in the relative amount of the total composition of the object that our senses can make out at any given point in time, and also by the amount of impressions we receive and undertstand about the object as sense-data. It takes a lot of rigour, and extensive comprehension to undertsand objects fully, For instance, how many people know the true composition, and nature of the following objects in their entirety; televisions, compact disc players, aeroplanes, or the biology of an elephant. To know, and understand any object completely would require knowing it from every conceivable angle both outwardly, and inwardly, and also in regard to its situation, and purpose amongst processes generally. Also how much does the average person know about the molecular, and elemental make-up of a lot of the objects they come across on a daily basis, and do they understand its purpose, and situation amongst processes, because nearly everything that occurs in nature, and also the things that are made by humans has a purpose. Philosophers for a long time now have debated on how much we can actually know with our senses, and they have attempted to understand, and have also inquired into whether there might be aspects of reality as well as objects which may possibly be beyond our understanding, and knowledge. The vibration, and activities in energy, or matter as well as the forces, rules, and laws in nature will continue to have a mystery for a long time to come and are the main reason why we cannot know and understand any objects in nature fully, and the processes involved in them, but hopefully knowledge will bridge the gap as much as possible even if it is not in an absolute, or complete sense. If you know everything that an object is, and everything that an object is not as well as understand its causes in the sense of how it came about, and also how it is part of a process then you can know the object as a totality. Only particular, and isolated objects can be known in their totality and can be understood almost fully whereas how objects relate to their surroundings becomes more complex if long chains of causes are sought after in the relation between objects and their surroundings, and also other objects. To try to understand objects, or things as part of a continuum of processes, and to try to understand these processes also and how they operate as knowledge is more difficult to ascertain than trying to understand objects in an isolated sense. Human beings do not have innate ideas, or ideas of the truth from an inner place within us at birth, but get our ideas of the truth from the sense-impressions we receive by the use of our senses, we do have information in our DNA in the form of instincts, logic, intuition, progressive rationality, will-power, etc. which helps us process sense-data through the faculty of understanding which then become knowledge in our minds. The most difficult thing to figure out in matter, or objects is the perpetual, and ceaseless vibration that exists in energy and how its activities produce forces, and forms as well as laws, and rules, and so these are important things to think about in an attempt to understand matter, and objects.

DETERMINISM AND CAUSALITY

The concept of determinism is a very significant, important and useful concept in which to describe the highly inevitable course of events, and situations one finds when one is examining the processes that occur in the universe generally, but in particular events it can easily be found that in the causality of processes that chance, accident, and intentional causes play a minor role in the sense of being altering causes which effect the grand sweep of determinism into particular directions which are slightly different from the original deterministic course of events, but they always remain as minor alterations. Reality it can be said is mostly deterministic, but with a relatively minor element of chance effecting events, these chance occurences which alter the course of events need to be examined further, and they need to be described in more depth. The concepts of chance, and causality and how they alter the course of events are partly described in the many chaos theories that have been developed recently by a lot of thinkers in the field. One cannot deny that certain forces, laws, and rules exist within nature and its processes to such an extent that this fact makes the course of events in nature largely deterministic, and predictable. The causes, or incidents which alter the course of events in a slightly underministic manner are usually unforseen accidents of all kinds, and also the wilful behaviour of certain people and their conduct, as well as all the other causes from biological life in general, but these types of causes are usually minor. Events on the grand scale in nature such as the formation of solar systems and so on remain largely deterministic, and inevitable. The existence of human beings, as well as other forms of biological life is mostly inevitable in general and is due to prior processes and so therefore cannot be viewed as accidental, but certain avenues as well as aspects of progress within biological life maybe partly accidental, and due to unforseen events of a minor kind that occured and made things develop in a certain way. But the existence of biological life is largely inevitable, and deterministic, and even if humans did not exist it is clearly self-evident that there would still be plenty of other forms of biological life around, which there is.

REALITY, PROCESS AND PROGRESS

Everything that happens in reality is a process, or part of a process and therefore the meaning of any thing that occurs in reality is because of processes and where they lead, or aim towards. Some of the processes in nature aim towards a situation in biological life which we call survival of the fittest, and this occurs because of various reasons, for example, conflict and struggle is inherent within nature and makes things advance and grow, and also the processes in biological life are progressive and they aim towards a raising of the standard of things, and this occurs because the pleasure principle in nature is a motivation of fundamental importance for biological life and is one of the main reasons why processes in biological life are progressive, because progress implies more pleasure, joy, happiness, possibilities, etc. And so therefore progress becomes a type of motivation, and meaningful process for biological life, the will in nature is also a fundamental aspect of survival of the fittest, it is the driving force behind it. The processes that occur in reality in general aim towards harmony, and refinement, and are usually progressive in most cases. It must be pointed out that our individual lives appear to be futile in the subjective sense of the way in which we feel about reality, but this occurs only because we are trying to find meaning in the wrong place, we are trying to find meaning in a subjective manner, and we also trying to find meaning in the way that we feel instead of looking for meaning in its rightful place which it must be added is in the objective aspects of the processes that exist in nature. Biological life evolves, and finds meaning only by being objective, and progressive, and by having intentions, aims, and designs that serve a purpose. Subjective feelings are only a way of attempting to understand reality. Reality is only as futile, or as meaningful as you choose it to be, but as processes in nature everything fulfills a purpose, eye's are developed to see with, hands, and fingers are developed to grasp things with etc. Purpose, and meaning is an exponential process within biological life in the sense that it leads to progress, and also in the raising of the standard of all things, states, and conditions. In regard to the concept of progress, one will find that progress only exists within biological life itself, and also in its workings, and activities and this is due to a long chain of events. The progressive states, or conditions which have been attained by biological life have occured because the chain of events that are progressive and have lead to biological life have only come about due to a continuance of the harmony that has already been attained due to the processes in nature that have lead to biological life in the first place. The processes, and events that have lead to the harmony that produced biological life are the following; our planet being at the correct distance from the sun, and our planet having an electo magnetic field due to the activity of the iron core mantle which is at the centre of our planet, and also in the fact that our planet has a moon orbiting it which creates movement in the sea which is a factor that aided the preliminary developments of biological life, and also in the fact that the planet we live on has the correct amount of elements, and chemicals which make our planet inhabitable, etc. The attainment of pleasure, joy, and happiness motivates the desire for progress within biological life and are states, or conditions which are only attained by overcoming conflict, struggle, and pain, and the fulfilment of these processes are a result that comes from the harmony that has already been in place due to the prior processes in nature, and all progress, and evolution in biological life is motivated as a result of these processes, or course of events. Progressive behaviour also involves the satisfaction one gets from improving the standard of things in oneself, and in one's activities. Diversity is a necessary part of evolution, and progress because it produces more options and continuance, whereas limited options or avenues could limit continuance in processes, and so this is why nature designs things, and people differently. The way people are, and most of what people do cannot be helped, because people are simply following their nature's in most cases and they should not be discriminated, or looked down upon for the way they are by nature. All meaning, and purpose in nature is progressive and unavoidable.

ON THE CONCEPTS OF THE "I" AND THE "EGO" AND THEIR MEANING

The concepts of the "I" and the "ego" are labels that are used to encompass what we consider to be "our sense of self" and our sense of self is the identity that we have and give to our "being", it is also a combination of the character that one has as well as the character one develops and is in the process of developing for oneself in the sense of future goals to work towards, so the concepts of the "I" and the ego are parts of a process that is partly fixed and partly changeable as an identity in our consciousness and being. The concept of the "I" is a simplification of the many aspects of being that this concept encompasses and it consists of some of the following; the will, our character traits, our sense of self, our insecurities, our moral values, our virtues, what we think we represent, our desires, our needs, etc. In the ego insecurities appear as a defensive attitude and also as an inflation of one's attitude and estimate of oneself due to arrogance, arrogance is usually a result of a feeling of insecurity, and emptiness, and the feeling of arrogance attempts to make up for and cover up this defecit of feeling in the ego by appearing to fill the gap of what the ego feels it lacks. As part of the ego the mental abilities and also the character abilities of a person as well as the security of mind one has appears as a type of calm modesty, and it presents itself as a form of congeniality of character, for instance, modesty is always a sign of ability and security of mind and this occurs because you cannot cover up what you do not lack, which is what arrogance attempts to do, modesty is basically an attempt to tone down one's feeling of ability and security. In many cases insecurity is usually ill-founded and is the result of doubt and ignorance about reality. A tendency to want to always be right, and correct appears in the ego's of those who are amongst the ignorant and unwise and this attitude is always fully enforced by the will, the highly intelligent and wise amongst us on the other hand tend to be more unsure of themselves, and are more likely to compromise, and avoid conflict in most cases. The concept of the "I" by itself without reference to the ego represents our true selves whereas the ego is our false self or the part of ourselves that acts and pretends and that takes on a separate image from the subjective "I". In a sense the ego is just as much a part of ourselves as the "I" because you cannot have one thing without another, for instance, the "I" would feel fragmented by itself so it needs the ego to present itself in a simpler and more adaptable form that can act and deal with circumstances quickly in our every day situations of dealing with others aswell as with most objective goals. I will now endeavour to explain and describe what this subjective inner "I" is in which if it is anything at all constitutes our true self. It can first be pointed out that the subjective inner "I" that is ourselves is in a sense a process of composite elements which ultimately lead to a perception or intentionality which has an objective direction leading outwardly in the sense of looking out at the world and this is so because the will is the true essence and driving force of the "I". This subjective "I" is partly fixed in the sense of consisting of those aspects of our character that don't really change and if they do it happens rarely and these represent our true motives, desires, needs, traits and will and this is due to our nature, custom, habit and our actions because our true motives come out in our acts and not in our opinions. We always do the things that mean something to us and we tend to ignore and neglect the things that don't mean much to us. Our deepest motives are subconscious and so we are not always aware of them. The subjective perception of the "I" has no choice but to face intentionality whether enthusiastically or more apathetically but in so doing will encounter objective ideals and values that it follows and these usually play a huge part in our evolving and progressive natures. The final part of the "I" that I am to explain as being part of its content is the fact that we as dynamic beings need change and progress so therefore the inner "I" evolves and progresses and makes the required adaptations due to its inner needs and desires. All the internal dialogue that occurs in our being happens between the "I" and the ego and being truthful to ourselves usually means being truthful to the "I" and not the "ego". The ego sometimes alienates us and leads us into inauthenticity in the sense that the ego exists as an image which is capable of dividing us away from the "I" in our consciousness and this can create neurotic behaviour. It is the ego which represses the "I" and causes problems when we are not being truthful to ourselves, but the "I" always wants to be truthful to itself and this process happens in all of us. Many of the motives, desires, needs, wishes, ambitions, feelings and ideals of the "I" are latent and deep within the subconscious and this is why our passions and feelings are very dynamic and can seem mysterious and even overwhelming at times and so it is a bad thing to repress the subconscious aspects of the "I". The ego on the other hand can be very superficial and petty because the ego is imaginary and maintains a false appearance of coherence and completness. According to the philosopher Slavoj Zizek the concept of the "I" is an empty shell unless filled with the contents of the world (i.e., the stimuli and ideas of the outside world as sense data to fill us as subjective or inner content). Zizek's observation is correct to a certain extent, but we can still have a sort of basic "I" or underdeveloped character without much sense input, because this can be found in nature in animals that live under the ground, such as mole's and other types of rodents. The concept of the "I" is not a fixed thing and is in a constant change or flux, but yet part of its behaviour is consistent and predictable. Thinkers like Zizek claim that the "I" does not exist within us at all, he claims that it exist outside of us, to him it exist only in our behaviour and in a sense its non locality gets lost in our outer behaviour, according Zizek it can never be found within us. What Zizek fails to mention is that outer behaviour originates from our inner behaviour or inner consistencies, you cannot have outer behaviour without the inner behaviour conducting it. It is safe to say that Zizek's analysis is incomplete. Inner behaviour completes the outer behaviour and vice versa. The "I" exists as "potentiality" and as "actuality" due to the essence of the potentialities and possibilities inherent within vital organisms. Our thoughts, feelings and our behaviour are responses and choices that shape our potentiality and actuality of existence because of external stimuli. It is our thoughts, feelings and our behaviour that is either good or bad or good or evil due to our choices, not our potentiality. Good or bad, etc., are also relative terms. We are our intentions, choices and behaviour, it is this that represents who we are and shapes the actuality of the "I". The potentiality aspect of our being is neutral, it is the choices and intentions of our behaviour and our decisions generally that shape who we are. Potentiality and actuality exist together within our being, one pushes forward the other, one comes from the other, yet they exist together and shape the "I". The "will" or choice and decision making aspect of our being that exists as potentiality, is the most mysterious aspect of our being, it ultimately has the choice to do what it wants, regardless of the consequences. Behavioural psychology and science prove that we can largely be shaped by conditioning and education whether internal or external, we can even recondition ourselves, i.e., will a new self.

ON THE AUTHENTIC AND INAUTHENTIC ASPECTS OF BEING

How many times have you heard the old saying "I was not myself ", which as a convenient thing to say has been used innumerable times as an excuse to cover up all types of behaviour, this old saying is no longer valid in a modern, and rational age in which society increasingly becomes as it progresses, for example, all behaviour comes from oneself, and all the behaviour that emanates from one's "being" is a process, and is an expression of one's will, and is intentional, and is therefore neither fixed, or accidental. To be authentic requires that we be 100% truthful to our own natures at every moment, and in every situation, and is an extremely difficult thing to keep up and going for a long period of time, because by conforming to what society and other people expect is inauthentic behaviour, but seems unavoidable, and is a sign of uncertainty and conformity. The process of being truthful to oneself is an instinctual urge and desire to follow one's natural thoughts and feelings to their conclusion, and to develop them fully. Sometimes other peoples ego's prevent them from accepting our behaviour when we are being truthful to ourselves because they take it as a threat to their so-called authority that we are not doing what they expect of us. A lot of the trouble, and futility in the world appears to be created by people who cannot think for themselves and who expect others to conform to societal, religious, economic, cultural, political , and national dogmas and beliefs, and also by so many other types of conformities and customs none of which have any real authentic meaning or purpose, they are simply hollow rituals that have been passed down from generation to generation. It is the authentic and original thinkers of the world who contribute to the progress of evolution, and it is they who give purpose to biological life in general by leading others by example. In modern society it can be difficult to find mutual ground with other people, there is nearly always a dance to be performed, in this dance we are under constant scrutiny from each others gaze, we are constantly wondering whether the other person is being authentic, or whether we can trust them, we wonder if they will accept us, or whether we will see them again, etc. Acting and pretending is something that a lot of people do in everyday life and they do it for sociological reasons as a means to see how far we can take the situations we are in in a certain direction, one could even suggest that it is part of adaptation, and evolution. It must be pointed out that acting and pretending is not an inauthentic form of behaviour but can be considered as a creative and natural thing to do seeing as though "being" is not a fixed entity, essence, or thing and so therefore acting is a form of adaptation, and is also a creative type of growth, and expansion of being, and personality. Whether a persons behaviour be authentic or inauthentic does not alter the fact that their behaviour comes from them and is partly influenced by society and other people, humans are social animals who need each other for various reasons so in a sense it can be hard to avoid conforming to the wishes of society and other peoples expectations. People should be aware at all times of their own authentic and inauthentic behaviour, and they should also be aware of when they are acting, and pretending, and also they should come to learn and also to understand their own behaviour, and motives, and the reasons for it, and also where it leads, one should also be able to discern these things in other people.
One day the meaning, purpose, behaviour, motives, and the progressive processes of biological life will be a science in itself and there will be no doubt why a person chooses to do anything. Meaning, rationality, and certainty are part of progress and become exponential over a period of time. There is an aspect of being in which a persons behaviour is influenced by a desire to impress other people by whatever means. Even in so-called acting, or pretending one is still being oneself, because without one's own abilities to act, or pretend that one understands things in general it would not be possible to persuade others whatsoever of the many things in society that do not have anything to do with oneself , so acting can viewed as an expression of one's own abilities to adapt in a sociological setting.

FREEDOM, LIBERTY AND FREE WILL

"Freedom" as a concept in its truest sense it must be pointed out exists only as an ideal, because even though we may appear to be born with freedom at the moment of our birth, we are yet fully dependant on the care and love of our parents, or whomsoever it was that raised us from the moment we were born onwards. When people speak, or write about freedom as a concept, or thing to be pursued in the real world, they usually mean a freedom from other people as well as specific aspects of society, rather than from anything else in most cases. If it was not for other people, and society we would not have to mention freedom, or fighting for freedom, we would simply exist to do what we chose at any given point in time. Violence can be an outcome of the desire for freedom especially if one's liberty is being curbed. Freedom is always associated to growth, because as people we cannot grow without freedom, and liberty, and therefore these are ideals which are associated to progress, and the ideals of freedom, and liberty can be considered to be important for all people and their desire for meaning, and purpose in this world. There are many ways a person can behave in any given situation because one has the liberty and freedom to do so, but in general we are really just trying to be truthful to ourselves, so I suppose this is what true freedom is (i.e., the act of being truthful to oneself). "Free will" is a form of self mastery and is an extension of the "will"in nature that exists in us, and therefore one follows from the other, the whole point about "free will" is that you can control and shape your "willpower" in such a way as to truly have "free will", and this occurs in a relative sense, and not in absolute sense. It will be noticed by most people that it is at the moments when we feel happiness, and joy which are amongst some of the times in our lives that we feel the most free psychologically, whereas when we are feeling sad, and depressed it gives us the feeling that we are trapped, and limited by this condition. The concept of freedom is always connected to the pleasure principle in biological life, and so one of them always indicates the other and vice versa. Reason, truth, and freedom are always connected also because as concepts they liberate people from ignorance, and irrationality. Freedom of the mind is a condition that is harder to attain to than physical freedom, because as I have mentioned earlier we are conditioned by the people who have raised us from the moment we are born, and also society conditions us.

ON MORALITY AND ETHICS

Now to begin with it is important to mention that there are two prerequisites which must be pointed out if one is going to do justice to the subject of morality and also to a system of ethics and how it relates to biological life in general and these two points or prerequistes must be addressed before any subsequent theories on morality are propounded and developed by the thinker.
Firstly; nature designs everybody differently in character, feelings, thoughts and in will and so therefore what works for one person does not work for or suit another in practice. The mistakes and errors that a lot of the moralists and philosophers of the past have made in dealing with the subject of morality is that they have based their theories on morality either on a concept of god or on themselves and what they thought was correct or on an artificially imposed moral law. Also a lot of what these moralists or philosophers of the past have considered to be correct in their theories of morality has produced a lot of biased and prejudiced attitudes on morality. Also one will find that most or none of these past theories on morality have ever been based on nature and its diversity of expression.
Secondly; any ideals or theories of morality in practice requires a mutual agreement and compromise between the people involved as a standard of what is considered to be right or wrong, rather than a fixed standard, which it must be pointed out is a rigid way in which to deal with morality; also all of the dealings and agreements between these people should not be based on "selfishness" or on any sense of overt "freedom" or lack of obligation by either person, because without a practical agreement morality means nothing and degenerates into force or opinion or fixed standards. Human beings have an innate sense of morality except for a minority of a few people and so the majority of people can be trusted in most cases to make the correct decisions in their behaviour. Mutual agreement is important in morality, without mutual agreement and mutual respect humans with strong characters would tend to enforce their wills unecessarily on others and prefer to abuse whatever common ground that might have existed between them and other people, morality just like everything else in nature cannot develop without harmony or agreement. Nature and its processes in reality are above and beyond and also more fundamental than the human concepts of what we consider to be right or wrong and so it must also be pointed out that conflict and struggle are inherent within nature and are what makes things advance and grow and so it cannot be considered as a completely wrong thing if a few bad things occur in the course of events that happen in reality and its processes. For something to be considered as either right or wrong one has to agree with it in accordance with the way one is designed by nature and not by an artificially fixed set of rules which does not account for nature or its rules. If a moral law is to have any value at all it has to be artificially imposed and agreed upon by the majority of people living in a state or country and this is what Immanuel Kant meant by a moral law has to transcend the empirical causal order of nature by exercising freedom of an artificial kind if it is to have any value, because morals are not part of the empirical causal order of nature, for instance, if a lion eats an antelope it is neither right or wrong and also if a person kills another person for food it is neither right or wrong either it is simply part of survival of the fittest and also of adaptation. If morality is to have any value at all in the practical sense it has to be something that is agreed upon by individuals as a unique agreement of what is considered to be right or wrong. Morality in its truest and most practical sense can be based on duty, on values, on ideals, on virtues or on whatever one chooses depending upon what you consider to be right or wrong in accordance with your own individuality or true nature. It is a well known fact that Immanuel Kant's theories of morality which he based on the concept of duty gets attacked all the time by people who have not thought about morality for any great length of time or in any depth whatsoever, in fact many people who attack Kant's morality are usually people who cannot think for themselves and are just following the bandwagon of the writings of philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and also Ayn Rand. A theory of morality based on duty works for some people and plenty of evidence goes to show that morality based on duty is practised every day by millions or even billons of people whether they are aware of it or not, morality based on duty is a way of creating and proving that a feeling of trust amongst people can be attained, for instance, many people have a duty to their wives or husbands and also to their children to remain faithful and supportive to them, in fact people who are brought up in this type of environment usually end up being more well rounded individuals in most cases.
Also a morality based on duty can be observed in a lot of peoples choice of work and career, whether they are soldiers or doctors or factory workers and so on or whatever a persons chosen profession happens to be and this is because it is the duty of this person to go to work when they are meant to go otherwise they risk losing their job or career or money or the trust of the employer etc. There is nothing wrong with duty to a particular cause if this cause makes a person happy. If morality is to be progressive, practical and genuine it should be based on "reason" and "emotion" in equal measures and it should always be founded on an agreement by particular individuals involved with each other rather than on an artificial standard founded by society or by other peoples devising who are not involved in the agreement, because it is impossible to agree to standards or rules which are not in one's nature to follow irrespective of how well or fair the intentions of these standards are, a person should not sacrifice their true nature for an artificially imposed rule, this is worse than any crime you could commit by following your true nature itself unless you happen to be evil. Our true natures are what give us joy and purpose in this world and to sacrifice this is to live a life of misery simply for artificially imposed rules and standards of morality or to satisfy society and its standards as a whole seems wrong. In general society as a whole is a very manipulative entity and can be considered to be one of our worse enemies at best. Anything or anyone who tries to curb or manipulate our true natures is our enemy and must be defeated and rejected in due course. To have a will of your own and to be able think completely for yourself and to know exactly what you enjoy and desire at all times and to also be able to stick to this 100% are all the things that constitute your true nature or character. The reason that I mention that morality should be based on reason and emotion in equal measures is because they are both equally important in a balanced judgement of all decisions based on morality and how it relates to reality, too much of either gives you a false impression of what is right or wrong in any given situation. Reason or logic pertains to the mind, whereas the emotions pertain to the passions and the organism as well as how it relates to the mind as a process, as I have mentioned before and elsewhere the emotions are a very rational process especially for those who understand them fully and emotions should not be viewed as being completely groundless in their origin. Feelings and emotions are very important because they are essential to the biological organisms connection to the mind in most human beings, in general the rationality of biology and its processes is stronger than mental reason, or logic and therefore reason needs to be balanced with the emotions as a means to promote general good health and harmony in one's being. As I mentioned earlier for something to be considered as either right or wrong a person has to agree to it in the first place otherwise one would be expected to follow things blindly and without inner purpose, most relationships and friendships are founded on this type of agreement of affinity between people, if you have no affinity with a person or a thing why would you agree with it or them in the sense of what is right or wrong or good or bad, because what is considered as right or wrong is either subjective or is due to affinity and agreement because of one's nature. What is wrong to one person, maybe right and correct for another person, for instance, for a religious person adultery is bad, but for a person who is not religious and does not believe in god adultery is fun, exciting and life affirming. Amongst the greatest mistakes that have been made by religious people and moralists in the past and even by people now in general is that they have judged and attacked people because of the way they have been designed by nature and these attacks have been focused more on their personal lives whether these people happened to be gay or bisexual or whatever and any kind of morality and code of ethics which does not account for nature and its diversity or is not founded on my initial two prerequisites is a flawed morality and code of ethics.
In reality force is more real than the concepts of right and wrong and anyone who is willing to use force is more right and correct than someone who is not willing to use force, because this illustrates the fact that nature is always right, correct and real and theories on morality are not as real as nature unless they account for or are in accordance with nature in the truest sense. Conflict and struggle as I mentioned earlier is inherent within nature and exists for a reason (i.e., it makes things advance, and grow) and also one thing cannot exist without another so any theory on morality requires that we accept conflict, struggle, effort and even pain as a means to experiencing improvements and growth in events, you cannot create improvements and progress by promoting only the good without the need for the bad also, conflict and struggle may seem bad but they should be considered as necessary aspects of reality, concepts of good and bad only exist in our minds and feelings anyway and this is one of the reasons why some humans have commited so many atrocities in the past because they thought they were proving something, that they were evil or whatever, but in reality it is neither here nor there in either meaning or purpose whether you are good or evil or partly of each, because nature is simply an inevitable process that happens to exist and the things that occur in reality occur for a reason whether they be self inflicted or not, because nature has its own rules and laws which makes things and events harmonize and attain a purpose and meaning of their own which are part of the general processes of nature. The worse type of morality is the belief that everyone should be equal or the same or similar, because this is an insipid, boring, flat and rigid ideal, for example, nature thrives on diversity and difference as well as on conflict. Morality is partly subjective and partly objective, the people who claim that morality is only subjective are making the argument that I can do whatever I want to you and your family, but if you do the same thing to me and my family, then it is wrong, for example, I can murder your wife, but if you murder my wife, then it is wrong. Morality is objective in the sense that certain people have to agree to objective standards of moral conduct in their dealings together, on the other hand, morality is subjective in the sense that what is considered moral depends on your own needs as well as the period that you live in, what is considered as acceptable behaviour in one period, is not so in another. Problems in morality appear when it becomes dogmatic and rigid, we should only be moral towards people who deserve it that we meet, morality should be practical as well as being part of our values and goals in life, we should not be moral towards everyone indiscriminately. Sometimes people expect us to have more integrity and respect towards things and people that do not really mean anything to us, that we do not value or respect, they wonder why our morals do not apply to everything indiscriminately, when it cannot.

ON THE FINITE, INFINITE AND ABSOLUTE

The biological life forms that exist in nature are always in development, and life can be considered to be a learning process. In reality the events, things, processes, and occurences that happen are a development that leads to the absolute. The absolute (i.e., the complete, or totality of things,) is a finite concept, and the infinite is beyond measure and never complete. The process of things and events in nature and their development first aim towards the absolute and then afterwards in succesion of processes aims towards the infinite also, and so these processes are never fully complete in any way whatsoever and we are never fully satisfied, these are all finite processes occuring within infinite processes. In a lot of processes in nature the "actual" always aims towards the "potential", in other words, the finite always aims towards the infinite, and this is only possible because the activity and vibration within energy or matter is eternal, and infinite in movement and also in regard to potential rather than in actuality, the actual is always finite and absolute, and its absoluteness is relative in regard to other things and also in regard to the infinite also. Some philosophers reject the concept of "absolute objective truth", and they claim that we are the one's that dictate what the truth is subjectively, but the problem with this way of thinking is that these philosophers forget that all truth is objective whether we happen to exist to observe it or not, the truth that we feel subjectively is only a reflection of objective truths. The philosophers who reject the concept of absolute truth, whether it is subjectively felt, or exists in objective reality are self-centred, and these philosophers also think the truth of the objective universe revolves around their subjective opinion of it and what it should be, or happens to be, their idea of the truth is basically an opinion of theirs that caters to their own narrow view of what the truth is or is suppose to be at any given point in time, because this is what it means to say that there is no absolute truth objectively out their in the real world. Truth exists irrespective of whether we observe it or sense it, the truth is objective, particular, universal, absolute, and rarely is it subjective. "Universals"; and also other aspects of reality exist as absolute objective truths, absolute objective truths exist and are an aspect of reality in the sense of potential and possibility, reality exists and consists of both the "actual" and the "potential"and so both the actual, and the potential are therefore aspects of the truth.
Absolutes do not need to be irreducible, they simply need to be described because processes in nature cannot be reduced into basic explanations of why they are this way or that way and so on, energy and space are infinite and eternal and you cannot reduce what is infinite and eternal in a concept or basic explanation. Energy is indivisible, and continous, and elastic and therefore any attempt at reduction or division will be ill grounded and uncertain in its attempts. The concept of the "absolute" is similar to that of "universals" and also has a similarity to the concept of "perfection" in the sense that it exists as an aspect of reality in the relative sense as potential, and also as an ideal but not in a complete manner as part of physical reality, it can exist in our mind and in our feeling in the complete sense, an example of this is that our love for a person, or a thing can be absolute, and also our acceptance of a person, or a thing can be absolute also.

THE NATURE OF REALITY

The words that describe "reality" more accurately than any other words are, for example, energy, vibration, space, processes, inevitable, activity, something, tangible, actual, potenial etc. Everything in reality is an inevitable process which springs from processes in general that exist in energy and space and so is everything that occurs in reality also. Everything in reality is part of a process, and these processes exist and occur because energy and space are "something" tangible and active, and energy and space has always existed and always will exist, and energy, and space are both infinite. All the forces, rules, laws, processes, and events in energy and space occur because of the ceaseless and perpetual vibration that exists in energy and its interactions and activities. Processes consist of moments that make up a unity in the sense of a continuum, and each moment is connected to the other in patterns and this can be seen to occur in endless succesion. One of the most interesting things about reality is how the activity in energy and space produce what we see,for instance, how do the forces and nuclear reactions and so on emerge from the activity and vibration in energy and its interactions, because to attempt to describe and explain this is worth the effort i am sure. Anyone who has thought about and studied the subject of metaphysics for any length of time and who have attempted to understand it fully would have realized at some point in their research that the original meaning of the concept of substance does not exist in reality in the way the concept was used, for example, according to the concept of substance in its original meaning and how it was described, it is written that things are supposed to exist "in" substance, but supposedly substance does not exist "in" or "within" things at all in reality or its processes, and this is where the flaw and the contradiction in the concept of substance appears in its original meaning, how can something exist in something and yet not be part of it, it is like saying i exist in the world but the world is not part of me, of course the world is a part of me, and i am part of the world. The concept of substance in its original meaning is flawed, redundant, impossible to imagine, or feel, contradictory, and therefore untrue, and erroneous, and not necessary and can easily be replaced by the concepts of universals, and the thing-in-itself, and also by whatever other concepts are useful to describe processes in reality, the concept of substance itself as a means to understanding energy and its true nature and what it consists of, and also how it is part of reality is a useful concept though, and this concept should not be rejected completely, it is a concept that should be appropriated for modern use and used with a modern and more logical meaning. The word substance can also be used to describe different types of tangible objects such as wax, clay, stone etc... and how these are extensions of an original substance. Trying to understand the true nature of the ultimate substance that everything comes from, or is made from, and also how it operates, or creates everything in its turn makes a lot of sense from a logical standpoint, so this is why the concept of substance was used as a concept originally as a means to understand energy and processes, and one could easily ask, what is energy?, and what is its true nature?, and how does this operate, and function to create tangible structure?, and how does it operate, and move in reality and in space? It is energy and its true nature that metaphysicians are trying to understand when they talk about, and write about substance and ask what is it? and how does it create structure in the universe? All substances in matter are the same as energy, and are the outcome of its interactions and so therefore can be considered as extensions of original substance, and you could say that energy is the original substance that everything comes from, and energy should be understood more fully by all metaphysicians. Nature and reality in general is more certain of what it is doing than humans are aware of what they are doing, nature creates meaning out of potential and possibility, whereas humans go around doubting that there is meaning at all, when all you have to do is to simply create it from potential and possibility for it to exist. Humans have so much potential to create meaning and to do things, they simply have to stop being passive and fatalistic, they also have to stop pursuing illusions. Humans have been able to create elements on their own which nature had not yet got around to creating, and humans have also been able to send particles faster than the speed of light by artificial means. It must also be pointed out that energy and space are intrinsically linked and connected, and that you cannot understand one without the other, and also fields are part of this process, whether they be gravitational, or electro magnetic, so to have an understanding of substance you must consider these things also. The concept of substance in its original metaphysical sense can be viewed as a description of energy itself in its purest form, which one could say would have specific characteristics such as vibration, elasticity, divisibility, continuity, flexibility etc. It is energy, and process, and not substance in its original metaphysical meaning, and also not the concept of god that is the basic ontological categories which describes reality accurately, and this is due to the eternal processes of change, and exchange in energy and its perpetual, and ceaseless vibration, movements and interactions in the space it inhabits, and also space is an important feature of these processes. The change that exists in energy is expressed by the exchange of opposites, or the interaction of opposites within the structure of matter. A good point that can be made in the favour of the people who believe in god is the mysterious properties that exist in energy in the sense of the perpetual, and ceaseless vibration that exists in matter, scientists have even claimed that it behaves as though it had intelligence and so this aspect of reality can be viewed as evidence that there might be a god by some people, but this line of inquiry must be considered as a metaphysical and scientific claim for it to have any kind of validity. Some people wonder whether the universe is either fortuitous or planned but I think that reason suggests that it came about by inevitable and spontaneous processes which continually refine themselves over time.

ON GROWTH AND CHANGE

Growth it can be said consists of a process of change within any energy form in nature that requires additions from outside its form, as well as a change from within it due to the "will" in nature which is as I have mentioned before a force that is an extension of the ceaseless and perpetual vibration that exists in all energy or matter. In nature things like people and trees are able to grow only up to a certain point and then they stop growing, this whole process of growth and change is a fascinating aspect of nature, as is so many others, and should be investigated in its own right. The definite and particular size an object attains to due to the processes of growth and change in nature appear to exist due to a type of program within matter, but any program in matter or in nature in general has to be developed by an initial process and force, the reason i suggest this is because it cannot be any other way, inference and reason both lead to this conclusion. All of the causes of things and processes in nature are produced or set in motion by the ceaseles and perpetual vibration that exists in all energy or matter, so this would be the cause of the gradual forming of the seed and its program, aswell as the cause of the seeds growth once it has been formed and planted elsewhere, it is all of the combined activities of energy in general such as the soil, minerals, chemicals, water, and sunlight and their interactions with the seed that cause it to grow. The general activitities and vibration in energy and its processes that i have mentioned earlier are able to formalize and objectify an energy form that can grow and change, and this process and ability that energy has to do this becomes like a progam that can perpetuate and reproduce itself in matter by the use of free energy and this process is what i call the "formalization principle" and is a universal principle that exists in energy and its activities. The outward appearance of a growing and changing life form is shaped by its inner desires aswell as its will, and this outward appearance is also a response to how this lfe form views objective physical reality, for example, if our lifestyle is difficult and full of suffering because of our environment then we will seem difficult and unhappy to people, or alternatively cheerful and stoic, or however we choose to respond, and how we respond depends on our character and will aswell as the environment itself. Only life forms with weak characters or wills are shaped by their environment to a large degree, strong characters respond to their environment in the way they choose, and they also make an effort to shape their environment in accordance with their will. The change that occurs in growth consists of moments, stages, and phases and this change occurs because these processes are part of the program of whatever form goes through this , even the gradual decline of the form is part of the program, it is almost like the will in nature which is responsible fo this program in the first place is trying to stretch out and milk energy and processes for all it is worth in the construction of this form.

NOTHINGNESS DOES NOT EXIST

The concept of "nothing" or "nothingness" has always struck me as a very interesting and worthwile aspect of reality to think about and form theories about, it is a concept that is used a lot by philosophers and by people in general. People even say that when you die you become nothing, but if your body is buried the atoms that your body consists of still exist, and some of these atoms gets converted into gases, on the other hand if you are cremated most of your atoms get dispersed into the atmosphere, and the rest of the atoms remain in the left over ashes. Even an empty paper bag contains particles, atoms, and molecule and cannot be said to contain nothing, it is also impossible in nature to create a complete or absolute vacuum, a vacuum will always contain a degree of matter in the form of particles. If nothingness existed there would not even be any space, let alone infinite space, a common axiom is that everything in physical reality is something including space itself which is infinite and also has infinite energy in its structure, and the fact that things exist is the only truth of physical reality concerning the fact that you cannot have nothing in physical reality even if something is only a temporary truth and impermanent. The reason why humans have a concept for nothing or nothingness is because concepts get defined more in relational terms to other concepts, for example, we have "something" or "being" and so what happens is that people have to invent the concept of "nothing" so that we can define and understand the concept of "something" more fully. Absolute truth consists of something, and the concept of truth exists because of the fact that reality itself is something (i.e., it consists of infinite energy, and space, and potential to create forms and events,) and to presuppose nothingness as an aspect of truth and reality is incorrect, and only that which is not true or does not exist, or has never existed can be labelled as nothing or not a thing that has ever existed, you cannot have the concept of nothing as the negation of being or of the concept of "something" and then say that this nothing exists as a part of being and existing things and then apply it to a description of reality. Everything in physical reality exists as energy and space and is part of a process that is like a continuum, whether you call a thing in nature a "something" or call it a "being" does not really matter, it is still an aspect of creation, or has a temporary existence, or is part of the dispersion of energy, or destruction and does not really matter because all of these processes are something and they consist of energy in space and are part of physical reality. Only an imaginary thing that does not exist in any way whatsoever and has never existed can be considered as nothing and be called this with confidence. The concepts of nothingness and untruth that we have only exist in the minds of human beings and also in their works, these concepts or things do not exist anywhere else in nature. The word nothing is only used in speech because languages contain many errors of reasoning, and languages are full of faults of all kinds anyway and if one chose to find errors and mistakes in languages one could find them easily, but people who are proud of human languages try to cover up these errors by defending these languages, but these errors are their and exist in languages none the less and cannot be denied. "Something" can only exist in relation to "space" and not in relation to "nothing", space is something also, but in relation to solid tangible objects it has less stable matter so it seems like it is less of a something even though it is not, nuclear reactions create stable matter, whereas matter exists everywhere in the fabric of space itself whether stable or unstable. The concept of relation means something is relative to something else, things cannot be felt or seem like they are concrete and dynamic unless they exist in the form of duality or relativity, but one can say that these things are not opposites they are the same thing but in a different state of activity, the concept of opposites are simply extremes of the same thing in polar opposite states of activity or state, I have explained and described some of these things more in my essay called: "So-Called Opposites" and also in my other essay called "Unity And Duality". It must also be pointed out that our senses cannot detect nothing, or nothingness, our senses can only detect something, ideas come from sense impressions, ideas are formed from things that exist and are a something that gives us an impression through our senses, so therefore we cannot have an idea of nothingness as an idea because it has no impression on our senses whatsoever. Sartre seems to use the concept of nothingness in a subjective, emotional manner, as a way of describing a feeling he gets in certain situations; someone else would feel differently in these same situations than he does, and that he describes, or they would analyze, and describe it more objectively than he does.

UNIVERSALS

"Universals" appear to exist as perfect and apparent "ideas" but universals are not ideas and they are not perfect and this because there is not a thing in nature that is perfect. Experience teaches us that all universals exist only in a relative sense as part of physical reality and they have no real existence in physical reality in the complete sense and therefore can only exist in relative terms in physical reality as abstract potentiality and concrete partiality, but universals appear to exist in the complete sense in the reality of possibility and potential and are therefore an aspect of reality; reality does not consist only of what is physical but consists of what is possible also. The "eternal ideas" or forms mentioned by philosophers like Plato are called "universals" and these universals consist of all the eternal and universal things that exist as possibilities within the processes in energy or matter, universals also exist as thoughts in the minds of people also and universals give people and processes in nature absolute goals to work towards. The theory of universals is a description of all universal things that exist in the universe, either as concepts, forms or as abstract descriptions of universal things or a combination of all. Universals also represent all that is absolute in things in nature whether they are part of the continuum of nature or not, for instance, in nature specific types of colours in the electro magnetic spectrum, either in wavelength form or in the form of physical objects are never seen as pure, specific wavelengths are always seen by the eye as mixed with other colours, they are seen as fragmentary, so one could say that a specific type of red of the electro magnetic spectrum is a type of universal and is absolute as this type of red. for instance, the concept of a perfect sphere is a type of "universal" also, certain objects in nature due to processes may aim for the shape of a perfect sphere but they will never attain to this shape fully. "Universals" are the absolute "essence" of all eternal things and all temporary, imperfect and particular things in nature are partially derived from these universals and are called "particulars" and these particulars, it must be pointed out, have a character that is shaped by the circumstances that they are in due to the changes inherent in the processes of energy of which they are a part of. The reason why isolated parts of reality and particulars seem temporary and fragmentary, is because particulars are not absolute as an essence, particulars are combinations of universals and particulars also exist because of the changes inherent in the dynamic aspects of processes due to the "laws" "rules" and "forces" that are in place within the processes of energy and its possibilities. Particulars also consist of the temporary aspects of the ceaseless and perpetual vibrational activity which is inherent in energy and which is always at work in all processes. The fragmentary and temporary aspect of particulars is what gives them character and makes them unique, the only thing eternal about particulars is the vibrational energy activity inherent in them as well as the different universals they are a combination of and also of the laws, rules and forces that exist in energy and space. Universals are eternal, static, absolute things or forms that are abstract and become concrete in processes and are like rules and laws and things that are consistent and real within processes. Universals are possibilities and potentialities, that processes aim towards and become actualities in the sense that particular things are combinations of different universals. A particular on the other hand, is a dynamic, noticeably imperfect and partially real, tangible and temporary aspect of nature. Universals represent complete and eternal truths, whereas particulars exist as temporary truths in the concrete and tangible sense of physical reality. When describing universals and the rules and laws in nature and how the activities within energy take shape in accordance with the universal aspect of processes, it can clearly be pointed out that forms in nature cannot take shape or form without something to aim at that exists already within it to become as a guide and universals are like guides of possibility and potential that is inherent within energy and space. What has been ascertained already is that all things in nature consist of both the "universal" and the "particular" as well as the laws, rules and forces that are part of the processes in energy and space and all processes in energy and space come about due to the activity in energy. That everything in nature consists of the universal and the particular can be observed by the fact that this is the main reason why every individual human person is similar, but yet at the same time they are unique and partially different to everyone else and this can be observed in most tangible objects also whether they are animate or inanimate. Universals can always be sensed intuitively and felt, it is natural to compare in a relational way in our minds the concepts that we think about at any given point in time and how these concepts seem relative to universals and this usually happens when we think about reality in general. Universals or forms are immanent within matter, they appear, emerge and manifest in nature because they are inherent within nature itself.

IMPERFECT HARMONY

All processes and forces in nature are interactions of energy and its vibratory activities within space, and these processes follow and obey rules which are a type of imperfect harmony which are inevitable as rules of activity for energy and its interactions and processes. Physical reality is an imperfect harmony of forces, and the reason I describe reality as being imperfect is because the concept of perfection exists only in our minds as an "ideal" or "idea", the concept of perfection exists in mathematics and geometry also as ideal mathematical concepts. One can say that it is only moments in time that exist in our minds which can be considered to be perfect, and perfection cannot exist in the concrete or tangible sense of phenomenon in physical reality. The concept of perfection appears to be partly real and partly imaginary, the concept of perfection seems to exist as a possibility that cannot be fully realized in physical reality, and it seems to exist in relative degrees also, for instance, an object A, can be considered to be more perfect than an object b, and vice versa. That something can exist as a possibility but yet not be fully realized in physical reality is a strange and mysterious aspect of reality, and requires more investigation and thought to be fully understood, and yet this is how the concept of perfection exists in reality. There are many factors which prevent the processes of energy or matter from attaining to the condition or state of perfection as humans conceive it, the concept of perfection could be viewed as not being very practical in physical reality, an example of this, is the human eye, in the human eye we have a blind spot which exists because of the eyes physical connection to the brain. There are no perfect spheres in nature, especially not planets or stars which have their very specific shapes for a reason. Everything in nature is imperfect and flawed by human standards anyway, and what humans call imperfection in these things is what gives these things character, if everything was perfect then everything would be more similar, "character" is what makes things different and "particular" otherwise everything would be more standard and alike, if things were perfect and alike then things would be limited and finite, and there would be no room for variation with different and particular types of things. The particular has character and is imperfect and flawed, whereas the concept of the universal is a perfect standard for all forms, and mathematical forms, aswell as a standard for all known things in the universe which are either abstract or not, "universals" can be considered to be "static concepts", even perfection itself can be considered to be a static concept, anything involving change can be considered as imperfect and flawed, anything universal is not completely real, it is part real and part possibility. It is only when the universal meets the particular within processes that you get particular things with character, and these particular things or forms are unlike any other things in existence, even though they may happen to be imperfect. What human beings call imperfection is really only a form of doubt that exists in our minds because we are comparing things in physical reality to our static and perfect "ideal"which exists only as a possibility. Even though things in physical reality can be considered as imperfect they are also efficient in their own way as a physical expression of processes within change.

THE FALLACY OF CYNICISM

"Cynicism" is the belief, habit, and attitude of thinking that views other things; and other peoples actions as being insignificant, unimportant, not honest, self-serving, no good, redundant, not sincere, not worth anything, does not lead anywhere, etc. What I call "the fallacy of cynicism" is the fact that it is cynicism itself which consists of the things it projects as an attitude or view of the world, and it is in fact cynicism which is false, and negative, and unimportant. A lot of cynicism comes from a lack of inner content, or the lack of inner life that exists in people, and comes from a feeling of jealousy, and inadequacy, and a general feeling of apathy, and insecurity, and doubt towards oneself, and things in general, but is projected outwardly as an attitude, and it tries to convince itself and others that it is correct. All human beings who desire to be in touch with the truth at all times should banish cynicism from their very "being" as soon as possible. Modern society and the media and people in general these days are saturiated with cynicism, and it is because most people and the masses do not know how to think for them'selves, and don't really care about the truth, and are full of doubts, and therefore project this cynical attitude when they disagree with something. People should apply reason, logic, understanding, empathy, sympathy, and compassion if they want to overcome cynicism in them'selves and in others, cynicism is like a disease that must be eradicated. To have an appreciation for people, and the world in general, as well as developing, and displaying the faculties of "humour", "love", and "compassion" towards people has a positive and beneficial affect on people and their attitudes to the world in general , and when one displays this to them in a regular and consistent manner one finds great things begin to happen amongst people and their view of the world, and this should be encouraged more within the general make-up of peoples thinking and outlook of the world, instead of the tired cynical and defensive attitude that many people display which creates a feeling of seperation amongst people, which in general is a bad thing. I have always liked the Arthur Schopenhauer quote that; every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world, and this is why it is important to have a very open, and active mind, and one should also be all-embracing in one's view of reality and the universe in general, obviously wanting to know too much about reality can be foolish, you know the old saying, that if you try to be everywhere you find yourself to be nowhere, it is better to expand your knowledge a bit at a time, and at the same time it helps to have an active and open minded approach in one's understanding of things, it also helps to be all embracing in our approach and in our comprehension of reality, and we should also think of the "whole" and "totality" of things as best we can, and learn to harmonize differences. Some people have the attitude that being open minded means a person has no firm convictions, and also has an unbiased approach to reality, in a sense this is true, but this is not a bad approach, but a prudent one, and this is only because being biased can cloud peoples sense of reason because of its one-sided aspect and manner, also having convictions can be a rigid way of thinking and approaching life in general, because of the fact that convictions can be very fixed even when it is in defence of incorrect things, convictions can degenerate into petty one-sided stubbornness if it is not checked and corrected, so therefore it can help to be open minded at times when required. "Cynics" always have a very limited, narrow, and erroneous view of reality, and they think that their opinions have some kind of validity, when in fact their opinions on any topic contain the most useless answers any thinker could possibly have produced as a description of reality.
cynical people are always trying to devalue the efforts of other people and the force of their joy and enthusiasm, because cynical people have no joy or enthusiasm of their own, they have no desire to want to undersand things in reality, cynical people are simply negative empty shells devoid of any real content within their own "being", and they try to project this view onto everything else and everyone else, they want everything to seem less important than it is, and also less significant. Cynicism in most cases is a false and negative view of reality, enthusiasm, reason, and a positive way of thinking is a truer view of reality, and is also progressive. "Peak experiences" are a more accurate view of reality than a cynical and apathetic outlook could ever encompass, peak experiences give us a brief moment of clarity about the surrounding world, anything that gives our consciousness a feeling of clarity is truer than anything that simply undermines the importance of reality in our consciousness. Cynicism is an unconstructive and worthless aspect of human consciousness and should be beaten out of everyones attitudes to life who have this trait as part of their personality. Cynicism and apathy can create a feeling of boredom in our lives, and when events and moments in our lives become boring our will goes through periods were it remains passive for long periods of time, and then our focusing muscle, and our sense of purpose becomes weak and unenthusiastic and looses its focus, this outcome also gives us a feeling that our life is failing and is unimportant and futile. Meaning, purpose, and enthusiasm is important in our lives, cynicism, apathy, and boredom cripples the will, meaning and purpose stimulates the will, enthusiasm, joy, and the peak experience is a sudden surge of meaning, and it gives the feeling that we are in touch with the truth about reality. The majority of people who are very cynical do not, and cannot accomplish the great things that a more positive and enthusiastic person can attain, cynics by their very nature are low achievers. It is more what we believe things to be, and also what we want them to be that makes them what they ultimately become in the final result in the form of our actions, and this is why cynicism is such a negative and lazy attitude to have, because it lowers the quality of all judgements and endeavours. It is usually easy to tell what a cynic is thinking in most situations because most cynics have very predictable thinking patterns, in most cases. One of the only advantages to cynicism is that many things can be figured out using this approach, because the methods employed by cynicism are analytical, and fault finding, so in a sense the need for improvements in things can be suggested, by pointing out the faults that exist, and can be found in them, and cynicism can also indicate how those faults need to be improved, or eliminated. To be cynical about something bad is good, but to be cynical about something good is bad, for instance, to be cynical about an unfair, repressive and oppressive government is good, whereas to be cynical about a democratic and egalitarian state is bad. Most of what I have written in this essay is in regard to the cynicism towards good and positive things rather than the cynicism towards the negative and bad things. Sometimes when somebody is being very cynical we can get the feeling that they are not being truthful; so this the reason why I entitled this essay "The Fallacy of Cynicism".