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.