If we united religion, science and philosophy, what would it offer us? If we united religion, science and philosophy, what would it offer us? What would if offer us as a speciess? It may provide us with a means of coming to a consensus regarding what it is we believe we are and why it is we believe we exist. It was Carl Sagan who best expressed it when he said: "We are privileged to influence and perhaps control our future. I believe we have an obligation to fight for others, who came before us, and to whom we are all beholden and for all those who, if we are wise enough, will come after. There is no cause more urgent, no dedication more fitting then to protect the future of our speciess. Nearly all our problems are made by humans and can be solved by humans. No social convention, no political system, no economic hypothesis, no religious dogma is more important." The means of developing such a consensus is through the development of a concept defined by Stephen Hawking as a 'universal philosophy.' This 'universal philosophy' could be achieved by using a process developed by Husserl: using 'bracketing' and applying the process of 'reduction' as outlined by Husserl. 'Bracketing' is the process of eliminating any superfluous and irrelevant perceptions that are a part of our everyday lives until one is left with life's primary essentials. 'Reduction' is the process of examining what remains, the primary essentials - to make sense of ones 'intentionality'. In short, it is Husserl's development of process that helps us to develop Hawking's concept of a 'universal philosophy'. It is the process of 'bracketing' and 'reduction' that helps us to formulate answers to the three basic questions: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? In essence, it is Husserl who has defined the process and Hawking who has named the product of that process. A search for purpose is in essence a search for a 'universal philosophy' based upon 'truths'. This 'universal philosophy' - this means of modeling a 'universal ethic' upon which we and all life throughout the universe can agree - needs to be found in order to resolve the many socially divisive issues we confront as a speciess. Perhaps more importantly, we need to develop this understanding, this model, before we confront other life forms with which we may have decidedly differing views. If our speciess does not put such a consensus in place, we may once again find ourselves divided and in conflict. As history has shown over and over again, we will find ourselves at war with each other. We will be a divided speciess attempting to cully favor with differing intellectual life forms which we will undoubtedly encounter as we push the limits of our presence beyond our earth, to the far reaches of our solar system, our galaxy, and to the very edge of the universe itself. To prevent this, we need to develop a 'universal philosophy' capable of supporting and embracing all religions, scientific thought, variety of philosophies, and perceptions that we as a speciess have so uniquely developed. Once we have developed such a philosophy, we will need to test it. ... We need to be sure it unilaterally encourages the concept of creative thought and freedom of action. For if a model of a universal philosophy does not take on this characteristic of free action and thinking, it can never be considered 'universal'. Once a model of a 'universal philosophy' has been developed, it can be tested in terms of its validity as a universal philosophy by observing the degree of constraint it imposes upon God. The less constraining the model, the more universal it will be. This process of building a model of a 'universal philosophy' - that will act as a foundation for our present perceptions - is in essence a search for truth. Perceptions are concepts we form regarding what we understand to be 'truths'. As a speciess, we appear to have three means of forming what we bel

Regarding paradoxes, Wittgenstein stated: 'It is the business of philosophy not to resolve a contradiction by means of a mathematics or logic discovery but to get a clear view of the state of ... affairs before the contradiction is resolved. (And this does not mean that one is side stepping a difficulty.) Wittgenstein believed philosophy has the responsibility to resolve paradoxes through an interpretation of what seems most reasonable. It is then mathematics and logic, which follow and validate or invalidate such a view. It is the function of the philosophical field known as metaphysics to examine the concept of the whole. Is the physical the whole? If the physical is not the whole then what lies beyond the physical, meta - beyond, physics - the physical? Kant proposed a metaphysical system of limited existence 'containing' infinite possibilities. Such a perception is metaphysical in nature for it places a limit upon the whole leading to the question regarding what lies beyond the limit itself. Such a topic lies well beyond the parameters regarding a dialectic of space and time. In fact, such a topic lies beyond the parameters regarding a dialectic of the void of space and time. We will not ignore such a topic, rather we will address the topic of what lies beyond the limits of the whole in Tractate 18: The Emergence of Theoretical Metaphysics. What then are we to examine within this tractate: Tractate 6: Kant and the Void of Space and Time? We are to examine space and time, the void of space and time, passive observation, active observation. In spite of the pronouncements of philosophers to follow Kant, meta-physics, is not dead. Meta-physics has just been set aside while we await a new metaphysical system. Kant said we have no choice but to establish a more comprehensive metaphysical system before we relegate his system to the archives of ancient history. Such then becomes the task of this dialectic for the very purpose of this work to establish both a new metaphysical model and the rationality regarding the new metaphysical model. As we shall see, however, the task of 'replacing' Kant's system is not to be attempted through the process of destroying Kant metaphysical model but rather the new model is established through the process of fusing Aristotle's, Kant's, and Hegel's model all into one metaphysical model. First: The universe evolves as our thoughts evolve. Second: The concept of a system is critical to metaphysics. Regarding the first concept: The perception, the universe evolves as our thoughts evolve, provides the rationale as to why our understanding of the 'Greater' picture is so important. The concept that the universe evolves as our thoughts evolve implies we actively 'form' what 'will be' as opposed to the past Aristotelian perception that we are merely observers of 'what is'. Regarding the second concept: Kant was the first to propose such an upside down concept as the universe itself evolving as our thoughts evolved. Kant turned metaphysics and thus philosophy on its head just as Copernicus turned cosmology and thus science on its head. Kant was the first metaphysician to step beyond the perceptual metaphysical perception of the day. Kant was able to step beyond the perception of the day regarding the observer passively observing. Kant, however, was unable to step beyond the perception of the day regarding the existence of an Aristotelian closed system. Such conflicting positions generated unwieldy metaphysical contradictions. Kant innovated a perception incapable of being 'confined' within an Aristotelian closed system and thus found himself incapable of finding both first truth and his dearly sought categorical imperative. It is these two concepts, first truth and categorical imperatives, that this work will examine and resolve.

Part I: Creating the paradox of a Perfect System 1. Introduction This tractate, Tractate 5: Leibniz and Theodicy, appears relatively unimportant when compared to the voluminous material found within the previous tractates. One must not forget, however, that we are dealing with abstractual concepts... ... It is theodicy we must examine in order to understand how we are to redirect the 'masquerading metaphysician' back to becoming a purist, a legitimate metaphysician as opposed to acting within an ontologist masquerading as a metaphysician. It is Leibniz who introduced the concept of 'perfection' and 'imperfection' and labeled such a concept with a unique term of its own, theodicy... ...In terms of the shortness of the tractate, there is no doubt the tractate is 'shorter. The concepts with which the work, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, deals are abstractual in nature and as such 'perfection' and 'imperfection' are found to be, metaphysically speaking, non-relativistic in nature. Should one feel uncomfortable with the concept of puristic non-relativistic values of abstraction, one may find comfort in reexamining the diagram introducing this tractate. Upon doing so, admirers of Leibniz may find comfort in observing that although the tractate regarding Leibniz may be 'shorter' than the other tractates, Leibniz and the concept with which he dealt take up more space within the diagram and require the listing of his name more frequently than any other philosopher. In addition, the diagram credits Leibniz with having established the first thought of there acting within a distinctly separate and independent 'location' existing 'isolated from' the physical. So much for the 'shortness' of the Leibniz' tractate, but what of the emotional approach versus the less objective approach found within the tractate itself as 'compared' to the first four tractates? Leibniz introduced a very emotional concept, the concept of humanity, the concept of all forms of abstractual knowing acting within 'imperfect' versus simply the individual in the puristic sense of the word. Such personal re-characterization of our very essence deserves its own unique emotional response. Leibniz, through his work, re-characterizes our, humanity's, actions as being 'imperfect'. Leibniz creates the concept of imperfection becoming a location of the lack of 'perfect quality' through the emergence of a new location. As the new location emerges, its characteristic becomes defined: Perfection exists. As such the concept of 'omni...' spreads to action as well as knowledge, power, and presence. Through Leibniz, 'Separation through exclusion' becomes a necessity. And where will examining Leibniz and theodicy take us? It will take us to the metaphysician who perhaps was the first philosopher since Leibniz to discard the facade of being 'an ontologist working in the guise of a metaphysician'. It will take us to the work of Immanuel Kant himself. Leibniz attempted to create a term to resolve what he considered to be a paradox underscoring religious and philosophical thought. Theodicy, a term introduced by Leibniz to characterize the topic of God's government of the world in relation to the nature of man. The problem is the justification of God's goodness and justice in view of the evil in the world. He attempted to compartmentalize the contradictory discussion regarding the concept of a 'perfect' God being 'perfectly good' while allowing 'evil' to exist, while allowing evil to take place, while allowing evil to be created 'within' It's personal creation which 'lesser' 'beings' call 'the universe'. But Leibniz failed to recognize that as soon as he accepted the first three forms of 'omni-', omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, than the fourth form, omnibenevolence, became an invalid concern to both religion and philosophy.

This tractate is a process of stepping onto a surface of quicksand whose depth is indeterminable. The only tangible aspect of this tractate is an intuitive sense that the depth of this 'quicksand' will go well beyond Einstein and his concepts of relativity as it applies to metaphysical thought. To avoid such a journey, however, is to turn away from the true nature of metaphysics, which is to explore regions yet to be theoretically examined by science itself... To shun examining the full implications of a new metaphysical system including its impact upon the theoretical is to shun the obligations of the most basic principles of metaphysics itself: 'To thine own self be true.' And why is the principle 'To thine own self be true.' so basic to metaphysics? Principles are so fundamentally basic to metaphysics because it is metaphysics, which deals with the most basic of principles, principles rooted in the purity of truth itself. The new metaphysical perception which the individual acting within God creates regarding Zeno, Newton, Einstein, relativity, and the modern physics of quantum mechanics is an unusual one to say the least. Modern physics is immersed in the realm of the physical universe. This is as it should be. What should not be the case however is the perplexing abstractual state of existence within which modern mathematics (the language of physics) and physics find themselves existing. Mathematics and modern physics find themselves immersed within the realm of physicality with no sense of understanding the abstractual significance of the very physical reality they are examining. Mathematics and physics are in a state of abstractual confusion. This state of abstractual confusion was not 'created' by mathematics and physics but rather was created by the inability of metaphysics to break out of its state of uncertainty regarding the most fundamental of first truths: 'I am.' 'The universe is.' '1st cause is.' This state of uncertainty regarding whether first truth is 'I am.', 'The universe is.', or '1st cause is.', once logically hurdled will allow metaphysics to once again lay down a model which can act as a challenge, act as a guide towards which the energies of mathematics and physics may be directed. Until a theoretical goal is established by metaphysical ingenuity, mathematics and physics will have no beacon towards which they can advance. Without such a beacon, mathematics and physics will have no choice but to visualize each new advance as a step into the blackness of the unknowable which they find surrounding their reality of the physical. Each step will no doubt expand their horizons, expand the very limits of their presently existing physical universe but each expansion will find itself forever being followed by the question: Into 'what' did our expanding universe just expand? ... It is this new metaphysical system, the individual acting within God which allows us to understand, in the metaphysical sense, the interrelationship between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics. If the new metaphysical system of the individual acting within God aids us in understanding the connection between metaphysical Newtonian physics and metaphysical Einsteinian physics, what then becomes of the 'i'. Is 'i' a grammatical error? 'i' is not a grammatical error. The 'i' is in fact, 'i' not I. ... It is through the process of following the trail the concept 'i' marks as it travels through the physics of Newton and then moves through the physics of Einstein that we gain an understanding as to the metaphysical concepts Einstein's introduction of relativity has to offer us as a species of rational, reasoning entities of individuality. So where do we begin? We begin by examining the most obvious aspect of our reality. We begin by examining what it is we find ourselves immersed within. We begin by examining the realm we call space.

The new metaphysical system: a.An open passive system powered by a closed active system wherein the whole of the closed system is itself passive and the whole of the open system is active. b.An open active system 'containing' a totally independent closed passive system wherein elements of the open active system found 'within' the closed passive system are generated independent of the open active system As complicated as such statements may appear, the system itself is actually quite simple: (Simple Diagram of System Composed of Three Elements: The Whole, The Physical Universe, The Individual) The Aristotelian metaphysical system evolved in the 1st millennium. The Kant/Hegel metaphysical system evolved in the 2nd millennium. Eventually a new all-encompassing metaphysical system will evolve in the 3rd millennium. The development of the metaphysical system of the 1st millennium accompanied us as our species explored the concept of geographical 'rights'. The development of the metaphysical system of the 2nd millennium accompanied us as our species explored the concept of global 'rights'. A new metaphysical perception needs to emerge which will dominate our expansion into the vast depths of the universe. Such a system will by necessity need to match our advances in both technology and extraterrestrial cultural intrusions and intrusiveness. If such a metaphysical system does not emerge, history will repeat itself. The time periods involving the exploration of the globe and the initial explorations of the Americas, Africa, and the East by the West lead to horrific human and environmental trauma supported by perceptions of geographic 'rights'. This trauma was not unique to Western action. The 'inhumanity' imposed upon individuals was generated by both the East and the West. Human geographical 'rights' are in the process of conceding their status to global 'rights.' Such 'rights' will have no less a negative impact upon the frontiers of the universe than geographical 'rights' had upon the frontiers of our planet. How do we avoid repeating our species past negative acts? We can do so by establishing a universal philosophy based upon a foundation of new metaphysical thought. The result is the development of a foundation for action derived from rational thought rather than depending upon a foundation for action derived from examination of past actions steeped in horrific negativity. How is one to accomplish such a monumental 'leap' in human behavior? One must identify the foundation of action which created the past history of human negativity and modify the foundation. And what is the foundation of human behavior which initiates human action? The foundation for human behavior is metaphysical thought, metaphysical perception. We are what we think we are. We are a species which acts based upon what it rationally perceives itself to be, believes itself to be, sees itself to be. In short we are what philosophy, religion, and science defines us to be. If such is the case, then what is it that science, religion, and philosophy have been debating for the last twenty-five hundred years? Religion, science, and philosophy have been debating the legitimacy of Cartesianism versus non-Cartesianism. Simplified the statement becomes: Which is correct, monism or dualism? The philosophical debate: Either awareness of awareness, intentionality, knowing is an innate characteristic of the physical or it is not. The religious debate: Either there is a soul or there is not. The scientific debate: Either awareness, consciousness is an innate characteristic of the physical or it is not.

'Hegel's Theory... is a philosophical summit ' So it is 'a' summit appears to have been reached only for us to find, having attained such a summit, a new summit awaits beyond the one we just laboriously conquered. The climb towards Hegel's summit began with 'nothingness' and revealed stunning paradoxes great metaphysical thinkers such as Zeno, Aristotle, Boethius, Copernicus, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel himself attempted but failed to resolve. The gallant attempts put forward by these great thinkers led to metaphysical perceptions which temporarily satisfied segments of our species but never rose to the level of consensus required of a universal metaphysical model. A universal metaphysical model answers, at a minimum, three metaphysical questions: Where am I? What am I? And, Why do I exist? From such a model the term 'I' finds itself, naturally and with an ease of complete continuity, capable of being rationally replaceable with the terms: 'you', 'we', 'you and I together', 'humanity', 'life', 'the earth', 'the solar system', 'the galaxy', 'other life forms within the universe', 'all life forms within the universe', 'the universe', 'all universes'. ... Hegel is no different just because we come to 'a' summit. There is always a summit to follow each summit we conquer. To state: 'Hegel's Theory... is a philosophical summit.' is not to imply there are no other summits awaiting us. Before we can begin our climb to the next summit, we need to understand the new perception Hegel displayed for us. It is Hegel's metaphysical system, which raises the question regarding the need of 'a creator of the universe', the need of' 'a primal cause', the need of 'a first Cause'. ...What then of 'God' being 1st truth? ... Hegel's system would suggest there is no 'need' for God, no 'need' for primal cause, no 'need' for 1st cause to exists since the universe would appear to be timeless, would appear to have 'always' been. The problem becomes the operative word, 'universe', for everything we observe, believe, or reason suggests timelessness is not simply a perceptual option. The most obvious yet simultaneously obscure result is that a 'second' location emerges as 'the' solution to the problem. In essence, Hegel's system reinforced what Zeno, Aristotle, Boethius, Copernicus, Leibniz, and Kant had already reinforced one with the other. This is not to say Hegel's system lacked new insights for our species. ... It is the ideas and actions identified within this quote from Rockmore, which need addressing if we are to resolve the issues Hegel brings metaphysics. It is the concept of the universe not needing a 'creator' and yet finding an acceptable significance for 'God' which needs to be addressed and resolved before we can fully appreciate what it is Hegel may have stumbled upon: 1.The universe had no 'beginning' from which it evolved. 2.The universe is timeless and has no 1st cause. The problem seems paradoxically irresolvable in terms of either a Cartesian system or a non-Cartesian system. It is for this very reason the new metaphysical model presented in this tractate may well be 'the' solution to the problem. The metaphysical model presented is not one of Cartesianism nor one of non-Cartesianism but rather the metaphysical system being presented is one of a non-Cartesian system 'powered' by a Cartesian system located 'within' the a non-Cartesian system using the process of 'separation' through 'inclusion' versus 'separation' through 'exclusion'. The questions then become: What is a non-Cartesian system and what is a Cartesian system and how can the two exist one 'within' the other? Why is the first located 'within' the second rather than the second located 'within' the first? In fact why is either located 'within' as opposed to being located independently one from the other and separated through the process of exclusion?

The demise of metaphysics has become starkly apparent beginning with the nineteenth century and culminating in the twentieth centuries. The shambles of metaphysics is so apparent its absence was noted by one of the great cosmologists of the twentieth century when he stated: However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of the century, said, "The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." What a come down from the tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant Steven Hawking - A Brief History of Time But it is not the technicality of science, which has caused philosophy to draw up short of its objective and hesitate. As was expressed so well by Charles Seife in his book, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, it was the fear of addressing the issue of 'nothingness', which caused philosophy and metaphysics to hesitate. Martin Heidegger accentuates this point in his lecture: The Fundamental Question of Metaphysics. In this lecture, Heidegger espouses what he claims is the fundamental question of metaphysics. Heidegger states the question: 'Why are there essents rather than nothing?' Having stated the question, Heidegger then expends thirteen thousand words to explain why the question is stated as such rather than being stated as: Why are there essents? Throughout the expenditure of his energies to understand why the first question as opposed to the second question, Heidegger makes such comments as: For why should we go on to ask about nothing? Nothing is simply nothing. He who speaks of nothing does not know what he is doing. ... He contradicts himself. ... to speak of nothing is illogical. He who speaks and thinks illogically is unscientific. But he who goes so far as to speak of nothing in the realm of philosophy, where logic has its very home, exposes himself most particularly to the accusation of offending against the fundamental rule of all thinking. Such a speaking about nothing consists entirely of meaningless propositions. Moreover he who takes the nothing seriously is allying himself with nothingness. He is patently promoting the spirit of negation and serving the cause of disintegration. Not only is speaking of nothing utterly repellent to thought: it also undermines all culture and all faith. What disregards the fundamental law of thought and also destroys faith and the will to build is pure nihilism. One must not conclude from this quote that it was Heidegger who lead us to the point of fearing 'nothingness' for Heidegger simply verbalized in an eloquent manner what it was humanity has always feared to confront and that is the concept of 'nothingness' itself... In short it will be stated that nothingness does exist. Even more disturbing it will be suggested that not only does nothingness exist but that nothingness has an active role to play in the dynamics of totality as opposed to the concept of nothingness having a potentially passive role to play in the dynamics of totality. So if the individual is individuality and God is the Whole, including what lies 'beyond' time, what is the universe? The universe 'is' the void. The universe 'is' nothingness itself. And so it is we are about to defy Heidegger's warning that to examine the concept of nothingness is to stamp one's own forehead with a letter more feared by philosophers than the scarlet letter 'A'. We are about to self impose a scarlet letter 'I' upon our brows. We are about to label ourselves as 'illogical'. Why risk being labeled 'illogical'? It is only by facing our fears that we can conquer our fears and until metaphysicians face their most dreaded fear, the fear of nothingness, we will not be able to move metaphysics to the its next level of development.

This essay will begin where we, humankind, have lead ourselves as we attempted to slash our way through the jungle of life's seemingly endless paradoxes. These paradoxes, which life has persistently thrown across our path, are signposts for us. They are indicators that we do not have all the answers. They warn us to beware. They warn us there is something wrong with our perception of life; there is something wrong with our thinking. They have a function of their own, they direct us towards a state of understanding where we are, what we are, and why it is we exist. In this essay, we will be attempting to understand the likes of Russell, Wittgenstein, Frege, Plotinus, and back again to Russell as we attempt to move past parts of Heidegger. Our objective will be to step back in time in order to get back to today. What is the point of going to all this trouble just to get back to where we started? The point is to bring back with us a new perception regarding a simpler solution to Russell's paradox. Why is this important? Presently we have a solution to Russell's paradox, which involves a complex understanding of 'separation through exclusionism', which in turn represents what we do to people in society. We separate individuals and groups from our own groups and ourselves. Once having separated them from ourselves we exclude them from ourselves through a process of rejection, exclusionism, and separation. It is Russell's paradox, which provides the key to rectifying these constant actions of rejection. For this reason we will accompany Russell as he travels eighteen hundred years back in time. This trip will allow us to bring back with us a different solution to Russell's paradox. This trip will allow us to bring back a process known as 'separation through inclusion'. Now the name would seem to imply our creating a paradox to act as a solution to Russell's paradox but as we shall see it does nothing of the kind. What it does is allow us to find a much simpler solution to Russell's paradox. 'But what does this concept of 'separation through exclusion' as opposed to 'separation through inclusion' have to do with me?' you may ask. The process provides an alternative means to resolving a fundamental paradox of mathematics, which in turn can be applied directly to the process of understanding life. It is the simplistic resolution of complex paradoxes, which provides us with a simplistic understanding of life. It is through this process that we shall see 'Ockham's razor not only cuts away the complexity of science but becomes the primary tool for Husserl's bracketing . Ockham's Razor now becomes not only a principle axiom for science but now moves on to become a principle axiom of philosophy. This is an essay beginning in complexity and ending in simplicity. Why is it that we must begin in complexity rather than begin at the logical point of origin, the point of simplicity? We begin in complexity for it is through complexity that we presently have begun to understand Russell's paradox . Presently we have solved Russell's paradox in a complex fashion. This has led us to understanding life in a complex manner. We cannot understand the simplicity of life as long as the basics remain complex. The solution to this problem lies in the understanding of Russell's paradox. Once you understand the end of this essay, you will begin to understand why it is that we must go back and make a correctional adjustment to our journey as individuals and as specie. The question becomes, 'How far back in time must we travel to do all this?' We must go back 1700 years. Who will lead us on this backtracking expedition? The honors will go to Bertrand Russell himself. Russell verbalized the paradox in 1901. As such, it is Russell's paradox. Therefore, it will be Russell who will lead our backtracking expedition, which will lead us to an understanding of life.