Postulating a Metatheory                                             Varga, Csaba            We wanted to rely on all prio...
In order to think over metatheory, we search for the highest (if you like: the deepest)viewpoint which is open to all (“n”...
And/or: Why could not an uppermind – for example the Holy Spirit – inspire us to phrasenew theories and conceptional meta ...
room in science, but also all other not rational slices of reality as well as all interrelations notobservable by ways use...
a being – non-being above all other gods, e.g.: the Absolute, that is Meta-God) and/or meta-consciousness have imprinted m...
incorporates those general categories (meta-reality, meta-consciousness) that we would liketo present in more detail.     ...
As we leave the assessment of the chosen intellectual path to others, so we hold backfrom such self-evaluating statements ...
Consequently, meta-theory, (and many other theoretical constructions, too) necessarilymay be only a vision or hypothesis, ...
reaches a point where it accepts such newer and newer cognition results as were consideredunfeasible before, and their tru...
primary reality. Only the self alone is reality, so stay always in it”13 This approach leadsalready to the formation of th...
b) Scientific cognition (normal and post-normal science, theology), the observer islooking at the observed one;    c) Cogn...
not? Both views casting off the other standpoint make it impossible to get acquainted with itand to understand it. Further...
rejected. There is not much sense in merely re-defining the material reality-hypothesis either.Therefore, Meta-theory proc...
and so it is a supra-theory of the highest level resulting from the process of unification. Third,it is a unity theory hyp...
insights, may be born again, or may come into being on a higher level than ever before. Thismiracle supposedly has happene...
As a first approach, the following can be adequate: the new Meta-theory is essentiallymetaphysic, or a new metaphysic. Thu...
In the latter meaning, the concept of metaphysics and meta-theory are apparently quiteclose to each other, they may as wel...
of mind. At the same time, to start with we say nothing more than what Heidegger represents,namely that “metaphysics is th...
thing, if it does not exist, it does not necessarily follow either that it cannot be, cannot comeinto being, and cannot ex...
general categories subordinating them under the five top concepts, for now. The outlinedmeta-theory system or post-system ...
We can portray meta-reality in the most general sense only with its lack of boundaries.Maybe for a first approach, the con...
We give also visual metaphors for each reality-domain:    1. The physical-biological reality of the trees, of houses, of p...
the second stepladder can still be interpreted with the help of global and local communityknowledges. In plainer words, it...
The notion of divine reality also consists of several momentums. (1) The supernatural,and the supra-natural (the nature be...
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga


Published on

Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga

Published in: Business, Spiritual, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga

  1. 1. Postulating a Metatheory Varga, Csaba We wanted to rely on all prior data, nexus, knowledge, assumptions–within ourreach- in our account of overall explanation of reality/consciousness-layers and theirconcepts. As we are in Europe, it is clear that the arguments-counterarguments of (normal,postnormal) science necessarily constitute majority. Among the different type of theories wereckon not only the classical natural sciences and social theories, but what is more, we takeinto the complex theory system all contents and forms of cognition, logic and message, alsothe theological approaches of the five world religions and the diverse tradition theories. Wecan not leave out the arts from metatheory, and especially not from metaphilosophy.Furthermore, we can not ignore the tradition theories rooted in philosophy, or the higherranking conceptions of esoterism. All the works of theory building belong here, with whichhuman thinking has experimented in the last thousands of years, without judging their truthby any invented scale of the truth, and so selecting among them. Metatheory and metaphilosophy integrates human knowledge in three phases on thefollowing levels: (1) Pre-existent basic theories, like pre-theories, every single scientific (normal and post-normal) theory, post-scientific theories of disciplines, all the theologies, artificialintelligence, etc. (2) The so-called supra-theory: it is the accumulation of scientific, post-scientific,metaphysical and theological top theories. It is “knowledge” above basic theories, in otherwords, theories of first level theoretical integration; (3) The joint, unified theoretical and over-theoretical systems of the two phases, that is,second level integration. Meta-theory is the entirety of knowledge segments, top knowledgeand the systems of knowledge and over-knowledge, in this manner, a unified new knowledgeof an entirely new category. This opens us to the ultimate, only reality/consciousness1. Through the integrated knowledge – as our new „tool” by now – and the attainable highstate of consciousness it is also essentially new and fundamentally different knowledge whatcan evolve. We may call it a new philosophy, a new science, a new theology, a new thinkingby genre, and all together it is the actual metatheory and system of metaprinciples that is aunified framework of philosophy, science, theology and art. It is post-science, if you like.__________________________________________________1. The calm search for a viewpoint1 In this sense see for example: „Without doubt there is no other reality than God, only the illusion (wahn) veilsit from our eyes - and illusion is illusory.” Al-’Arabi Ad-Darkquawi: Az emlékezés rózsakertje (Új Paradigma,Budapest, 1999, p. 322.) 1
  2. 2. In order to think over metatheory, we search for the highest (if you like: the deepest)viewpoint which is open to all (“n” number of) directions, universal, and beyond universality.We are exploring open (or unopened) nodes and dimensions of a system and post-system notyet named. In a preliminary sense, we call it the metatheorical viewpoint. Metareality/metaconsciousness and metaconsciousness/metatheory conception-pair (as anundoubled unity one) placed in that limited-unlimited viewpoint, or rather in that virtual,sensual, logical, spiritual, transcendent space are not only vivified and dynamicallyadvancing, changing but they implement a continuous self-creation, self-improvement. Forthe time–being, do not consider the question how metareality/metaconsciousness andmetaconsciousness/metatheory self-creation connect to each other. At first, we had decided only on a metatheorical viewpoint that is not only an unbiassed,undogmatic openness, but essentially the viewpoint of universal-transcendental knowledge.From this point on we will (interpretedly/uninterpretedly) document only dynamical self-creation, self-transformation2 becoming possible. We do not think that reality (observed totality) and ourselves (the observer’s totality) aretotally open to cognition, but neither do we think that reality and ourselves are totallyunknowable. We cannot suppose in advance that we accept openness to cognition or a lack ofit as local viewpoints. But there is one (object) point we cannot avoid: the many-facetedrethinking of the relationship of the observer (ourselves) and the reality observed. The freedom of thinking is limitless by all means. Therefore we would like to suspend3all possible limitations and self-limitations of our viewpoint. We take this upon ourselves notin order to hide our lack of an opinion or to avoid phrasing our standpoint; but because we donot want to raise or maintain4 a hindrance to self-creating thinking. Why could not we be open to all understood theories and to constructions beyondtheories by querying or suspending all our previous conceptions and conceptional meta-interpretations (personal reflection-sets of reflection-systems)? And/or: Why could not we become curious to all other theoretical, philosophical or evensacramental constructions by controlling and suspending deliberately the conception-systemand meta-interpretations manifesting themselves inside and through us? Why could not we be inspired by the personal or transcendental consciousness, seethrough and step over the Zeitgeist transformed into all existing theories and embrace all oldand new perspectives? Why could not we think that the birth of a united meta-theory is realizable in the socalled post-modern science of today’s Euro-Atlantic science-progress, since the post-modernera has rightly questioned all previous great-theories and dogmas, meanwhile the lack ofnew-style grand theories is blocking the thought-development of the sciences? Why couldnot we expand the Euro-Atlantic science intellectual sphere to become a universal, globalknowledge space?2 This essay is the first chapter of a book in making. (In the book, a new chapter is devoted to each basic idea,however the final goal is to explore meta principle.)3 „Crisis has to come in order to see: there is only one sincere and thorough philosophy. The one, which is indeedoccupied with reality, which is beyond the ideologies stuck to eras; and interested only in what exists.” BélaHamvas: World-wide crisis (Institute Hamvas, Budapest, 2004. p. 431)4 „For him no established Truth looked sacrosanct; he started by challenging the very foundation of successfulmodern science, namely Newtonian Mechanics. And already then he showed that creative thinking couldproceed liberated from any support, be it experimental or even mathematical: it was a pure conceptual flight ofthe imagination.” Yehuda Elkana: Einstein’s Legacy- edited text of the opening lecture for Germany’s Einstein-Year, Berlin 19th January 2005. (Élet és Irodalom, Budapest, 2005. febr.11.) 2
  3. 3. And/or: Why could not an uppermind – for example the Holy Spirit – inspire us to phrasenew theories and conceptional meta explanations based on our personal mind-status or evenindependently from that? Why could not my/our minds - as the one and only subject of the existence – manifestitself as a total and unlimited knowledge-universe, while they would not listen to anyoutgivings beyond our consciousness which are (spiritless) also without interest anyhow? Why could not it be so that neither meta-reality nor a meta-consciousness nor the meta-human nor meta-theory and not even meta-God as leading categories of the new ideology areunasked, uncurtailed, unlimited? And/or: Why could not it be that we accept equally the transcendental (far beyondrationality) and non-transcendental (bound to reality) determination of all existence and of allthat exists? Why could not it be correct that the limited-unlimited reality on the one hand exists initself, in its own actions (without the gazing of human being) and on the other hand it existsby the gaze of human beings? And/or: Why could not the philosophy or a unified meta-theory specifically reach a pointnow where it again summarizes, unites and generalizes after the rationalization,differentiation and specification of human thought? 5 Why could not it happen that the rehabilitation of a re-interpreted metaphysics and anequally re-interpreted physics (sans “meta”) are taking place at the same time? And/or: Why would not the identification be correct that the final theory and/or the mostbasic rules of reality/consciousness can not be understood and express without the approachof a meta-theory and/or the hypothesis of a meta-philosophy? Why could not it be that meta-theory – by means of self-development - becomes firstmeta-philosophy, than as a second step equally post-theory and post-philosophy; such aconsciousness and consciousness-state which requires the construction6 of a newterminology? Why could not we finally advance to being able to let the only meta principleevolve. And/or: Why could not meta-theory reach the status where it simultaneously and equallyhelps the (meta)human of the new millennium awaken to the consciousness that we need tomove on the steps of meta-reality/meta-consciousness both upwards and downwards? Whycould not we reach the point where a meta-reality visualizes a new reality, a meta-consciousness visualizes a new consciousness, the meta-human visualizes new human-hypotheses or meta-time-meta-space visualizes a new conception of space-time? Let’s ask then all the other missing questions too. 2 The perspicuity of an elemental revelation Let us start developing Meta-theory on a low level. Why can we not think that it is notonly the facts which are rational, observable, verifiable by means of experiment that find5 We may mention several authors to support that thesis. Let’s cite only one as an example: „ All it takes is forsomeone to pull all the pieces together in a radically new way and produce a theoretical model that is able toaccount for the world of mind along with the world of matter.” Peter Russel (The Consciousness Revolution,edited by Ervin Laszlo, Új Paradigma, Budapest, 1999. p. 62. )6 In this introductory study we do not expound in detail the difference between scientific theory, philosophy,(philosophical or universal) metaphysics and meta-philosophy (or unified philosophy) materializing meta-consciousness. For different kinds of human ideologies, see Frithjof Schuon: The Transcendent Unity ofReligions. (Kvintesszencia Kiadó, Debrecen, 2005, p. 30-31. ) 3
  4. 4. room in science, but also all other not rational slices of reality as well as all interrelations notobservable by ways used up to now? Why could not a social scientist step outside the approach and methodology restrictionsof his philosophy working with an approach used by the natural sciences reaching inaddition an objective external system of comparison of the post-objective systems, a systembeyond researching earthly society exploring as it does a celestial, not veritable society. May we do it? Or more precisely: do we have another alternative? Of course, we do not. The toughest pre-requisite for deciding for the meta-theory viewpoint was, that beside (orafter) one virtual reality believed to be tangible, thought of as something that can bediscovered- we should think of the existence of another reality that is virtual, transcendent,beyond rationality, thought to be unknowable as an organic part of the total or meta-realitytoo. Nevertheless, there is nothing new in raising this unvarnished question. Today forexample, it is also not a small problem for an open-minded brain researcher or a neuralsystem expert to reach from one –mostly rational, seemingly researchable reality that is theresearch of the brain to the other, intangible reality of consciousness highly irrational in theopinion of many. The elemental revelation has indistinctly been lying inside us for decades that thematerial and not material worlds can not be separated, and at the same time, that thenonmaterial (mental, soul, that is consciousness, even consciousness and spiritual) reality/iesindicate a similarly complicated, structured, intelligible world-system or complex dimensionof reality as the physical-astronomical universe. Or: as now some theoretical physicistssuppose, the parallel universes. Nor do we find new aspects in the fact that we intellectually cannot but review thecelestial world above our heads (allegorically said) the same way as we do in our earthborncivilization the industrial or the information age society. In the 18th century, Baal Shem7showed the cardinal experience very accurately: „ Man sometimes cannot help realising thatthere are uncountable celestial spheres existing above him, and this small Earth on which hedwells is merely a tiny point. But the whole Universe is nothing compared to God, theInfinity, who accomplished the shrinkage and made space inside itself to create the worlds.” So do we have no other option than to make conscious the knowledge hiding in the haze? 3 The starting positions of Meta-theory Before stating anything, we would like to indicate that meta-reality, meta- space-time,meta-human, meta-theory are nothing else than top-level manifestations of meta-consciousness? When we postulate that the external (not only material) world is primary anddeterminative, than one starting position is that Meta reality creates its meta-theory, or thereis no meta-theory independent from meta-reality anyway. On the other hand, however, if we think the contrary; i.e. that the world creates physicalreality, a justified starting position is that there is or may be a Meta reality of meta-consciousness and Meta-theory. If in our opinion there is neither an objective Meta-reality nora spiritual reality spiritually independent from us, then the starting position is also acceptablethat true meta-reality/meta-consciousness only exists inside man. If we assume, however, thatmeta reality and meta theory are both the creations of a spiritual-transcendental power orpossibly of a single Meta-principle, then the correct starting position alone can be that God (or7 Baal Shem (Yisrael ben Eliezer) 1700-1760, founder of Hasidism. 4
  5. 5. a being – non-being above all other gods, e.g.: the Absolute, that is Meta-God) and/or meta-consciousness have imprinted meta-theory in us. If we consider the integrated starting point,that several of these theoretical starting positions mean a standard theoretical viewpoint, andthen consequently we must organize the external and internal orientated starting positions intoan integrated position-system somehow. What does that look like? Logically, we can name at least eight to ten meta theory starting position alternatives: 1.Meta reality and meta consciousness are one and the same; 2. Meta reality creates Metaconsciousness; 3. Meta consciousness creates Meta reality; 4. Neither creates the other, thetwo are not one and the same, but a co-operation of the two parts is the case. (And there maybe different types of that again.); 5. Meta-reality/meta-consciousness exists only inside manor a human consciousness; 6. Meta-consciousness or/and meta-human-consciousness can beobserved and experienced only inside meta-reality; 7. Meta-consciousness / meta-reality areboth the creations of God or a Superior Transcendence; 8. That eight or more fundamentalpositions together are the starting position of Meta-Theory, a consequence of which beingthat not all alternatives are necessarily incongruous. Logical decision is not easy in any way. Eventually we can only choose or we are forcedto choose the meta-scope starting position, i.e. that during the construction of meta-theory wehave to allow, or we are made to allow for all possible starting positions – possibly on thehighest level. We may not set up a prohibitive sign. It would not be reasonable to put anystarting positions into parentheses. Let us give way for continuous intellectual thinking. Nevertheless, we would not like to forget, possibly deny that before the attempt ofarticulating meta-theory we also stood for one of the theoretical starting position. In anycase, the position denying the existence of a reality beyond human existence is the one thatstands farthest from us. However, we are not positing our own starting position up to now tothe start-up position for the theoretical decision – that is we accept to remain inside the meta-theoretical starting position. (Moreover, we expect that new viewpoints may be arisingcontinually.) It is enough to point out that the current quantum mechanical argumentationsopen the way to even faster advances, so we can understand the ’paranormal” and the’transcendental” states.”8) The choice is extraordinarily hard also because, sadly, Thomas S. Kuhn is right when hewrites: „The proponents of different theories are like the members of different language-culture communities.”9 Therefore on the one hand we cannot deny our own theoreticalviewpoint; on the other hand we are ready to earnestly examine other theoretical startingpoints. Thirdly, we do not proclaim absolutism for the new language-cultural communityeither, but perforce we may encounter all the language-cultural knowledge groups who voteonly for one alternative out of the eight to ten start-points. However, why would that be wrong? We take upon ourselves an arising conflict. 4. The system of the new top concepts We could give this essay varying titles according to each starting point. Meta-realityand/or Meta-consciousness. The Meta-theory of meta-reality. The meta-reality of meta-theory. Meta-reality, meta-consciousness and meta-theory solely in us. The transcendentalmeta-reality and meta-theory. Or: The unified meta-reality, meta-consciousness, meta-humanand meta-theory. The outline of a limitless Meta-principle. Eventually choosing the title“Postulating a meta-theory” reflects that we leave the question open. Each possible title8 Robert Anton Wilson: Quantum Psychology (Mandala-Véda, Budakeszi, 2002, p. 239.)9 Thomas S. Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Gondolat, Budapest, 1984. p. 270. ) 5
  6. 6. incorporates those general categories (meta-reality, meta-consciousness) that we would liketo present in more detail. I know entirely well that the question can arise clearly: what if we leave the „meta”prefix from each concept, and face our old categories again? We can ask, too, should wereturn to the old categories that would not radically redefine them. There is nothing to keepus from choosing this re-defining alternative in principle, but that comes with the notmarginal drawback that in almost every sentence we should make clear that we now meaneach expression differently than before. That disturbed, mixed thinking and phrasing situationsupposedly would paralyze the straightforward and complex exposition of the newreality/consciousness. In principle a more beatific linguistic solution exists: we leave off not only the „meta”prefix, but also the following (old) language constructions, in other words we would at onceradically replace the abounding „meta” prefixes (sometimes perplexing and seeminglysuperfluous) and the concepts conveying the expression of the old state of consciousnesswith new linguistic signs/expressions. That is all very well, but where should we take thosenew languages? Where is our ancient/future meta-language? To make new words known andaccepted – even if we had them - takes a very long time, and in addition to that, it would notbe possible to translate these letter combinations into other languages. It shows up even fromso much that it is a dead end for the time being, but only for the time being, to anyalternatives like that, an extra universal consciousness- and knowledge state and a newuniversal language would be necessary. Let us stick to meta categories for the moment. Our essay stands on not one, butseveral - meta approach - top-level concepts, and we do not wish to decide in advance howthose relate to each other (hierarchical, not hierarchical, etc.).We name six top concepts to start with: 1. Meta-reality (inevitably not independently fromMeta–consciousness for example); 2. Meta-consciousness (similarly not independently fromMeta-reality); 3. Meta-human/Meta-human-meta-consciousness (also not independently fromthe previous two and from those following); 4. Meta-God (not independently from any, butnot depending on any of them either); 5. Meta-Change (the category of operation that is thecomplex, ordered not-ordered net of isolations and interactions or the non-net of that; that is,the laws of flows, changes, transformations, self-creations, and so on); 6. Meta-theory (it isnot independent from any one, but depending on meta-consciousness the most, as onepossible projection of meta-consciousness and one of the models of Meta-change). For thetime being, we are not making an attempt to comprehend the Meta-principle (or the Meta-principle group). Therefore, in our essay we strive to apprehend the concepts and the contents/formsbehind concepts, statically and in change at the same time. (Behind? Is it possibly the otherway round? Do the words/concepts create the realities behind? The prefix „meta”demonstrates, of course, that the concepts we use are not identical with the concepts without„meta” – reality, consciousness, etc. Besides the possible top concepts we are going to use several additional concepts aswell (meta-space-meta-time, meta-history, or meta-method, supra theory). The new top concepts, inevitably, document the new reality/reality image whichshows that the traditional (rational, natural, material) reality is a much wider territory thanthought before, on the one hand. On the other hand, that the invisible (not rational, notmaterial, emotional-intellectual etc.) reality is the determinant of the material world muchmore profoundly than thought before. Thirdly, that the existence of a sacral (not material andnot only mental at the same time) actuality is getting more and more evident. We may alsoconvey all that metaphorically with the concept-pair of quantum reality and quantumconsciousness. 6
  7. 7. As we leave the assessment of the chosen intellectual path to others, so we hold backfrom such self-evaluating statements as that bringing up meta-theory and putting it into issuemeans something fundamentally new in the European/Euro Atlantic thinking. 5. Barriers and prospects of developing the theory At the outset we have not decided, and even now it is not decided once and for all, or atleast we have not fixed from the beginning what meta-theory should contain, what its logicshould look like, what kind of a theoretical construction it should offer. We deliberatelyreserve the chance of creation - self-creation. We do not restrict vision, imagination, andlogic in the least. We would not be pleased if a meta-transcendent consciousness or our ownconsciousness-unconscious possibly had ready, finished meta-theoretical visions, although anormal medium role is not without interest, and is not to be dismissed lightly. The phrase notbeing pleased, on the other hand, indicates wonderfully our barrier that deep inside we wouldnot like and we can not let go even the personal opportunity of the person creating scientificknowledge for the time being. Knowing the barriers, however, makes stepping over thempossible. We allow and support Meta-theory which is being born (supposedly, it is born), is beingcreated (supposedly, it is created), in constructing itself (or also itself) continuously. Let usremember, that we want to make the self-development of meta-theory possible in that we tryto create at least the limited-unlimited space for it; that is, we would not like to put obstaclesin the way of creation happening in ourselves and via us. It is the free uninterrupted processof theoretical construction. As we do not assume, and reasonably, we may not assume, that our own minds and ourconsciousnesses would be meta-computers or a meta-knowledgebases knowing andunderstanding all the knowledge in the global knowledge society, therefore our aim merelycan be to realize as clearly as possible our limitations concerning knowledge and mentalperception. This situation sharply raises a seemingly unanswerable dilemma, even if wewould like to use both the left and the right hemispheres of our brains. If a single person isnot able to have all the important knowledge in principle and in practice, even if he were abrilliant genius otherwise. What is more, he may not have a full picture even of what are theimportant and the not important facts from an infinite amount of information. So he mustface consciously and personally that awkward and disturbing problem of how and when hecan control the theoretical hypotheses using all pre-existent and future possibilities ofcognition. We can present this dilemma more sharply too. Permanently there is not, and will not beenough qualitative, quantitative and established knowledge to prove the truth of and protectmeta-theory with a scientific logic. If the required knowledge always remains insufficient,the reasoning based on the limited knowledge alone is unsatisfactory for fundamentaltheoretical demonstrations. On top of that, post-normal science has lost its firm theoreticalfundaments for quite a long time. To go even further, scientific knowledge, for that matter, isgoing through paradigm shifts; therefore, almost every natural- and social scienceassumption may be accepted only currently, temporarily (in our days, only for years ordecades at a maximum). If the global scientific self-development10 would reach the pointwhere the unified scientific and, separately, a sociological meta-theory came into existence, itwould supposedly cause profound paradigm shifts, and would be a question intenselydisputed for decades.10 See in this volume Jozsef Csorba „Towards a Big Theory…” 7
  8. 8. Consequently, meta-theory, (and many other theoretical constructions, too) necessarilymay be only a vision or hypothesis, and to give acceptable reasons for it, we can seekdifferent cognitive tools and methods and can find them. At the same time, it does not followthat the chance to grasp the truth has vanished, however. Since the truth earlier, as later on, isat once as it is not. Despite all the obstacles of theory creation, meta-theory does mean many aspects: newsensibility, new cognition, new logic, new intellectual control, new conceptual system,namely new reality/consciousness. Without the new sensibility, or without the newperception the new cognition would be mostly impossible, without the new cognition,however, the new logic alone is insufficient, and that is a pre-requisite for the new conceptualsystem. The new intellectual control requires an expansive and combined check system,because all the tools of cognition until now have accumulated more errors than temporary orlasting results. No one is the owner of the truth, no cognitive method guarantees truth, andthe spirit of the age does not sanction any theory or hypothesis forever. In addition, it doesnot follow that the completion of a scientific verification or the understanding of informationcoming through religion would be impossible. The new reality/consciousness however is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved –and meanwhile it is clear that after this new reality/consciousness still n number of timesnewer reality/consciousness will be emerging from the mist.11 P.S: The biggest hindrance to theory development is the state of science, even if wenecessarily wish to transcend the science of our culture. We may risk a hypothesis: thehighest level science, especially in the not always public research centres of the greatcountries, has reached post-science. However, the majority of Hungarian scientists areunwilling and unable to switch even to the way of thinking of post-normal science, althoughthis is a standard in the global knowledge space today, be it said or unsaid. (Is the differencebetween normal, post-normal, and post- science clear at all? Ziauddin Sardar writes, „ Agreat deal of contemporary science is no longer normal science in Kuhnian terms.” „Sciencefails to deliver prompt answers to many questions of our age”. „The post-normal sciencerequires science to extend its frontiers, to include different measure processes, viewpointsand knowledge types..”12) 6. Who looks at whom and how? We have no reason to lightly suppose that we altogether know without doubt that actuallythere is meta-reality and consciousness (and most of all, how it is), but there is a feasibletheory hypothesis (or most likely more) that is meta-theoretical conception which promises atleast a glance at meta-level forms of reality and/or consciousness. A hypothesis even more amazing than that can be postulated, too. At the same time, wehave no reason to suppose that there is not or that there may not be a total meta-realityindependently from the Observer (or from looking at it), and theoretically it is not unfeasiblethat this meta-reality is looking at us with supra-reality „eyes”, and sees us with its glancelike the creators of meta-theory. Actually, nothing is impossible hypothetically – and that is amerry state of mind. The contemporary normal and post-normal science (what is more, post-science) is the history of that knowledge accumulating process, that the Zeitgeist always11 We also could have written the following thought: „…this book is first and foremost about a fundamentallynew intellectual structure that needs to be understood in its own terms, and can not reasonably be fit into anyexisting framework.” Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science (Wolfram Média Inc. 2002)12 Ziauddin Sardar: Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars (Alexandra, Pécs, 2003. p. 72-73.) 8
  9. 9. reaches a point where it accepts such newer and newer cognition results as were consideredunfeasible before, and their truth had been denied for long. We can offer at least ten-twelve possible basic answers to the “who is looking at whom?”question concerning observation and cognition: • The Observer is looking at the entity under observation, meta-reality (the Observer is separated from the entity being observed, the Observer is able to look, and dominates the one-way, seldom mutual connection with his gaze.); • The entity being observed is looking at the Observer, the Meta-human (that is meta- reality sees and lets itself be seen by the Observer, and it is the dominant one in the interaction or in the one-way seeing.); • The “no one is looking” state (the observer and the observed reality are the same, the two are not separated, either they do not see each other, or there is no need for looking. • The looking is unfeasible altogether, meta-reality/Meta-consciousness is not perceivable, it can only be experienced, there is no observed one and there is no looking either ; • There is an exchange of looks between equals, that is, looking is possible and successful, however, there is equilibrium and reciprocity between the observer and the observed one; • The observing consciousness (it is meta-human-consciousness now) is looking at the observed consciousness (which is meta-consciousness), that is the personal Meta- human-consciousness reflects itself and meta-consciousness is creating it; • The observed/Meta-consciousness is looking at the observing/Meta-human- consciousness (the impersonal Meta-consciousness appears in the personal Meta- consciousness, and meta-human-consciousness is able to notice it); • Meta-consciousness, the impersonal / personal Meta-consciousness-reality is Self- existent. (In this state the personal Meta-consciousness does not separate from the impersonal Meta-consciousness, but self-reflections are possible.); • Meta-unconsciousness (there is no looking at oneself, there are no interactions between Meta-consciousnesses, what is more, they flow into each other, fuse into each other, etc); • Meta-self-consciousness (the impersonal/personal self-consciousnesses are continually created by the Absolute, the Meta-principle or “simply” God, meta- reality can be seen as its projection; • All (or some basic relations together) make possible meta-perception, meta-cognition, or a cognition where the possibility of inaccuracies is reduced. (Let us keep in mind: the basic answers are only elements of the non-created/ created unity.) • Etc. We did not name all the basic answers, but the more than ten possible alternatives alreadyshow that meta-theoretical approach offers at least that many paths for cognition-mixing. Inthe recent consciousness state of humanity, we cannot even exclude meta-unconsciousnessbecause all perceptions, interpretations of our consciousness-unconscious may well be theexpression of the unrecognized unconsciousness. Therefore not only the „Who is looking at who?” is a right question. If we see beyond thereality of our Euro-Atlantic world, than we see for example in the Hindu culture they reservethe concept of reality – as one of the basic answers shows - for the primary reality, the self-existent. As Sri Ramana Maharshi puts it, ”What exists in truth is the Self alone. The world,the individual soul, and God are appearances in it. All the rest: ego, mind, etc., are merely itsobjects.” “One cannot describe that state. One can only be that” “The self-existent is the 9
  10. 10. primary reality. Only the self alone is reality, so stay always in it”13 This approach leadsalready to the formation of the concept of the unity assuming that a multiple-stage, meta-level reality/consciousness pre-supposes unity. 7. The integrated Meta-methodology There are both traditional and post-modern (and today still unknown) ways of cognition.The traditional – essentially not material, but transcendent – thinkers acknowledge not onlyone method of cognition, that is they know not only the rational argumentation of earlyscience alone. For our modern way of thinking it is amazing and usually unacceptable thatbeside science they consider the mystical cognition and the information and inspirationsarising from beliefs are also ways of cognition. One of the representatives of that traditionalcognitive philosophy is Al-Ghazali14, who wrote the following: „Verification throughevidence is science, getting in the state of god-closeness is insight, the acceptance ofexperience and hearsay in good faith is belief.” Well, the fact that science is accessible for all, at least in principle, while the other twocognitive methods are only accessible for those who have personally experienced, andknowingly applied them, makes it even more difficult to accept this idea. In fact, there is nosuch gap between traditional and post-modern thinkers as we usually suppose. For example,already in the 60’s the anti-culture program of the new psyber society15 rushed through theUS, showing not only the electronic technology induced greater efficiency of the beatgeneration, greater than all prior generations, but also that masses of the new generationwanted to live through mystic-religious experiences with the help of artificial drugs16.Timothy Leary writes for instance, „ Science is the systematic attempt to record and measurethe energy process and the sequence of energy transformations we call life. The goal is toanswer the basic questions in terms of objective, observed, public data. Religion is thesystematic attempt to provide answers to the same questions subjectively, in terms of direct,incontrovertible, personal experience.” We do not wish to value the individual accomplishments of either the new or the ancientthinkers referred to. The purpose of the reference was to realise that despite all prejudices andreservations Meta-theory cannot avoid raising seriously and calmly the question: what are weto do with the cognitive techniques and contributions 17 prior to science and beyond science?The clear question therefore is this: can we form meta-methodology to fit the development ofmeta-theory, which necessarily equally incorporates all prior and current cognitive methods,ranging from religious insight to the new type of cognition happening via Internet usingartificial intelligence? Our answer is a definite yes. Yes, meta-methodology can be worked out. Consequently,the development of meta-theory demands the thorough examination of a complex meta-methodology as well. After Meta-methodology, the basic methods of cognition are the following: a) Pre-scientific (everyday, direct, personal and communal experience, tradition etc.), thatis, the observer incorporates the observed one, and vice versa.);13 Sri Ramana Maharshi: Absolute Consciousness (Filosz, 2003. p. 34-35. )14 Abu-Hamid Mohammed Al-Ghazali (Palatinus, 2003)15 Thimothy Leary: The Politics of Ecstasy16 To avoid misunderstanding: we do not wish to popularize the New Age-t. A reliable critique, although notalways thorough is given by Rama P. Coomaraswamy in his essay entitled „The Desacralism of Hinduism forWestern Consumption” (Tradíció MMV, Kvintesszencía Kiadó, 2005. p. 141-148) 10
  11. 11. b) Scientific cognition (normal and post-normal science, theology), the observer islooking at the observed one; c) Cognition beyond science (a para science, knowledge beyond science, the techniquesof mystic religions), the observed gives signals to the observer who is only partly capable ofperception; d) Post-scientific cognition (new science which broadens its horizon and its apparatus –in an ideal case meta-reality/meta-consciousness reveals itself simultaneously in the variousinteractions.; e) Cognition via the arts (all older and new arts and post-art as well)18 – it can be themanifestation of self-consciousness or the impersonal-personal meta-consciousness; f) Artificial intelligence (self-creating meta-reality and meta-consciousness or merely anextension to the cognitive techniques of the observer.) g) Experiencing God (prayer, meditation, inspiration, etc.) – a high-level perception ofself-consciousness, interiorizing the transcendent viewpoint.; h) Cognition arising from belief – a meta-consciousness/meta-god is being perceived inmeta-human consciousness19; i) Cognition is limited or it is even impossible, looking is superficial or limited, evenimpossible; j) An integration of the cognitive methods, that is, applying the system of meta-supra-methodology in which the parts are combined, complementary and controlling each other.For the time being we do not explore what the new super-methodology creates: science,theory, philosophy, metaphysics, or a form rising above all of those? What is the higheststage20 of cognition? We must not forget that cognition (even when using more methods together) frequentlyyields only limited, and often no theoretical results at all21. (Let us bracket the scenario ofguaranteed cognition.) The pre-scientific cognition is of interest to us because a personal evaluation of directindividual and communal experiences often brings very new internal-external realizations. (Itis partly the “mystical-religious” experiences watched and described by many that belonghere) The God experience is not merely a religious experience, but sometimes much morethan that, sacral knowledge arising from the state of being close to God. The interpretation,the survey of the universal-global-knowledge-space and the making and gathering of newinformation (or super-information) is only possible with the help of the new humanequipments, the artificial intelligence. Apparently there will be a good many for whom onlythe scientific, or maybe the post-scientific method is acceptable, and everything else isunscientific and to be rejected. Most probably, there will be a good many too, for whom onlythe God experience and belief give true knowledge and everything else is false or falsified. Itis not especially our duty to do justice to the parties, which is impossible nevertheless, or is it18 See in this issue Kamaras Istvan’s essay (From where is the view on man and on social sciences possible? ),according to it the language, the approach of science and of art can be mixed – within limits.19 As Saint John of the Cross said: „..the mind can obtain facts and ideas in two ways. One is the natural, other isthe supernatural way. In the scope of natural way are those that the mind can understand, either by way of sensesor alone. The supernatural way, however all that the mind partake directly what are over his own ability andtalents. Győri Kármelita Rendház, 1995. p. 14820 „For Schuon, existence has stages, and so has cognition.” Huston Smith: Preface. The essay is preface to thebook Frithjof Schuon The Transcendent Unity of Religions (Kvintesszencia Kiadó, Debrecen, 2005. p. 11.)21 „If epistemology does not content itself with the analysis what distinguishes true knowledge from falseknowledge, but directs its attention to the process of cognition, the cognitive mind, and the cognitive function ofconsciousness: philosophy is enriched by metatheoretical approach.” Andras Laszlo: The light of everything inman (Sophia Perennis Kiadó, 2004. p. 14) 11
  12. 12. not? Both views casting off the other standpoint make it impossible to get acquainted with itand to understand it. Further, it is not really our job to bring together the two methods,attenuating each other somehow, because that is also often impossible and maybesuperfluous as well, since the two viewpoints judge from different states of reality andconsciousness, and discover different realities/consciousnesses. Obviously, the top pattern of meta-methodology (supra-method) is nothing else thanapplying all prior cognitive methods in a way that they control also each other, and usingthem in a new logical order. It could bring enormous advantages both for classic science andfor theology, for instance. According to Stephen W. Hawking, three „yes” answers offerthemselves for the question: Is a normal and post-normal scientific unified theory describingeverything realistic? • A total unified theory really exists, and – if we are clever enough- we can discover it one day. • A final unified theory does not exist, only an infinite number of theories in succession, and the theories describe the universe more and more accurately. • There is no theory of the Universe. The events are unpredictable beyond a certain point, after that they are arbitrary and random.22 First, Hawking means not meta-theory unifying everything, but only a lower level, thefirst step of it, the cosmological unified theory of the natural sciences. Second, sticking tothis level, it is relatively easy to agree that in time better and better theories will be born,although instead of succession they partly appear to run parallel with each other recently. Inaddition, of course, Hawking is right; the succession of theories should reach the ultimate(meta-) theory sooner or later. The three alternatives are really only two possibilities;eventually, Hawking’s logic must choose between yes or no. Meta-theory transcends theviewpoint of normal science; certainly, it is not striving for being a unified theory/post-theoryby any means, but has no objections at all to possibly becoming that. For that matter, where will the self-development of post-modern science lead to, is adilemma no one can answer. Ziauddin Sardar in his book23 that appeared also in Hungarianwrites: „ A great deal of contemporary science is no longer normal science in Kuhnian terms.As can be seen from a string of recent controversies from the BSE affair in Britain to theissues of genetically modified foods, science cannot deliver hard and fast answers to a host ofcontemporary issues. The old paradigm of science which provided certainty and assurance isno longer valid.” „ Post-normal science requires science to expand its boundaries to includedifferent validation processes, perspectives, and types of knowledge.”24 However, it is not sufficient to walk only the first half of the way leading from normalscience to Meta-theory. If we accept, for instance, that there is no society in the traditionalsense25, then following that reasoning, we may say there is no reality in the traditional sense,and if that reasoning can be defended, then day of modern or normal science is really over. Ifthere is no reality independently from us, if there is no reality image, especially not anobjective and strictly regular one, then we may speak about different types of reality vectorsat the most. If in theoretical physics the observed object cannot be separated from theobserver and is not knowable in itself, then – even if it does exist – the society is inseparablefrom the observing social science scholar. The terminology of the at least 150-years-oldIndustrial age has come to an end, therefore not only the objective society, but also theclassical category of science has come to an end, too. The other half of the road is a newrealization: the science perceiving the true, deterministic world from outside is one to be22 Stephen W. Hawking: The Theory of Everything (p.17)23 Ziauddin Sardar: Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars. (Alexandra, Pécs, 2003.)24 Op. cit. 72-7325 See, in the present volume, the essay by Gabor Balogh (From Theory to Metascience) 12
  13. 13. rejected. There is not much sense in merely re-defining the material reality-hypothesis either.Therefore, Meta-theory proceeds towards post-science, post-knowledge or post-theology,meanwhile it makes visible the new “reality”, the post-reality and vice versa. In our opinion, the ultimate Meta-philosophy – conditioned upon an infinite and finitemeta-consciousness – is also not a finished, fixed theory and not based on one truth. Theultimate theory is namely not a closed but an open theory, and can give different answers tosame question for that matter. There is no other ultimate chance of an answer to takeseriously than the final theory of all, which essentially treats the final in thetimeless/spaceless domain. If that is so, than not only whether a unified theory is possible isthe only dilemma. On the one hand, there may be, on the other hand, there may not be, andthirdly there have been before, and last before top level it reaches into heights of God, whereGod exists not in time and in space, and there is no determination and no anti-determination.Then we may still bring it one step further to the Absolute, Meta-principle that manifestsitself in several Meta-principles. It is repeatedly an actual question of methodology whether we want to be independentlogically and mentally from the dominant Zeitgeist, the dominant dogmas in the sense of theexample of Socrates26. We have to make an effort, even if there is no task much moredifficult than that in our everyday state of mind, which requires a clear mind. It is somewhateasier if our thinking leaves behind the logic of yes or no. If we revolutionize our way ofthinking, if we accept, in addition to yes and no, the maybe, or noise (as a scope that cannotbe interpreted) as a logical state, if we advance to at least quantum logic or perhaps unitlogic, then we may have a chance of understanding the theory of All. Then there is not muchsense in the yes or no answers of Hawking. Additionally, as long as physicists, astrologists,cosmologists seek the final sense of nature only, they necessarily can only get half-answers,that is, we may say that there is no unified theory of the Universe without meta-Theory. Forthat matter, today it does not exclude the possibility any longer that a scientific starting pointcould lead to discovering the meta-principle. P. S.: Is meta-theory after all unfeasible? Even failure is a possible end. What can wechoose instead of Meta-Theory? It can be nothing short of scientific or theological theorywithout „Meta”. However, do we still have that option? That is not a possibility either. Yes,by every indication – almost irrevocably – it is not. The theory without „Meta” does not havethe smallest chance of becoming a unified final philosophy. Rather, we decide for theunfeasible mentioned first. Yet another actual question: is the final Meta-theory of a super string nature and type?27 8. The preliminary hypothesis of Meta-Theory Meta-Theory viewed as a top-philosophy and post-philosophy, in our opinion, means inbrief that on one hand it is all the prior important scientific, pre-scientific and post-scientificbasic theory (the Christian and all other theology too). On the other hand, it is above (behind,around) the traditional and concurrent theories, with a unified and transcendental viewpoint,26 „Hegel when describing the true method, which is the action of the thing itself, referred to Plato, who favoursto present Socrates making discussions with young’s. They do not care for dominant opinions, and are ready tofollow the coherent questions of Socrates. He demonstrated his own dialectic method on those ductile young’s,who do not want to change the own course of the matter, and do not want to wit and sparkle.” Gadamer: Truthand Method. Gondolat, Budapest. 1984. p. 321.27 A new theory in theoretical physics is in the making since the end of the sixties (the work of Joel Scherk, JohnSchwarz, and Mike Green etc.) Brian Greene, one of its current representatives says „"just as vibrations of violinstrings give rise to different notes particles with different masses and force charges arise from vibrations ofelementary strings. Superstring theory in order to work requires “extra” spatial dimensions that are in a curled upstate and extraordinarily tiny, so we can not see them.” Brian Greene: The Elegant Universe 13
  14. 14. and so it is a supra-theory of the highest level resulting from the process of unification. Third,it is a unity theory hypothesis of the joint and entire system of theories. Meta-philosophy issuch a broad term as it incorporates all existing theory, post-theory, then the unified highestlevel top-knowledge of all theories, and as a key factor, the specific theoretical system ofboth elements. Those are three aspects together. This interpretation makes distinction between theoriesbased not on methodology but on type (interpretation level, abstraction quality, integrationmeasure, the height of their viewpoints etc.) of the theory. Meta-theory metaphilosophy integrates human knowledge on the following levels inthree phases. (1) Pre-existent basic theories, like pre-theories, every single scientific (normal and post-normal) theory, post-scientific theories of disciplines, all the theologies, artificialintelligence, etc. (2) The so-called supra-theory: it is the accumulation of scientific, post-scientific,metaphysical and theological top theories. It is “knowledge” above basic theories, in otherwords, theories of first level theoretical integration; (3)The joint, unified theoretical and over-theoretical systems of the two phases, that is,second level integration. Meta-theory is the entirety of knowledge segments, top knowledgeand the systems of knowledge and over-knowledge, in this manner, a unified new knowledgeof an entirely new category. This opens us to the ultimate, only reality/consciousness28. Let us have a look at them in more detail. There are two theoretical generalizations ofdifferent levels in the first momentum alone. The first level gives a summary of only theunified part-theories (For example, unified theory of physics or life theory) inside disciplines(or branches of thinking). The second level is a higher step already: the joint theories on topof disciplines, or the unified pre-theories, post-normal or post-scientific approaches.(Examples are the unified social science theories or the unified religious theologies)29 The second momentum again brings us one step higher in the level of abstraction-integration, to the world of supra-theories. These are top theories over science or branches ofunderstanding and already a post-colonial (not only Euro-Atlantic), intercultural or inter-religious top sets of knowledge. (For example: post-theologies unifying world-religions,mega-philosophies, integrated theories of science). Last, the third momentum includes two steps again. Firstly, it is the shared meta-leveltheoretical and/or philosophical (what is more post-theoretical and/or post-philosophy)systems of the two momentums. Secondly, the highly ranked new knowledge sets and newstates of consciousness born of relations of shared systems of the meta-level, and fromprojecting them to each other. Eventually it is reaching or rather getting initiated to theconsciousness state of the Absolute. (The top level in the unitary and unified system is theintegrated – not mechanically added – science+post-science+religion+art and so on) The outcome is the most exciting one possible, and the most far-reaching one, too. That isbecause now, due to decades-long global intellectual efforts, the systematic-non-systematictop states of the created and self-creating knowing and knowledge-nets, which, of course,builds equally both on the most ancient and on the most recent knowledge, revelations or28 In this meaning see: „Without doubt there is no other reality than God, only the illusion (wahm) veils it fromour eyes - and illusion is illusory.” Al-’Arabi Ad-Darkquawi: Az emlékezés rózsakertje. Al-’Arabí Ad-Darkquáwí: Az emlékezés rózsakertje. Kairosz Kiadó, 2005. p. 322.29 I do not agree with Gabor Balogh who in his essay “From theory to Meta-science” calls already integrationinside a discipline Meta-meta-theory, because then we needed to use at least four meta prefixes for the reallyhigh level meta-theory which incorporates three momentums. Similarly, I do not think the super-meta-theoryterm of István Dienes is justified (See in this volume). 14
  15. 15. insights, may be born again, or may come into being on a higher level than ever before. Thismiracle supposedly has happened many times in the life of humanity known today.30 The unified natural sciences, assumptions of the integrated Social Sciences or thespiritual sciences reflecting systematically on each other are also the first momentum. Herebelong also the unified – but still inside each religion – theological theories, or among othersfor example the unified esoteric school of thought. The second momentum involves the toptheories of top questions: metaphysical traditionalism, the philosophy of religion31 and post-theology comparing the world religions, the shared hypotheses of the unified sciences. Thethird momentum uses the first two as a building stone to start with, but from the knowledgeof the two momentums it develops the meta-system of theories on the one side, and on theother side, it composes not only the new sets of knowledge of a meta-system of theories,post-theories and philosophies, but new states of standards. All that is, of course, a strategyfor the development of knowledge first, then a consciousness-building strategy that can berealized with the help of different cognitive methods in the beginning, partly one by one andpartly as a whole. We do not intend to convey the impression that the way Meta-theory raises problemswould be something originally new. Think only about, for instance, that Martin Heidegger inthe last century, at the very beginning of the sixties (in his essay titled Kant’s Thesis aboutBeing) suggests the contraction of the words theology and ontology, because of the twin-likecharacteristic of the question concerning the existence of Being. „ The duality of the questionabout the being of beings can be brought together in the title "onto-theo-logy"32 Thus, what isMeta-theory at the first starting level can be metaphorically defined also as onto-theo-logy,provided we understand both ontology and theology in a wider sense. Earlier Hegel similarlyin §572 of the Phenomenology of Spirit33 writes about philosophy being the unity of art andscience insofar as „philosophy not merely keeps them together to make a totality, but evenunifies them into the simple spiritual vision, and then in that raises them to self-consciousthought” We can take another example too, since Johann Gottlieb Fichte while also interpreting theKantian heritage in his lecture given in 1794 in Zurich outlined the Theory of Science.34 Wecite from the notes of his 5th lecture: “.the purpose of science is not less than to bring intoexistence the whole system of human spirit, in its general and necessitated determination.Since this science is merely the representation of the system, but not the necessitated, originaland general system – in addition to the top act (on which the system stands) the philosopherneeds to take another action, which is nothing else, than a reflection on the top act.“ In thesame lecture: “the sharpest examination of all human knowledge ends at one point which isnot provable and we must accept it out of pure belief. “ It is not very clear what he means by“top act” and “one point”, but the essence of Meta-theory can be defined as the drawing ofthe whole system of the human spirit which inspection ends at a point that we accept out ofbelief. Our comprehension is obviously not identical with either meta-theory and/or meta-philosophy of today, or that of its general or later canonized form of tomorrow. The categoryof meta-theory described now is the definition of the term as we use it. . 9. Physics and Metaphysics30 The best example for that is the Rig Veda (The Rig Veda Book 1-10, tr. Griffith, 1896)31 For instance: Frithjof Schuon The Transcendent Unity of Religions. In our volume see Ilma Szasz’s essay.32 Martin Heidegger: Pathmarkers, Osiris, Budapest 2003 p. 407.33 G. W. F. Hegel: The Phenomelogy of Spirit Encyclopedia III. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. 1981. p. 356.34 Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s Lectures in Zurich. Magyar Filozófia Szemle, 2004/3. p. 323–351 . 15
  16. 16. As a first approach, the following can be adequate: the new Meta-theory is essentiallymetaphysic, or a new metaphysic. Thus, the first step is merely to replace the “physics” with“theory” in the word metaphysics, meaning not only the physical, material, or natural world,but a supra-reality which is global, over the whole reality, not only the physical and ofphysical beings, or integrating all reality/consciousness. In this conception, the upliftingcaused by the word “meta” goes above not only nature, man, the second natural world (i.e.society), but also the spiritual and transcendental realities in a narrower sense.35 Metaphysics is likely not a popular post-science in Hungary today, but at the same time itis not in need for any intellectual-moral protection. The next hundred years will be or may benot in small part again about Metaphysics getting into focus, since the paradigm shifts ofpost-normal science put the metaphysical questions (metaphysical reality, consciousnessstates) on the agenda again. All essential theoretical, philosophical problems are to be dealtwith as question of metaphysics (matter, reality, consciousness, life, death, God) until wereach a point where it gets clear also in the framework of meta-theory (post-metaphysical?),that even non metaphysical questions can not be answered without a metaphysical approach. In the twentieth century apparently one could easily ignore Metaphysics with reference tothe modern scientific worldview, but meanwhile the post-modern science ruins thetheoretical content, even the scientific foundation of this ignorance. Simultaneously, themodern science starts to contend with more and more metaphysical questions because withthe discoveries of the new quantum theories the circle and depth of the observations haveexpanded. Consequently, a bigger and bigger fraction of post-millennium scientists havequietly returned to Metaphysics36 – for that matter to the astonishment of positivist-rationalist scholars- , irrespectively of the fact, that they may use other words, like Theory ofthe All.37 Originally and in the last hundred years, Metaphysics had various meanings: 1. The philosophical study of the reality beyond physics (in a wider sense: naturalscience); 2. The theological system of the transcendental reality considered supernatural and theexistence of God; 3. Meta-physics is a general, comprehensive, integrated scientific/post-scientific theory orphilosophy about Oneness38, meaning that Oneness is identical with Being since itincorporates everything from the natural world, to the domains of consciousness, and to therealms of God39.35 „The created (’physikon’) and the created ones (’physika’), the created world (’physis’) is what theinterpreting translation according to the higher level refers to. The circle of the ones created- beings is larger thanthat of the nature’s (in widest sense).” Laszlo, András: What is metaphysical tradition? (www.tradíció.org )36 Ruzsa, Ferenc’s definition of metaphysics is „Metaphysics analyses the most fundamental and general entitiesand structures of world and our consciousness, and their interrelations.” Ruzsa, Ferenc: A ’Meta-physicamívelésének hasznárúl.’ Hungarian Philosophical Review, 2004/1-2, p 3. (Noteworthy are the essays of RuzsaFerenc in Hungarian Philosophical Review: 1999/6, 2001/1-2.)37 Hawking, Stephen W.: The Theory of All; Wilber, Ken: A Theory of Everything (Shambhala);www.kenwilber.com38 One of the excellent essays about the film titled Matrix (Jorge J. Gracia – Jonathan J. Sanford: TheMetaphysics of the Matrix) defines metaphysics in this third sense. (William Irwin: The Matrix and PhilosophyBestline, Budapest. 2004. p. )39 For that very reason it may be a misunderstanding, even in the figurative sense, if someone- as Csaba Vass –calls modernization the realm of metaphysics - in a bad sense - in realization. The question whether theglobalization would be the third world over modernization (that is metaphysics) is controversial. If metaphysicsin a proper sense is concerned with the Whole, than it is not worth calling it a stage of reality, the realm ofmetaphysics. (Vass, Csaba: Míg élők közt leszel élő, Ökotáj Kiadó, 2000, p 136.) 16
  17. 17. In the latter meaning, the concept of metaphysics and meta-theory are apparently quiteclose to each other, they may as well be identical. However Meta-theory on the one hand,with its treatise of a unified meta-reality and meta-consciousness instead of universalitiesprior to things or existing in things, steps beyond the earlier reality and consciousness levels,it visualizes sacral and not sacral world/consciousness at the same time. It is already a bignovelty in itself that the central focus is on consciousness40 instead of the old substance of theindividual. On the other hand, with that methodical extension and enrichment, that it risesabove scientific, post-normal scientific techniques considering theology understandably ofequal rank with science based on evidences, so it returns to the original meaning ofmetaphysics, and opens up today’s thinking toward standard meta-thinking. What is the plus of Meta-theory over the very different meaning “science” ofMetaphysics? It goes beyond philosophical metaphysics and traditional theologicalmetaphysics, and does not retreat in either subjective or objective idealism, while at the sametime it makes efforts to provide the lacking momentums, for instance besides metaphysics tometa-chemistry41 or meta-biology. At the same time, this extended metaphysical world-conception does not screen out thetraditional physical or intellectual domains; rather on the contrary, it fuses and integratesthem into a top theory. The Meta-theory we stand for is therefore such a supra-theory andsupra-system doctrine that probably transcends –as we noted – the philosophical meta-theory, what is more, traditional metaphysics as well, that is, it makes the traditionalconception identical with not only magical solipsism, but it still does not stand exclusivelyfor objective idealism. To prevent all misunderstanding, meta-theory does not reject sciencebecause that is an integral part of the system of the human spirit, on the contrary, it basicallyexpands and fortifies it, but it also reaches post-science, and simultaneously integrates alsometaphysics, so it does not deny theology either. True, it can be seen as it partly makes themetaphysical method scientific, on the other hand, however, it partly theologizes science; butwe do not agree with those two explanations. From this viewpoint, Martin Heidegger’s conception42 is also of interest. First, he sayscategorically that philosophy is something very different from science43, although it hidesitself in science, puts on the outer form of science. Secondly, he says that metaphysics – likephilosophy – is a basic occurrence in the human Dasein, and fundamental metaphysicalconcepts are broad terms from its nature. Thirdly, he concludes that the essence ofmetaphysical thinking lies not merely in its focus on wholeness, but also in itsinseparableness from the questioner, and the thinking in existence, that is, the philosopherand philosophy cannot be separated. We may look at this later statement as parallel to thatdiscovery in physics that the observation of physical phenomena is not possible withoutconsidering the observer. Summing it up, we can state that Meta-theory is not science or merely a scientific topsystem, but a post-theory and post-theology, or philosophy in the sense of Heidegger, or, ifyou like, meta-philosophy and metaphysics in one. However we can take the interpretation ofHeidegger one step further in that meta-theory - or a new metaphysics - has not only theOneness and the questioner of Oneness for its aim; but it creates a new Oneness, or a newworld and simultaneously a new questioner, a new inquiring position and new inquiring state40 The following are also from the lecture of Fichte, cited earlier: „The definition of knowing is nothing else thanthe definition of consciousness” p.32541 It is not coincidence that in addition to quantum physics the term quantum chemistry has been born. See in thisvolume: Hejjas, Istvan: Reality at the Level of Quantum Physics42 Heidegger, Martin Introduction to Metaphysics Osiris, Budapest, 2004. p. 29–33.43 Similarly, Bela Hamvas writes: „philosophy is not a science. Science has no style, it does not need one. Itwould be a burden for science in a sense. Science deals with facts. Philosophy wants more. It needs knowing.And knowing can only be personal.” p. 399 17
  18. 18. of mind. At the same time, to start with we say nothing more than what Heidegger represents,namely that “metaphysics is the basic occurrence (Grundgeschehen) of Dasein”44, howeverour conception of basic occurrence and Dasein is something else and we see them in adifferent light in spite of all necessarily existing philosophical ambiguity. Meta-theory perceives and displays a new world, a new reality, a new consciousness (thatis meta-reality/meta-consciousness), a new human being, a new thinking (that is meta-human,meta-conscious meta-philosophy) necessarily at a high and complicated level of abstractionand integration. 10. The initial conception of meta-reality – independently from meta-consciousness Unlike several philosophical viewpoints and category systems, we use the term reality,and not Being. In Hungarian – in everyday usage, but partly also in a philosophical sense –the term being expresses the being of something. It implies that existence is identical withbeing45 , on the other hand, it also conceals that there is something before and behind being,something that might be also independent from being, and that is nothing else than what weuse the term reality for. Therefore, we will discuss not the existence of being, but theexistence of reality. We would like to talk also about non-being/non-reality, and in alogically separate way from being/reality. From this stepping out from being it also follows,that the point Kant and Heidegger reached in their philosophy (Dasein, Sein, and a space–filling net expressing the difference of the two) 46 despite all of its radical aspects does notmean the end of the thinking path. Nor is it without purpose that we discuss and allow to see not merely reality, but meta-reality. A novelty in Meta-theory regarding conception is that it discusses not merelytraditional theories, or that it not merely joint theories in general, but as an active logicalfeedback – with the help of intellectual integration – in the concept of a new reality, itquestions and reunites traditional and new sub-realities. Meanwhile, it does not assume atall that we have conceptions about every dimension of reality already. This theory concept isthe cautious announcement of that new reality-hypothesis that it is not only at the top oftheories that higher knowledge may exist, but there are also non-existent half-realities ontop of realities (behind, around, etc.). On the other hand, there are structurally existing supra-realities, and at last, the sub-realities, the non-existent and the top-realities together give upmeta-reality.(What Parmenides thought does not add up to all that is thinkable.) It isimportant to perceive and understand that even with all that we have not yet apprehendedreality/meta-reality. Necessarily, a part and an organic part of this borderless and dimensionless meta-realityis not-being, and not the exclusive opposite of it. This is exactly why this meta-reality cannotbe reduced to physical-material reality; since meta-reality incorporates also the material,intellectual and spiritual domains, and at last the supra-realities – interpreted as top-realities –it necessarily cannot be barred from the infinite net of virtual realities either. No thing isbeyond reality, but there is not anything that would not belong to reality. Not-being partlycovers that which is not inside known reality yet, because we have no knowledge of it. Ifthere is not a thing, a thing does not exist, if a thing is absent, if a thing is unthinkable, that isthe same as a thing which can be perceived by hand. If we said “there is no”, it has come intobeing right away, if we perceived its missing, it becomes real at once. If there is no such44 Op. cit. p. 31.45 Heidegger says: Being cannot be. Were it to be, it would no longer remain being but would become a being, anentity. (Martin Heidegger: Pathmarkers. Osiris, Budapest, 2003. p. 434.)46 Heidegger, Martin: Kants Thesis About Being. 1961. (Martin Heidegger: Pathmarkers) 18
  19. 19. thing, if it does not exist, it does not necessarily follow either that it cannot be, cannot comeinto being, and cannot exist in the imagination. Meta-reality in our opinion is the only possible conception of reality. Every fragmentingof reality, every curtailment of it and all forcing it within closed schemes lead to itsbecoming indefinable. One of the classic examples of this is Aristotle’s wrestling with theconcept of reality; On one hand, he denies Plato’s transcendental doctrine of Ideas, on theother hand, he accepts the Divine as the first cause and the main cause of every concreteexistence, and thirdly, reality is the system of individual substance in his opinion. That is why we can read such sentences in his Metaphysics: „ If no substance can consistof universals because a universal indicates a such, not a this, and if no substance can becomposed of substances existing in complete reality, every substance would be incomposite,so that there would not even be a formula of any substance.”4711. The determining order of the logical-conceptual system--post-system Before we get lost completely in the chaotic world of complexity, to be sure, we ought tonote that we outline a flight of steps, and totalities can only be described by a flight of stepsin this essay on Meta-theory. 1. Meta-reality (not independently from meta-consciousness and Meta-theory); 2. Meta-consciousness (not independently from Meta-reality and not even from meta-theory); 3. Meta-human man (not independently from the previous two and the following) 4. (Meta)God (not independently from any , but not depending on any of them) 5. Meta-theory, meta-philosophy (not independently from any ) At the same time, we do not outline the top of the flight of steps, or the ultimate onepoint, or the single Meta-principle for the moment. The metaphor about a flight of steps is not a multidimensional model. Even so, in thisvision of a system it clearly shows up that the human task is also multiple, that is all-directional. It is necessary to move upwards and downwards on each step and horizontallybetween each flight of steps - between steps on the same level -, what is more, from each stepof each flight of steps in different angles, diagonally. Meta-human is therefore something likethe oscillating (of material and not material nature) superstring, or that bright, outstretched,waving net which clasps, covers, binds, and of course, makes dynamic, and brings to life.The metaphor of the Meta-human has been illuminated with the steps r, but these flights ofsteps quasi cover, evoke, and inspire the flight of steps to self-development. If ourpresumption is that everything exists only inside the human being, than the five flights ofsteps and the four flights of steps embodying the five flights of steps best exist inside us. Lastly, every step in each of the flights has an inner structure as well; they consist ofmany small steps - if we stick to our metaphor. Our hypothesis is a multidimensional,complex, chaos-type logical/conceptual system. The outlined system (and post-system) indicates at least six joint upward categories:Meta-reality, Meta-consciousness, meta-human, meta-God, meta-change and meta-theory.Obviously, the number of top categories can be at once incremented or decremented atanother time. It is important to emphasize that meta-theory does not consist merely ofphrasing the four main elements, because although those are an organic part of the Whole,the potentially complete system of thought, they are far from being all. We did this indicatingand phrasing without clearing up the interrelations among the basic concepts and the further47 Aristotle: Metaphysics. Lectum Kiadó, 2002. p.199. 19
  20. 20. general categories subordinating them under the five top concepts, for now. The outlinedmeta-theory system or post-system still has ahead of it the decision whether one or moreprinciples/concepts from the five top concepts or from beyond those top concepts will takethe central role. Suppose there is a central role; since another conception is possible, that there is nocentral role at all, or there are more „central players”, or the main players are changingcontinuously, or they are different depending on the varying directions of the observer andthe observed viewpoints. The system and/or net of the top concepts can be imagined in a globular model, but it isnot a regular geometrical spheroid, but – for instance – that kind of space in which everypoint is a central point and there is no outline anywhere48, or such as the World Tree of theCabbala, the tree of the Sephirot. Leo Schaya pictures Tipareth (the point of harmony) so:„we must see clearly however, that it is more than a simple sphere since that has only onecentre according to geometry rules, while on the territory of Principal Forms, every singlePoint that is grouping around the centre is at the same time the centre itself in a magicalway.”49. This description is as if we read the characterization of mystical quantum space. Thesphere model from the inside and the outside, as a whole, in the infinity of its wholeness isitself the Unity model or Unity itself without distinctions. We took five out of the potential essential concepts of meta-theory or meta-philosophy,and tried, to some extent, to relate them to each other, now we may make the conclusionthat the categories picked out, and the reality/consciousness contents addressed by thesecategories can be interpreted in such a model as is less a geometrical than an intellectual-spiritual system. Thus, the main order is quantum space and a meta-system of an intellectual-spiritual nature at the same time 12. The hypothesis of meta-reality ( without meta-consciousness as far as it is possible) Well, we do not know exactly, or at least not appropriately, what is reality(now withoutany attribute, examined in itself), but we may take an effort to make a new hypothesis aboutit, that is, to re-create or reconstruct supra- and meta-theory, and the abstract conceptsexpressing them. However, let us skip differences between meta-reality and supra-reality fornow. This meta-reality however is not a self-sustained realization, like being is not merelyexistence, and this reality is not the opposite of appearance because that is reality too. Thisreality is the composite of is and is not, of there is and there is not.50. Therefore this is morethan to be, but at the same time it is not merely that which is; or else being and its existencetogether and a substance as well, but it is not the only and the only dominant essence, whichis also irrelevant . In addition, of course it is real and not real at the same time (of spirit,conscious, divine nature), although that is real as well. It expresses quality andsimultaneously it is without quality. It is existence beyond space/time and in space/time(space-time) simultaneously. We cannot cut meta-reality – we repeat – apart from meta-consciousness, and this waycannot see it as the end cause, or as objective being, and not in the least as objectiveexistence.48 Leo Schaya: Az ember és az abszolútum a kabbala szerint (Arcticus, 2002 p. 43.)49 Op. cit. p. 43.50 See the essay of Varga Csaba entitled „The new world vision” (Tertia, Budapest, 2004.) 20
  21. 21. We can portray meta-reality in the most general sense only with its lack of boundaries.Maybe for a first approach, the conception that meta-reality is “meta” because all reality,every level of realities, every dimension, every vector, every content, every consciousness (orall their attributes) belong to it without any restriction. In addition, even those realms, realitydomains about which we have no hypothesis, belong to it. It is not the question of theobserving and the observed, the contemplating and the contemplated sights of reality. Maybeit is superfluous to stress that (meta-) reality is necessarily not only the visible (material,rational, empirical) substance of reality because in that case reality would be equal to whatthe observing being or equipment could take hold of. We will not be able to avoid definingthe matter since we can get hold of the concept of non-reality only after that of non-materialmatter. Up to now we did nothing else than, as an introduction, we released reality (leading toinner and outer infinity) out of the captivity of the category and one-dimensional existence ofthe material world. To understand that release is not that simple and self-evident, although inprinciple who would question the existence of spiritual or/and virtual realities, at the sametime, however, if we go only one step further, even that is denied by many already –especially some groups of scientists – who strictly refuse the existence of the divine world(the Pleroma). However we have not yet raised the everlasting dilemma of the interrelationbetween part-realities and/or reality layers. Moreover, we are far from the discussion of whatthis divine reality is and where it can be found. No matter how we talk around reality, probably it is at the same time independent fromus, and exists only via us and in us. Now we have to model the existence of the entire reality(and because of that, the borderless and in its totality, cannot be apprehended). Meta-reality(with or even without meta-consciousness) is a perfect unity, independent from what wemight think about unity and its hierarchy, and to what extent we are able to influence it.Meta-reality is the manifestation (adopted for us, necessarily partially) of the One. God is themanifestation (adopted for us, necessarily partially) of the One. The meta-human is, as before(adopted for us and necessarily partially for ourselves) One. Meta-reality (this time inclusiveof Meta-consciousness as well), meta-human is the One as well. It is the manifested and un-manifested One. It is the comprehensible and the incomprehensible One. This One ishowever not the one known from Mathematics, but the One of philosophy, to which there isno zero, and there is no two. It is the point and the infinite at the same time. It also means, onthe one hand, that there is no Meta-reality without divine reality, on the other hand, it is alsoevident, that all that is not known yet, about what we have no idea yet, and what we have notdreamt yet, all are parts of Meta-reality. There is no special gift of prophecy needed to seethat the classical sciences (and not only natural sciences) will be continuously, significantlypushing out the definite borders of Meta-reality in every fifty- hundred years. (What is theAbsolute, or meta-God? That is a different question. Maybe it is the One/not-One.) Before starting the discussion of the Meta-reality/Meta-consciousness model itself, wethink the following is reasonable as a starting hypothesis. Meta-reality has (1) at least fourdomains; what is more, the top-reality of the domains is palpable (2), and the last thesedomains, non-material of nature (3) can be explained in a particular, dynamic, but notgeometrical sphere model. The four reality domains are: 1. Material reality, the sensory world. 2. Post material (beyond matter), second reality, Reality of the Soul. 3. Spiritual reality, world of knowledge. 4. Transcendent reality (Ultimate Reality, Unity Reality). All four realities include,however, several more realities, more levels. It is essential to understand that these fourdomains in themselves summarize only the quantitative constituents of Meta-Reality. 21
  22. 22. We give also visual metaphors for each reality-domain: 1. The physical-biological reality of the trees, of houses, of people, and of societies;Physical- chemical- biological, lifeless-living reality; matter (from ether to galaxies, fromatoms to galaxy clusters), life (self-reproductive organic polymers, unicellular andmulticellular creatures, and so on.); and humans as physical-biological beings, and last butnot least the new, civilization created material reality. 2. The world of virtual trees and everyday consciousnesses and the created (not-material)reality of human societies; It is the duplication of material reality, secondary natural reality,social reality, institutionalized virtual reality ecosystem, civilization, economy, society,education, culture, and the man as a social being. 3. The substantial reality of mental trees and of the philosophies. It is the reality notmaterial in nature, data, information, knowledges, sciences, arts and man as an intellectualbeing. 4. The eternal, ultimate reality of God and the order beyond the divine. It is the realitybeyond material and intellectual. It is spiritual, transcendent reality, true reality, clearconsciousness, ultimate reality, Absolute, God and man as a divine being. Each of the four domains can be further divided into regions of reality, reality counties.Also important to demonstrate is that the four domains of Meta-reality are not independentfrom and not eliminative of each other, but they are the appearance, way of being, andexpression of the same Meta-reality on different levels. The four reality domains are One on the one hand, and on the other hand they are many;they are the continuation, projection of each other and are complementary to each other inevery directions. 13. The preliminary concept of meta-reality Let us consider the four elements each as a symbolic stepladder, and let us examine fromboth directions which are the lowest, and the uppermost steps for example, and from whereon this ladder the paths lead to. The lowest stepladder is material reality, the external reality and the external human andthe empirical-rational world of external man. Most simply, all that is notmaterial/nonmaterial, and nothing what is obviously beyond material and of spiritual nature.It is all the surface, at the same time not the form, and all what is beyond the façade, and allthat means - something beyond forms - more than physical-biological existence. It is all thatis outside, it is not anything that is inside; however, there are several elements and links atthe border of the two, which is the inside projection of the outer, and which is the outsideprojection of the inner. This stepladder is the joint primary and secondary environment, thatis, the natural-environment world and the artificial, built world of civilization. All thescenery, props, costumes and tools of the everyday world – although that will be the subjectof a debate later –, furthermore the personal and community conditions that put across thescenery and have it accepted are strictly included. The concrete, existing terrestrial worlds ofman, and the concrete human persons in them who as natural and social beings (from birth todeath) are mainly existing on this level; in the same way, also the small and large groups ofman belong here, from their formation to their decomposition. In our study later on we shalldetail the elements, segments of the world of the lowest ladder. The unified scientific theory– joining Gravity, Electromagnetic Force, Strong Interaction and Weak Interaction together– belongs to the first ( and of course also to the second ) stepladder. The second stepladder is post-material reality, but this is still not the spiritual ortranscendent reality. Post-material reality is the symbolic replication of material reality only;however, this new virtual reality still has its material/nonmaterial tie. The world or worlds of 22
  23. 23. the second stepladder can still be interpreted with the help of global and local communityknowledges. In plainer words, it is the functional repetition of the lowest ladder world andarrangements in individual and community consciousnesses, and in their real establishments,which serves merely the purpose of keeping the lowest world functioning and going in everyaspect. Notably the society and the state, the language and the “language” of society (in afunctional sense), then knowing and culture, the mental world, the consciousnesses ofindividuals and the community, the arts and sciences among others belong here, howeverexclusively in a functional sense. This stepladder has necessarily two components: (1)created, symbolic and often institutionalized reality associated with the material world andreproducing it, and (2) parallel to that, the mental world, language, thinking and material-centred knowing of symbolic reality. I still do not wish to say which was or is the first. In thehistory of Europe, the last two-three hundred years produced the most profound successexactly in developing material-rational thinking and consequently in establishing material-rational institutions. The twentieth century is the triumph and domination of the secondstepladder - pushing the third and fourth stepladders into the background. The third stepladder is mental reality which sharply diverges from the semi-intellectualdomains of the second step, at the same time not yet reaching up to the peak reality (divinereality) of the fourth step. First, it is the substantial world of inner man, and the place ofinner human existence and the storehouse of its contents. It is the reality of a high rankingpersonal and spiritual (but without God) consciousness. It is the country of “I”. The third stephence – as a genesis and potentiality– is giving meaning to the first and second steps.Therefore, it is not a follow-up (mental) function, but simultaneously cause and effect. Thematerial world can only be created and kept going according to the knowing and belief of thethird step. At the same time – after the modern-post-modern world’s tragic and spectacularturning away and seceding from the third world and its requirements – the review and re-creation of the first world can happen only with the help of the third world. In traditionalterms, this level can even be interpreted as the reality behind the surface/forms, the essencebehind appearances; and what is more, we may get to the point that this is factual reality, andthen the world of the first and second steps seem merely primitive mutations. The third stepis already identical with high-ranking natural and social sciences, currently theoreticalphysics, theoretical biology or the ecological discipline. However, in earth civilization theclassical languages of mental reality are most of all religions (not always theologies),philosophies (together with or transcending this, all post-philosophies, unified theories, ormeta-theory), which of course makes also the mental-spiritual meaning of Creationcomprehensible. All this involves that society and, for instance, social consciousness becomepost-functional on this level, and because of that, the media of essential contents. This mentalreality, even though present in the first world, is not very effective, not yet (or not always)institutionalized, and not yet a fundamental determining factor in the reproduction of global-local societies on Earth. The fourth step: the mapping of divine reality (and not-reality) which equally can becaptivated as first of all non-reality (meaning: denying-transcending the reality of the firstthree steps) or the Only Reality because the reality of the first three are false, i.e. distortedrealities compared to this. In earlier known terms we may call it spiritual or/and transcendentreality, although these two categories do not mean the same. Spiritual in a philosophicalsense means “only” that every being is of a spiritual nature fundamentally, and that matter isonly the appearance shape of spirit. Transcendent, however, means more than that since it isnot only transcendental or not only non- material, but in opposition of the world consideredfinite, it is the infinite, the non-empirical, and the non-intelligible. The disadvantage of bothcategories is that they refer only to supernatural and not to God and the Absolute, thereflected contents of an eternal life’s reality. 23
  24. 24. The notion of divine reality also consists of several momentums. (1) The supernatural,and the supra-natural (the nature beyond already-known nature) (2) The top-realitytranscending intellectual existence (the Intelligence- and Wisdom-reality includes also forinstance Clear Consciousness); (3) God (the heavenly kingdom of God, the sacral reality, thedomains of holiness, etc.), and the not personal Supreme Being over personal God, theDivine, the Supreme Principium (the Absolute), as well. (This therefore is no more themapped, but the momentum of mapping the divine reality – but only the lowest level of it,which is at the same time also the connection.) The three main momentums imply that thisreality is also greatly structured and of course it binds together complicated, multilayeredreality levels. The third and fourth steps of Meta-reality are already almost inseparable frommeta-consciousness. One of the most exciting dilemmas is that God and the divine reality arenot only transcendent and post-transcendent, but at the same time immanent reality as well.Moreover, the other way round too. That is already another central topic of Meta-theory, orMeta-philosophy. The most critical issue of the fourth reality is to differentiate between divine reality andthat which is beyond divine reality (called as the Absolute). Christian theology keeps thisdifferentiating unjustified and impossible to interpret. The exoteric argumentation is asfollows: „There are no such ’elements’ from which in thinking the Absolute could beconstructed”51 „The “concept” of absolute or rather its notion accordingly are unusual, verydifferent from any other concept or notion. This difference appears in that although we cangive a hint of its meaning in language, but we can never describe it as an object which can beclearly placed before us.” The counter-argument – based on logic only – can easily beworded since the Absolute can very well exist in spite of the fact that for the time being weor others can not construct it in thinking, nor describe it. The author of the earlier citation,Bela Weissmahr writes. „God ’experience’ (and god demonstration unfolding from thisbackground experience) is possible for man because the human mind naturally ’is aimed at’the Absolute and it never may be indifferent for him.”52 We cannot have any reason tomisinterpret this sentence, since we too accept it as evidence that the human mind originally’is aimed at the Absolute’, however it does not follow from this shared recognition that Godand the Absolute (God and deity, that is the gods, and Deity53) are the same. Finally another partial argument: „A religious man will hardly turn to a transcendentAbsolute in his prayer”54 Why is he not going to do that? Why could not we turn to theAbsolute when praying, meditating? Moreover, several Christian saints, for instance, mighthave done just that. (Let us consider as a marginal spiritual experience now that othermonotheistic religions think it thinkable and practicable, what is more, a religiousexperience, and a path that is suitable for living.) More concept-groups can be applied to the four stepladders. The first step can be calledfirst (physical-material), the second stepladder second (reproduced), the next step, the third(mental), and the last stepladder, the fourth (sacral) creation. Whereas it is possible alsoconversely, the fourth step is the place of creation (but uncreated reality), the third stage isthe created spirit, the second step is the self-image of physical creation and the first iscreated sensual reality. Since we have advanced as far as the concept of sensual, we mayrightly regard the reality of the first and second steps as sensual, while the third-fourth stages51 Weissmahr, Béla: Filozófiai istentan (Mérleg-Távlatok, 1996. p. 90)52 Op. cit. p. 153.53 „For an exotericist the personal God is the only version of god, for him this version lies in that what is higherand without versions after all; that is the Absolute, the Divine, the Nirguna Brahman of the Vedantists, the Tao,which can not be put into word.” Huston Smith: Preface (F. Schuon: The Transcendent Unity of Religions. P.25-26)54 Op. cit. p.14. 24