Metaphysics

 Possibility of The-Other-To-The-All

by

Dr. Igor Popov

1. On the Entitative

1.1. Foreword. Obvious Realism

The entity (the ontic) takes a priority of the radical autonomy (the epistemic). None but ontics as ‘philisophia prima’, even in the study of epistemological problems, is a pledge of extra-cognitive obviousness of reality and, at the same time, contemplation of its confines.

Although, the apodictic evidence itself is usually understood as an epistemic category, meaning without premise, or necessity, of some sense, in contrast to contradictious knowledge. Descartes' ‘I think, therefore I am’ (Ego cogito, ergo sum) or Husserl's ‘Grasping Being’ is not really self-evident as based on the proposition of ‘pure Ego’, the subjectivity of the ‘I’, the consciousness that thinks and ‘grasps’. While the presence of someone, the subject from which the intentions emanate, is doubtful, inserts inconspicuous premises, itself requires a justification that this is the ‘I’. Yet Chuang Tzu (c. 4th–3rd centuries BCE) had been asking: “I do this, I do that—but how do we know that this I we talk about has any I to it?” (The Complete Works Of Chuang Tzu section 6, trans. B. Watson).

The problem of primordial obviousness remains in cases: we are following A. Meinong will correct the notion of evidence as coming from an object that is ‘beyond being’ (ausserseiend); as N. Hartmann will achieve objects through ‘emotional-transcendent’ acts or as X. Zubiri—‘sensible apprehension’; on the basis of R.B. Perry’s epistemological monism will recognize a passive consciousness that only ‘possesses’ oneself things; or after G. Teichmüller, H. Bergson, and N.O. Lossky will getting back to the things themselves through the method of ‘intuition’. In consequence, if ‘knowledge’ is preserved, the object remains, and the perceptive subject remains, and we again return to the trap of not immediate, nor obvious epistemological categories closing the evidence of reality. And not reflection (also cognitive-temporal process) reaches the evidence, leaving some ‘sediment’ (J. Patocka The concept of evidence and its significance for epistemology). And again the infinity of proofs, first, for myself (I), secondly, for myself and for another (not-I), thirdly, for the other through myself, and, fourthly, for myself through the other.

Exclusively an ontic evidence removes the question ‘for whom is it obvious?’ is precise in fact, there is evidence, without precondition. “To relegate all to the constant” (Chuang Tzu 2). It should not ‘ex-ist’, do neither step over an ontology of reality, nor do begin to ‘penetrate’ the obvious, nor do transcend outside or into a transcendental subject. From ‘idealism’ to ‘hypothetical realism’, otherwise we would soon be extinct (see K. Lorenz Behind the Mirror), and next to ‘obvious realism’. “Not to understand is to be on the inside; to understand is to be on the outside” (Chuang Tzu 22). It is only necessary to ‘sub-sist’, already to be inwardly reality, ontically to immerse oneself (immanere) into it. Moreover this approach is universal as covered the evidence of both the philosopher and theoretical scientist, the artisan, the mother wit of the adult and the practice of infant, and the diversity of the animal experience ...

1.2. The Entity (Existence of Something)

The Entity is ontic obvious principle, independent of the epistemological premise of ‘cognition’, ‘co-cognition’, and ‘non-cognition’: awareness can complement the evidence of entity, but not establish it, as well as ‘ignorance’ of the entity only supplements and confirms the existence of something. ‘Ens qua ens’, Existing as Existing (Aristotle Physics), or, as the Torah says, “I will be what I will be” (Hebrew: Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh). The extrinsic levels of existence, its essences, properties, qualities, states are arguable; require proofs of hardness and fluid, animation and inanimation; the emptiness, fullness, bodies, souls, life, death, dream, wakefulness, good, evil are far from certain. The bound of meaning, according to Chuang Tzu (2)—things have never existed. It is no apodictic evidence: the individual Cartesian pure Ego, Fichte's absolute ‘I’ (Das Ich), Hume’s-positivistic ‘I’ experienced, the existentialist ‘I’ existing. And nor Hegel's ‘pure Being’ (Sein), Being as Such that is to say Being=Nothing (Nichts). Both Hegelian being and existentialist existence are empty abstractions that require filling in the course of the world history or the history of human life. These are not ontic universal evidences, but cognitive abridgments.

Obviously the Existence of something; neither potentiality, nor inanity, being of nothing (Esse), which someone will fill up; but the entirety, plenteousness of the entity which does not ‘call’ anyone (unlike Heidegger's Being), because needless to be of anything. The existence of something is anti-solipsistic, it is unobvious that ‘something’ is ‘I’ (my experience) or through me the omnipresent deity thinks. ‘Something’ nor is tangible ‘thinghood’. Explicitly the existence of something (non-existence of it is neither obvious, nor realistic).

1.3. Entity as All (World)

Strictly evidently solely Something as Everything. Something is not obvious in the quality of the ‘I’ and ‘Not-I’, noumena and phenomena, spirit and matter, ‘a priori’ and ‘a posteriori’, word and deed. Knowledge is required to identify what exists, existed or will exist, to split the world, but the All—already exists, existed and will exist, and this is obvious. The All is not as a whole of certain parts, nor a reflexive abstraction of the consequent elimination of certain kinds of reality, but the obvious content(s) those precedes any form of existence (individual or general, for oneself or for others, corporal or eventual). Sorts and parts of existence are conditional, situational, pragmatic, controversial, these are not persuasive. “Truth is everything” (V.S. Solovyov). “Sitting down and forgetting everything”—to have forgetting righteousness, rites, and, next, knowledge (Chuang Tzu 6). It is easy to know, it is hard to forget. The All is absolutely universal, regardless of preferences, including cognitive, ontically. For one there is it, for the second—another, obviously only the essence of everything. (The religious and secular practices of the self-perfection of the East and West, aimed at overcoming the duality, isolation, partiality in the face of the Absolute, broke openly in the open door. They had been telling about obvious through unobvious.) The existence is evident neither of a part, nor of the I, but of everything, whatever it contains.

The All—is none than ‘the World’. All is World, the World is Everything. The existence of the world is evident not as a space, as a god, as a world of consciousness. The World is visible as the Whole, the Universe. The World is a non-cognitive, and therefore indiscriminate evidence. Not the world is only of an idealist, solipsist, positivist, materialist, linguist, erudite, craftsman. Only a realist’s world, obvious in unison to everyone, because not everyone lives by ideas, language games, but everybody lives in reality.

The existence of Total (Summum, Worldwide)—is obvious and needs no proof. The non-existence of the World must be proven.

1.4. The All Is the One

The words 'the All' and 'the One' are almost synonymous. “All are made into one again” (Chuang Tzu 2; cf. Laozi Dao-de-jing 39 and Rigveda 8.58.2). As ‘the Alone and One’ is characterized both the deity Amun-Ra in one of ancient Egyptian text of the late 2nd millennium BCE and the Neo-Platonists’ God (Greek: ‘Monon’ and ‘En’: Plotinus Enneads 6.7.1, 2.9.1); such and Pythagoras’ ‘the Monad/unit’, Chuang Tzu's 'Aloneness', Spinoza’s only one substance. The Oneness is obvious, whereas there is no separation: one distinguishes a variety of color shades, another does not see a single color; nor everyone hears the difference in the dialects of neighboring villages; it is far from indisputable to distinguish between the living and lifeless, proton and neutron, god and soul, virtue and sin, and so forth. The cognizance ‘cuts out’ (C.S. Peirce) from the universe things and their relationships. Attachments (including the cognitive) isolate from the unity anything more attractive (the planet reaches for the star, the predator looks for the prey, the business is aimed at income, the entomologist-expert in the orthoptera hardly will pay attention to the hemiptera, not with every scientist you will talk about spiritual verse). Evidently One, but want Much: we do not want to be alone and we are looking for another, physicists have been ‘discovering’ again new particles, biologists—new species, linguists—‘new’ languages, philosophers—new terms for old ‘truths’—multiplying and multiplying essences, limited to quantitative characteristics, political conjuncture and pragmatism. Predilections ... Preferences ... Parties ... Churches ... Disputes ... Strife ...

Only on the other side of any analytical consciousness, isolation, disjoining there is a ‘psychic halo’ (W. James The Principles of Psychology), a single ‘background’ (S.L. Rubinstein The principles of general psychology), the psychofield as a phenomenon of the world field. The very unity of the experience flow makes the obviousness of the oneness of the whole world; we cannot aware the existing beyond union (it is no the super-consciousness, but its ordinary state). The form of oneness is non-obvious, for illustration, the world as Parmenides’ sphere; rather, shapeless and nameless of it (such as Laozi Dao-de-jing 1, 32) are more lucid. I repeat, it is not the modes of the One that are obvious, like the modalities of One’s existing, but its background, which we are literally captivated and there is no looking at the One from the external side. This evidence is also present in the primeval collector with the myth from where everything came to pass, feeling himself as one meet with his relatives and totem; is present as well as in the most refined philosophical picture of the world, because philosophy also originated as one of the ways of substantiating all-unity (without dependence—in the form of pan-monism, monodualism or monopluralism).

The words of 'the One' (the Alone) and 'Unity' are mainly used as identical or as interchangeable or as rhetorical mutual reinforcements. However, unity implies a multiplicity, that is synthesis of the previously separate elements, co-knowledge, already not analytical, but synthetic. United country, for instance, is called so because it was previously historically fragmented. And, as it was shown, initially the multiplicity is not obvious, is controversial and biased. “The hinge of the way” (Chines: Tao shu)—a state in which ‘this’ and ‘that’ no longer find their opposites (Chuang Tzu 2). And the oneness of everything (the world) is original, not mediated. Neither synthesis nor analysis, but—the precognitive universal evidence. ‘One’-1 is not derivative and burdened by Many. Certainly, the figure ‘1’ is also used as an instrument of analysis: when we say ‘one country’, we mean one state from many others, but if we are talking about the whole world as the one, then such uniqueness is non-analytic and axiomatic.

Everything is not connected with each thing. When none of the elements is distinguished in the All, with its uttermost simplicity, its complication by the universal interconnecxion of phenomena is meaningless. There is nothing for anyone, in Hume’s terms, ‘to connect’ objectively and ‘to conjoin’ subjectively. Hence, “I am He” (see: Egyptian Book of the Dead 64.8; Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.12). In the One there are no noumena and phenomena, elements and systems, they are unobvious, but constructive, and usually have a quantitative criterion of existence and only multiply the number of essences. The boundaries of things, material and ideal atoms, quarks, quanta, souls, events are unobvious. It is obvious: the ‘boundlessness’ of Anaximander, ‘entirety’ of Parmenides, ‘incompatibility’ of matter of the Samkhya and of ‘qi’ of Taoism, ‘continuity’ of Galileo, Descartes, Leibniz, and Pierce, ‘duration’ of Bergson, ‘condensations’ of the electromagnetic field in the form of the elementary particles of Einstein (see his Ether and the Theory of Relativity; cf. P. Forrest The Necessary Structure of the All-pervading Aether). Obviously the One as the fieldiness, its local concentrations and dispersions.

1.5. The Entity Is Necessary

The existence of the One cannot be dissimilar, because is Unique and All. Plotinus was a logical: “where one only of two things can be, what place it there for plan?” (Enneads 6.7.1, trans. S. MacKenna). The alternative, arbitrariness, free will are not the obvious, the problematic. Only the One is needed, and its parts are not the obvious (necessary). There is no freedom what to eat for breakfast, there is nor freedom to remain without it, something we are always forced to do. All the same, the invariable One behind and ahead. Such as Taoist ‘fate’ which cannot be altered (“these were of many kinds, but not cut off from one another, and they were called fates”) (Chuang Tzu 12, 14) and Nietzsche’s ‘eternal return’; a fate, nevertheless slavery: the slave tolerates, and after rebels (Camus’ ‘I rebel, so that we may exist’), the slave is entitled to a free lord, and if all are slaves? The One is unlimited, since there is alone one, but it is not free too, inasmuch as its existence is necessary.—Necessarily, but neither humbly; without alternative, but nor bad.

1.6. Appendix

The rest of it or almost everything else is not obvious or meaningless. As for instance, to inquire about the ‘prime cause’ (‘creator’) of Summum, the All, means the unobvious internal genesis of some phenomena from others to transfer to the obvious ‘alone’ All. Whereas some elements-causes produce other elements-consequences merely in a certain system, in some kind of integrity. All together, the All as the One is not a cause or a consequence, nor is it the cause of itself (causa sui). Accordingly, senseless, along with the question of the cause of everything, is the pseudo problem of the nature of Entity, its materiality or ideality (divinity, spirituality). As a principle of causality we apply solely to the limited segments of reality, though neither to the All, thus about the materiality/divinity of everything, we can say, but it’s pointless, unless that means some narrower or wider coordinates in respect to actuality. Reality, however, as Entity, as Everything, can be declared by God, or maybe by Matter. This nor does change its obvious characteristics (the Entity, the All, the One, Necessity). Hence it is not even a question of sense of taste, but simply a nonsensical naming process.

Such is the obvious reality. And only a realistic worldview is cogent; whereupon mythology, idealism, materialism, agnosticism, skepticism require justification.

2. On the Possible

2.1. ‘Real Possibility’?

While we remained in the coordinates of reality, we apodictically succeeded the obvious notions of the Entity as the oneness and necessity of the all. We immersed, absorbed ourselves into,—existed in harmony with everything. And this harmony was necessary, namely was not extraordinary. It was natural and realistic. However, everyday experience makes us often think of what we can do differently. Even more often the creators of the new mind about other possibilities. It is like leaping into another reality. If we raise the problem of the possibility of neither a different actuality within the framework of real world, but as something else about every real, it will be at least an extraordinary worldview, which apparently calls for an extraordinary practice.

The modality of Possibility as opposed to the necessary reality is not apodictic, but only dialectically ‘likely’, or ‘probable’ (ancient Greek: endoxa) (see Aristotle’s Topics), ‘persuasive’ (ancient Greek: pithanotis) (Carneades’ term), hypothetical. Unless there is a confusion of reality and likelihoods in the form of a ‘real possibility’.

Thus, in accordance with N. Hartmann, the real possibility is that which was or will be real due to the reality of all conditions, and is indistinguishable from actuality/necessity. And since the real possibility is consistent, it is equal to the ideal possibility (see his Possibility and Actuality). Undoubtedly, such realism goes back to Aristotle’s theory of Act and Potency, in which a potential ‘pre-being’ (‘dunamis’)—being not yet actualized (‘energeia’), the material substratum of things (Metaphysics 1.3; cf. Averroes (Ibn Rushd) The Incoherence of the Incoherence). Hence the modern scientific use of the terms ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’ in cases of uncertainty for future development, the unknowingness of the necessary regularity, especially in the investigation of mass spectacles (statistical probabilities), where the probability is almost identical with randomness (occasion) (see: Kolmogorov, A.N. Foundations of the theory of probability; Keynes, J.M. A Treatise on Probability; Jaynes, E.T. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science). Only whether such a ‘possibility’, whether ‘real possibility’ is simply a misunderstood, unrecognized necessity, explicitly, a result of unprofessionalism or an intermediate stage in the research?

Another approach is the conception of so-called ‘possible worlds’, in which the possible world(s) is modeled as an ideal alternative. For the first time John Duns Scotus began to use, partly in the wake of Arab philosophers, some logical possibilities (possibile logicum) as per a real alternative to the real world (possibile real), where our world turns out to be one of realized by God's will potencies (A Treatise on Potency and Act: Questions on the Metaphysics of Aristotle Book IX). Later, G.W. Leibniz in Theodicy formulated the well-known ‘the best (optimus) of all possible worlds’, owing to the principle of the logical primacy of the possible afore the real (the possibility of countless multiverse non-contradictious worlds). He used this concept for the interpretation of essential true (available in every world) and occasional true (in some of the worlds). Came out of it that in the best world the greatest number of possibilities.

In modern philosophy, the logical side of Scott’s and Leibniz’s possibility developed in works on modal logic and semantics, analysis of counterfactual conditionals, containing concept ‘logically possible worlds’ for visualizing the notion of possibility as just a logical entities (see: Carnap, R. Logical Foundations of Probability and Studies in inductive logic and probability, vol. 1–2; Kripke, S. Naming and Necessity; Forbes, G. The Metaphysics of Modality and Languages of Possibility. An Essay in Philosophical Logic; Stalnaker, R.C. Ways a World Might Be: Metaphysical and Anti-Metaphysical Essays and Mere Possibilities. Metaphysical Foundations of Modal Semantics).

The ontological aspect of the conception is also used. Thus already C.S. Peirce, in addition to the secondary objective relation to reality, singles out the ‘primary’ creative consciousness, which from reality creates many possible ideal projects of reality. A. Mantinga on the model of possible worlds founded the Modal Ontological Argument for the Existence of God (see The Nature of Necessity). The most convex ontology of the possibility is presented in ‘Modal realism’ by D.K. Lewis, according to which, all possible worlds are real. Although they differ in content, however, they are same in spatio-temporal nature. The status of the world has those parts of reality that are neither causally nor spatially and temporarily related to other areas. Therefore, they are possible only for us, for themselves they are very real, and on the contrary, our world is possible for them (see Counterfactuals and On the Plurality of Worlds). Ongoing the debate between realists and fictionalists on the issue of the nature of possibilities in our world (see: Armstrong, D.M. A Combinatorial Theory of Possibility and A World of States of Affairs; Borghini, A.A. Critical Introduction to the Metaphysics of Modality).

As you can see, both ‘real possibility’ and ‘modal realism’ make it apparently that they work within reality along the line of actuality–possibility, simulate situations in its various parts. This is the identification of a logical and real possibility. Practically in all theories of possibility, it is the same as potential being, precisely an excessive duplicate concept in a binary opposite of Potential–Actual. This is the spread of a realistic worldview onto the modal world. Eventually, only reality (actuality) remains, the possibility as something specific disappears, being exhibited as a kind of viewpoint on the realness of some result in our world or some kind of counterpart worlds. The possible world here is just a maximally consistent set of propositions. Finally, all these theories are implicitly caused in deed by not ontological problems, but needs of modal logic, ‘real possibilities’ here are simply illustrations for syllogisms.

2.2. The Possibility as ‘the Other’

The Pure Other, Other-to-all, absolutely other, as an arch-negativistic (arch-apophatic) notion (see our Metaphysics of Absolute Dualism). Not the otherness of the real, but ‘the other to the real’. The pure possibility is neither real, though it nor is phantasmagoric; it is an attempt to go beyond reality, and nor building its next level. This is no nostalgia for the lost golden age, but the hope for something else.

In order to avoid any confusion of possibility with reality, we will make a reservation, ‘the other’ here—not as a distinction between ‘something in something’ (Aristotle Metaphysics). Nor like in the Hegelian Science of Logic 'the Other' (Andere), Being-for-Other, there is only the opposite (and equality) with 'Something' (Etwas), Being-in-Itself, as logically earlier Pure Being was equal to Nothing. In front of us is no pure Other, but just 'Another', structurally and functionally opposite to Something. Such are all contraries, such as: top/bottom, finite/infinite, brahman/atman, soul/corpse, matter/wave, concentrated/dispersed, living/lifeless, biotic/social, conscious/unconscious, personal/impersonal, subject/object, identical/different, noumenon/phenomenon, and so on. Here, ‘the other’ is found inside some closed whole, where between the contradictions we assume a certain middle and some dialectical connexion and unity. This ‘other’ flows into ‘no-other’ and directly refers to representativeness, to conditionally other parts of a certain ‘something’.

A pure, extraordinary possibility takes not to try to be in obvious reality, but transcending, going beyond actuality. This is a metaphysical possibility. Yet not the ‘possible world’, nor some new All, since the notion of everything entirely appertains to the real world. Other as the extra-opposed ‘Pure Absolute Otherness’. The hypothesis of pure possibility does not open a parallel alien world, because parallels are always coordinated by a certain whole. It is neither the Other in quality: 1) a maximally consistent set of propositions of the alternative ‘possible world/worlds’, connected or unconnected with our world, or 2) the antipode of the real world.

‘The Otherness as Such’ is not compatible with reality under the auspices of the ‘Absolute Maximum’ of Nicholas of Cusa (cf. Shvetashvatara Upanishad 3.9), in which minimum and maximum and any contraries coincide. In case of Pure Otherness (Otherness as such) is no potential-logical contraposition of reality, nor Another, nor a ‘real possibility’, then the unification of possibility and reality in the composition of some supreme being, super-entity and super-oneness is unpromising.—No synthesis, but distinguishing.

The ordinary realistic worldview of any level encompasses only opposites to the obvious notions of reality. What was meant? So, with respect to Being and the All, the Eastern and Western sages addressed the notion of ‘Nonentity’, or ‘Nothingness’, as the apex of the apophatic (negative) method of God/world-knowledge. This term is already present in the Vedas, Upanishads, Egyptian Book of the Dead, the texts of Taoists, Neo-Platonists and Christians (Pseudo-Dionysius). So for instance, in Atharvaveda it is said that the Supreme ones comprehend as entity, the others as nonentity (10.7.21); among the Taoists existence and non-existence give birth the one to the other (Laozi Dao-de-jing 2), and Nonbeing, or Absence ('U'), is Great Beginning (Chuang Tzu 12, 22). It means not Parmenides’ inane ‘nothing’ (i.e. naught), but absolute entirety, to be precise, nothing in loneliness and all together at once: formless, indefinable, elusive from thought (although from the thought the existence eludes too). So that, before us is just the contrast of Entity/Being, ‘nonentity’ as a negative pole of reality, the far edge of which again turns into its dialectical contradiction—the entity, being neutralized in the absolute maximum’s interior.

If, however, to contemplate ‘the Other to the Entity’ not as a reality, but as a possibility, it nor is longer ‘nonentity’ (‘nothing’), neither ‘is’ and nor ‘not-is’, nor ‘exist’ and nor ‘does not exist’. This is already Pure Possibility without a specific implementation project. Here planning, logic and even probability as a degree of the prospective are not good. No connexion between the Obvious and the Possible, no conformity to laws, no calculations, no guarantees, no happy end ...

This maybe is Liberty. Yet again, no freedom as the antipode of the necessity of reality—a conscious necessity. Freedom—as the Possibility of the Other, if not in this real world, then in the possible realm in the otherworldliness.

Alike, the Possible Other of notion Oneness of the Totality (World) will not be some kind of a opposite multiplicity, nor pluralism in the place of monism, which will be merely the second pole of all-unity as a type of monopluralism (of atoms, monads, persons, facts), as ‘polytheism’ by James (The Varieties of Religious Experience). The Other to the One as a possibility lies outside the bounds of the dilemma of One–Many, beyond discussion about reality. Neither monism nor pluralism, and nor synthesis (the problem of their confrontation is removed not by tolerance, but by de-sensing). Here, Spinoza's theorem does not work on the possibility of only one substance.

Within the Other there is neither the One nor the Many. The Other—is not coherence with anything and nor one of multitude. The possibility is unquantifiable.

The course of thought of the traditional descrying and modeling of the supernatural, para-reality, on-that-side-phenomenal is clear. This was done and continues to be done very humdrum. In case, ‘this’ world is temporary, ephemeral, then ‘that’ realm is eternal, immortal; if this—is finite, that—is infinite; this is formed—that is formless; this is material—that is spiritual; this is suffering—that is bliss; and so on in that vein. All this is pairs of reality, ‘real mysticism’, ‘subtle worlds’. Anything, only nevertheless the unreal Possibility of the Other.

I myself, previously had the temptation without sufficient rational reason to declare the Possible Other in place of the divine world, and the real world as material. If Divinity is understood as a synonym for a purely possible absolutely-other, then so it is. Nonetheless, the common meaning of the noun ‘deity’ is the principle, super-personality almighty, cosmic consciousness, the one, the sal mother, eternity, goodness, blessedness, and so forth (in terms of positive theology), or nothing, unnamed, and so on (in terms of negative theology). And this is just a whole series of notions of mundane reality ‘this-sidedness’. With such a conventional understanding of the divine, certainly, the above-presented Possibility of the Other means a deity in no way, for it is un-real and ex-real. Although in any case, the centuries-old problem of the correlation of science and religion is ‘removed’. The solution is not in the way of their mixing, including by the successive variant of deism in the form of ‘scientific theism’ (see P. Forrest God Without the Supernatural: A Defense of Scientific Theism). The final demarcation is required.—Science must be occupied with the reality, theology—with the possibility.

Accordingly, if the appellative Deity is used for the Other, then the hypothesis about this should be called Altertheism (Theism for the Other). There were the Other Deity—neither the One (monotheism) nor the Many (polytheism)—none of quantitative definitions is applicable to the Other. It is neither a substantial (pantheism) nor a creative (theism) cause of the world—none of cause-and-effect approaches is applicable to the-Other-to-the-All. Therefore Altertheism is a hypothesis of the ‘aloof’ Other Deity/God/Goddess from whom not that one should not pray, but simply pointless to ask or confess something. It is fulfillment religion (religion for religions).

2.3. Conclusion. Alterism

The Possible not equally an Aristotelian real potential half-being, or pre-being; but as the Other-to-all the post-real trans-entitative. Hypothesis Possibility of the Other to obvious reality (entity, all, one, necessity)—this is the bound of verbalization of the transcendent—Alterism. The transcendent possible outside of the religious and irreligious. What does possibility make for real sphere? “All men know the use of the useful, but nobody knows the use of the useless!” (Chuang Tzu 4) …

A little I said about the possibility as such. But then, about Confucius is known that he never talked of miracles and ghosts (see Analects of Confucius 7.20), and someday even said he wishes no words were spoken, becoming like silent Heaven (ibid. 17.19). As well Laozi: “He who knows does not speak; he who is speak about it does not know it” (and nor do dispute) (Tao Te Ching 56, 81). And Chuang Tzu: “As to what is beyond the Six Realms, the sage admits its existence but does not theorize”, and “To know the Way is easy; to keep from speaking about it is hard” (Chuang Tzu 2, 32). Melissus caution against: “we ought not to make any statements about the gods, for it was impossible to have knowledge of them”) (see Diogenes Laertius Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers 9.24, trans. R.D. Hicks). The same and Wittgenstein: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent” (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 7). And this despite the fact that it was pointed out not to the unconditionally Other, but to the unobservable primal reality, the prime cause, where certain facts and notions of reality are still in their powers, at the least as symbols of the transcendent. In our case, totally nothing of the obvious-real can serve to clarify the possible. “Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the one by means of the other” (Spinoza Ethics Axiom 5). Language is absolutely helpless about the Possible as absolutely-other. No ‘almighty’, ‘eternal’, ‘supreme’, "nothing" is inappropriate here. What is needed is not the traditional half-way ‘apophatics’ of the absolute maximum, but thoroughgoing apophatic metaphysics, or Alterism, where there are ‘physics’—reality and ‘meta-physics’—possibility.

Whether is attainable the possible, if it is not attached with the real? First of all, overcoming the habitual continuity and singleness of human experience. If to the cogitation of the ontic evidence the oneness of consciousness promoted, whereus in the realm of the transcendent-possible, the other to everything natural, it on the contrary becomes a barrier. Evolutionally our psyche is adapted to the experience of the present cohered universe. At most, it gives an idea of the options of entity (potential opportunities). And at the same time it blocks the way to a completely different possibility, to the possibility that is not potential, non-existent, and unreal. This will be the possibility of the unobvious. (Similar to L.E.J. Brouwer’s mathematical philosophy of intuitionism—persuasiveness of constructions, regardless of their possible independent existence.)

Though certainly the path is not a meditation of concentration, relaxation, and emptiness, focused solely at the realization of oneness with being, harmonization of existence in reality. Discovering of Possibility in this way is 'impossible’. There is no meditation, but trans-world transcending. “What is the use of gifts for your beloved, if you do not know her and the way to her?”—It is wonderful, as an example, to contemplate extraordinary, taking an extraordinary asana.—Yes, the-Other-to-the-All—the hypothesis of the Possible, ‘Philosophical Faith’ (Jaspers), ‘a Neglected Argument for the Reality of God’ (Peirce). As it was said, the Other is in no way connected with reality, therefore, there is no support for any form of its cognition, or for any old or new revelation from there (it is inapprehensible). None of guarantees and debts. After all, if this also is the path to a blind alley of reality, is there another chance ..?

“You cannot purify the blood, remained in reeky smoky city!”

Bali, 2017