Postulating a Metatheory

Varga, Csaba

We wanted to rely on all prior data, nexus, knowledge, assumptionswithin our reach- in our account of overall explanation of reality/consciousness-layers and their concepts. 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 we reckon not only the classical natural sciences and social theories, but what is more, we take into the complex theory system all contents and forms of cognition, logic and message, also the theological approaches of the five world religions and the diverse tradition theories. We can 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 higher ranking conceptions of esoterism. All the works of theory building belong here, with which human thinking has experimented in the last thousands of years, without judging their truth by any invented scale of the truth, and so selecting among them. Metatheory and metaphilosophy integrates human knowledge in three phases on the following levels: (1) Pre-existent basic theories, like pre-theories, every single scientific (normal and postnormal) theory, post-scientific theories of disciplines, all the theologies, artificial intelligence, 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 other words, 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 knowledge and the systems of knowledge and over-knowledge, in this manner, a unified new knowledge of 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 high state of consciousness it is also essentially new and fundamentally different knowledge what can evolve. We may call it a new philosophy, a new science, a new theology, a new thinking by genre, and all together it is the actual metatheory and system of metaprinciples that is a unified framework of philosophy, science, theology and art. It is post-science, if you like.

__________________________________________________
1. The calm search for a viewpoint

In this sense see for example: Without doubt there is no other reality than God, only the illusion (wahn) veils it from our eyes - and illusion is illusory. Al-Arabi Ad-Darkquawi: Az emlkezs rzsakertje (j Paradigma, Budapest, 1999, p. 322.)

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 not yet named. In a preliminary sense, we call it the metatheorical viewpoint. Metareality/metaconsciousness and metaconsciousness/metatheory conception-pair (as an undoubled unity one) placed in that limited-unlimited viewpoint, or rather in that virtual, sensual, logical, spiritual, transcendent space are not only vivified and dynamically advancing, changing but they implement a continuous self-creation, self-improvement. For the timebeing, do not consider the question how metareality/metaconsciousness and metaconsciousness/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 selfcreation, self-transformation2 becoming possible. We do not think that reality (observed totality) and ourselves (the observers totality) are totally open to cognition, but neither do we think that reality and ourselves are totally unknowable. We cannot suppose in advance that we accept openness to cognition or a lack of it as local viewpoints. But there is one (object) point we cannot avoid: the many-faceted rethinking 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 suspend3 all possible limitations and self-limitations of our viewpoint. We take this upon ourselves not in order to hide our lack of an opinion or to avoid phrasing our standpoint; but because we do not want to raise or maintain4 a hindrance to self-creating thinking. Why could not we be open to all understood theories and to constructions beyond theories by querying or suspending all our previous conceptions and conceptional metainterpretations (personal reflection-sets of reflection-systems)? And/or: Why could not we become curious to all other theoretical, philosophical or even sacramental constructions by controlling and suspending deliberately the conception-system and meta-interpretations manifesting themselves inside and through us? Why could not we be inspired by the personal or transcendental consciousness, see through and step over the Zeitgeist transformed into all existing theories and embrace all old and new perspectives? Why could not we think that the birth of a united meta-theory is realizable in the so called post-modern science of todays Euro-Atlantic science-progress, since the post-modern era has rightly questioned all previous great-theories and dogmas, meanwhile the lack of new-style grand theories is blocking the thought-development of the sciences? Why could not we expand the Euro-Atlantic science intellectual sphere to become a universal, global knowledge space?

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 indeed occupied with reality, which is beyond the ideologies stuck to eras; and interested only in what exists. Bla Hamvas: 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 successful modern science, namely Newtonian Mechanics. And already then he showed that creative thinking could proceed liberated from any support, be it experimental or even mathematical: it was a pure conceptual flight of the imagination. Yehuda Elkana: Einsteins Legacy- edited text of the opening lecture for Germanys EinsteinYear, Berlin 19th January 2005. (let s Irodalom, Budapest, 2005. febr.11.)

And/or: Why could not an uppermind for example the Holy Spirit inspire us to phrase new theories and conceptional meta explanations based on our personal mind-status or even independently from that? Why could not my/our minds - as the one and only subject of the existence manifest itself as a total and unlimited knowledge-universe, while they would not listen to any outgivings 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 metahuman nor meta-theory and not even meta-God as leading categories of the new ideology are unasked, uncurtailed, unlimited? And/or: Why could not it be that we accept equally the transcendental (far beyond rationality) and non-transcendental (bound to reality) determination of all existence and of all that exists? Why could not it be correct that the limited-unlimited reality on the one hand exists in itself, in its own actions (without the gazing of human being) and on the other hand it exists by the gaze of human beings? And/or: Why could not the philosophy or a unified meta-theory specifically reach a point now 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 an equally 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 most basic rules of reality/consciousness can not be understood and express without the approach of 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 first meta-philosophy, than as a second step equally post-theory and post-philosophy; such a consciousness and consciousness-state which requires the construction6 of a new terminology? Why could not we finally advance to being able to let the only meta principle evolve. And/or: Why could not meta-theory reach the status where it simultaneously and equally helps the (meta)human of the new millennium awaken to the consciousness that we need to move on the steps of meta-reality/meta-consciousness both upwards and downwards? Why could not we reach the point where a meta-reality visualizes a new reality, a metaconsciousness visualizes a new consciousness, the meta-human visualizes new humanhypotheses or meta-time-meta-space visualizes a new conception of space-time? Lets 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 not only the facts which are rational, observable, verifiable by means of experiment that find

We may mention several authors to support that thesis. Lets cite only one as an example: All it takes is for someone to pull all the pieces together in a radically new way and produce a theoretical model that is able to account for the world of mind along with the world of matter. Peter Russel (The Consciousness Revolution, edited by Ervin Laszlo, j 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 metaconsciousness. For different kinds of human ideologies, see Frithjof Schuon: The Transcendent Unity of Religions. (Kvintesszencia Kiad, Debrecen, 2005, p. 30-31. )

room in science, but also all other not rational slices of reality as well as all interrelations not observable by ways used up to now? Why could not a social scientist step outside the approach and methodology restrictions of his philosophy working with an approach used by the natural sciences reaching in addition an objective external system of comparison of the post-objective systems, a system beyond 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 (or after) one virtual reality believed to be tangible, thought of as something that can be discovered- 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-reality too. Nevertheless, there is nothing new in raising this unvarnished question. Today for example, it is also not a small problem for an open-minded brain researcher or a neural system expert to reach from one mostly rational, seemingly researchable reality that is the research of the brain to the other, intangible reality of consciousness highly irrational in the opinion of many. The elemental revelation has indistinctly been lying inside us for decades that the material and not material worlds can not be separated, and at the same time, that the nonmaterial (mental, soul, that is consciousness, even consciousness and spiritual) reality/ies indicate a similarly complicated, structured, intelligible world-system or complex dimension of reality as the physical-astronomical universe. Or: as now some theoretical physicists suppose, the parallel universes. Nor do we find new aspects in the fact that we intellectually cannot but review the celestial world above our heads (allegorically said) the same way as we do in our earthborn civilization the industrial or the information age society. In the 18th century, Baal Shem7 showed the cardinal experience very accurately: Man sometimes cannot help realising that there are uncountable celestial spheres existing above him, and this small Earth on which he dwells is merely a tiny point. But the whole Universe is nothing compared to God, the Infinity, 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 metaconsciousness? When we postulate that the external (not only material) world is primary and determinative, than one starting position is that Meta reality creates its meta-theory, or there is no meta-theory independent from meta-reality anyway. On the other hand, however, if we think the contrary; i.e. that the world creates physical reality, a justified starting position is that there is or may be a Meta reality of metaconsciousness and Meta-theory. If in our opinion there is neither an objective Meta-reality nor a spiritual reality spiritually independent from us, then the starting position is also acceptable that true meta-reality/meta-consciousness only exists inside man. If we assume, however, that meta reality and meta theory are both the creations of a spiritual-transcendental power or possibly of a single Meta-principle, then the correct starting position alone can be that God (or
7

Baal Shem (Yisrael ben Eliezer) 1700-1760, founder of Hasidism.

a being non-being above all other gods, e.g.: the Absolute, that is Meta-God) and/or metaconsciousness 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, and then consequently we must organize the external and internal orientated starting positions into an 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 Meta consciousness; 3. Meta consciousness creates Meta reality; 4. Neither creates the other, the two are not one and the same, but a co-operation of the two parts is the case. (And there may be different types of that again.); 5. Meta-reality/meta-consciousness exists only inside man or a human consciousness; 6. Meta-consciousness or/and meta-human-consciousness can be observed and experienced only inside meta-reality; 7. Meta-consciousness / meta-reality are both the creations of God or a Superior Transcendence; 8. That eight or more fundamental positions together are the starting position of Meta-Theory, a consequence of which being that not all alternatives are necessarily incongruous. Logical decision is not easy in any way. Eventually we can only choose or we are forced to choose the meta-scope starting position, i.e. that during the construction of meta-theory we have to allow, or we are made to allow for all possible starting positions possibly on the highest level. We may not set up a prohibitive sign. It would not be reasonable to put any starting positions into parentheses. Let us give way for continuous intellectual thinking. Nevertheless, we would not like to forget, possibly deny that before the attempt of articulating meta-theory we also stood for one of the theoretical starting position. In any case, the position denying the existence of a reality beyond human existence is the one that stands farthest from us. However, we are not positing our own starting position up to now to the start-up position for the theoretical decision that is we accept to remain inside the metatheoretical starting position. (Moreover, we expect that new viewpoints may be arising continually.) It is enough to point out that the current quantum mechanical argumentations open 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 he writes: The proponents of different theories are like the members of different languageculture communities.9 Therefore on the one hand we cannot deny our own theoretical viewpoint; on the other hand we are ready to earnestly examine other theoretical starting points. Thirdly, we do not proclaim absolutism for the new language-cultural community either, but perforce we may encounter all the language-cultural knowledge groups who vote only 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-reality and/or Meta-consciousness. The Meta-theory of meta-reality. The meta-reality of metatheory. Meta-reality, meta-consciousness and meta-theory solely in us. The transcendental meta-reality and meta-theory. Or: The unified meta-reality, meta-consciousness, meta-human and 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 title
8 9

Robert Anton Wilson: Quantum Psychology (Mandala-Vda, Budakeszi, 2002, p. 239.) Thomas S. Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Gondolat, Budapest, 1984. p. 270. )

incorporates those general categories (meta-reality, meta-consciousness) that we would like to 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 we return to the old categories that would not radically redefine them. There is nothing to keep us from choosing this re-defining alternative in principle, but that comes with the not marginal drawback that in almost every sentence we should make clear that we now mean each expression differently than before. That disturbed, mixed thinking and phrasing situation supposedly would paralyze the straightforward and complex exposition of the new reality/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 once radically replace the abounding meta prefixes (sometimes perplexing and seemingly superfluous) and the concepts conveying the expression of the old state of consciousness with new linguistic signs/expressions. That is all very well, but where should we take those new languages? Where is our ancient/future meta-language? To make new words known and accepted even if we had them - takes a very long time, and in addition to that, it would not be possible to translate these letter combinations into other languages. It shows up even from so much that it is a dead end for the time being, but only for the time being, to any alternatives like that, an extra universal consciousness- and knowledge state and a new universal language would be necessary. Let us stick to meta categories for the moment. Our essay stands on not one, but several - meta approach - top-level concepts, and we do not wish to decide in advance how those relate to each other (hierarchical, not hierarchical, etc.). We name six top concepts to start with: 1. Meta-reality (inevitably not independently from Metaconsciousness for example); 2. Meta-consciousness (similarly not independently from Meta-reality); 3. Meta-human/Meta-human-meta-consciousness (also not independently from the previous two and from those following); 4. Meta-God (not independently from any, but not depending on any of them either); 5. Meta-Change (the category of operation that is the complex, 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 is not independent from any one, but depending on meta-consciousness the most, as one possible projection of meta-consciousness and one of the models of Meta-change). For the time being, we are not making an attempt to comprehend the Meta-principle (or the Metaprinciple group). Therefore, in our essay we strive to apprehend the concepts and the contents/forms behind concepts, statically and in change at the same time. (Behind? Is it possibly the other way 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 as well (meta-space-meta-time, meta-history, or meta-method, supra theory). The new top concepts, inevitably, document the new reality/reality image which shows that the traditional (rational, natural, material) reality is a much wider territory than thought before, on the one hand. On the other hand, that the invisible (not rational, not material, emotional-intellectual etc.) reality is the determinant of the material world much more profoundly than thought before. Thirdly, that the existence of a sacral (not material and not only mental at the same time) actuality is getting more and more evident. We may also convey all that metaphorically with the concept-pair of quantum reality and quantum consciousness.

As we leave the assessment of the chosen intellectual path to others, so we hold back from such self-evaluating statements as that bringing up meta-theory and putting it into issue means 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 at least we have not fixed from the beginning what meta-theory should contain, what its logic should look like, what kind of a theoretical construction it should offer. We deliberately reserve the chance of creation - self-creation. We do not restrict vision, imagination, and logic in the least. We would not be pleased if a meta-transcendent consciousness or our own consciousness-unconscious possibly had ready, finished meta-theoretical visions, although a normal medium role is not without interest, and is not to be dismissed lightly. The phrase not being pleased, on the other hand, indicates wonderfully our barrier that deep inside we would not like and we can not let go even the personal opportunity of the person creating scientific knowledge for the time being. Knowing the barriers, however, makes stepping over them possible. We allow and support Meta-theory which is being born (supposedly, it is born), is being created (supposedly, it is created), in constructing itself (or also itself) continuously. Let us remember, that we want to make the self-development of meta-theory possible in that we try to create at least the limited-unlimited space for it; that is, we would not like to put obstacles in the way of creation happening in ourselves and via us. It is the free uninterrupted process of theoretical construction. As we do not assume, and reasonably, we may not assume, that our own minds and our consciousnesses would be meta-computers or a meta-knowledgebases knowing and understanding all the knowledge in the global knowledge society, therefore our aim merely can be to realize as clearly as possible our limitations concerning knowledge and mental perception. This situation sharply raises a seemingly unanswerable dilemma, even if we would like to use both the left and the right hemispheres of our brains. If a single person is not able to have all the important knowledge in principle and in practice, even if he were a brilliant genius otherwise. What is more, he may not have a full picture even of what are the important and the not important facts from an infinite amount of information. So he must face consciously and personally that awkward and disturbing problem of how and when he can control the theoretical hypotheses using all pre-existent and future possibilities of cognition. We can present this dilemma more sharply too. Permanently there is not, and will not be enough qualitative, quantitative and established knowledge to prove the truth of and protect meta-theory with a scientific logic. If the required knowledge always remains insufficient, the reasoning based on the limited knowledge alone is unsatisfactory for fundamental theoretical demonstrations. On top of that, post-normal science has lost its firm theoretical fundaments for quite a long time. To go even further, scientific knowledge, for that matter, is going through paradigm shifts; therefore, almost every natural- and social science assumption may be accepted only currently, temporarily (in our days, only for years or decades at a maximum). If the global scientific self-development10 would reach the point where the unified scientific and, separately, a sociological meta-theory came into existence, it would supposedly cause profound paradigm shifts, and would be a question intensely disputed for decades.

10

See in this volume Jozsef Csorba Towards a Big Theory

Consequently, meta-theory, (and many other theoretical constructions, too) necessarily may be only a vision or hypothesis, and to give acceptable reasons for it, we can seek different cognitive tools and methods and can find them. At the same time, it does not follow that the chance to grasp the truth has vanished, however. Since the truth earlier, as later on, is at once as it is not. Despite all the obstacles of theory creation, meta-theory does mean many aspects: new sensibility, new cognition, new logic, new intellectual control, new conceptual system, namely new reality/consciousness. Without the new sensibility, or without the new perception 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 conceptual system. 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 or lasting results. No one is the owner of the truth, no cognitive method guarantees truth, and the spirit of the age does not sanction any theory or hypothesis forever. In addition, it does not follow that the completion of a scientific verification or the understanding of information coming 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 times newer reality/consciousness will be emerging from the mist.11 P.S: The biggest hindrance to theory development is the state of science, even if we necessarily wish to transcend the science of our culture. We may risk a hypothesis: the highest level science, especially in the not always public research centres of the great countries, has reached post-science. However, the majority of Hungarian scientists are unwilling and unable to switch even to the way of thinking of post-normal science, although this is a standard in the global knowledge space today, be it said or unsaid. (Is the difference between normal, post-normal, and post- science clear at all? Ziauddin Sardar writes, A great deal of contemporary science is no longer normal science in Kuhnian terms. Science fails to deliver prompt answers to many questions of our age. The post-normal science requires science to extend its frontiers, to include different measure processes, viewpoints and knowledge types..12) 6. Who looks at whom and how? We have no reason to lightly suppose that we altogether know without doubt that actually there is meta-reality and consciousness (and most of all, how it is), but there is a feasible theory hypothesis (or most likely more) that is meta-theoretical conception which promises at least 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, we have no reason to suppose that there is not or that there may not be a total meta-reality independently from the Observer (or from looking at it), and theoretically it is not unfeasible that this meta-reality is looking at us with supra-reality eyes, and sees us with its glance like the creators of meta-theory. Actually, nothing is impossible hypothetically and that is a merry state of mind. The contemporary normal and post-normal science (what is more, postscience) is the history of that knowledge accumulating process, that the Zeitgeist always

11

We also could have written the following thought: this book is first and foremost about a fundamentally new intellectual structure that needs to be understood in its own terms, and can not reasonably be fit into any existing framework. Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science (Wolfram Mdia Inc. 2002) 12 Ziauddin Sardar: Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars (Alexandra, Pcs, 2003. p. 72-73.)

reaches a point where it accepts such newer and newer cognition results as were considered unfeasible 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 metareality 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 Metahuman-consciousness reflects itself and meta-consciousness is creating it; The observed/Meta-consciousness is looking at the observing/Meta-humanconsciousness (the impersonal Meta-consciousness appears in the personal Metaconsciousness, and meta-human-consciousness is able to notice it); Meta-consciousness, the impersonal / personal Meta-consciousness-reality is Selfexistent. (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, metareality 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 already show that meta-theoretical approach offers at least that many paths for cognition-mixing. In the recent consciousness state of humanity, we cannot even exclude meta-unconsciousness because all perceptions, interpretations of our consciousness-unconscious may well be the expression of the unrecognized unconsciousness. Therefore not only the Who is looking at who? is a right question. If we see beyond the reality of our Euro-Atlantic world, than we see for example in the Hindu culture they reserve the concept of reality as one of the basic answers shows - for the primary reality, the selfexistent. 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 its objects. One cannot describe that state. One can only be that The self-existent is the

primary reality. Only the self alone is reality, so stay always in it13 This approach leads already to the formation of the concept of the unity assuming that a multiple-stage, metalevel 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 only one method of cognition, that is they know not only the rational argumentation of early science alone. For our modern way of thinking it is amazing and usually unacceptable that beside science they consider the mystical cognition and the information and inspirations arising from beliefs are also ways of cognition. One of the representatives of that traditional cognitive philosophy is Al-Ghazali14, who wrote the following: Verification through evidence is science, getting in the state of god-closeness is insight, the acceptance of experience and hearsay in good faith is belief. Well, the fact that science is accessible for all, at least in principle, while the other two cognitive methods are only accessible for those who have personally experienced, and knowingly applied them, makes it even more difficult to accept this idea. In fact, there is no such gap between traditional and post-modern thinkers as we usually suppose. For example, already in the 60s the anti-culture program of the new psyber society15 rushed through the US, showing not only the electronic technology induced greater efficiency of the beat generation, greater than all prior generations, but also that masses of the new generation wanted 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 measure the energy process and the sequence of energy transformations we call life. The goal is to answer the basic questions in terms of objective, observed, public data. Religion is the systematic 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 ancient thinkers referred to. The purpose of the reference was to realise that despite all prejudices and reservations Meta-theory cannot avoid raising seriously and calmly the question: what are we to 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 of meta-theory, which necessarily equally incorporates all prior and current cognitive methods, ranging from religious insight to the new type of cognition happening via Internet using artificial 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 metamethodology as well. After Meta-methodology, the basic methods of cognition are the following: a) Pre-scientific (everyday, direct, personal and communal experience, tradition etc.), that is, the observer incorporates the observed one, and vice versa.);

13 14

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Absolute Consciousness (Filosz, 2003. p. 34-35. ) Abu-Hamid Mohammed Al-Ghazali (Palatinus, 2003) 15 Thimothy Leary: The Politics of Ecstasy 16 To avoid misunderstanding: we do not wish to popularize the New Age-t. A reliable critique, although not always thorough is given by Rama P. Coomaraswamy in his essay entitled The Desacralism of Hinduism for Western Consumption (Tradci MMV, Kvintesszenca Kiad, 2005. p. 141-148)

10

b) Scientific cognition (normal and post-normal science, theology), the observer is looking at the observed one; c) Cognition beyond science (a para science, knowledge beyond science, the techniques of mystic religions), the observed gives signals to the observer who is only partly capable of perception; 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 various interactions.; e) Cognition via the arts (all older and new arts and post-art as well)18 it can be the manifestation of self-consciousness or the impersonal-personal meta-consciousness; f) Artificial intelligence (self-creating meta-reality and meta-consciousness or merely an extension to the cognitive techniques of the observer.) g) Experiencing God (prayer, meditation, inspiration, etc.) a high-level perception of self-consciousness, interiorizing the transcendent viewpoint.; h) Cognition arising from belief a meta-consciousness/meta-god is being perceived in meta-human consciousness19; i) Cognition is limited or it is even impossible, looking is superficial or limited, even impossible; j) An integration of the cognitive methods, that is, applying the system of meta-supramethodology 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 highest stage20 of cognition? We must not forget that cognition (even when using more methods together) frequently yields only limited, and often no theoretical results at all21. (Let us bracket the scenario of guaranteed cognition.) The pre-scientific cognition is of interest to us because a personal evaluation of direct individual and communal experiences often brings very new internal-external realizations. (It is partly the mystical-religious experiences watched and described by many that belong here) The God experience is not merely a religious experience, but sometimes much more than 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 new information (or super-information) is only possible with the help of the new human equipments, the artificial intelligence. Apparently there will be a good many for whom only the scientific, or maybe the post-scientific method is acceptable, and everything else is unscientific and to be rejected. Most probably, there will be a good many too, for whom only the God experience and belief give true knowledge and everything else is false or falsified. It is not especially our duty to do justice to the parties, which is impossible nevertheless, or is it
18

See in this issue Kamaras Istvans 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 is the supernatural way. In the scope of natural way are those that the mind can understand, either by way of senses or alone. The supernatural way, however all that the mind partake directly what are over his own ability and talents. Gyri Krmelita Rendhz, 1995. p. 148 20 For Schuon, existence has stages, and so has cognition. Huston Smith: Preface. The essay is preface to the book Frithjof Schuon The Transcendent Unity of Religions (Kvintesszencia Kiad, Debrecen, 2005. p. 11.) 21 If epistemology does not content itself with the analysis what distinguishes true knowledge from false knowledge, but directs its attention to the process of cognition, the cognitive mind, and the cognitive function of consciousness: philosophy is enriched by metatheoretical approach. Andras Laszlo: The light of everything in man (Sophia Perennis Kiad, 2004. p. 14)

11

not? Both views casting off the other standpoint make it impossible to get acquainted with it and 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 maybe superfluous as well, since the two viewpoints judge from different states of reality and consciousness, and discover different realities/consciousnesses. Obviously, the top pattern of meta-methodology (supra-method) is nothing else than applying all prior cognitive methods in a way that they control also each other, and using them in a new logical order. It could bring enormous advantages both for classic science and for theology, for instance. According to Stephen W. Hawking, three yes answers offer themselves for the question: Is a normal and post-normal scientific unified theory describing everything 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, the first step of it, the cosmological unified theory of the natural sciences. Second, sticking to this 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. In addition, 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, Hawkings logic must choose between yes or no. Meta-theory transcends the viewpoint of normal science; certainly, it is not striving for being a unified theory/post-theory by 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 a dilemma no one can answer. Ziauddin Sardar in his book23 that appeared also in Hungarian writes: 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 the issues of genetically modified foods, science cannot deliver hard and fast answers to a host of contemporary issues. The old paradigm of science which provided certainty and assurance is no longer valid. Post-normal science requires science to expand its boundaries to include different validation processes, perspectives, and types of knowledge.24 However, it is not sufficient to walk only the first half of the way leading from normal science to Meta-theory. If we accept, for instance, that there is no society in the traditional sense25, 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. If there is no reality independently from us, if there is no reality image, especially not an objective and strictly regular one, then we may speak about different types of reality vectors at the most. If in theoretical physics the observed object cannot be separated from the observer and is not knowable in itself, then even if it does exist the society is inseparable from the observing social science scholar. The terminology of the at least 150-years-old Industrial age has come to an end, therefore not only the objective society, but also the classical category of science has come to an end, too. The other half of the road is a new realization: the science perceiving the true, deterministic world from outside is one to be
22 23

Stephen W. Hawking: The Theory of Everything (p.17) Ziauddin Sardar: Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars. (Alexandra, Pcs, 2003.) 24 Op. cit. 72-73 25 See, in the present volume, the essay by Gabor Balogh (From Theory to Metascience)

12

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 finite meta-consciousness is also not a finished, fixed theory and not based on one truth. The ultimate theory is namely not a closed but an open theory, and can give different answers to same question for that matter. There is no other ultimate chance of an answer to take seriously than the final theory of all, which essentially treats the final in the timeless/spaceless domain. If that is so, than not only whether a unified theory is possible is the only dilemma. On the one hand, there may be, on the other hand, there may not be, and thirdly there have been before, and last before top level it reaches into heights of God, where God 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 manifests itself in several Meta-principles. It is repeatedly an actual question of methodology whether we want to be independent logically and mentally from the dominant Zeitgeist, the dominant dogmas in the sense of the example of Socrates26. We have to make an effort, even if there is no task much more difficult than that in our everyday state of mind, which requires a clear mind. It is somewhat easier if our thinking leaves behind the logic of yes or no. If we revolutionize our way of thinking, if we accept, in addition to yes and no, the maybe, or noise (as a scope that cannot be interpreted) as a logical state, if we advance to at least quantum logic or perhaps unit logic, then we may have a chance of understanding the theory of All. Then there is not much sense 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. For that matter, today it does not exclude the possibility any longer that a scientific starting point could lead to discovering the meta-principle. P. S.: Is meta-theory after all unfeasible? Even failure is a possible end. What can we choose instead of Meta-Theory? It can be nothing short of scientific or theological theory without 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 have the smallest chance of becoming a unified final philosophy. Rather, we decide for the unfeasible 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 in brief that on one hand it is all the prior important scientific, pre-scientific and post-scientific basic 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,
Hegel when describing the true method, which is the action of the thing itself, referred to Plato, who favours to present Socrates making discussions with youngs. They do not care for dominant opinions, and are ready to follow the coherent questions of Socrates. He demonstrated his own dialectic method on those ductile youngs, who do not want to change the own course of the matter, and do not want to wit and sparkle. Gadamer: Truth and 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, John Schwarz, and Mike Green etc.) Brian Greene, one of its current representatives says "just as vibrations of violin strings give rise to different notes particles with different masses and force charges arise from vibrations of elementary strings. Superstring theory in order to work requires extra spatial dimensions that are in a curled up state and extraordinarily tiny, so we can not see them. Brian Greene: The Elegant Universe
26

13

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 is such a broad term as it incorporates all existing theory, post-theory, then the unified highest level top-knowledge of all theories, and as a key factor, the specific theoretical system of both elements. Those are three aspects together. This interpretation makes distinction between theories based not on methodology but on type (interpretation level, abstraction quality, integration measure, the height of their viewpoints etc.) of the theory. Meta-theory metaphilosophy integrates human knowledge on the following levels in three phases. (1) Pre-existent basic theories, like pre-theories, every single scientific (normal and postnormal) theory, post-scientific theories of disciplines, all the theologies, artificial intelligence, 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 other words, 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 knowledge and the systems of knowledge and over-knowledge, in this manner, a unified new knowledge of 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 of different levels in the first momentum alone. The first level gives a summary of only the unified 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 top of 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 abstractionintegration, to the world of supra-theories. These are top theories over science or branches of understanding and already a post-colonial (not only Euro-Atlantic), intercultural or interreligious 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-level theoretical 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 new states of consciousness born of relations of shared systems of the meta-level, and from projecting them to each other. Eventually it is reaching or rather getting initiated to the consciousness state of the Absolute. (The top level in the unitary and unified system is the integrated 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 is because now, due to decades-long global intellectual efforts, the systematic-non-systematic top 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 or

28

In this meaning see: Without doubt there is no other reality than God, only the illusion (wahm) veils it from our eyes - and illusion is illusory. Al-Arabi Ad-Darkquawi: Az emlkezs rzsakertje. Al-Arab AdDarkquw: Az emlkezs rzsakertje. Kairosz Kiad, 2005. p. 322. 29 I do not agree with Gabor Balogh who in his essay From theory to Meta-science calls already integration inside a discipline Meta-meta-theory, because then we needed to use at least four meta prefixes for the really high level meta-theory which incorporates three momentums. Similarly, I do not think the super-meta-theory term of Istvn Dienes is justified (See in this volume).

14

insights, may be born again, or may come into being on a higher level than ever before. This miracle supposedly has happened many times in the life of humanity known today.30 The unified natural sciences, assumptions of the integrated Social Sciences or the spiritual sciences reflecting systematically on each other are also the first momentum. Here belong also the unified but still inside each religion theological theories, or among others for example the unified esoteric school of thought. The second momentum involves the top theories of top questions: metaphysical traditionalism, the philosophy of religion31 and posttheology comparing the world religions, the shared hypotheses of the unified sciences. The third momentum uses the first two as a building stone to start with, but from the knowledge of the two momentums it develops the meta-system of theories on the one side, and on the other 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 strategy for the development of knowledge first, then a consciousness-building strategy that can be realized with the help of different cognitive methods in the beginning, partly one by one and partly as a whole. We do not intend to convey the impression that the way Meta-theory raises problems would be something originally new. Think only about, for instance, that Martin Heidegger in the last century, at the very beginning of the sixties (in his essay titled Kants Thesis about Being) suggests the contraction of the words theology and ontology, because of the twin-like characteristic of the question concerning the existence of Being. The duality of the question about the being of beings can be brought together in the title "onto-theo-logy"32 Thus, what is Meta-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 similarly in 572 of the Phenomenology of Spirit33 writes about philosophy being the unity of art and science insofar as philosophy not merely keeps them together to make a totality, but even unifies them into the simple spiritual vision, and then in that raises them to self-conscious thought We can take another example too, since Johann Gottlieb Fichte while also interpreting the Kantian heritage in his lecture given in 1794 in Zurich outlined the Theory of Science.34 We cite from the notes of his 5th lecture: .the purpose of science is not less than to bring into existence 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, original and general system in addition to the top act (on which the system stands) the philosopher needs to take another action, which is nothing else, than a reflection on the top act. In the same lecture: the sharpest examination of all human knowledge ends at one point which is not 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 of the whole system of the human spirit which inspection ends at a point that we accept out of belief. Our comprehension is obviously not identical with either meta-theory and/or metaphilosophy of today, or that of its general or later canonized form of tomorrow. The category of meta-theory described now is the definition of the term as we use it. . 9. Physics and Metaphysics
30 31

The best example for that is the Rig Veda (The Rig Veda Book 1-10, tr. Griffith, 1896) For instance: Frithjof Schuon The Transcendent Unity of Religions. In our volume see Ilma Szaszs essay. 32 Martin Heidegger: Pathmarkers, Osiris, Budapest 2003 p. 407. 33 G. W. F. Hegel: The Phenomelogy of Spirit Encyclopedia III. Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest. 1981. p. 356. 34 Johann Gottlieb Fichtes Lectures in Zurich. Magyar Filozfia Szemle, 2004/3. p. 323351 .

15

As a first approach, the following can be adequate: the new Meta-theory is essentially metaphysic, 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 of physical beings, or integrating all reality/consciousness. In this conception, the uplifting caused 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 it is not in need for any intellectual-moral protection. The next hundred years will be or may be not in small part again about Metaphysics getting into focus, since the paradigm shifts of post-normal science put the metaphysical questions (metaphysical reality, consciousness states) on the agenda again. All essential theoretical, philosophical problems are to be dealt with as question of metaphysics (matter, reality, consciousness, life, death, God) until we reach 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 to the modern scientific worldview, but meanwhile the post-modern science ruins the theoretical content, even the scientific foundation of this ignorance. Simultaneously, the modern science starts to contend with more and more metaphysical questions because with the discoveries of the new quantum theories the circle and depth of the observations have expanded. Consequently, a bigger and bigger fraction of post-millennium scientists have quietly returned to Metaphysics36 for that matter to the astonishment of positivistrationalist scholars- , irrespectively of the fact, that they may use other words, like Theory of the 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: natural science); 2. The theological system of the transcendental reality considered supernatural and the existence of God; 3. Meta-physics is a general, comprehensive, integrated scientific/post-scientific theory or philosophy about Oneness38, meaning that Oneness is identical with Being since it incorporates everything from the natural world, to the domains of consciousness, and to the realms of God39.

The created (physikon) and the created ones (physika), the created world (physis) is what the interpreting translation according to the higher level refers to. The circle of the ones created- beings is larger than that of the natures (in widest sense). Laszlo, Andrs: What is metaphysical tradition? (www.tradci.org ) 36 Ruzsa, Ferencs definition of metaphysics is Metaphysics analyses the most fundamental and general entities and structures of world and our consciousness, and their interrelations. Ruzsa, Ferenc: A Meta-physica mvelsnek hasznrl. Hungarian Philosophical Review, 2004/1-2, p 3. (Noteworthy are the essays of Ruzsa Ferenc 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.com 38 One of the excellent essays about the film titled Matrix (Jorge J. Gracia Jonathan J. Sanford: The Metaphysics of the Matrix) defines metaphysics in this third sense. (William Irwin: The Matrix and Philosophy Bestline, 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 the globalization would be the third world over modernization (that is metaphysics) is controversial. If metaphysics in a proper sense is concerned with the Whole, than it is not worth calling it a stage of reality, the realm of metaphysics. (Vass, Csaba: Mg lk kzt leszel l, kotj Kiad, 2000, p 136.)

35

16

In the latter meaning, the concept of metaphysics and meta-theory are apparently quite close 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 universalities prior 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 big novelty in itself that the central focus is on consciousness40 instead of the old substance of the individual. On the other hand, with that methodical extension and enrichment, that it rises above scientific, post-normal scientific techniques considering theology understandably of equal rank with science based on evidences, so it returns to the original meaning of metaphysics, and opens up todays thinking toward standard meta-thinking. What is the plus of Meta-theory over the very different meaning science of Metaphysics? It goes beyond philosophical metaphysics and traditional theological metaphysics, and does not retreat in either subjective or objective idealism, while at the same time it makes efforts to provide the lacking momentums, for instance besides metaphysics to meta-chemistry41 or meta-biology. At the same time, this extended metaphysical world-conception does not screen out the traditional physical or intellectual domains; rather on the contrary, it fuses and integrates them into a top theory. The Meta-theory we stand for is therefore such a supra-theory and supra-system doctrine that probably transcends as we noted the philosophical metatheory, what is more, traditional metaphysics as well, that is, it makes the traditional conception identical with not only magical solipsism, but it still does not stand exclusively for objective idealism. To prevent all misunderstanding, meta-theory does not reject science because that is an integral part of the system of the human spirit, on the contrary, it basically expands and fortifies it, but it also reaches post-science, and simultaneously integrates also metaphysics, so it does not deny theology either. True, it can be seen as it partly makes the metaphysical method scientific, on the other hand, however, it partly theologizes science; but we do not agree with those two explanations. From this viewpoint, Martin Heideggers conception42 is also of interest. First, he says categorically that philosophy is something very different from science43, although it hides itself in science, puts on the outer form of science. Secondly, he says that metaphysics like philosophy is a basic occurrence in the human Dasein, and fundamental metaphysical concepts are broad terms from its nature. Thirdly, he concludes that the essence of metaphysical thinking lies not merely in its focus on wholeness, but also in its inseparableness from the questioner, and the thinking in existence, that is, the philosopher and philosophy cannot be separated. We may look at this later statement as parallel to that discovery in physics that the observation of physical phenomena is not possible without considering the observer. Summing it up, we can state that Meta-theory is not science or merely a scientific top system, but a post-theory and post-theology, or philosophy in the sense of Heidegger, or, if you like, meta-philosophy and metaphysics in one. However we can take the interpretation of Heidegger one step further in that meta-theory - or a new metaphysics - has not only the Oneness and the questioner of Oneness for its aim; but it creates a new Oneness, or a new world and simultaneously a new questioner, a new inquiring position and new inquiring state
40

The following are also from the lecture of Fichte, cited earlier: The definition of knowing is nothing else than the definition of consciousness p.325 41 It is not coincidence that in addition to quantum physics the term quantum chemistry has been born. See in this volume: Hejjas, Istvan: Reality at the Level of Quantum Physics 42 Heidegger, Martin Introduction to Metaphysics Osiris, Budapest, 2004. p. 2933. 43 Similarly, Bela Hamvas writes: philosophy is not a science. Science has no style, it does not need one. It would 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

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 Dasein44, however our conception of basic occurrence and Dasein is something else and we see them in a different light in spite of all necessarily existing philosophical ambiguity. Meta-theory perceives and displays a new world, a new reality, a new consciousness (that is 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 abstraction and integration. 10. The initial conception of meta-reality independently from metaconsciousness 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 with being45 , 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 we use the term reality for. Therefore, we will discuss not the existence of being, but the existence of reality. We would like to talk also about non-being/non-reality, and in a logically 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 not mean the end of the thinking path. Nor is it without purpose that we discuss and allow to see not merely reality, but metareality. A novelty in Meta-theory regarding conception is that it discusses not merely traditional theories, or that it not merely joint theories in general, but as an active logical feedback with the help of intellectual integration in the concept of a new reality, it questions and reunites traditional and new sub-realities. Meanwhile, it does not assume at all that we have conceptions about every dimension of reality already. This theory concept is the cautious announcement of that new reality-hypothesis that it is not only at the top of theories that higher knowledge may exist, but there are also non-existent half-realities on top of realities (behind, around, etc.). On the other hand, there are structurally existing suprarealities, and at last, the sub-realities, the non-existent and the top-realities together give up meta-reality.(What Parmenides thought does not add up to all that is thinkable.) It is important to perceive and understand that even with all that we have not yet apprehended reality/meta-reality. Necessarily, a part and an organic part of this borderless and dimensionless meta-reality is not-being, and not the exclusive opposite of it. This is exactly why this meta-reality cannot be 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 is beyond reality, but there is not anything that would not belong to reality. Not-being partly covers that which is not inside known reality yet, because we have no knowledge of it. If there is not a thing, a thing does not exist, if a thing is absent, if a thing is unthinkable, that is the same as a thing which can be perceived by hand. If we said there is no, it has come into being right away, if we perceived its missing, it becomes real at once. If there is no such
44 45

Op. cit. p. 31. Heidegger says: Being cannot be. Were it to be, it would no longer remain being but would become a being, an entity. (Martin Heidegger: Pathmarkers. Osiris, Budapest, 2003. p. 434.) 46 Heidegger, Martin: Kant's Thesis About Being. 1961. (Martin Heidegger: Pathmarkers)

18

thing, if it does not exist, it does not necessarily follow either that it cannot be, cannot come into being, and cannot exist in the imagination. Meta-reality in our opinion is the only possible conception of reality. Every fragmenting of reality, every curtailment of it and all forcing it within closed schemes lead to its becoming indefinable. One of the classic examples of this is Aristotles wrestling with the concept of reality; On one hand, he denies Platos transcendental doctrine of Ideas, on the other hand, he accepts the Divine as the first cause and the main cause of every concrete existence, 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 consist of universals because a universal indicates a 'such', not a 'this', and if no substance can be composed of substances existing in complete reality, every substance would be incomposite, so that there would not even be a formula of any substance.47

11. 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 to note that we outline a flight of steps, and totalities can only be described by a flight of steps in 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 metatheory); 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 one point, or the single Meta-principle for the moment. The metaphor about a flight of steps is not a multidimensional model. Even so, in this vision of a system it clearly shows up that the human task is also multiple, that is alldirectional. It is necessary to move upwards and downwards on each step and horizontally between each flight of steps - between steps on the same level -, what is more, from each step of each flight of steps in different angles, diagonally. Meta-human is therefore something like the 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 of steps quasi cover, evoke, and inspire the flight of steps to self-development. If our presumption is that everything exists only inside the human being, than the five flights of steps 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 of many 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 at another time. It is important to emphasize that meta-theory does not consist merely of phrasing 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 indicating and phrasing without clearing up the interrelations among the basic concepts and the further
47

Aristotle: Metaphysics. Lectum Kiad, 2002. p.199.

19

general categories subordinating them under the five top concepts, for now. The outlined meta-theory system or post-system still has ahead of it the decision whether one or more principles/concepts from the five top concepts or from beyond those top concepts will take the central role. Suppose there is a central role; since another conception is possible, that there is no central role at all, or there are more central players, or the main players are changing continuously, or they are different depending on the varying directions of the observer and the observed viewpoints. The system and/or net of the top concepts can be imagined in a globular model, but it is not a regular geometrical spheroid, but for instance that kind of space in which every point is a central point and there is no outline anywhere48, or such as the World Tree of the Cabbala, 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 one centre according to geometry rules, while on the territory of Principal Forms, every single Point that is grouping around the centre is at the same time the centre itself in a magical way.49. This description is as if we read the characterization of mystical quantum space. The sphere model from the inside and the outside, as a whole, in the infinity of its wholeness is itself 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 conclusion that the categories picked out, and the reality/consciousness contents addressed by these categories can be interpreted in such a model as is less a geometrical than an intellectualspiritual system. Thus, the main order is quantum space and a meta-system of an intellectualspiritual 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 without any attribute, examined in itself), but we may take an effort to make a new hypothesis about it, that is, to re-create or reconstruct supra- and meta-theory, and the abstract concepts expressing them. However, let us skip differences between meta-reality and supra-reality for now. This meta-reality however is not a self-sustained realization, like being is not merely existence, and this reality is not the opposite of appearance because that is reality too. This reality is the composite of is and is not, of there is and there is not.50. Therefore this is more than to be, but at the same time it is not merely that which is; or else being and its existence together and a substance as well, but it is not the only and the only dominant essence, which is 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 and simultaneously 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 way cannot see it as the end cause, or as objective being, and not in the least as objective existence.

48 49

Leo Schaya: Az ember s az abszoltum a kabbala szerint (Arcticus, 2002 p. 43.) Op. cit. p. 43. 50 See the essay of Varga Csaba entitled The new world vision (Tertia, Budapest, 2004.)

20

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 (or all their attributes) belong to it without any restriction. In addition, even those realms, reality domains about which we have no hypothesis, belong to it. It is not the question of the observing and the observed, the contemplating and the contemplated sights of reality. Maybe it 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 what the observing being or equipment could take hold of. We will not be able to avoid defining the matter since we can get hold of the concept of non-reality only after that of non-material matter. Up to now we did nothing else than, as an introduction, we released reality (leading to inner and outer infinity) out of the captivity of the category and one-dimensional existence of the material world. To understand that release is not that simple and self-evident, although in principle who would question the existence of spiritual or/and virtual realities, at the same time, 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 interrelation between part-realities and/or reality layers. Moreover, we are far from the discussion of what this divine reality is and where it can be found. No matter how we talk around reality, probably it is at the same time independent from us, 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 we might 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 the manifestation (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 inclusive of Meta-consciousness as well), meta-human is the One as well. It is the manifested and unmanifested One. It is the comprehensible and the incomprehensible One. This One is however not the one known from Mathematics, but the One of philosophy, to which there is no zero, and there is no two. It is the point and the infinite at the same time. It also means, on the one hand, that there is no Meta-reality without divine reality, on the other hand, it is also evident, that all that is not known yet, about what we have no idea yet, and what we have not dreamt yet, all are parts of Meta-reality. There is no special gift of prophecy needed to see that the classical sciences (and not only natural sciences) will be continuously, significantly pushing out the definite borders of Meta-reality in every fifty- hundred years. (What is the Absolute, 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, we think the following is reasonable as a starting hypothesis. Meta-reality has (1) at least four domains; what is more, the top-reality of the domains is palpable (2), and the last these domains, non-material of nature (3) can be explained in a particular, dynamic, but not geometrical 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 four domains in themselves summarize only the quantitative constituents of Meta-Reality.

21

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, from atoms to galaxy clusters), life (self-reproductive organic polymers, unicellular and multicellular creatures, and so on.); and humans as physical-biological beings, and last but not 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 not material in nature, data, information, knowledges, sciences, arts and man as an intellectual being. 4. The eternal, ultimate reality of God and the order beyond the divine. It is the reality beyond material and intellectual. It is spiritual, transcendent reality, true reality, clear consciousness, 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 independent from and not eliminative of each other, but they are the appearance, way of being, and expression 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 in every directions. 13. The preliminary concept of meta-reality Let us consider the four elements each as a symbolic stepladder, and let us examine from both directions which are the lowest, and the uppermost steps for example, and from where on this ladder the paths lead to. The lowest stepladder is material reality, the external reality and the external human and the empirical-rational world of external man. Most simply, all that is not material/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 faade, and all that means - something beyond forms - more than physical-biological existence. It is all that is outside, it is not anything that is inside; however, there are several elements and links at the border of the two, which is the inside projection of the outer, and which is the outside projection of the inner. This stepladder is the joint primary and secondary environment, that is, the natural-environment world and the artificial, built world of civilization. All the scenery, props, costumes and tools of the everyday world although that will be the subject of a debate later , furthermore the personal and community conditions that put across the scenery and have it accepted are strictly included. The concrete, existing terrestrial worlds of man, and the concrete human persons in them who as natural and social beings (from birth to death) are mainly existing on this level; in the same way, also the small and large groups of man belong here, from their formation to their decomposition. In our study later on we shall detail 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 or transcendent 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

the second stepladder can still be interpreted with the help of global and local community knowledges. In plainer words, it is the functional repetition of the lowest ladder world and arrangements in individual and community consciousnesses, and in their real establishments, which serves merely the purpose of keeping the lowest world functioning and going in every aspect. Notably the society and the state, the language and the language of society (in a functional sense), then knowing and culture, the mental world, the consciousnesses of individuals and the community, the arts and sciences among others belong here, however exclusively in a functional sense. This stepladder has necessarily two components: (1) created, symbolic and often institutionalized reality associated with the material world and reproducing it, and (2) parallel to that, the mental world, language, thinking and materialcentred knowing of symbolic reality. I still do not wish to say which was or is the first. In the history of Europe, the last two-three hundred years produced the most profound success exactly in developing material-rational thinking and consequently in establishing materialrational institutions. The twentieth century is the triumph and domination of the second stepladder - pushing the third and fourth stepladders into the background. The third stepladder is mental reality which sharply diverges from the semi-intellectual domains of the second step, at the same time not yet reaching up to the peak reality (divine reality) of the fourth step. First, it is the substantial world of inner man, and the place of inner human existence and the storehouse of its contents. It is the reality of a high ranking personal and spiritual (but without God) consciousness. It is the country of I. The third step hence 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. The material world can only be created and kept going according to the knowing and belief of the third step. At the same time after the modern-post-modern worlds tragic and spectacular turning away and seceding from the third world and its requirements the review and recreation of the first world can happen only with the help of the third world. In traditional terms, this level can even be interpreted as the reality behind the surface/forms, the essence behind appearances; and what is more, we may get to the point that this is factual reality, and then the world of the first and second steps seem merely primitive mutations. The third step is already identical with high-ranking natural and social sciences, currently theoretical physics, theoretical biology or the ecological discipline. However, in earth civilization the classical languages of mental reality are most of all religions (not always theologies), philosophies (together with or transcending this, all post-philosophies, unified theories, or meta-theory), which of course makes also the mental-spiritual meaning of Creation comprehensible. All this involves that society and, for instance, social consciousness become post-functional on this level, and because of that, the media of essential contents. This mental reality, 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 globallocal societies on Earth. The fourth step: the mapping of divine reality (and not-reality) which equally can be captivated as first of all non-reality (meaning: denying-transcending the reality of the first three steps) or the Only Reality because the reality of the first three are false, i.e. distorted realities compared to this. In earlier known terms we may call it spiritual or/and transcendent reality, although these two categories do not mean the same. Spiritual in a philosophical sense means only that every being is of a spiritual nature fundamentally, and that matter is only the appearance shape of spirit. Transcendent, however, means more than that since it is not only transcendental or not only non- material, but in opposition of the world considered finite, it is the infinite, the non-empirical, and the non-intelligible. The disadvantage of both categories is that they refer only to supernatural and not to God and the Absolute, the reflected contents of an eternal lifes reality.

23

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-reality transcending intellectual existence (the Intelligence- and Wisdom-reality includes also for instance Clear Consciousness); (3) God (the heavenly kingdom of God, the sacral reality, the domains of holiness, etc.), and the not personal Supreme Being over personal God, the Divine, the Supreme Principium (the Absolute), as well. (This therefore is no more the mapped, 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 this reality is also greatly structured and of course it binds together complicated, multilayered reality levels. The third and fourth steps of Meta-reality are already almost inseparable from meta-consciousness. One of the most exciting dilemmas is that God and the divine reality are not 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, or Meta-philosophy. The most critical issue of the fourth reality is to differentiate between divine reality and that which is beyond divine reality (called as the Absolute). Christian theology keeps this differentiating unjustified and impossible to interpret. The exoteric argumentation is as follows: There are no such elements from which in thinking the Absolute could be constructed51 The concept of absolute or rather its notion accordingly are unusual, very different from any other concept or notion. This difference appears in that although we can give a hint of its meaning in language, but we can never describe it as an object which can be clearly placed before us. The counter-argument based on logic only can easily be worded since the Absolute can very well exist in spite of the fact that for the time being we or 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 this background 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 to misinterpret 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 God and 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 transcendent Absolute in his prayer54 Why is he not going to do that? Why could not we turn to the Absolute when praying, meditating? Moreover, several Christian saints, for instance, might have done just that. (Let us consider as a marginal spiritual experience now that other monotheistic religions think it thinkable and practicable, what is more, a religious experience, and a path that is suitable for living.) More concept-groups can be applied to the four stepladders. The first step can be called first (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 also conversely, the fourth step is the place of creation (but uncreated reality), the third stage is the created spirit, the second step is the self-image of physical creation and the first is created sensual reality. Since we have advanced as far as the concept of sensual, we may rightly regard the reality of the first and second steps as sensual, while the third-fourth stages
51 52

Weissmahr, Bla: Filozfiai istentan (Mrleg-Tvlatok, 1996. p. 90) 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 higher and 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

as super-sensual reality. We can describe them so that only the first step is the sensual level, the fourth is super-sensual reality, and between the two poles, there are two intermediary steps: understanding the world of the senses and the transition into the super-sensual. We may even go further: the first level of Meta-reality is being without Eden, the second step is the unsuccessful pursuit of Eden, an Eden-substitute; the third floor is the glorious vision of Eden and at last, the top level, or the start level, the Ultimate Eden. All that together is Eden/not-Eden. 14. Different interpretations of the four stepladders of reality What is exciting in a new (or regarded as new) theory first of all is not that what it says is new, or possibly only different in contrast to whom or what, but the issue whether through it we have or have not come to understand Unity or the vision of Unity more fully and deeply. Consequently, it is a duty of methodology to subject all new theoretical hypotheses to as many old or not old hypothesis-controls as possible. Let us first confront the Meta-theory typified with our four stepladders with one of the earliest reality hypotheses (almost forgotten in the consciousness of Euro-Atlantic civilization), with the philosophy of the Kabbalah preserved in the Book of Splendour55. There are also four onto-cosmological levels and hierarchies outlined in it, which together are referred to as Olamim: (1) Olam-ha Atzilut, the whole ten-dimensioned system of spheres, the sephirot-like transcendent world of Emanations. (2) Olam-ha Beriah, the creations spiritual world of ideas which is filled with divine immanency. (3) Olam-ha Yetzirah, the home of angels, spirits, souls, the Formation, subtle Formation of the World of Shapes (4) Olam-ha Assiyah, the sensual and bodily world of facts.56 This latter apparently can be matched easily with the material world of the first step, and the dimensions of the third step in a certain sense are identical with the home of spirits and souls, on the other hand with the creations world of ideas. (However, we can interpret it in another way, too: Olam-ha Yetzirah can be equal to our world of the second step as well.) Mapped Divine reality is unquestionably the same as Olam-ha Aziluth, the Sephirothical Unity. Therefore, the difference to seek is possibly in that the meta-theoretical construction duplicates the material world, the Book of Splendour however duplicates mental reality. It seems that there is also a sharp disagreement, namely that the Book of Splendours indicates divine reality as the first level, while the logic of meta-theoretical reality/consciousness-structure indicates material reality as the very same level. The second (stepladder) path of meta-theory starting from the top corresponds to the ancient view of the Kabbalah. Karl Popper in his famous lectures (in his work entitled Body and Mind) makes a distinction between three worlds. The first world is that of physical objects meaning also organisms, the second is that of mental, conscious experiences, and the third world is the world of the human minds products. He describes world three like this: the world of such products of human mind as car, skyscraper, book, and most importantly, problems and theories.57 Roger Penrose, the mathematician in his book The Large, the Small and the Human Mind (originally appeared in 1997) interprets Poppers three worlds as physical world, world of thoughts, and as a product of the world of thoughts, the world of culture. He unfolds his own standpoint in contrast to this world structure, according to which the third

55 56

Sepher ha Zohar, the Book of Splendours The Zohar, Vol. 1-23, 2001. www.kabbalah.com Schaya, Leo: Az ember s az abszoltum a kabbala szerint (Arcticus, Budapest, 20002. p. 21, p. 24.) 57 Popper, Karl: The Self and Its Brain. (Typotex, Budapest. 1998. p. 58.)

25

world is not that of culture, but the domain of Platonic absolutes (absolute mathematical truths). His most important issue is that contrary to Popper, he denies that any of these worlds simply emerges out of any of the others58. In Penroses opinion, the three worlds defined as three rebuses influence each other reciprocally, however he is not able to give up that prejudice of his that non-physical worlds have their roots in the physical world. Eventually, however, he proceeds to this: The proper physical functioning of the brain brings on consciousness, but this physical activity cannot be adequately simulated through calculations after all. Consequently, there must be something in the physical functioning of the brain what is beyond calculations59 When comparing the briefly outlined world structure views, their essential equality lasts only up to the point when they reach the highest (transcendent, sacral, absolute) reality because such a view does not belong to the majority of modern and post modern scientists world view up to now.

15. The structure of meta-reality without considering the structure of metaconsciousness Let us return to ancient knowledge, and let us scrutinize again what kind of Sephiroth the Zohar, the Book of Splendour specifies based on mapped divine reality levels. And how it shows the structure of the system of Sephiroth, which at the same time has been transformed further into meta-consciousness, meta-theory as well. We see that as essential, because we are ready to admit, It is not sufficient to build theories to apprehend the self-existent.60 The hypothesis about the structure of meta-reality without the final figure of n dimensions. If until now we have supplied the overall picture of meta-reality levels, now we may describe the poles of those levels, the connections between the poles, and the channels providing those connections. We would like to announce here and now that this structural model is to return when describing meta-reality, meta-conscious, and meta-human on one side, on the other side, it is the projection of meta-theorys structure in meta-reality. If this build-up is too idealistic for someone, we readily state that it works also backwards: meta-reality acknowledges, confirms meta-theorys system through the inner relations of the system of meta-theory. According to Zohar, the structure consists of ten poles, and within it there are not only four horizontal levels, but also three vertical columns going through the levels. The lowest point of the column in the middle that hardly belongs to the system is physical-material reality, whereas it is one of the bases of meta-reality (the other base implicitly is the highest point). The next three poles of meta-realitys steps are situated above that: in the middle. It is created reality (complex, brought into existence by human beings); to the right there is the reality of thought (mostly in a pre-theoretical form) as the starting point of changes of all times; to the left there is active reality which incorporates the ability to change and the acts themselves. In the middle of the second step and in the middle of its vertical column is the place of the aimed end-state of meta-reality: harmonic, empathetic, love-centred reality. It also implies, that this post-material (post-natural and post-social) reality-plane counterweights, what is more, humanizes the first and coarse world of reality full of conflicts. The right pole of the second step is mental (or coarse mental) reality, necessarily
58

Penrose, Roger - Hawking, Stephen (etc.): The Large, the Small and the Human Mind. ( Akkord, Budapest. 2003. p.104. 59 Op. cit. p. 108. 60 Zohar. Op. cit. p. 5.

26

the world of shallow understanding and knowing. On the left, there is empirical reality, the world of experiences and of taking actions, in one, the control and judgment of reality. We wrote intentionally, that this step is primarily the existence and reality view of the arts and sciences. The third step is high knowledge, the world of high-ranking understanding, there is nothing on this intermediate level, because it is the highest reality dimension already, and therefore it belongs to the fourth level. On the right side of the third reality-plane, there is the wisdom of reality, i.e. wisdom-reality can be found which is on one side over pretheoretical and theoretical reality, on the other side this pole provides the easiest way of stepping over to the fourth reality. On the right, there is the reality of intelligence, which equally incorporates natural, social and intellectual intelligence. As mentioned earlier, this step is the world of high knowledge, high beliefs, initiation (philosophies, religions, etc.). Last, there is no right or left pole on the fourth step, only a peak pole in the middle and its position is not arbitrary. We may give it many names, starting from the world of ideas to mapped divine reality, or the reality of high-ranking souls, or the divine self. This reality superior to all the others mentioned before is the upper base of reality construction, at the same time, the peak of meta-reality which leads beyond meta-reality, to the actual border reality of absolute and /or to its post-reality. Since this meta-reality-structure is not a two- or three-dimensional system, it is not hard to accept that the low base of meta-reality also leads to the post-reality lower plane of the absolute. In our view, this is why materialism or idealism in the last century or before is of little avail to us. A description of the channels (of both information and knowledge) which creates the connections among the levels, columns, and poles will be another topic. If meta-reality has at least four fundamental stepladders, then this reality independently from who is looking at reality can be viewed from one or simultaneously from all the steps. This question brings to light at once meta-methodologys problem of structure and abstraction as well. When outlining the offerings of meta-theory, we presented what kind of fundamental methods starting from pre-scientific semi-cognition to understanding through belief we shall use in this analysis of meta-theory. The interpretation would be neither efficient, nor useful when anybody regarded the vision of the meta-reality system in Zohar as an unknowable, un-scientific, spiritual or theological approach. Yehuda Berg writes, Two thousand years after the ancient Kabbalists revealed that reality exists in ten dimensions-and that six of those dimensions are compacted into one-physicists arrived at the same conclusions. This has come to be called Superstring Theory.61 Berg also cites the physicist Michio Kaku who said how awesome it was to see that the magic numbers of physics and unified field theory can be found in Kabbala.62 Metatheory therefore assumes a uniform meta-reality / meta-consciousness not without reason, which for instance we can understand with the help of both the ancient and the most recent scientific findings. When analyzing meta-consciousness let us advance so much now we describe highranking states of mind: (1) liberated consciousness (intermediate consciousness), (2-3) cosmic consciousness (the stages of a high mind and consciousness), (4-5) stations of divine consciousness and absolute consciousness (top consciousness). Ilma Szasz calls the intermediate consciousness as cleared, high consciousness as consciousness of soul and mind, sacral consciousness as consciousness of god. Istvan Dienes introduces the same as clean consciousness, cosmic consciousness, and consciousness of god, unity (and completeness) consciousness63. In meta-theory, parallel to high-ranking human state of
61 62

Yehuda Berg: The Power of Kabbalah. Hodder s Stoughton, 2003. p. 7576. See the books of Michio Kaku: Hyperspace, Visions, etc. 63 See both essays in this volume

27

minds, we distinguish also a high-ranking human community (or society), that is meta-reality states, past and future simultaneously : the knowing- and consciousness advancing era, the universal and spiritual era (the age of high-ranking knowledge), the sacral era and the unity era. The divine consciousness and sacral society are partly, the absolute consciousness and the era of unity are fully the same personal consciousness and collective states of community/community consciousness do not become separate. As most individuals have not yet reached the enlightened state, so global societies also only now may potentially arrive at the door of knowing - and consciousness-advancing society. 16. Definition of Meta-consciousness apart from meta-reality The category group of mind/consciousness/soul, first of all in our view is not (only) what it has been thought to be for centuries: it is not (only) an overall term of philosophy for capabilities like comprehension, volition, imagination, and feeling. At the same time, we may not even be certain whether consciousness is the non-physical, non-bodily component of human beings or not merely their non-material component. (We see consciousness isolated now, ignoring the unconscious and collective forms of consciousness.) It is superfluous to make statements about that in the global knowledge space independently even from the different European linguistic traditions mind, soul and consciousness refer to different things more and more clearly64. We absolutely agree with Peter Russell: I believe that, sooner or later, we are going to have to accept that consciousness is absolutely fundamental to the cosmos, not something that arises from matter 65 In our view, meta-consciousness is not identical with a meta-mind, neither linguistically, nor in broader conception/formally, or with meta-soul, a description being beyond the scope of this introductory study. (Meta-soul is associated with the transcendent world of humans) Meta-consciousness - as a group of personal states of mind is the nature of humans on the lowest and on the highest levels at the same time; consciousness is probably arising from the physical functioning of the brain, at the same time it influences the brain to the same extent. We may call that a holographic field.66 Consciousness, however, equally appears in every atom, in every DNA (in our hypothesis, in the elements that do not use coding), and in the energy/vibrancy field wrapping in the individual.67 which necessarily cannot be isolated from cosmic and transcendent energy fields. It is a justified approach to differentiate the states of mind during wakefulness, alertness and beyond alertness (that is, a high-ranking state of mind) approach. In this case, we may define high awareness as an entrance into modified states of mind. Each state of mind is measurable by waves, frequencies (electro encephalograph). As we introduced our approach of reality-meta-reality by starting at the material-rational reality steps, so we also begin with introducing the lowest ranking consciousness layer when dealing with the new construction of meta-theory, post-meta-theory, that is metaconsciousness.

May I call the attention to the consciousness research of Hungarian neuroscience and also cognitive science. (See the works of Csaba Pleh, Szilveszter Vizi. E. and others) Brain and consciousness, edited by Szilveszter Vizi E., Ferenc Altrichter, Kristof Nyiri, Csaba Pleh, 2002. 65 The Consciousness Revolution, A Transatlantic Dialogue : Two Days With Stanislav Grof, Ervin Laszlo, and Peter Russell (Budapest, j Paradigma, 1999. p. 62.) 66 See: Dienes, Istvan Consciousness - holomatrix The Cornerstone of Super - Metatheory; Ilma Szasz: The Ultimate Truth of Religions (may I call attention to the essay of Szasz Ilma entitled The consciousness stages we can reach (INCO, 2004/1; www.inco.hu ) 67 The aim of ID frequency researches is to scientifically examine and measure this energy field.

64

28

The first step of meta-consciousness is sensual consciousness not necessarily a highranking state of mind. We may call it everyday, ego-centred consciousness perceiving only itself, in short, the consciousness of normal awareness. This is the material-rational consciousness of the physical-biological world based on direct experiences. It is the tempting / odious pre-consciousness of material reality. It is low consciousness. Its image of reality is dim, disturbed through illusions. If we take a look at meta-reality from here, we can see only the first two steps sharply. Different disciplines usually consider deep sleep, dreaming, and awareness (and its stages, semi-awareness, normal awareness, full awareness) as normal states of mind Awareness means that one is not sleeping, is awake to an extent, one exists in a state of being awake. The most frequent awareness of a normal human is a semi-awareness that is less tiring. To sum up: a liberated state of mind), or a state of mind that sprang forth from the aware state of mind, but not yet enlightened, a cleared-out consciousness level. The second step. Reality consciousness. It is already an abstracted thinking, everyday consciousness. It is the beginning of consciousness that is also not a high-ranking state of mind yet. It is individual and common subconscious and normal consciousness. It is the sensual consciousness projection to reality reconstruction whose focus is mainly on the material world still. There are subsidiary and sweet-sour experiences still in the global and local common knowledge. It is middle (mediocre) consciousness. The image formed by consciousness is mechanical, simplified, but already it is a symbolic image of reality. If we take a look at meta-reality while standing here, giving meaning to the first (virtual) reality is accomplished, and the world of the third step scarcely looming in the distance. If there is sense in making a distinction between the words freeing and liberation, than we may say it is not simply free from something (especially from the shackles of semi-aware consciousness), but neither is it an enlightened state of mind yet, while it is the first stage of liberty. I consider this a separate state of mind because people, using their own strength, driven by suffering are often springing up into middle consciousness, only to fall back almost each time. The third step. It is high intellectual and cosmic consciousness. High-ranking knowledge (science and the arts, philosophy, and theology) offer, but do not guarantee intellectual initiation. Knowledge raises consciousness, and presents a chance to consciousness for stepping out of, or into the universal or divine reality. An arrival at the natural and spiritual cosmos or else this step can be divided into two steps, into the melting in with natural and spiritual universes. It is high consciousness. It is already living the liberty, the opportunity to remain in this state. It is becoming free from the shackles of the real world, becoming detached from the states of mind of the real world. The contents of the mind: truths are getting more and more visible, however, occasional blurs remain. This state of mind is the one stepping into which one looses partly or totally the feeling of duality, is able to become one with domains beyond him, like the nature-universe, or spiritual values, high ranking knowledge and scholars, philosophers or saints. If we take a look at meta-reality while standing here, the first reality is clear for the most part, the knowledge of the second reality can be thought over and paths open for the mind to transcendence. The fourth step. It is the consciousness of metaphysics, the divine, of the Absolute. Selfconsciousness of Clear Mind, consciousness of personal and unpersonal god (its recognition, realisation, experiencing)68 and obviously also the society consciousness centred on sacred reality/sacred consciousness. To be exact: the two determining stages are the consciousness
68

Antal Schutz in the second volume of his Dogmatic draws up three theses about (Saint Stephan Society, 1923) the nature of heavenly bliss: 1. The eternal joy comes foremost from that beatific souls see God. 2. To experience the beatific vision of God beatific souls need a separate supernatural preparedness. 3. Vision of God brings the most complete happiness. (p. 537-544 )

29

of god and the final perfect consciousness of the Absolute. Reality beyond the senses and knowing is always of a form of god and then it is the self-identity of the peak of knowing on top of all contents/forms opening up into the infinite. It is the Highest consciousness, where there is no higher than this at least not in human language. The image formed by consciousness is the indivisible self-consciousness of a clear mind. It is total silence being the same as music. It is the unity of the unseen and that of the perfectly manifested. We therefore from the beginning took the divine (the one-god centred) as different from the absolute (being beyond the one-god consciousnesses.) state of minds. Therefore, we can interpret this fourth step as two as well. If we take a look at meta-reality while standing here, the world of the first step is a material projection without success, the second reality is a piously false abstraction and the third level is the partial manifestation of a divine consciousness. The four-stepped downstairs and upstairs can be interpreted as seven, nine or even thirteen steps as well. We consider as one of the most accurate drawings of those steps that of the Kabbalah in whose central stairway there are four or, including the fifth (secret Daath) step, there are five steps, or together with the side steps, ten, eleven, or including those on top of the Kether, thirteen. If we go over the steps of meta-theory (looking either at their primacy of one another, or at their outgrowth from each other, or their mutual interactions), we reach at once the selfinterpreting of meta-theory levels, or to the inner logic and agenda of the particular steps. The symbolic steps of meta-consciousness, quite like the levels of meta-reality, are not static states. If meta-consciousness equally exists outside and inside, upside and downside, tied to meta-reality and knotted to the meta-consciousness of the meta-human, then the innerouter driving forces are continuously in change due to the infinite and the finite. An apparently stationery, unmoving meta-consciousness is moving as well and the unceasing vibration is a state without vibration at the same time. There have been ways of thinking and behaviour joined to the levels of meta-consciousness even before which are vouching from the beginning that we will be able to discover definite laws before/behind information theories. The basic dilemma irrevocably is what way all people and communities can reach the highest consciousness / reality? In any case, is this an option for everyone69? 17. The logical culmination of Meta-theory Wholeness, the One, meta-reality and meta-consciousness (and every other vector element) are inseparable. When defining the structure of meta-reality and metaconsciousness and their steps we already observed that separation especially inside and between the third-fourth levels is quite unnatural on a few occasions and maybe it is unnecessary, too. While introducing meta-theory we used the set of a pair of twins analogy to show the relation of the concepts of meta-reality and meta-consciousness. However, this cardinal issue of meta-theory and/or meta-philosophy (about the mutual effects of the two) can be examined thoroughly in many different ways: 1. There is no close or strong interaction between the two realities and concepts, but both exist, and fill up and determine the timespace. These are two different contents and forms even if we leave the question open about their effects on each other. 2. There are strong interactions between the two, and that may be even independent from the type of space-time they embody together. We can use the term twins now, if you like, because reality- and concept siblings are of the same rank and
69

Think on the doctrine of predestination in Calvinism (Klvin Jnos: Az eleve elrendelsrl. Eurpa Kiad, Budapest. 1986.)

30

interdependent. 3. There is weak interaction between them because the wider outer-inner super-space transcends them. They are planets in a system with two centres running into the infinite, but they move on different orbits repeatedly or not repeatedly. 4. They represent two parallel dimensions without the physical necessity of meeting or parting in the infinite. 5. The two elements are the same, only from different sides. One side of Unity is meta-reality, the other half is the meta-conscious. 6. There is merely meta-reality and only one meta-reality, accordingly, there is no meta-consciousness, it is an illusion, a secondary factor, the tool of self-misdirection. 7. There is only meta-consciousness, accordingly, there is no meta-reality, or it is only an illusion, pretence, negativity. 8. There is only Meta-god (and/or Absolute), hence meta-reality/meta-consciousness is a concrete physical/metaphysical manifestation. 9. Meta-reality is objective, existing independently from us, hence meta-consciousness is the subjective perception of objective reality. 10. There is only meta-consciousness, only that is objective, only that is the truth, meta-reality is nothing else than meta-consciousness subjectively. 11. The self is meta-reality and meta-consciousness there is nothing else. Nothing at all. 12. In a formatted, restricted, finite system, both meta-reality and metaconsciousness are externally determined factors. The bordering system is more significant than these two elements. 13. In the unnamed chaos-system, or super-space we find only two top factors named simultaneously free and attached. They do and do not clasp all. 14. Metareality and meta-consciousness are factors that we can mutually substitute for each other, not only metaphysically but also physically. 15. Due to the issues complexity, it is hard to find a reason to why only one answer should be correct among the enumerated answersalternatives. Alloy variations are also showing up. 16. Or, in what shared top state do the two main reality/ main consciousness unite? 17. And so on. We have noted repeatedly that we do not commit ourselves yet to the question whether matter or spirit (the material reality or the spiritual/transcendental reality) is primary, or indeed neither has priority in the end or, on the contrary, we are talking about different sides of the very same thing. Or, (as a fifth alternative) there is a spirit/matter of higher quality over matter and spirit, is that possibly a new reality of simultaneously material and consciousness/god like nature? Neither have we raised the question whether is it the same answer on all of the levels of reality/consciousness, since it can be stated that there is no question with only one possible answer. The civilization on Earth based on our current data - from the beginning does nothing else than wanting to make a choice quickly and clearly among the alternatives enumerated and not mentioned. In the past ten thousand years, in any age, any continent or culture they choose only one-one or one-two parallel answers at the highest, with the restriction that except the answer accepted and looked upon as an ultimate truth, every other answeralternative was wrong, false, evil. The approach may not be absurd that terrestrial civilizations once had already known the exact answers, the truth, and the same way as we cannot preclude-exclude the possibility that a superior consciousness of some kind has not yet suggested the solution, or we have failed to perceive and understand that answer. Our analysis of meta-theory-meta-philosophy has no other choice than to commit itself to one, preferably more and diverse attempts at an answer although without thinking that the ultimate answer is our own. 18. The synthesis the (eleven-poled) structure of meta-theory A key question is this: whether meta-theory can or should give a general theoretical and/or philosophical (or another type, beyond both) answer about meta-completeness (metareality/meta-consciousness/meta-human) as a whole or in detail. Our answer is yes, it can and it should be given. There is no other option.

31

Although traditional knowledge, the sciences, theories have drifted apart, got distanced from each other on the one hand, on the other hand, within domains of knowledge the process of the dismemberment of knowledge has accelerated, disciplines are getting selfsufficient. This double, or multiple differentiation reached its peak in the twentieth or at the end of the twentieth century. Parallel to all this, however, a process of synthesis has begun within disciplines and between disciplines, too. In order to continue, we need to create a meta-science, a meta-theory, then a meta-philosophy that are able to see all science/nonscience as one70 by creating a new language, new thinking and new mentality. Meta-theory and all its higher levels are partly necessarily for this, but the cardinal task is not merely creating the theoretical-intellectual synthesis. If meta-theory is a new net of logic and concepts, then meta-theory/meta-philosophy can also be illustrated through a structure consisting of eleven poles. We may vision this for the sake of simplicity and clarity in the build-up of the World Tree-Tree of Life71, and the tree of life symbol interpretation from the viewpoint of the Bible is not yet complete. Where should I place the basic principles on the Tree of Life? The concept-tree trunk let this be our first glance goes from top to downwards, it has meta-god (Absolute) in its peak, than meta-consciousness, then in the middle the metahuman, and the two lower elements meta-society and meta- reality. Since a decent world tree grows its roots both down (into earth) and upwards (into heaven), so the top and the bottom of the world tree equally can be viewed as roots. There is a branch going right, over one end of the trunk, which is on the level of meta-god, that is meta-wisdom and the branch to the left is the meta-mind. In the middle of the world tree, at the central point of the trunk there are also two strong branches reaching out, meta-love is to the right and meta- willpower to the left. Over the other end of the trunk, there is meta-society higher than meta-reality, and on this floor, the branch to the right is meta-feeling and to the left is meta-theory which attempts to characterize the whole content of the tree comprehensively. This is a two-dimensional meta-tree so far, a philosophical world tree, which naturally can be interpreted in a sphere structure, what is more, in the way promised before; this ball will not only have one, but five central points (those concepts, which make up the trunk of the meta-tree now). Then on the unclosed surface of the ball (as it was a fractal structure), there are at least six new smaller balls symbolising the bigger branches now. Certainly, the concept-tree and/or the concept ball are only figurative expressions of Meta-unity, that is whatever we call it meta-laws, meta-principles. What is more: we may possibly reach to the finite/infinite Meta-principle, and to all that meta-principle is going to mean. As an incidental addition, let us refer to the world tree as having been and still being one of the central symbols of the Hungarian world of beliefs, at the same time we cannot deny that we have been lacking its complete description and understanding for a long time. According to Istvan Kiszely: The marvellous tree sky-high tree, or tree without top in the Hungarian world of beliefs is nothing else than the world tree of the taltos people, which connects the low (underground), the intermediate (the earthly) and the upper (other) world.72 Among others, Mihaly Hoppl notes the following: The shaman must be able to climb the
70

It is worth citing the last sentence of Del Ratzschs book: To paraphrase George Marsden, nonbelievers may hear all the notes of science, but without the theistic context and perspective they will not hear the song..." Del Ratzsch: Science & Its Limits (Budapest, Harmat, 2002.) 71 Luckily, we are also not in the situation that the World Tree would have only one interpretation. It is true that the majority of exegetes tend to see in the final episode of the Tree of Life (prepared by the allusion to the two trees standing in the garden in 2:9) a discordant theme, stemming from another tradition, that of God being jealous of human beings. Paul Ricoeur-Andr Lacocque: Bibliai gondolkods (Eurpa Kiad, Budapest. 2003) p. 92. 72 Kiszely Istvn: Az smagyarok hitvilga (www.istvandr.kiszely.hu )

32

trunk of the World Tree, reaching up to the sky (the tree reaching up to the sky), since only this way can he encounter the powers above. In the intermediate world the humans are living together with their animals and the spirits climbing down or up supporting or harming them. 73. There are very few such commonly shared symbols of universal cultures on earth than the World Tree. In our essay, however, up to now we could introduce mainly only two elements of the meta-tree stretching itself out upwards and downwards: meta-reality and metaconsciousness. We also attempted to raise at least a possibility of the interrelations of the two basic categories taking out of the five central/middle elements. We would like to emphasize once again that we wanted to employ all the prior information, relationships, knowing, hypothesis within our reach during our overall analysis of reality/ consciousness slices and their concepts. As we are in Europe, understandably most of the arguments and counterarguments come from (normal and post-) science. However, we have reckon among the different types of theories not only the classic natural and social sciences, moreover we have raised not only the intellectual sciences into our complete theory system, but also every cognitive content-form, logic and message, including theological schools of thought of the five world religions, and also different traditiontheories. From meta-theory and especially from meta-philosophy we cannot leave out the arts, and we cannot regard the tradition theories with philosophical roots, or the higher conceptions of esoteric as not existent. All the works of theory building belong here, with which human thinking has experimented in the last thousands of years, without judging their truth by any invented scale of the truth, and so selecting among them74. If possible, independently from the way Euro-Atlantic science labelled them today or yesterday. With the help of integrated knowledge now as with our new tool and higher states of mind, of course, we can achieve essentially new and fundamentally different knowledge. It can be new philosophy, new science, new religion theory, new thinking and together, actual meta-theory and the system of meta-disciplines which is philosophy, science, theology, and so on, at the same time. However, the first level synthesis (driven only by knowledge) is merely a pre-requisite of real/unreal meta-philosophy in reality and consciousness dimensions and beyond that, which eventually at the same time can force us to re-think fundamentally the workings and elements of knowledge. For the time being, have we nothing to do but read the Vedas, the Bible, the Zohar, the works of Saint John of the Cross, or the significant Sufi thinkers and similarly the new scientific and post-science publications of theoretical physicists, cosmologists, biologists, sociologists and others? Not entirely so. 19. Subsequent paradigm shift(s)? We do not associate inevitably the current paradigm shift with meta-theory after all. The thinking and science of mankind have been going through paradigm shift(s) of the first step75 for some decades. We step out of the Old Paradigm and embrace the New Paradigm, but we still have ahead of us, for instance, the understanding of the meta-paradigm. This first paradigm shift is on the other hand a prerequisite for meta-theory to be born. Of course, at
73
74

Mihaly Hoppal: A smnizmus vallsi kultri (www.terebess.hu ) It is rewarding to listen to Hua-yen Buddhism: hua-yen is often regarded as the teaching of global unity of everything (absolute and phenomenal, mind and matter), the big Totality. Liptay, Lothar: Az Abszoltum odisszeja a buddhizmusban (Kalligram, Pozsony, 2005. p. 95.) 75 A detailed description of the second (or third) steps of paradigm shift theory and practice is beyond the scope of this introductory essay.

33

the same time, meta-theory is the topping of the paradigm shift and opens a door to metaparadigm. In other words, the crown of meta-theory can be seen also as (the beginning/end level of the new paradigm of the highest rank (see Kether in the Kabbalah), provided we detach the peak, the direction of continuous self-development from the complex concept of meta-theory, we wish to describe it under a new category. The meta-philosophy of that level of a paradigm shift (in a sense that a divine/human phenomenon dictates), is in fact an already known path, it has been discovered for long (or has been offered as mercy), it is also there in the prime traditions. One cannot understand it separately, only in the context of immanent life. One cannot understand it even with huge knowledge of any kind, but only by stepping out of immanent lifes plane at right angles, which can be carried out not only in thinking, but also in meta-reality, and at last in the top levels of meta-consciousness, so in all the dimensions of the miracle called lifeconsciousness. That is why we are interested in that particular meta-theory that is placed between possible low and high-level meta-theories, which leads out of a plain-like76 life that is, it supports the standard reaching of high-ranking meta-reality/meta-consciousness and its self-forming transformation capability. Meta-theory is not merely the self-recognition of an immanent world, quite on the contrary, the self-image of a transcendent world in us, and the interpretation of all priorcurrent knowledge within that. We cannot settle for less now than the whole, the consciousness of the whole. The full knowledge and consciousness of the sacral plane is a self-building requirement, in which, however, the current knowledge of humanity will not go to shreds. Nothing is by chance, of course, not even the fact that the top thinking of EuroAtlantic science and the dawning of post-science have risen to such intellectual mental heights, while for instance the traditionalists have tried hard to ban the likewise selfdeveloping science from time to time. This meta-theory (despite it not being a metaphilosophy) leads far out of the plain-like world, but this is not only the first step of metareality itself, but it can be the potential original and final essence of life. Meta-theory is actual and potential action and non-action, what is more, primarily. This time we are not so much interested in the practical transformation of immanent (first level) reality because we mobilize our mind in another plane and with another intent, meanwhile we do our best to recreate the totality of life (and its first level at the same time) indirectly before, after, and during meta-theory, unity-philosophy. The circle and/or the sphere are equally closed and open. We do not really believe we can apprehend the final answer, but that opportunity is not out of reach altogether. We do not dare to think that there is a finished final answer ever, but the unfinished final truth is the number one law of earth reality / consciousness. If a meta-theory is born now, new meta-theories, what is more, supra-meta-theories will be born later on, but that does not automatically mean that there cannot be a final unified theory. We did not even mention meta-philosophy and unity philosophy, or the secret system of Meta-Principles. For the time being, instead of the ultimate, final answer, only a hypothesis of new knowledge and cognition, of a new state of mind is possible, and through that, discovered and not yet discovered new laws become available. Or, have we been given only so much fragmented knowledge or post-knowledge for the time being? In other words, instead of the truth and top truths first we can only expect high-ranking hypotheses, and only those are realistic, which nevertheless are stronger at once than any earlier limited and unmatched truths. At the same time, we do not believe for the time being, that the world/consciousness would undergo significant changes due to meta-theory and meta-philosophy directly, but this
76

See the famous flatland term of Ken Wilber (Ken Wilber: A Brief History of Everything)

34

new viewpoint can induce the butterfly-effect according to chaos theory. It can definitely help to re-create the grounds of the value system and the base of existence of human civilization; in widening the horizons of theories, in setting the imagination free again, in discovering and reaching higher states of mind. However, these changes do not cause immediately such tangible material/ nonmaterial effects which could guarantee the steady advancement of humanity toward the collective higher states of reality- and mind. Or where does this new, meta-based construction of new consciousness levels really leads to? May the moral be only that much for now that the whole world should speak about the uniform, and at the same time, complex77 meta-reality/meta-consciousness as metaphilosophy? Or has the ultimate / infinite aim of strategy become more than that already now? Whatever our answer might be, however, the Meta-principle (metaconsciousness/meta-reality) continues on its path of self-development, both universal and beyond universality.

SOME LITERATURE, ITS BULK BEING RECENT78:

77

Ad-Darqw, Al-Arab: Az emlkezs rzsakertje (Kairosz, 2005) Agy s tudat, szerkesztette: Vizi E., Szilveszter, - Altrichter, Ferenc, - Nyri, Kristf, Plh, Csaba (BIP, 2002) The Consciousness Revolution, Grof, Stanislaw, Laszlo, Ervin end Russel, Peter beszlgetse (j Paradigma, 1999) Az szlelstl a nyelvig, szerkesztette Plh, Csaba, - Kampis, Gyrgy, - Csnyi, Vilmos (Gondolat, 2004) Berg, Yehuda: The power of kabbalah (Hodder and Stoughton, 2003) Capra, Fritjof: The Hidden Connections (Anchor Books/Doubleday, 2004) Cousins, E. ed., World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest, 1-25 vols, (Crossroad, New York, 1985) Gazdag, Lszl: A teremts titka (Alexandra, 2004) Green, Brian: The Elegant Universum (Norton, W.W. & Company, 2003) Green, Brian: The Fabric of the Cosmos (Knopf Publising, 2004) Grof, Stanislaw: Pscyhology of the Future (State University of New York Press, 2000) Hamvas, Bla: Vilgvlsg (Hamvas Intzet, Budapest, 2004) Hawking, Stephen W: The Theory of Everything (New Millennium Press, 2003); magyarul: S. W. Hawking: A mindensg elmlete (Kossuth, Budapest, 2005) Hey, Toni Walters, Patrick: The New Quantum Universe (Cambridge University Press, 2003) Kaku, Michio: Hyperspace (Anchor Books, 1995) Kaku, Michio: Parallel Worlds (Hardcover, 2004) Kaku, Michio: Visions (Anchor Books, 1998) Keresztes Szent Jnos Mvei I-II. (Gyri Karmelita Rendhz, 1995)

Not surprisingly, Stephen Wolfram says in his book announcing the new science But by thinking in terms of programs the new kind of science that I develop in this book is for the first time able to make meaningful statements about even immensely complex behavior (Stephen Wolfram Op. cit. p. 6.) 78 The classic bibliography, being well-known, is not listed here

35

Lszl Andrs: A mindensg fnye az emberben (Sophia Perennis Kiad, 2004) Lewis, L. E.: Our superstring Universe (iUniverse.com, 2004) Liptay, Lothar: Az Abszoltum odisszeja a buddhizmusban (Kalligram, Pozsony, 2005) Penrose, Roger, - Shimony, Abney, - Cartwright, Nancy - Hawking, Stephen: The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, (1997); magyarul: A nagy, a kicsi s az emberi elme (Akkord, 2003) Penrose, Roger: The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe Pleh, Csaba: Bevezets a megismerstudomnyba (Typotex, 1998) Popper, Karl: The Self and Its Brain Ratzsch, Del: Science & Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective (Intervarsity Press, 1999); magyarul: Del Ratzsch: Mibl lesz a tudomny? (Harmat, Budapest, 2002) Ricoeur, Paul LaCocque, Andre: Penser la Bible (ditions de Seuil, 1998); magyarul: P. Ricouer . A. LaCocque: Bibliai gondolkods (Eurpa, 2003) Sadar, Ziauddin: Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars (Icon Books, Ltd.); magyarul: Ziauddin Sardar: Thomas Kuhn s a tudomny-hbork (Alexandra, Pcs, 2003)

36