June 1, 1998 final revision

1. All there is are presences. By presences are not meant just a particular kind of presence, such as those mentioned above but also the general category of presences.
2. Presences are both identical and unique.
3. Each and every presence in being presence is identical to every other presence. I call this identity or oneness of each presence with presence, its externality.
4. Each and every presence in being a presence, thus, in being itself and not any other presence, has its own identity or particularity. That is, each and every presence is a single, one. I call this singleness or identity of a presence or presence, its internality.
5. To repeat: Each presence is presence and each presence a presence. Thus, each presence, in being presence, is identical to all presences; and each presence in being a presence is unique, having its own identity. The former is the externality of the presence , and the latter is the internality of the presence.
6. What does it mean to say that a presence has its own identity, that it is unique, that there is no other presence that it can be identified with? It means that a presence can be neither compared nor contrasted with any other presence. It means that if a presence could be compared with another presence, then it would be identical with the other presence; if the presence could be contrasted with any other presence, it would be defined as the negation of the identity of another presence; it would be not that presence, and thus its identity would be defined as the negation of the identity of another presence or presences. Thus, if a presence were the same color as another presence, as red presences, both would be identical, one; if one presence were larger than another, then neither presence can be the size of the other; thus, its identity is restricted by the other presence; it is identical to its negation.
7. Presences are the most general and comprehensive of all categories. Thus, a presence in being itself can be neither compared nor contrasted with any other presence; this is the nature of internality. A presence in being identical to every other presence also can be neither compared or contrasted, since in being one it cannot be distinguished from or identified with any other presence. Thus, every presence is both identical and also unique.
8. The concepts of identity , internality, and individuality or oneness, therefore, mean the same thing, have meanings that are identical or close to each other; likewise the concepts of externality and generality and identity for all or oneness of all are also close to each other in their meanings. Thus, chair as an externality means that all chairs are identical; on the other hand, chair as an internality means that each chair is unique and inexplicable- it cannot be expressed or defined in any other terms.
9. However, even though presences are specified as both an internality and externality, it is still necessary to distinguish between a presence and the lack of a presence. That is, it is still necessary to make an existence statement. This will be done later.
10. Furthermore, every presence is a particular kind of presence and there are many kinds of presences. Thus, in order to say anything about a presence, to distinguish among them, it is necessary to say something about what is meant by a particular kind of presence.
11. Particular kinds of presences are: seen presences, heard presences, smelled presences, felt presences, pain presences, joy presences, etc. In fact, there is no limit to the kinds of presences. Furthermore, the kinds of presences are not necessarily fixed, they may increase or decrease.
12. Thus, the externality of a seen presence is that which is identical to all seen presences; each of these seen presences is the same presence, one; the internality of seen presences is that each is unique. each seen presence is identical to every seen presence and each seen presence is unique. On the face of it, this appears to be ridiculous and contradictory. But in actuality, this is what does happen. Thus, suppose that there was only a single seen presence such as tree. Then this tree would be many identical trees, but each one would have its own internality. How is this peculiar concept explained?
13. The existence of presences in all cases implies the existence a particular presence, one which we identify as a living presence. We then say that all presences are of a living organism, a living presence. That is, all presences are of living organisms or presences. Thus, the externality of a presence, is identical for all living organisms, but is also unique for each living organism. A living organism or presence then must be a particular kind of presence itself in terms of which all presences are defined. That is, the existence of any presence means that that presence is of a particular presence, namely a living presence.
14. It is important to note that all presences are defined in terms of living presences. This does not mean that presences do not exist unless they are living presences or living presences are present; it just means that even though living presences may not exist, all presences are defined in terms of living presences. This means not only that all presences are defined in terms of living presences, but since they are not only defined in terms of, but are of living presences, then all presences are of living presences. In this very interesting way even before life existed, at the very beginning of the universe, all presences were of living presences but could not be defined in terms of the living presences of those days since there were none; it could only be defined as existing in the past in terms of a much later time, when there were living presences.. This is a language and conceptual issue that should be and can be straightened out. February 6, 1998
15. February 7, 1998: The above is not quite correct. We should rather state it as follows: All living presences arose originally from non-living presences. At the same time, all presences are defined in terms of living presences. Thus, presences existed before living presences existed, but these presences, just like any and all presences, are defined in terms of living presences, only have meaning in terms of living presences. If there were no living presences, presences themselves could not even be defined. This is, if not identical to, although it may be, similar to space arising out of nonspace, but nonspace being defined in terms of space. Thus, what is fundamental is nonspace; what is fundamental in the former case is presences. The definition and measurement or determination of nonspace, is its coincidences with space; The definition and determination of presences is identification (in some way or fashion) with living presences. These ways or fashions are the kinds of presences. Thus, when a living organism or presence identifies, coincides with, becomes one with a presence, that is a measurement, a determination, or definition of a presence, that did not necessarily exist or was, just previously. That is, when the living organism is a seeing organism, there also is a seen presence; that is, it is not a seeing organism unless there is a seen presence. There cannot be a seen presence unless there is a seeing presence or organism.
16. Thus, to say that the seen tree in its externality is identical as many trees simply means that although there are many internalities in each living organism, all externalities are identical and thus all of the many tree presences are one (recognized as one, a single tree). The internalities of the tree presences are all unique, incomparable, inexpressible. It is in this manner that the contradictory nature of all presences reveals itself. February 6, 1998
17. We now attempt to describe the nature of presences. We do this first by attempting to describe presences. Thus, we may have a presence which we say is a heard bell, a presence which is a felt bell, a presence which is a seen bell, a presence which is a feared bell, etc. All of these are different and distinct presences. We then may, through the recognition that all of these are at the same spatial point, and always so, and coexist, say that all of these presences are the same presence. And by saying that all these presences are one and the same presence, all we mean is the preceding; that is, all of these presences are the same presence because they individually are all are at the same distance and are simultaneously so. It is true that this allows for error and that we may be mistaken, but nevertheless all of these separately and together are a presence. It is in this way that presences arise from presences. Furthermore, this process of presences arising from other presences is ongoing.
18. On the other hand, different presences might arise and disappear simultaneously and not be in same place, at the same spatial point, but because they do this consistently it is then said that one presence gives rise to the other. Thus, the presence called a lion might arise coincidentally with that of a fluttering heartbeat or stomach, a phenomena that could be designated fear. These physical symptoms themselves are a presence or an presence, but they are not "out there" coinciding with the lion. Thus, it is the lion presence that is assumed to give rise to the fluttering stomach presence. Since this happens with many arisings, there seems to be a whole group of presences arising at the same place, namely what is called the body, no matter where the other presences arise. It is then said that the "external" presences give rise to what are known as the emotions, the flutterings, etc. at the place known as the body. Since both these presences and the external presences arise simultaneously, one cannot then say that one gives rise to the other. Rather, it must be said, just like in the case of the heard, seen, and felt bell, that they are all one presence, albeit at different places.
19. Furthermore, many, if not most presences, are not clear—that is, what the presence is, is not clearly presented. In fact, because of the above analysis, it is inherent in all presences that there is uncertainty about them. The definition of a presence is determined by its identification with a past presence. If a presence is not exactly an image of a former one, which in principle it cannot be since the presence depends upon the history of the body presences, which are developed and modified as new presences arise, there is now the basis for the development of he categories of actuality and illusion.
20. Furthermore, we say that all presences or presences are of living organisms, most particularly, of human beings. But what do I mean by "of?"
21. By "of" I do not mean "part of" but rather integral to the entirety just as blood, flesh, brain, etc. are integral to the entirety of a human being. The concepts of "part of" or "interaction" are found to be incoherent. That is, if something, A, is part of something else, B, then since both A and B both have their own identities, the existence of the other is irrelevant to their identity. Therefore, A cannot be part of B and B cannot be inclusive of A; that is, the removal of all parts of B, would then not affect B, and the removal of B, which includes A would not affect A. [ It is conceptually possible that all of these may be replaced and the organism may still survive, as it can with a replaced or lost arm, but in all cases the functioning of the entire organism is transformed.] That is, the organism cannot be said to consist of interacting parts, since then, if the parts are no longer interacting they are still the same parts, just as two electrical charges, once removed from each other, are still the same charges. Thus, if an presence becomes of a human being, neither the presence nor human being is still identifiable; rather, it is a transformed human being that results. Only if the transformation is negligible is it then possible, for certain pragmatic purposes, to analyze the transformed human being as the interaction between the original human being and an presence. In physics this is known as perturbation theory. However, in order to have a consistent theory, presences are only of living organisms; as we define the concept of presences they have no meaning otherwise. I shall further explicate these concepts as we continue.

23. Can there be many sets all having identical elements except that the sets are distinct (and distinguishable)? This would mean that the set is then defined by its elements. But the set is obviously more than its elements, otherwise it would not be a set but just elements. It is the elements that are all distinct, but the set says that they are also all identical. Therefore, the elements do not define the set since they are not all identical. However, the set does not have to be a one, that is, there can be many sets, each set also, exactly like an element of a set, being identical to all other sets and unique, being just itself. We then say that all sets are identical, indistinguishable by each having identical elements; and they are unique in that the elements are of that set. That is, the externality of the sets is that they are all of identical elements; February 4, 1998, February 22, 1998,
24. All there is are presences. But the presences are of an unending variety. Furthermore, they do not appear as simple or single presences, but rather as conglomerate presences. In fact, no presence appears as a single, simple presence; all presences are conglomerates. Are there then ultimate presences, that is basic presences from which all conglomerates are made, constituted, such as only seen presences, only heard presences, etc.? I doubt it; in fact, I know no presences appear singly, they only appear in conglomerates. Now, this is a very important statement and insight. Thus, all there is are presences. Which are constituted of presences. More work, however, will have to be done on this point in order to understand it more fully.
25. The second point is the externality of an presence, where by externality is meant that it is many but all identical. For this to be true all bodies must be identical. Thus, what is meant by identity here is that where there is a sociobiological closeness, as in human beings, especially of the same culture, there is an average identity, a sociobiological identity. Thus, the identity is never on an individual basis but in the above mentioned manner.

30. Thus, out of presences arise presences, which by themselves are neither true or false, but out of the existence of presences arise the truth or falsity of presences; that is, whether they exist or not. There is no concepts of real or illusory that can arise from the concept of presence; these concepts can only arise in the determination of whether or not presences are real or illusory. What then are the criteria to distinguish reality from illusion; that is, to distinguish certain presences as real and others as illusions?
31. Since it is the larger categories, that of the biology, first of all, and then the cultures and subcultures of living organisms, particularly of human beings are identical and not the human organism itself, the identity of objects is determined within these categories. But the human organisms are identical only with respect to these categories and are otherwise diverse. Therefore, objects are never identical to all living organisms. This is recognized by human beings in different ways. The categories of reality and illusion are defined in terms of these categories now. What is real and what is illusory is determined by these larger categories of biology and cultures. These categories, particularly those of biology, being so general, often leave no alternatives except speculative ones. Those of cultures or subcultures are not as definitive and thus the distinction between illusion and reality is often one that is constantly changing.
32. Now, what is this process of change or transformation from presence to presence? This defines the nature of a living, particularly, the human organism. It is a self-transformation—there is nothing outside of the presence (or presences), there is no outside environment. It is the presence which transforms itself, which negates itself into presences; it is the presence itself which creates its own environment, which eats its infinite body in order to create its negation, presences. It is never done doing this. Presence is nothing but life. The "process" is one in which the arising presences define, create new presences out the presence, continually. This is the nature of life. It is this process which actually defines and gives meaning to the concept of presence. It is the child which defines its parents, its source. In doing so, it defines the concept of the self , that which is many fold, each unique, a self. Coincidentally it also defines the externality. In doing so it begins to develop presences as a duality, as the selves and the world external to the selves. Such a dichotomy, however, is only a practicality, though. Thus, in the last analysis, there is no reality that exists exuberantly from its own dark shadow.
33. Now, what is the nature of presence, how is it distinguished from non-presence? Let me ruminate about this for a while. Presences arise and disappear by themselves. How long does a presence last? I don't even know if this is a legitimate question. On the other hand it is known how to create and destroy presences or make them appear and disappear. The presence of a painful object can be made to appear; the presence of a seen object can be made to disappear by closing the eyes, etc. This is, however, because of the nature of the object. At the same time, all objects, the entire world, is of the living organism or potentially so. By this, I mean in the same sense that the heart, liver, brain, or skin is. Also memory and time are deeply connected, for without memory there could be no time. Furthermore, presences appear which never previously appeared, or even existed. How can this be, how are they recognized, identified, then?

1. In set theory, a class or set is a particular kind of presence such as table, image, dream, person, etc. or even the concept of presence itself. That is, a class or set is individuals, units, which are all identical as members of the set In our translation, we say that as a table, table is unique, incomparable, and as table, identical to and indistinguishable from all other tables. All presences are sets or classes.
2. Thus, each table has an identity; that is, it is distinct from every other table because it has an identity. That is, tables are not distinct because they have different properties or belong to different subsets but because they each have their own identity. Thus,