Dear Vladimir,
as promised, I have read your essay and will comment on it.
Although you seem to wildly mix different ideas, concepts, words and terms to converge to a primordial generating structure - and you lost me therefore - I can easily grasp what your main intention is with your essay.
You presuppose reality to be rational and meaningfull and you suspect that the hitherto tools to scientifically come to a fundamentally true statement about the meaning of it all must somewhat fail.
This is no wonder, since mathematics and antivalent logic are self-delimiting systems (as all systems are). Hence, the search for some underlying truth *cannot* be a systematic approach, but must be an intuitive approach. The latter presupposes that there is some access to a realm of fundamental truth for logically thinking beings. Otherwise the search does not make any sense, since there is no sense at all in existence. But as you, I feel that there is sense and objective meaning for the fact that there exist things at all ( with or without me existing).
The crucial point is that using opposites and some 'coincidentia oppositorum' (as Cusa purported) cannot reveal what's beyond antivalent thinking. The 'coincidentia oppositorum' only shows, - if it happens to you - that your mind has just realized that it had merely facilitated a *model* of reality, a model whoose consistency necessarily depended on some complementary ('opposite') elements, elements which had defined *each other* and you now realize this fact.
Eastern philosophies walk into the same trap by thinking that whenever the mind realizes that it was itself that has facilitated a consistent model of something, then this realization should somewhat uncover the real ontology of reality. I think this is true insofar as the mind realizes in such moments that reality cannot really be formalized completely, and the fact that consciousness exists and realizes this can also not be formalized. This is a weak kind of transcendence.
The strong kind of transcendence comes into play by realizing that transcending one's own formal systems is consistent with a holistic notion of an atemporally existing soul. But this is the end point of a systemic approach to come to some primordial generating structure, since beyond transcending one's own conceptual building blocks, there must be some kind of fundamental truths which aren't anymore formalizable in the logico-mathematical sense we are used to.
These truths are of emotional qualities, insofar as they point to eternal values that are traditionally ascribed to an intentional agent called God. For further continuing a search for such a 'primordial generating structure' (God is not a structure), one has to take into account phenomena that aren't scientficically reproducible, but nonetheless of huge value philosophically as well as teleologically. I have the phenomena of near-death experiences in mind. They give an overwhelming indication for a realm of consciousness beyond space and time, if one studies them carefully and compares a huge amount of such experiences to come to a decicive conclusion. Here you may meet again two out of the three of Popper's worlds, consciousness and some 'ideological' content (I would call the latter rather 'teleological' content).
In summary, there are phenomena in reality that cannot be reproduced by means of our traditional scientific methods. Don't let yourself be talked into the opposite: none of the near-death phenomena have ever been reproduced in a laborartory. They happen not due to phyiscal causes and effects, but due to other reasons (say, some causa finalis). Especially none of the valid information about things the experiencer couldn't know at the time of his experience (information that could be verified later) can be reproduced in a laboratory - because these events follow another set of reasons, different from deterministically defined, physical causes.
All in all, I see that you search for the truth. But you don't need to make it so complicated intellectually. Neither is there an infinite tower of turtles to climb over nor is there a overall sophisticated proof or derivation that can lead you to ultimate truth. It is only the own will to find truth - and last but surely not least - even a truth that destroys in parts the own self-concept and picture one has of oneself. This last sentence is really the key, accepting that there is something much bigger and much more truthful and more just than oneself can ever be. As always, finding some limits (also one's own limits) sets one free.
Vladimir, I wish you all the best for your further philosophical development,
Stefan Weckbach
