Postulating a Met a Theory - 2009 - Csaba Varga

8/6/2019 Postulating a Met a Theory - 2009 - Csaba Varga

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/postulating-a-met-a-theory-2009-csaba-varga 1/36

1

Postulating a Metatheory

Varga, Csaba

We wanted to rely on all prior data, nexus, knowledge, assumptions–within 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 wereckon 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, alsothe theological approaches of the five world religions and the diverse tradition theories. Wecan not leave out the arts from metatheory, and especially not from metaphilosophy.Furthermore, we can not ignore the tradition theories rooted in philosophy, or the higher ranking conceptions of esoterism. All the works of theory building belong here, with whichhuman thinking has experimented in the last thousands of years, without judging their 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 post-

normal) 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 knowledgeand 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 whatcan 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 aunified framework of philosophy, science, theology and art. It is post -science, if you like.

__________________________________________________

1. The calm search for a viewpoint

1 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 emlékezés rózsakertje (Új Paradigma,Budapest, 1999, p. 322.)



2

In order to think over metatheory, we search for the highest (if you like: the deepest)viewpoint which is open to all (“n” number of) directions, universal, and beyond universality.We are exploring open (or unopened) nodes and dimensions of a system and post-system notyet named. In a preliminary sense, we call it the metatheorical viewpoint.

Metareality/metaconsciousness and metaconsciousness/metatheory conception-pair (as 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 dynamicallyadvancing, changing but they implement a continuous self-creation, self-improvement . For the time–being, do not consider the question how metareality/metaconsciousness andmetaconsciousness/metatheory self-creation connect to each other.

At first, we had decided only on a metatheorical viewpoint that is not only an unbiassed,undogmatic openness, but essentially the viewpoint of universal-transcendental knowledge.From this point on we will (interpretedly/uninterpretedly) document only dynamical self-creation, self-transformation2 becoming possible.

We do not think that reality (observed totality) and ourselves (the observer’s totality) aretotally open to cognition, but neither do we think that reality and ourselves are 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-facetedrethinking of the relationship of the observer (ourselves) and the reality observed.

The freedom of thinking is limitless by all means. Therefore we would like to suspend3 all possible limitations and self-limitations of our viewpoint. We take this upon ourselves notin order to hide our lack of an opinion or to avoid phrasing our standpoint; but because we donot want to raise or maintain4 a hindrance to self-creating thinking.

Why could not we be open to all understood theories and to constructions beyondtheories by querying or suspending all our previous conceptions and conceptional meta-interpretations (personal reflection-sets of reflection-systems)?

And/or: Why could not we become curious to all other theoretical, philosophical or evensacramental constructions by controlling and suspending deliberately the conception-systemand meta-interpretations manifesting themselves inside and through us?

Why could not we be inspired by the personal or transcendental consciousness, see

through and step over the Zeitgeist transformed into all existing theories and embrace all oldand new perspectives?

Why could not we think that the birth of a united meta-theory is realizable in the socalled post-modern science of today’s Euro-Atlantic science-progress, since the post-modernera has rightly questioned all previous great-theories and dogmas, meanwhile the lack of new-style grand theories is blocking the thought-development of the sciences? Why couldnot we expand the Euro-Atlantic science intellectual sphere to become a universal, global

knowledge space?

2 This essay is the first chapter of a book in making. (In the book, a new chapter is devoted to each basic idea,however the final goal is to explore meta principle.)3 „Crisis has to come in order to see: there is only one sincere and thorough philosophy. The one, which is indeedoccupied with reality, which is beyond the ideologies stuck to eras; and interested only in what exists.” BélaHamvas: World-wide crisis (Institute Hamvas, Budapest, 2004. p. 431)4 „For him no established Truth looked sacrosanct; he started by challenging the very foundation of successfulmodern science, namely Newtonian Mechanics. And already then he showed that creative thinking could proceed liberated from any support, be it experimental or even mathematical: it was a pure conceptual flight of the imagination.” Yehuda Elkana: Einstein’s Legacy- edited text of the opening lecture for Germany’s Einstein-

Year, Berlin 19th January 2005. (Élet és Irodalom, Budapest, 2005. febr.11.)



3

And/or: Why could not an uppermind – for example the Holy Spirit – inspire us to phrasenew theories and conceptional meta explanations based on our personal mind-status or evenindependently from that?

Why could not my/our minds - as the one and only subject of the existence – manifestitself as a total and unlimited knowledge-universe, while they would not listen to 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 meta-human nor meta-theory and not even meta-God as leading categories of the new ideology areunasked, uncurtailed, unlimited ?

And/or: Why could not it be that we accept equally the transcendental (far beyondrationality) and non-transcendental (bound to reality) determination of all existence and of allthat exists?

Why could not it be correct that the limited-unlimited reality on the one hand exists initself, in its own actions (without the gazing of human being) and on the other hand it 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 anequally re-interpreted physics (sans “meta”) are taking place at the same time?

And/or: Why would not the identification be correct that the final theory and/or the most basic rules of reality/consciousness can not be understood and express without the approachof a meta-theory and/or the hypothesis of a meta-philosophy?

Why could not it be that meta-theory – by means of self-development - becomes firstmeta-philosophy, than as a second step equally post-theory and post-philosophy; such aconsciousness and consciousness-state which requires the construction6 of a newterminology? Why could not we finally advance to being able to let the only meta principleevolve.

And/or: Why could not meta-theory reach the status where it simultaneously and equally helps the (meta)human of the new millennium awaken to the consciousness that we need tomove on the steps of meta-reality/meta-consciousness both upwards and downwards? Whycould not we reach the point where a meta-reality visualizes a new reality, a meta-consciousness visualizes a new consciousness, the meta-human visualizes new human-hypotheses or meta-time-meta-space visualizes a new conception of space-time?

Let’s ask then all the other missing questions too.

2 The perspicuity of an elemental revelation

Let us start developing Meta-theory on a low level. Why can we not think that it is notonly the facts which are rational, observable, verifiable by means of experiment that find

5 We may mention several authors to support that thesis. Let’s 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 toaccount for the world of mind along with the world of matter.” Peter Russel (The Consciousness Revolution,edited by Ervin Laszlo, Új Paradigma, Budapest, 1999. p. 62. )6 In this introductory study we do not expound in detail the difference between scientific theory, philosophy,

(philosophical or universal) metaphysics and meta-philosophy (or unified philosophy) materializing meta-consciousness. For different kinds of human ideologies, see Frithjof Schuon: The Transcendent Unity of Religions. (Kvintesszencia Kiadó, Debrecen, 2005, p. 30-31. )



4

room in science, but also all other not rational slices of reality as well as all interrelations notobservable by ways used up to now?

Why could not a social scientist step outside the approach and methodology restrictionsof his philosophy working with an approach used by the natural sciences reaching inaddition an objective external system of comparison of the post-objective systems, a 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 bediscovered- we should think of the existence of another reality that is virtual, transcendent,

beyond rationality, thought to be unknowable as an organic part of the total or meta-realitytoo. Nevertheless, there is nothing new in raising this unvarnished question. Today for example, it is also not a small problem for an open-minded brain researcher or a neuralsystem expert to reach from one –mostly rational, seemingly researchable reality that is theresearch of the brain to the other, intangible reality of consciousness highly irrational in theopinion of many.

The elemental revelation has indistinctly been lying inside us for decades that thematerial and not material worlds can not be separated, and at the same time, that thenonmaterial (mental, soul, that is consciousness, even consciousness and spiritual) reality/iesindicate a similarly complicated, structured, intelligible world-system or complex dimensionof reality as the physical-astronomical universe. Or: as now some theoretical physicistssuppose, the parallel universes.

Nor do we find new aspects in the fact that we intellectually cannot but review thecelestial world above our heads (allegorically said) the same way as we do in our earthborncivilization the industrial or the information age society. In the 18th century, Baal Shem7 showed the cardinal experience very accurately: „ Man sometimes cannot help realising thatthere are uncountable celestial spheres existing above him, and this small Earth on which hedwells is merely a tiny point. But the whole Universe is nothing compared to God, theInfinity, who accomplished the shrinkage and made space inside itself to create the worlds.”

So do we have no other option than to make conscious the knowledge hiding in the haze?

3 The starting positions of Meta-theory

Before stating anything, we would like to indicate that meta-reality, meta- space-time,meta-human, meta-theory are nothing else than top-level manifestations of meta-consciousness?

When we postulate that the external (not only material) world is primary anddeterminative, than one starting position is that Meta reality creates its meta-theory, or thereis no meta-theory independent from meta-reality anyway.

On the other hand, however, if we think the contrary; i.e. that the world creates physicalreality, a justified starting position is that there is or may be a Meta reality of meta-consciousness and Meta-theory. If in our opinion there is neither an objective Meta-reality nor a spiritual reality spiritually independent from us, then the starting position is also acceptablethat true meta-reality/meta-consciousness only exists inside man. If we assume, however, thatmeta reality and meta theory are both the creations of a spiritual-transcendental power 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.



5

a being – non-being above all other gods, e.g.: the Absolute, that is Meta-God) and/or meta-consciousness have imprinted meta-theory in us. If we consider the integrated starting point,that several of these theoretical starting positions mean a standard theoretical viewpoint, andthen consequently we must organize the external and internal orientated starting positions intoan integrated position-system somehow.

What does that look like?Logically, we can name at least eight to ten meta theory starting position alternatives: 1.Meta reality and meta consciousness are one and the same; 2. Meta reality creates Metaconsciousness; 3. Meta consciousness creates Meta reality; 4. Neither creates the other, thetwo are not one and the same, but a co-operation of the two parts is the case. (And there may

be different types of that again.); 5. Meta-reality/meta-consciousness exists only inside manor a human consciousness; 6. Meta-consciousness or/and meta-human-consciousness can beobserved and experienced only inside meta-reality; 7. Meta-consciousness / meta-reality 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 beingthat not all alternatives are necessarily incongruous.

Logical decision is not easy in any way. Eventually we can only choose or we are forcedto choose the meta-scope starting position, i.e. that during the construction of meta-theory wehave to allow, or we are made to allow for all possible starting positions – possibly on thehighest level. We may not set up a prohibitive sign. It would not be reasonable to put anystarting positions into parentheses. Let us give way for continuous intellectual thinking.

Nevertheless, we would not like to forget, possibly deny that before the attempt of articulating meta-theory we also stood for one of the theoretical starting position. In anycase, the position denying the existence of a reality beyond human existence is the one thatstands farthest from us. However, we are not positing our own starting position up to now tothe start-up position for the theoretical decision – that is we accept to remain inside the meta-theoretical starting position. (Moreover, we expect that new viewpoints may be arisingcontinually.) It is enough to point out that the current quantum mechanical argumentationsopen the way to even faster advances, so we can understand the ’paranormal” and the’transcendental” states.”8)

The choice is extraordinarily hard also because, sadly, Thomas S. Kuhn is right when hewrites: „The proponents of different theories are like the members of different language-culture communities.”9 Therefore on the one hand we cannot deny our own theoreticalviewpoint; on the other hand we are ready to earnestly examine other theoretical starting

points. Thirdly, we do not proclaim absolutism for the new language-cultural communityeither, but perforce we may encounter all the language-cultural knowledge groups who voteonly for one alternative out of the eight to ten start-points.

However, why would that be wrong? We take upon ourselves an arising conflict.4. The system of the new top concepts

We could give this essay varying titles according to each starting point. Meta-realityand/or Meta-consciousness. The Meta-theory of meta-reality. The meta-reality of meta-theory. Meta-reality, meta-consciousness and meta-theory solely in us. The transcendentalmeta-reality and meta-theory. Or: The unified meta-reality, meta-consciousness, meta-humanand meta-theory. The outline of a limitless Meta-principle. Eventually choosing the title“Postulating a meta-theory” reflects that we leave the question open. Each possible title

8

Robert Anton Wilson: Quantum Psychology (Mandala-Véda, Budakeszi, 2002, p. 239.)9 Thomas S. Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Gondolat, Budapest, 1984. p. 270. )



6

incorporates those general categories (meta-reality, meta-consciousness) that we would liketo present in more detail.

I know entirely well that the question can arise clearly: what if we leave the „meta” prefix from each concept, and face our old categories again? We can ask, too, should wereturn to the old categories that would not radically redefine them. There is nothing to keep

us from choosing this re-defining alternative in principle, but that comes with the notmarginal drawback that in almost every sentence we should make clear that we now mean each expression differently than before. That disturbed, mixed thinking and phrasing situationsupposedly would paralyze the straightforward and complex exposition of the newreality/consciousness.

In principle a more beatific linguistic solution exists: we leave off not only the „meta” prefix, but also the following (old) language constructions, in other words we would at once

radically replace the abounding „meta” prefixes (sometimes perplexing and seeminglysuperfluous) and the concepts conveying the expression of the old state of consciousnesswith new linguistic signs/expressions. That is all very well, but where should we take thosenew languages? Where is our ancient/future meta-language? To make new words known 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 fromso much that it is a dead end for the time being, but only for the time being, to anyalternatives like that, an extra universal consciousness- and knowledge state and a newuniversal language would be necessary.

Let us stick to meta categories for the moment. Our essay stands on not one, butseveral - meta approach - top-level concepts, and we do not wish to decide in advance howthose relate to each other (hierarchical, not hierarchical, etc.).We name six top concepts to start with: 1. Meta-reality (inevitably not independently fromMeta–consciousness for example); 2. Meta-consciousness (similarly not independently fromMeta-reality); 3. Meta-human/Meta-human-meta-consciousness (also not independently fromthe previous two and from those following); 4. Meta-God (not independently from any, butnot depending on any of them either); 5. Meta-Change (the category of operation that is thecomplex, ordered not-ordered net of isolations and interactions or the non-net of that; that is,the laws of flows, changes, transformations, self-creations, and so on); 6. Meta-theory (it isnot independent from any one, but depending on meta-consciousness the most, as one

possible projection of meta-consciousness and one of the models of Meta-change). For thetime being, we are not making an attempt to comprehend the Meta-principle (or the Meta-

principle group).Therefore, in our essay we strive to apprehend the concepts and the contents/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 aswell (meta-space-meta-time, meta-history, or meta-method, supra theory).

The new top concepts, inevitably, document the new reality/reality image whichshows that the traditional (rational, natural, material) reality is a much wider territory thanthought before, on the one hand. On the other hand, that the invisible (not rational, notmaterial, emotional-intellectual etc.) reality is the determinant of the material world muchmore profoundly than thought before. Thirdly, that the existence of a sacral (not material andnot only mental at the same time) actuality is getting more and more evident. We may also

convey all that metaphorically with the concept-pair of quantum reality and quantumconsciousness.



7

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 issuemeans something fundamentally new in the European/Euro Atlantic thinking.

5. Barriers and prospects of developing the theory

At the outset we have not decided, and even now it is not decided once and for all, or atleast we have not fixed from the beginning what meta-theory should contain, what its logicshould look like, what kind of a theoretical construction it should offer. We deliberatelyreserve the chance of creation - self-creation. We do not restrict vision, imagination, andlogic in the least. We would not be pleased if a meta-transcendent consciousness or our ownconsciousness-unconscious possibly had ready, finished meta-theoretical visions, although anormal medium role is not without interest, and is not to be dismissed lightly. The phrase not

being pleased, on the other hand, indicates wonderfully our barrier that deep inside we wouldnot like and we can not let go even the personal opportunity of the person creating scientificknowledge for the time being. Knowing the barriers, however, makes stepping over 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 usremember, that we want to make the self-development of meta-theory possible in that we tryto create at least the limited-unlimited space for it; that is, we would not like to put obstaclesin the way of creation happening in ourselves and via us. It is the free uninterrupted processof theoretical construction.

As we do not assume, and reasonably, we may not assume, that our own minds and our consciousnesses would be meta-computers or a meta-knowledgebases knowing andunderstanding all the knowledge in the global knowledge society, therefore our aim merelycan be to realize as clearly as possible our limitations concerning knowledge and mental

perception. This situation sharply raises a seemingly unanswerable dilemma, even if wewould like to use both the left and the right hemispheres of our brains. If a single person isnot able to have all the important knowledge in principle and in practice, even if he were a

brilliant genius otherwise. What is more, he may not have a full picture even of what are theimportant and the not important facts from an infinite amount of information. So he mustface consciously and personally that awkward and disturbing problem of how and when hecan control the theoretical hypotheses using all pre-existent and future possibilities of cognition.

We can present this dilemma more sharply too. Permanently there is not, and will not beenough qualitative, quantitative and established knowledge to prove the truth of and 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 fundamentaltheoretical demonstrations. On top of that, post-normal science has lost its firm theoreticalfundaments for quite a long time. To go even further, scientific knowledge, for that matter, isgoing through paradigm shifts; therefore, almost every natural- and social scienceassumption may be accepted only currently, temporarily (in our days, only for years or decades at a maximum). If the global scientific self-development10 would reach the pointwhere the unified scientific and, separately, a sociological meta-theory came into existence, itwould supposedly cause profound paradigm shifts, and would be a question intenselydisputed for decades.

10 See in this volume Jozsef Csorba „Towards a Big Theory…”



8

Consequently, meta-theory, (and many other theoretical constructions, too) necessarilymay be only a vision or hypothesis, and to give acceptable reasons for it, we can seek different cognitive tools and methods and can find them. At the same time, it does not followthat the chance to grasp the truth has vanished, however. Since the truth earlier, as later on, isat once as it is not.

Despite all the obstacles of theory creation, meta-theory does mean many aspects: newsensibility, new cognition, new logic, new intellectual control, new conceptual system,namely new reality/consciousness. Without the new sensibility, or without the 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 conceptualsystem. The new intellectual control requires an expansive and combined check system,

because all the tools of cognition until now have accumulated more errors than temporary or lasting results. No one is the owner of the truth, no cognitive method guarantees truth, andthe spirit of the age does not sanction any theory or hypothesis forever. In addition, it doesnot follow that the completion of a scientific verification or the understanding of informationcoming through religion would be impossible.

The new reality/consciousness however is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved – and meanwhile it is clear that after this new reality/consciousness still n number of timesnewer reality/consciousness will be emerging from the mist.11

P.S: The biggest hindrance to theory development is the state of science, even if wenecessarily wish to transcend the science of our culture. We may risk a hypothesis: thehighest level science, especially in the not always public research centres of the greatcountries, has reached post-science. However, the majority of Hungarian scientists areunwilling and unable to switch even to the way of thinking of post-normal science, althoughthis is a standard in the global knowledge space today, be it said or unsaid. (Is the difference

between normal, post-normal, and post- science clear at all? Ziauddin Sardar writes, „ Agreat deal of contemporary science is no longer normal science in Kuhnian terms.” „Sciencefails to deliver prompt answers to many questions of our age”. „The post-normal sciencerequires science to extend its frontiers, to include different measure processes, viewpointsand knowledge types..”12)

6. Who looks at whom and how?

We have no reason to lightly suppose that we altogether know without doubt that actuallythere is meta-reality and consciousness (and most of all, how it is), but there is a feasibletheory hypothesis (or most likely more) that is meta-theoretical conception which promises atleast a glance at meta-level forms of reality and/or consciousness.

A hypothesis even more amazing than that can be postulated, too. At the same time, wehave no reason to suppose that there is not or that there may not be a total meta-realityindependently from the Observer (or from looking at it), and theoretically it is not unfeasiblethat this meta-reality is looking at us with supra-reality „eyes”, and sees us with its glancelike the creators of meta-theory. Actually, nothing is impossible hypothetically – and that is amerry state of mind. The contemporary normal and post-normal science (what is more, post-science) is the history of that knowledge accumulating process, that the Zeitgeist always

11 We also could have written the following thought: „…this book is first and foremost about a fundamentallynew intellectual structure that needs to be understood in its own terms, and can not reasonably be fit into any

existing framework.” Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science (Wolfram Média Inc. 2002)12 Ziauddin Sardar: Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars (Alexandra, Pécs, 2003. p. 72-73.)



9

reaches a point where it accepts such newer and newer cognition results as were consideredunfeasible before, and their truth had been denied for long.

We can offer at least ten-twelve possible basic answers to the “who is looking at whom?”question concerning observation and cognition:

• The Observer is looking at the entity under observation, meta-reality (the Observer is

separated from the entity being observed, the Observer is able to look, anddominates the one-way, seldom mutual connection with his gaze.);• The entity being observed is looking at the Observer, the Meta-human (that is meta-

reality sees and lets itself be seen by the Observer, and it is the dominant one in theinteraction or in the one-way seeing.);

• The “no one is looking” state (the observer and the observed reality are the same, thetwo 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 nolooking either ;

• There is an exchange of looks between equals, that is, looking is possible andsuccessful, however, there is equilibrium and reciprocity between the observer andthe observed one;

• The observing consciousness (it is meta-human-consciousness now) is looking at theobserved consciousness (which is meta-consciousness), that is the personal Meta-human-consciousness reflects itself and meta-consciousness is creating it;

• The observed/Meta-consciousness is looking at the observing/Meta-human-consciousness (the impersonal Meta-consciousness appears in the personal Meta-consciousness, and meta-human-consciousness is able to notice it);

• Meta-consciousness, the impersonal / personal Meta-consciousness-reality is Self-

existent. (In this state the personal Meta-consciousness does not separate from theimpersonal 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 intoeach other, etc);

• Meta-self-consciousness (the impersonal/personal self-consciousnesses arecontinually created by the Absolute, the Meta-principle or “simply” God, meta-reality can be seen as its projection;

• All (or some basic relations together) make possible meta-perception, meta-cognition,or a cognition where the possibility of inaccuracies is reduced. (Let us keep in mind:the basic answers are only elements of the non-created/ created unity.)

• Etc.We did not name all the basic answers, but the more than ten possible alternatives already

show that meta-theoretical approach offers at least that many paths for cognition-mixing. Inthe recent consciousness state of humanity, we cannot even exclude meta-unconsciousness

because all perceptions, interpretations of our consciousness-unconscious may well be theexpression of the unrecognized unconsciousness.

Therefore not only the „Who is looking at who?” is a right question. If we see beyond thereality of our Euro-Atlantic world, than we see for example in the Hindu culture they reservethe concept of reality – as one of the basic answers shows - for the primary reality, the self-existent. As Sri Ramana Maharshi puts it, ”What exists in truth is the Self alone. The world,

the individual soul, and God are appearances in it. All the rest: ego, mind, etc., are merely itsobjects.” “One cannot describe that state. One can only be that” “The self-existent is the



10

primary reality. Only the self alone is reality, so stay always in it”13 This approach leadsalready to the formation of the concept of the unity assuming that a multiple-stage, meta-

level reality/consciousness pre-supposes unity.

7. The integrated Meta-methodology

There are both traditional and post-modern (and today still unknown) ways of cognition.The traditional – essentially not material, but transcendent – thinkers acknowledge not onlyone method of cognition, that is they know not only the rational argumentation of earlyscience alone. For our modern way of thinking it is amazing and usually unacceptable that

beside science they consider the mystical cognition and the information and inspirationsarising from beliefs are also ways of cognition. One of the representatives of that traditionalcognitive philosophy is Al-Ghazali14, who wrote the following: „Verification throughevidence is science, getting in the state of god-closeness is insight, the acceptance 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, andknowingly applied them, makes it even more difficult to accept this idea. In fact, there is nosuch gap between traditional and post-modern thinkers as we usually suppose. For example,already in the 60’s the anti-culture program of the new psyber society

15 rushed through theUS, showing not only the electronic technology induced greater efficiency of the beatgeneration, greater than all prior generations, but also that masses of the new generationwanted to live through mystic-religious experiences with the help of artificial drugs16.Timothy Leary writes for instance, „ Science is the systematic attempt to record and measurethe energy process and the sequence of energy transformations we call life. The goal is toanswer the basic questions in terms of objective, observed, public data. Religion is thesystematic attempt to provide answers to the same questions subjectively, in terms of direct,incontrovertible, personal experience.”

We do not wish to value the individual accomplishments of either the new or the ancientthinkers referred to. The purpose of the reference was to realise that despite all prejudices andreservations Meta-theory cannot avoid raising seriously and calmly the question: what are weto do with the cognitive techniques and contributions 17 prior to science and beyond science?

The clear question therefore is this: can we form meta-methodology to fit the development 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 usingartificial intelligence?

Our answer is a definite yes. Yes, meta-methodology can be worked out. Consequently,

the development of meta-theory demands the thorough examination of a complex meta-methodology as well.After Meta-methodology, the basic methods of cognition are the following:a) Pre-scientific (everyday, direct, personal and communal experience, tradition etc.), that

is, the observer incorporates the observed one, and vice versa.);

13 Sri Ramana Maharshi: Absolute Consciousness (Filosz, 2003. p. 34-35. )14 Abu-Hamid Mohammed Al-Ghazali (Palatinus, 2003)15 Thimothy Leary: The Politics of Ecstasy16 To avoid misunderstanding: we do not wish to popularize the New Age-t. A reliable critique, although not

always thorough is given by Rama P. Coomaraswamy in his essay entitled „The Desacralism of Hinduism for Western Consumption” (Tradíció MMV, Kvintesszencía Kiadó, 2005. p. 141-148)



11

b) Scientific cognition (normal and post-normal science, theology), the observer islooking at the observed one;

c) Cognition beyond science (a para science, knowledge beyond science, the techniquesof mystic religions), the observed gives signals to the observer who is only partly capable 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 variousinteractions.;

e) Cognition via the arts (all older and new arts and post-art as well)18 – it can be themanifestation of self-consciousness or the impersonal-personal meta-consciousness;

f) Artificial intelligence (self-creating meta-reality and meta-consciousness or merely anextension to the cognitive techniques of the observer.)

g) Experiencing God (prayer, meditation, inspiration, etc.) – a high-level perception of self-consciousness, interiorizing the transcendent viewpoint.;

h) Cognition arising from belief – a meta-consciousness/meta-god is being perceived inmeta-human consciousness19;

i) Cognition is limited or it is even impossible, looking is superficial or limited, evenimpossible;

j) An integration of the cognitive methods, that is, applying the system of meta-supra-methodology in which the parts are combined, complementary and controlling each other .For the time being we do not explore what the new super-methodology creates: science,theory, philosophy, metaphysics, or a form rising above all of those? What is the 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 directindividual and communal experiences often brings very new internal-external realizations. (Itis partly the “mystical-religious” experiences watched and described by many that belonghere) The God experience is not merely a religious experience, but sometimes much morethan that, sacral knowledge arising from the state of being close to God. The interpretation,the survey of the universal-global-knowledge-space and the making and gathering of newinformation (or super-information) is only possible with the help of the new humanequipments, the artificial intelligence. Apparently there will be a good many for whom onlythe scientific, or maybe the post-scientific method is acceptable, and everything else isunscientific and to be rejected . Most probably, there will be a good many too, for whom onlythe God experience and belief give true knowledge and everything else is false or falsified . 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 Istvan’s essay (From where is the view on man and on social sciences possible? ),according to it the language, the approach of science and of art can be mixed – within limits.19 As Saint John of the Cross said: „..the mind can obtain facts and ideas in two ways. One is the natural, other isthe supernatural way. In the scope of natural way are those that the mind can understand, either by way of sensesor alone. The supernatural way, however all that the mind partake directly what are over his own ability andtalents. Győri Kármelita Rendház, 1995. p. 14820„For Schuon, existence has stages, and so has cognition.” Huston Smith: Preface. The essay is preface to the book Frithjof Schuon The Transcendent Unity of Religions (Kvintesszencia Kiadó, Debrecen, 2005. p. 11.)21 „If epistemology does not content itself with the analysis what distinguishes true knowledge from falseknowledge, but directs its attention to the process of cognition, the cognitive mind, and the cognitive function of

consciousness: philosophy is enriched by metatheoretical approach.” Andras Laszlo: The light of everything inman (Sophia Perennis Kiadó, 2004. p. 14)



12

not? Both views casting off the other standpoint make it impossible to get acquainted with itand to understand it. Further, it is not really our job to bring together the two methods,attenuating each other somehow, because that is also often impossible and maybesuperfluous as well, since the two viewpoints judge from different states of reality andconsciousness, and discover different realities/consciousnesses.

Obviously, the top pattern of meta-methodology (supra-method) is nothing else thanapplying all prior cognitive methods in a way that they control also each other, and usingthem in a new logical order. It could bring enormous advantages both for classic science andfor theology, for instance. According to Stephen W. Hawking, three „yes” answers offer themselves for the question: Is a normal and post-normal scientific unified theory describingeverything realistic?

• A total unified theory really exists, and – if we are clever enough- we can discover itone day.

• A final unified theory does not exist, only an infinite number of theories insuccession, and the theories describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the Universe. The events are unpredictable beyond a certain point, after that they are arbitrary and random.22

First, Hawking means not meta-theory unifying everything, but only a lower level, thefirst step of it, the cosmological unified theory of the natural sciences. Second, sticking tothis level, it is relatively easy to agree that in time better and better theories will be born,although instead of succession they partly appear to run parallel with each other recently. Inaddition, of course, Hawking is right; the succession of theories should reach the ultimate(meta-) theory sooner or later. The three alternatives are really only two possibilities;eventually, Hawking’s logic must choose between yes or no. Meta-theory transcends theviewpoint of normal science; certainly, it is not striving for being a unified theory/post-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 book 23 that appeared also in Hungarianwrites: „ A great deal of contemporary science is no longer normal science in Kuhnian terms.As can be seen from a string of recent controversies from the BSE affair in Britain to theissues of genetically modified foods, science cannot deliver hard and fast answers to a host of contemporary issues. The old paradigm of science which provided certainty and assurance isno longer valid.” „ Post-normal science requires science to expand its boundaries to includedifferent validation processes, perspectives, and types of knowledge.”24

However, it is not sufficient to walk only the first half of the way leading from normalscience to Meta-theory. If we accept, for instance, that there is no society in the traditionalsense25, then following that reasoning, we may say there is no reality in the traditional sense,

and if that reasoning can be defended, then day of modern or normal science is really over. If there is no reality independently from us, if there is no reality image, especially not anobjective and strictly regular one, then we may speak about different types of reality vectorsat the most. If in theoretical physics the observed object cannot be separated from theobserver and is not knowable in itself, then – even if it does exist – the society is inseparablefrom the observing social science scholar. The terminology of the at least 150-years-oldIndustrial age has come to an end, therefore not only the objective society, but also theclassical category of science has come to an end, too. The other half of the road is a newrealization: the science perceiving the true, deterministic world from outside is one to be

22 Stephen W. Hawking: The Theory of Everything (p.17)23

Ziauddin Sardar: Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars. (Alexandra, Pécs, 2003.)24 Op. cit. 72-7325 See, in the present volume, the essay by Gabor Balogh (From Theory to Metascience)



13

rejected. There is not much sense in merely re-defining the material reality-hypothesis either.Therefore, Meta-theory proceeds towards post-science, post-knowledge or post-theology,meanwhile it makes visible the new “reality”, the post-reality and vice versa.

In our opinion, the ultimate Meta-philosophy – conditioned upon an infinite and finitemeta-consciousness – is also not a finished, fixed theory and not based on one truth. The

ultimate theory is namely not a closed but an open theory, and can give different answers tosame question for that matter. There is no other ultimate chance of an answer to takeseriously than the final theory of all, which essentially treats the final in thetimeless/spaceless domain. If that is so, than not only whether a unified theory is possible isthe only dilemma. On the one hand, there may be, on the other hand, there may not be, andthirdly there have been before, and last before top level it reaches into heights of God, whereGod exists not in time and in space, and there is no determination and no anti-determination.Then we may still bring it one step further to the Absolute, Meta-principle that manifestsitself in several Meta-principles.

It is repeatedly an actual question of methodology whether we want to be independentlogically and mentally from the dominant Zeitgeist , the dominant dogmas in the sense of the

example of Socrates26. We have to make an effort, even if there is no task much moredifficult than that in our everyday state of mind, which requires a clear mind. It is somewhateasier if our thinking leaves behind the logic of yes or no. If we revolutionize our way 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 unitlogic, then we may have a chance of understanding the theory of All. Then there is not muchsense in the yes or no answers of Hawking. Additionally, as long as physicists, astrologists,cosmologists seek the final sense of nature only, they necessarily can only get half-answers,that is, we may say that there is no unified theory of the Universe without meta-Theory. For that matter, today it does not exclude the possibility any longer that a scientific starting pointcould lead to discovering the meta-principle.

P. S.: Is meta-theory after all unfeasible? Even failure is a possible end. What can wechoose instead of Meta-Theory? It can be nothing short of scientific or theological theorywithout „Meta”. However, do we still have that option? That is not a possibility either. Yes,

by every indication – almost irrevocably – it is not. The theory without „Meta” does not havethe smallest chance of becoming a unified final philosophy. Rather, we decide for theunfeasible mentioned first.

Yet another actual question: is the final Meta-theory of a super string nature and type?27

8. The preliminary hypothesis of Meta-Theory

Meta-Theory viewed as a top-philosophy and post-philosophy, in our opinion, means in brief that on one hand it is all the prior important scientific, pre-scientific and post-scientificbasic theory (the Christian and all other theology too). On the other hand, it is above (behind,around) the traditional and concurrent theories, with a unified and transcendental viewpoint ,

26 „Hegel when describing the true method, which is the action of the thing itself, referred to Plato, who favoursto present Socrates making discussions with young’s. They do not care for dominant opinions, and are ready tofollow the coherent questions of Socrates. He demonstrated his own dialectic method on those ductile young’s,who do not want to change the own course of the matter, and do not want to wit and sparkle.” Gadamer: Truthand Method. Gondolat, Budapest. 1984. p. 321.27 A new theory in theoretical physics is in the making since the end of the sixties (the work of Joel Scherk, JohnSchwarz, and Mike Green etc.) Brian Greene, one of its current representatives says „" just as vibrations of 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 upstate and extraordinarily tiny, so we can not see them.” Brian Greene: The Elegant Universe



14

and so it is a supra-theory of the highest level resulting from the process of unification. Third,it is a unity theory hypothesis of the joint and entire system of theories. Meta-philosophy issuch a broad term as it incorporates all existing theory, post-theory, then the unified highestlevel top-knowledge of all theories, and as a key factor, the specific theoretical system 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, integrationmeasure, the height of their viewpoints etc.) of the theory.

Meta-theory metaphilosophy integrates human knowledge on the following levels inthree phases.

(1) Pre-existent basic theories, like pre-theories, every single scientific (normal and post-normal) theory, post-scientific theories of disciplines, all the theologies, artificialintelligence, etc.

(2) The so-called supra-theory: it is the accumulation of scientific, post-scientific,metaphysical and theological top theories. It is “knowledge” above basic theories, in 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 knowledgeand 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 theunified part-theories (For example, unified theory of physics or life theory) inside disciplines(or branches of thinking). The second level is a higher step already: the joint theories on topof disciplines, or the unified pre-theories, post-normal or post-scientific approaches.(Examples are the unified social science theories or the unified religious theologies)29

The second momentum again brings us one step higher in the level of abstraction-integration, to the world of supra-theories. These are top theories over science or branches of understanding and already a post-colonial (not only Euro-Atlantic), intercultural or inter-religious top sets of knowledge. (For example: post-theologies unifying world-religions,mega-philosophies, integrated theories of science).

Last, the third momentum includes two steps again. Firstly, it is the shared meta-leveltheoretical and/or philosophical (what is more post-theoretical and/or post-philosophy)systems of the two momentums. Secondly, the highly ranked new knowledge sets and newstates of consciousness born of relations of shared systems of the meta-level, and from

projecting them to each other. Eventually it is reaching or rather getting initiated to theconsciousness state of the Absolute. (The top level in the unitary and unified system is 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-systematictop states of the created and self-creating knowing and knowledge-nets, which, of course,

builds equally both on the most ancient and on the most recent knowledge, revelations or

28 In this meaning see: „Without doubt there is no other reality than God, only the illusion (wahm) veils it fromour eyes - and illusion is illusory.” Al-’Arabi Ad-Darkquawi: Az emlékezés rózsakertje. Al-’Arabí Ad-Darkquáwí: Az emlékezés rózsakertje. Kairosz Kiadó, 2005. p. 322.29 I do not agree with Gabor Balogh who in his essay “From theory to Meta-science” calls already integration

inside a discipline Meta-meta-theory, because then we needed to use at least four meta prefixes for the reallyhigh level meta-theory which incorporates three momentums. Similarly, I do not think the super-meta-theoryterm of István Dienes is justified (See in this volume).



15

insights, may be born again, or may come into being on a higher level than ever before. Thismiracle supposedly has happened many times in the life of humanity known today.30

The unified natural sciences, assumptions of the integrated Social Sciences or thespiritual sciences reflecting systematically on each other are also the first momentum. 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 toptheories of top questions: metaphysical traditionalism, the philosophy of religion31 and post-theology comparing the world religions, the shared hypotheses of the unified sciences. Thethird momentum uses the first two as a building stone to start with, but from the knowledgeof the two momentums it develops the meta-system of theories on the one side, and on theother side, it composes not only the new sets of knowledge of a meta-system of theories,

post-theories and philosophies, but new states of standards. All that is, of course, a strategyfor the development of knowledge first, then a consciousness-building strategy that can berealized with the help of different cognitive methods in the beginning, partly one by one 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 inthe last century, at the very beginning of the sixties (in his essay titled Kant’s Thesis aboutBeing) suggests the contraction of the words theology and ontology, because of the twin-likecharacteristic of the question concerning the existence of Being. „ The duality of the questionabout the being of beings can be brought together in the title "onto-theo-logy"32 Thus, what isMeta-theory at the first starting level can be metaphorically defined also as onto-theo-logy,

provided we understand both ontology and theology in a wider sense. Earlier Hegel similarlyin §572 of the Phenomenology of Spirit33 writes about philosophy being the unity of art andscience insofar as „philosophy not merely keeps them together to make a totality, but evenunifies them into the simple spiritual vision, and then in that raises them to self-consciousthought”

We can take another example too, since Johann Gottlieb Fichte while also interpreting theKantian heritage in his lecture given in 1794 in Zurich outlined the Theory of Science. 34 Wecite from the notes of his 5th lecture: “.the purpose of science is not less than to bring intoexistence the whole system of human spirit, in its general and necessitated determination.Since this science is merely the representation of the system, but not the necessitated, originaland general system – in addition to the top act (on which the system stands) the philosopher needs to take another action, which is nothing else, than a reflection on the top act.“ In thesame lecture: “the sharpest examination of all human knowledge ends at one point which isnot provable and we must accept it out of pure belief. “ It is not very clear what he means by“top act” and “one point”, but the essence of Meta-theory can be defined as the drawing 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 meta-

philosophy of today, or that of its general or later canonized form of tomorrow. The categoryof meta-theory described now is the definition of the term as we use it.

. 9. Physics and Metaphysics

30 The best example for that is the Rig Veda (The Rig Veda Book 1-10, tr. Griffith, 1896)31 For instance: Frithjof Schuon The Transcendent Unity of Religions. In our volume see Ilma Szasz’s essay.32 Martin Heidegger: Pathmarkers, Osiris, Budapest 2003 p. 407.33

G. W. F. Hegel: The Phenomelogy of Spirit Encyclopedia III. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. 1981. p. 356.34 Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s Lectures in Zurich. Magyar Filozófia Szemle, 2004/3. p. 323–351 .



16

As a first approach, the following can be adequate: the new Meta-theory is essentiallymetaphysic, or a new metaphysic. Thus, the first step is merely to replace the “physics” with“theory” in the word metaphysics, meaning not only the physical, material, or natural world,

but a supra-reality which is global, over the whole reality, not only the physical and of

physical beings, or integrating all reality/consciousness. In this conception, the upliftingcaused by the word “meta” goes above not only nature, man, the second natural world (i.e.society), but also the spiritual and transcendental realities in a narrower sense.35

Metaphysics is likely not a popular post-science in Hungary today, but at the same time itis not in need for any intellectual-moral protection. The next hundred years will be or may benot in small part again about Metaphysics getting into focus, since the paradigm shifts of

post-normal science put the metaphysical questions (metaphysical reality, consciousnessstates) on the agenda again. All essential theoretical, philosophical problems are to be dealtwith as question of metaphysics (matter, reality, consciousness, life, death, God) until wereach a point where it gets clear also in the framework of meta-theory (post-metaphysical?),that even non metaphysical questions can not be answered without a metaphysical approach.

In the twentieth century apparently one could easily ignore Metaphysics with reference tothe modern scientific worldview, but meanwhile the post-modern science ruins thetheoretical content, even the scientific foundation of this ignorance. Simultaneously, themodern science starts to contend with more and more metaphysical questions because withthe discoveries of the new quantum theories the circle and depth of the observations haveexpanded. Consequently, a bigger and bigger fraction of post-millennium scientists havequietly returned to Metaphysics36 – for that matter to the astonishment of positivist-rationalist scholars- , irrespectively of the fact, that they may use other words, like Theory 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 itincorporates everything from the natural world, to the domains of consciousness, and to therealms of God39.

35 „The created (’physikon’) and the created ones (’physika’), the created world (’physis’) is what the

interpreting translation according to the higher level refers to. The circle of the ones created- beings is larger thanthat of the nature’s (in widest sense).” Laszlo, András: What is metaphysical tradition? (www.tradíció.org )36 Ruzsa, Ferenc’s definition of metaphysics is „Metaphysics analyses the most fundamental and general entitiesand structures of world and our consciousness, and their interrelations.” Ruzsa, Ferenc: A ’Meta-physicamívelésének hasznárúl.’ Hungarian Philosophical Review, 2004/1-2, p 3. (Noteworthy are the essays of RuzsaFerenc in Hungarian Philosophical Review: 1999/6, 2001/1-2.)37 Hawking, Stephen W.: The Theory of All; Wilber, Ken: A Theory of Everything (Shambhala);www.kenwilber.com 38 One of the excellent essays about the film titled Matrix (Jorge J. Gracia – Jonathan J. Sanford: TheMetaphysics of the Matrix) defines metaphysics in this third sense. (William Irwin: The Matrix and PhilosophyBestline, Budapest. 2004. p. )39 For that very reason it may be a misunderstanding, even in the figurative sense, if someone- as Csaba Vass – calls modernization the realm of metaphysics - in a bad sense - in realization. The question whether the

globalization would be the third world over modernization (that is metaphysics) is controversial. If metaphysicsin a proper sense is concerned with the Whole, than it is not worth calling it a stage of reality, the realm of metaphysics. (Vass, Csaba: Míg élők közt leszel élő, Ökotáj Kiadó, 2000, p 136.)



17

In the latter meaning, the concept of metaphysics and meta-theory are apparently quiteclose to each other, they may as well be identical. However Meta-theory on the one hand,with its treatise of a unified meta-reality and meta-consciousness instead of 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 theindividual. 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 today’s 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 theologicalmetaphysics, and does not retreat in either subjective or objective idealism, while at the sametime it makes efforts to provide the lacking momentums, for instance besides metaphysics tometa-chemistry41 or meta-biology.

At the same time, this extended metaphysical world-conception does not screen out the

traditional physical or intellectual domains; rather on the contrary, it fuses and integratesthem into a top theory. The Meta-theory we stand for is therefore such a supra-theory andsupra-system doctrine that probably transcends –as we noted – the philosophical meta-theory, what is more, traditional metaphysics as well, that is, it makes the traditionalconception identical with not only magical solipsism, but it still does not stand exclusivelyfor objective idealism. To prevent all misunderstanding, meta-theory does not reject science

because that is an integral part of the system of the human spirit, on the contrary, it basicallyexpands and fortifies it, but it also reaches post-science, and simultaneously integrates alsometaphysics, so it does not deny theology either. True, it can be seen as it partly makes themetaphysical method scientific, on the other hand, however, it partly theologizes science; butwe do not agree with those two explanations.

From this viewpoint, Martin Heidegger’s conception42 is also of interest. First, he sayscategorically that philosophy is something very different from science43, although it hidesitself in science, puts on the outer form of science. Secondly, he says that metaphysics – like

philosophy – is a basic occurrence in the human Dasein, and fundamental metaphysicalconcepts 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 itsinseparableness 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 thatdiscovery in physics that the observation of physical phenomena is not possible withoutconsidering the observer.

Summing it up, we can state that Meta-theory is not science or merely a scientific topsystem, but a post-theory and post-theology, or philosophy in the sense of Heidegger, or, 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 theOneness and the questioner of Oneness for its aim; but it creates a new Oneness, or a newworld and simultaneously a new questioner, a new inquiring position and new inquiring state

40 The following are also from the lecture of Fichte, cited earlier: „The definition of knowing is nothing else thanthe definition of consciousness” p.32541 It is not coincidence that in addition to quantum physics the term quantum chemistry has been born. See in thisvolume: Hejjas, Istvan: Reality at the Level of Quantum Physics42 Heidegger, Martin Introduction to Metaphysics Osiris, Budapest, 2004. p. 29–33.43

Similarly, Bela Hamvas writes: „philosophy is not a science. Science has no style, it does not need one. Itwould be a burden for science in a sense. Science deals with facts. Philosophy wants more. It needs knowing.And knowing can only be personal.” p. 399



18

of mind. At the same time, to start with we say nothing more than what Heidegger represents,namely that “metaphysics is the basic occurrence (Grundgeschehen) of Dasein”

44, 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 abstractionand integration.

10. The initial conception of meta-reality – independently from meta-

consciousness

Unlike several philosophical viewpoints and category systems, we use the term reality,and not Being. In Hungarian – in everyday usage, but partly also in a philosophical sense – the term being expresses the being of something. It implies that existence is identical 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 weuse the term reality for. Therefore, we will discuss not the existence of being, but theexistence of reality. We would like to talk also about non-being/non-realit y, and in alogically separate way from being/reality. From this stepping out from being it also follows,that the point Kant and Heidegger reached in their philosophy (Dasein, Sein, and a space– filling net expressing the difference of the two) 46 despite all of its radical aspects does notmean the end of the thinking path.

Nor is it without purpose that we discuss and allow to see not merely reality, but meta-

reality. A novelty in Meta-theory regarding conception is that it discusses not merelytraditional theories, or that it not merely joint theories in general, but as an active logicalfeedback – with the help of intellectual integration – in the concept of a new reality, itquestions and reunites traditional and new sub-realities. Meanwhile, it does not assume atall that we have conceptions about every dimension of reality already. This theory concept isthe cautious announcement of that new reality-hypothesis that it is not only at the top of theories that higher knowledge may exist, but there are also non-existent half-realities ontop of realities (behind, around, etc.). On the other hand, there are structurally existing supra-realities, and at last, the sub-realities, the non-existent and the top-realities together give upmeta-reality.(What Parmenides thought does not add up to all that is thinkable.) It isimportant to perceive and understand that even with all that we have not yet apprehendedreality/meta-reality.

Necessarily, a part and an organic part of this borderless and dimensionless meta-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 partlycovers 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 isthe 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 Op. cit. p. 31.45

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



19

thing, if it does not exist, it does not necessarily follow either that it cannot be, cannot comeinto being, and cannot exist in the imagination.

Meta-reality in our opinion is the only possible conception of reality. Every fragmentingof reality, every curtailment of it and all forcing it within closed schemes lead to its

becoming indefinable. One of the classic examples of this is Aristotle’s wrestling with the

concept of reality; On one hand, he denies Plato’s transcendental doctrine of Ideas, on theother hand, he accepts the Divine as the first cause and the main cause of every concreteexistence, and thirdly, reality is the system of individual substance in his opinion.

That is why we can read such sentences in his Metaphysics: „ If no substance can consistof universals because a universal indicates a 'such', not a 'this', and if no substance can becomposed of substances existing in complete reality, every substance would be incomposite,so that there would not even be a formula of any substance.”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 tonote that we outline a flight of steps, and totalities can only be described by a flight of stepsin this essay on Meta-theory.

1. Meta-reality (not independently from meta-consciousness and Meta-theory);2. Meta-consciousness (not independently from Meta-reality and not even from meta-

theory);3. Meta-human man (not independently from the previous two and the following)4. (Meta)God (not independently from any , but not depending on any of them)5. Meta-theory, meta-philosophy (not independently from any )At the same time, we do not outline the top of the flight of steps, or the ultimate 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 all-directional. 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 stepof each flight of steps in different angles, diagonally. Meta-human is therefore something likethe oscillating (of material and not material nature) superstring, or that bright, outstretched,waving net which clasps, covers, binds, and of course, makes dynamic, and brings to life.The metaphor of the Meta-human has been illuminated with the steps r, but these flights 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 atanother 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 indicatingand phrasing without clearing up the interrelations among the basic concepts and the further

47 Aristotle: Metaphysics. Lectum Kiadó, 2002. p.199.



20

general categories subordinating them under the five top concepts, for now. The outlinedmeta-theory system or post-system still has ahead of it the decision whether one or more

principles/concepts from the five top concepts or from beyond those top concepts will takethe central role.

Suppose there is a central role; since another conception is possible, that there is no

central role at all, or there are more „central players”, or the main players are changingcontinuously, or they are different depending on the varying directions of the observer andthe observed viewpoints.

The system and/or net of the top concepts can be imagined in a globular model, but it isnot a regular geometrical spheroid, but – for instance – that kind of space in which every

point is a central point and there is no outline anywhere48, or such as the World Tree of theCabbala, the tree of the Sephirot. Leo Schaya pictures Tipareth (the point of harmony) so:„we must see clearly however, that it is more than a simple sphere since that has only onecentre according to geometry rules, while on the territory of Principal Forms, every singlePoint that is grouping around the centre is at the same time the centre itself in a magicalway.”49. This description is as if we read the characterization of mystical quantum space. The

sphere model from the inside and the outside, as a whole, in the infinity of its wholeness isitself the Unity model or Unity itself without distinctions.

We took five out of the potential essential concepts of meta-theory or meta-philosophy,and tried, to some extent, to relate them to each other, now we may make the conclusionthat the categories picked out, and the reality/consciousness contents addressed by thesecategories can be interpreted in such a model as is less a geometrical than an intellectual-spiritual system. Thus, the main order is quantum space and a meta-system of an intellectual-spiritual nature at the same time

12. The hypothesis of meta-reality ( without meta-consciousness as far as it is

possible)

Well, we do not know exactly, or at least not appropriately, what is reality(now without

any attribute, examined in itself ), but we may take an effort to make a new hypothesis aboutit, that is, to re-create or reconstruct supra- and meta-theory, and the abstract conceptsexpressing them. However, let us skip differences between meta-reality and supra-reality for now.

This meta-reality however is not a self-sustained realization, like being is not merelyexistence, and this reality is not the opposite of appearance because that is reality too. Thisreality is the composite of is and is not, of there is and there is not. 50. Therefore this is morethan to be, but at the same time it is not merely that which is; or else being and its existence

together and a substance as well, but it is not the only and the only dominant essence, whichis also irrelevant . In addition, of course it is real and not real at the same time (of spirit,conscious, divine nature), although that is real as well. It expresses quality andsimultaneously it is without quality. It is existence beyond space/time and in space/time(space-time) simultaneously.

We cannot cut meta-reality – we repeat – apart from meta-consciousness, and this waycannot see it as the end cause, or as objective being, and not in the least as objectiveexistence.

48 Leo Schaya: Az ember és az abszolútum a kabbala szerint (Arcticus, 2002 p. 43.)49

Op. cit. p. 43.50 See the essay of Varga Csaba entitled „The new world vision” (Tertia, Budapest, 2004.)



21

We can portray meta-reality in the most general sense only with its lack of boundaries.Maybe for a first approach, the conception that meta-reality is “meta” because all reality,every level of realities, every dimension, every vector, every content, every consciousness (or all their attributes) belong to it without any restriction. In addition, even those realms, realitydomains about which we have no hypothesis, belong to it. It is not the question of the

observing and the observed, the contemplating and the contemplated sights of reality. Maybeit is superfluous to stress that (meta-) reality is necessarily not only the visible (material,rational, empirical) substance of reality because in that case reality would be equal to whatthe observing being or equipment could take hold of. We will not be able to avoid definingthe matter since we can get hold of the concept of non-reality only after that of non-materialmatter.

Up to now we did nothing else than, as an introduction, we released reality (leading toinner and outer infinity) out of the captivity of the category and one-dimensional existence 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 sametime, however, if we go only one step further, even that is denied by many already –

especially some groups of scientists – who strictly refuse the existence of the divine world(the Pleroma). However we have not yet raised the everlasting dilemma of the 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 wemight think about unity and its hierarchy, and to what extent we are able to influence it.Meta-reality is the manifestation (adopted for us, necessarily partially) of the One. God is themanifestation (adopted for us, necessarily partially) of the One. The meta-human is, as before(adopted for us and necessarily partially for ourselves) One. Meta-reality (this time inclusiveof Meta-consciousness as well), meta-human is the One as well. It is the manifested and un-

manifested One. It is the comprehensible and the incomprehensible One. This One ishowever not the one known from Mathematics, but the One of philosophy, to which there isno zero, and there is no two. It is the point and the infinite at the same time. It also means, onthe one hand, that there is no Meta-reality without divine reality, on the other hand, it is alsoevident, that all that is not known yet, about what we have no idea yet, and what we have notdreamt yet, all are parts of Meta-reality. There is no special gift of prophecy needed to seethat the classical sciences (and not only natural sciences) will be continuously, 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, wethink 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 thesedomains, non-material of nature (3) can be explained in a particular, dynamic, but notgeometrical sphere model.

The four reality domains are:1. Material reality, the sensory world.2. Post material (beyond matter), second reality, Reality of the Soul.3. Spiritual reality, world of knowledge.4. Transcendent reality (Ultimate Reality, Unity Reality). All four realities include,

however, several more realities, more levels. It is essential to understand that these four domains in themselves summarize only the quantitative constituents of Meta-Reality.



22

We give also visual metaphors for each reality-domain:1. The physical-biological reality of the trees, of houses, of people, and of societies;

Physical- chemical- biological, lifeless-living reality; matter (from ether to galaxies, fromatoms to galaxy clusters), life (self-reproductive organic polymers, unicellular andmulticellular creatures, and so on.); and humans as physical-biological beings, and last 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 notmaterial 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 independentfrom and not eliminative of each other, but they are the appearance, way of being, andexpression of the same Meta-reality on different levels.

The four reality domains are One on the one hand, and on the other hand they are many;they are the continuation, projection of each other and are complementary to each other inevery directions.

13. The preliminary concept of meta-reality

Let us consider the four elements each as a symbolic stepladder , and let us examine from both directions which are the lowest, and the uppermost steps for example, and from whereon this ladder the paths lead to.

The lowest stepladder is material reality, the external reality and the external human andthe empirical-rational world of external man. Most simply, all that is notmaterial/nonmaterial, and nothing what is obviously beyond material and of spiritual nature.It is all the surface, at the same time not the form, and all what is beyond the façade, and allthat means - something beyond forms - more than physical-biological existence. It is all thatis outside, it is not anything that is inside; however, there are several elements and links atthe border of the two, which is the inside projection of the outer, and which is the 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 thescenery, props, costumes and tools of the everyday world – although that will be the subjectof a debate later –, furthermore the personal and community conditions that put across thescenery and have it accepted are strictly included. The concrete, existing terrestrial worlds of man, and the concrete human persons in them who as natural and social beings (from birth todeath) are mainly existing on this level; in the same way, also the small and large groups of man belong here, from their formation to their decomposition. In our study later on we shalldetail the elements, segments of the world of the lowest ladder. The unified scientific theory

– joining Gravity, Electromagnetic Force, Strong Interaction and Weak Interaction together – belongs to the first ( and of course also to the second ) stepladder.

The second stepladder is post-material reality, but this is still not the spiritual 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



23

the second stepladder can still be interpreted with the help of global and local communityknowledges. In plainer words, it is the functional repetition of the lowest ladder world andarrangements in individual and community consciousnesses, and in their real establishments,which serves merely the purpose of keeping the lowest world functioning and going in everyaspect. Notably the society and the state, the language and the “language” of society (in 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 andreproducing it, and (2) parallel to that, the mental world, language, thinking and material-centred knowing of symbolic reality. I still do not wish to say which was or is the first. In thehistory of Europe, the last two-three hundred years produced the most profound successexactly in developing material-rational thinking and consequently in establishing material-rational institutions. The twentieth century is the triumph and domination of the secondstepladder - pushing the third and fourth stepladders into the background.

The third stepladder is mental reality which sharply diverges from the semi-intellectual

domains of the second step, at the same time not yet reaching up to the peak reality (divinereality) of the fourth step. First, it is the substantial world of inner man, and the place 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 stephence – as a genesis and potentiality– is giving meaning to the first and second steps.Therefore, it is not a follow-up (mental) function, but simultaneously cause and effect. Thematerial world can only be created and kept going according to the knowing and belief of thethird step. At the same time – after the modern-post-modern world’s tragic and spectacular turning away and seceding from the third world and its requirements – the review and re-creation of the first world can happen only with the help of the third world. In traditionalterms, this level can even be interpreted as the reality behind the surface/forms, the essence

behind appearances; and what is more, we may get to the point that this is factual reality, andthen the world of the first and second steps seem merely primitive mutations. The third stepis already identical with high-ranking natural and social sciences, currently theoretical

physics, theoretical biology or the ecological discipline. However, in earth civilization theclassical languages of mental reality are most of all religions (not always theologies),

philosophies (together with or transcending this, all post-philosophies, unified theories, or meta-theory), which of course makes also the mental-spiritual meaning of Creationcomprehensible. 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 mentalreality, even though present in the first world, is not very effective, not yet (or not always)

institutionalized, and not yet a fundamental determining factor in the reproduction of global-local societies on Earth.The fourth step: the mapping of divine reality (and not-reality) which equally can be

captivated as first of all non-reality (meaning: denying-transcending the reality of the firstthree steps) or the Only Reality because the reality of the first three are false, i.e. distortedrealities compared to this. In earlier known terms we may call it spiritual or/and transcendentreality, although these two categories do not mean the same. Spiritual in a philosophicalsense means “only” that every being is of a spiritual nature fundamentally, and that matter isonly the appearance shape of spirit. Transcendent, however, means more than that since it isnot only transcendental or not only nonmaterial, but in opposition of the world consideredfinite, 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, thereflected contents of an eternal life’s reality.



24

The notion of divine reality also consists of several momentums. (1) The supernatural,and the supra-natural (the nature beyond already-known nature) (2) The top-realitytranscending intellectual existence (the Intelligence- and Wisdom-reality includes also for instance Clear Consciousness); (3) God (the heavenly kingdom of God, the sacral reality, thedomains of holiness, etc.), and the not personal Supreme Being over personal God, the

Divine, the Supreme Principium (the Absolute), as well. (This therefore is no more themapped, but the momentum of mapping the divine reality – but only the lowest level of it,which is at the same time also the connection.) The three main momentums imply that thisreality is also greatly structured and of course it binds together complicated, multilayeredreality levels. The third and fourth steps of Meta-reality are already almost inseparable frommeta-consciousness. One of the most exciting dilemmas is that God and the divine reality arenot only transcendent and post-transcendent, but at the same time immanent reality as well.Moreover, the other way round too. That is already another central topic of Meta-theory, or Meta-philosophy.

The most critical issue of the fourth reality is to differentiate between divine reality andthat which is beyond divine reality (called as the Absolute). Christian theology keeps this

differentiating unjustified and impossible to interpret. The exoteric argumentation is asfollows: „There are no such ’elements’ from which in thinking the Absolute could beconstructed”51 „The “concept” of absolute or rather its notion accordingly are unusual, verydifferent from any other concept or notion. This difference appears in that although we cangive a hint of its meaning in language, but we can never describe it as an object which can beclearly placed before us.” The counter-argument – based on logic only – can easily beworded since the Absolute can very well exist in spite of the fact that for the time being weor others can not construct it in thinking, nor describe it. The author of the earlier citation,Bela Weissmahr writes. „God ’experience’ (and god demonstration unfolding from 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 tomisinterpret this sentence, since we too accept it as evidence that the human mind originally’is aimed at the Absolute’, however it does not follow from this shared recognition that Godand the Absolute (God and deity, that is the gods, and Deity53) are the same.

Finally another partial argument: „A religious man will hardly turn to a transcendentAbsolute in his prayer”54 Why is he not going to do that ? Why could not we turn to theAbsolute when praying, meditating? Moreover, several Christian saints, for instance, mighthave done just that. (Let us consider as a marginal spiritual experience now that other monotheistic religions think it thinkable and practicable, what is more, a religiousexperience, and a path that is suitable for living.)

More concept -groups can be applied to the four stepladders. The first step can be 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 alsoconversely, the fourth step is the place of creation (but uncreated reality), the third stage isthe created spirit, the second step is the self-image of physical creation and the first iscreated sensual reality. Since we have advanced as far as the concept of sensual, we mayrightly regard the reality of the first and second steps as sensual, while the third-fourth stages

51 Weissmahr, Béla: Filozófiai istentan (Mérleg-Távlatok, 1996. p. 90)52 Op. cit. p. 153.53 „For an exotericist the personal God is the only version of god, for him this version lies in that what is 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.



25

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 intermediarysteps: understanding the world of the senses and the transition into the super-sensual. Wemay even go further: the first level of Meta-reality is being without Eden, the second step isthe 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 isEden/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 isnew, or possibly only different in contrast to whom or what, but the issue whether through itwe 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 asmany old or not old hypothesis-controls as possible. Let us first confront the Meta-theorytypified 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 Splendour 55. There are also four onto-cosmological levels andhierarchies outlined in it, which together are referred to as Olamim: (1) Olam-ha Atzilut, thewhole ten-dimensioned system of spheres, the sephirot-like transcendent world of Emanations. (2) Olam-ha Beriah, the creation’s spiritual world of ideas which is filled withdivine 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 worldof facts.56

This latter apparently can be matched easily with the material world of the first step, andthe dimensions of the third step – in a certain sense – are identical with the home of spiritsand souls, on the other hand with the creation’s world of ideas. (However, we can interpret itin 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 SephirothicalUnity. Therefore, the difference to seek is possibly in that the meta-theoretical constructionduplicates 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 Splendoursindicates divine reality as the first level, while the logic of meta-theoreticalreality/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 theKabbalah.

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 alsoorganisms, the second is that of mental, conscious experiences, and the third world is theworld of the human mind’s products. He describes “world three” like this: „the world of such

products of human mind as car, skyscraper, book, and most importantly, problems andtheories.”57 Roger Penrose, the mathematician in his book The Large, the Small and the

Human Mind (originally appeared in 1997) interprets Popper’s three worlds as physicalworld, world of thoughts, and as a product of the world of thoughts, the world of culture. Heunfolds his own standpoint in contrast to this world structure, according to which the third

55 Sepher ha Zohar, the Book of Splendours The Zohar, Vol. 1-23, 2001. www.kabbalah.com 56

Schaya, Leo: Az ember és az abszolútum a kabbala szerint (Arcticus, Budapest, 20002. p. 21, p. 24.)57 Popper, Karl: The Self and Its Brain. (Typotex, Budapest. 1998. p. 58.)



26

world is not that of culture, but the domain of Platonic absolutes (absolute mathematicaltruths).

His most important issue is that contrary to Popper, he denies that” any of these worldssimply emerges out of any of the others”58. In Penrose’s opinion, the three worlds – definedas 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 onconsciousness, but this physical activity cannot be adequately simulated through calculationsafter all.” „Consequently, there must be something in the physical functioning of the brainwhat is beyond calculations”59

When comparing the briefly outlined world structure views, their essential equality lastsonly 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 meta-consciousness

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 itshows the structure of the system of Sephiroth, which at the same time has been transformedfurther into meta-consciousness, meta-theory as well. We see that as essential, because weare 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 ndimensions. If until now we have supplied the overall picture of meta-reality levels, now wemay 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 thisstructural model is to return when describing meta-reality, meta-conscious, and meta-humanon one side, on the other side, it is the projection of meta-theory’s 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-theory’s system through the inner relations of thesystem of meta-theory.

According to Zohar, the structure consists of ten poles, and within it there are not onlyfour 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-materialreality, whereas it is one of the bases of meta-reality (the other base implicitly is the highest

point). The next three poles of meta-reality’s steps are situated above that: in the middle. It iscreated reality (complex, brought into existence by human beings); to the right there is thereality of thought (mostly in a pre-theoretical form) as the starting point of changes of alltimes; to the left there is active reality which incorporates the ability to change and the actsthemselves. 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. Italso implies, that this post-material (post-natural and post-social) reality-planecounterweights, 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.



27

the world of shallow understanding and knowing. On the left, there is empirical reality, theworld of experiences and of taking actions, in one, the control and judgment of reality. Wewrote intentionally, that this step is primarily the existence and reality view of the arts andsciences.

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, andtherefore it belongs to the fourth level. On the right side of the third reality-plane, there is thewisdom of reality, i.e. wisdom-reality can be found which is on one side over pre-theoretical 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, whichequally incorporates natural, social and intellectual intelligence. As mentioned earlier, thisstep 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 – andits position is not arbitrary. We may give it many names, starting from the world of ideas tomapped 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 leadsto 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 theconnections among the levels, columns, and poles will be another topic.

If meta-reality has at least four fundamental stepladders, then this reality – independentlyfrom who is looking at reality – can be viewed from one or simultaneously from all the steps.This question brings to light at once meta-methodology’s 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 Kabbalistsrevealed that reality exists in ten dimensions-and that six of those dimensions are compactedinto one-physicists arrived at the same conclusions. This has come to be called SuperstringTheory.”61 Berg also cites the physicist Michio Kaku who said how awesome it was to seethat the magic numbers of physics and unified field theory can be found in Kabbala.62 Meta-theory 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 recentscientific findings.When analyzing meta-consciousness – let us advance so much now – we describe high-

ranking states of mind : (1) liberated consciousness (intermediate consciousness), (2-3)cosmic consciousness (the stages of a high mind and consciousness), (4-5) stations of divineconsciousness and absolute consciousness (top consciousness). Ilma Szasz calls theintermediate consciousness as cleared, high consciousness as consciousness of soul andmind, sacral consciousness as consciousness of god. Istvan Dienes introduces the same asclean consciousness, cosmic consciousness, and consciousness of god, unity (andcompleteness) consciousness63. In meta-theory, parallel to high-ranking human state of

61

Yehuda Berg: The Power of Kabbalah. Hodder és Stoughton, 2003. p. 75–76.62 See the books of Michio Kaku: Hyperspace, Visions, etc.63 See both essays in this volume



28

minds, we distinguish also a high-ranking human community (or society), that is meta-realitystates, past and future simultaneously : the knowing- and consciousness advancing era, theuniversal and spiritual era (the age of high-ranking knowledge), the sacral era and the unityera. The divine consciousness and sacral society are partly, the absolute consciousness andthe era of unity are fully the same – personal consciousness and collective states of

community/community consciousness do not become separate. As most individuals have notyet reached the enlightened state, so global societies also only now may potentially arrive atthe 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 maynot 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 tomake statements about that in the global knowledge space – independently even from thedifferent European linguistic traditions – mind, soul and consciousness refer to differentthings more and more clearly64.

We absolutely agree with Peter Russell: „ I believe that, sooner or later, we are going tohave to accept that consciousness is absolutely fundamental to the cosmos, not somethingthat 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 scopeof 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 thelowest 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 everyatom, in every DNA (in our hypothesis, in the elements that do not use coding), and in theenergy/vibrancy field wrapping in the individual.67 which necessarily cannot be isolated fromcosmic and transcendent energy fields.

It is a justified approach to differentiate the states of mind during wakefulness, alertnessand beyond alertness (that is, a high-ranking state of mind) approach. In this case, we maydefine high awareness as an entrance into modified states of mind. Each state of mind ismeasurable by waves, frequencies (electro encephalograph).

As we introduced our approach of reality-meta-reality by starting at the material-rationalreality steps, so we also begin with introducing the lowest ranking consciousness layer whendealing with the new construction of meta-theory, post-meta-theory, that is meta-consciousness.

64 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, andPeter Russell (Budapest, Új 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 stageswe can reach” (INCO, 2004/1; www.inco.hu )67 The aim of ID frequency researches is to scientifically examine and measure this energy field.



29

The first step of meta-consciousness is sensual „consciousness” not necessarily a high-ranking state of mind. We may call it everyday, ego-centred consciousness perceiving onlyitself, in short, the consciousness of normal awareness. This is the material-rationalconsciousness 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 onlythe first two steps sharply. Different disciplines usually consider deep sleep, dreaming, andawareness (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 ina 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 forthfrom the aware state of mind, but not yet enlightened, a cleared-out consciousness level.

The second step. Reality consciousness. It is already an a bstracted thinking, everydayconsciousness. 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 thesensual 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 andlocal common knowledge. It is middle (mediocre) consciousness. The image formed byconsciousness is mechanical, simplified, but already it is a symbolic image of reality. If wetake a look at meta-reality while standing here, giving meaning to the first (virtual) reality isaccomplished, and the world of the third step scarcely looming in the distance. If there issense in making a distinction between the words freeing and liberation, than we may say it isnot 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. Iconsider this a separate state of mind because people, using their own strength, driven bysuffering are often springing up into middle consciousness, only to fall back almost eachtime.

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 intellectualinitiation. 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 spiritualcosmos – or else this step can be divided into two steps, into the melting in with natural andspiritual universes. It is high consciousness. It is already living the liberty, the opportunity toremain in this state. It is becoming free from the shackles of the real world, becomingdetached from the states of mind of the real world. The contents of the mind: truths aregetting more and more visible, however, occasional blurs remain. This state of mind is theone 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 rankingknowledge and scholars, philosophers or saints. If we take a look at meta-reality whilestanding here, the first reality is clear for the most part, the knowledge of the second realitycan 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. Self-consciousness of Clear Mind, consciousness of personal and unpersonal god (its recognition,realisation, experiencing)68 and obviously also the society consciousness centred on sacredreality/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 )



30

of god and the final perfect consciousness of the Absolute. Reality beyond the senses andknowing is always of a form of god and then it is the self-identity of the peak of knowing ontop of all contents/forms opening up into the infinite. It is the Highest consciousness, wherethere is no higher than this – at least not in human language. The image formed byconsciousness 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. Wetherefore from the beginning took the divine (the one-god centred) as different from theabsolute (being beyond the one-god consciousnesses.) state of minds. Therefore, we caninterpret 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 divineconsciousness. 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 thefifth (secret Da’ath) 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 self-interpreting 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 notstatic 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 inner-outer driving forces are continuously in change due to the infinite and the finite. Anapparently stationery, unmoving meta-consciousness is moving as well and the unceasingvibration 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 fromthe beginning that we will be able to discover definite laws before/behind informationtheories. The basic dilemma irrevocably is what way all people and communities can reachthe 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 meta-consciousness 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 therelation of the concepts of meta-reality and meta-consciousness. However, this cardinal issueof meta-theory and/or meta-philosophy (about the mutual effects of the two) can beexamined 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 time-space. These are two different contents and forms even if we leave the question open abouttheir effects on each other. 2. There are strong interactions between the two, and that may beeven independent from the type of space-time they embody together. We can use the termtwins now, if you like, because reality- and concept siblings are of the same rank and

69

Think on the doctrine of predestination in Calvinism (Kálvin János: Az eleve elrendelésr ől. Európa Kiadó,Budapest. 1986.)



31

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 theinfinite, 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. Thetwo 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 thesubjective perception of objective reality. 10. There is only meta-consciousness, only that isobjective, only that is the truth, meta-reality is nothing else than meta-consciousnesssubjectively. 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 meta-consciousness 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 twotop factors named simultaneously free and attached. They do and do not clasp all. 14. Meta-reality and meta-consciousness are factors that we can mutually substitute for each other, notonly metaphysically but also physically. 15. Due to the issue’s complexity, it is hard to find areason to why only one answer should be correct among the enumerated answers-alternatives. Alloy variations are also showing up. 16. Or, in what shared top state do the twomain 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 differentsides 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 andconsciousness/god like nature? Neither have we raised the question whether is it the sameanswer on all of the levels of reality/consciousness, since it can be stated that there is noquestion with only one possible answer .

The civilization on Earth – based on our current data - from the beginning does nothingelse than wanting to make a choice quickly and clearly among the alternatives enumeratedand not mentioned. In the past ten thousand years, in any age, any continent or culture theychoose only one-one or one-two parallel answers at the highest, with the restriction thatexcept the answer accepted and looked upon as an ultimate truth, every other answer-alternative 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 wecannot preclude-exclude the possibility that a superior consciousness of some kind has notyet 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 theultimate 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 (meta-

reality/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.



32

Although traditional knowledge, the sciences, theories have drifted apart, got distancedfrom 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 self-sufficient. This double, or multiple differentiation reached its peak in the twentieth or at theend 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 ameta-science, a meta-theory, then a meta-philosophy that are able to see all science/non-science as one

70 by creating a new language, new thinking and new mentality. Meta-theoryand all its higher levels are partly necessarily for this, but the cardinal task is not merelycreating the theoretical-intellectual synthesis.

If meta-theory is a new net of logic and concepts, then meta-theory/meta-philosophy canalso be illustrated through a structure consisting of eleven poles. We may vision this – for thesake of simplicity and clarity – in the build-up of the World Tree-Tree of Life

71, and the treeof 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 meta-human, and the two “lower” elements meta-society and meta- reality. Since a decent worldtree 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 branchto 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, andon this “floor”, the branch to the right is meta-feeling and to the left is meta-theory whichattempts to characterize the whole content of the tree comprehensively.

This is a two-dimensional meta-tree so far, a philosophical world tree, which naturallycan be interpreted in a sphere structure, what is more, in the way promised before; this ballwill 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 tomean.

As an incidental addition, let us refer to the world tree as having been and still being oneof 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” inthe Hungarian world of beliefs is nothing else than the world tree of the taltos people, whichconnects the low (underground), the intermediate (the earthly) and the upper (other) world.”72 Among others, Mihaly Hoppál notes the following: „The shaman must be able to climb the

70 It is worth citing the last sentence of Del Ratzsch’s book: „ To paraphrase George Marsden, nonbelievers mayhear all the notes of science, but without the theistic context and perspective they will not hear the song..." DelRatzsch: 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 thatthe majority of exegetes tend to see in the final episode of the Tree of Life (prepared by the allusion to the twotrees standing in the garden in 2:9) a discordant theme, stemming from another tradition, that of God being

jealous of human beings.” Paul Ricoeur-André Lacocque: Bibliai gondolkodás (Európa Kiadó, Budapest. 2003) p. 92.72 Kiszely István: Az ősmagyarok hitvilága (www.istvandr.kiszely.hu )



33

trunk of the World Tree, reaching up to the sky (’the tree reaching up to the sky’), since onlythis way can he encounter the powers above. In the intermediate world the humans are livingtogether with their animals and the spirits climbing down or up – supporting or harmingthem. “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 elementsof the meta-tree stretching itself out upwards and downwards: meta-reality and meta-

consciousness. 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 analysisof 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, wehave reckon among the different types of theories not only the classic natural and socialsciences, moreover we have raised not only the intellectual sciences into our completetheory system, but also every cognitive content-form, logic and message, including

theological schools of thought of the five world religions, and also different tradition-theories. From meta-theory and especially from meta-philosophy we cannot leave out thearts, 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, withwhich 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 statesof mind, of course, we can achieve essentially new and fundamentally different knowledge. Itcan be new philosophy, new science, new religion theory, new thinking – and together, actualmeta-theory and the system of meta-disciplines which is philosophy, science, theology, andso on, at the same time. However, the first level synthesis (driven only by knowledge) ismerely a pre-requisite of real/unreal meta-philosophy in reality and consciousnessdimensions 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, theworks of Saint John of the Cross, or the significant Sufi thinkers and similarly the newscientific 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. Thethinking and science of mankind have been going through paradigm shift(s) of the first step

75

for some decades. We step out of the Old Paradigm and embrace the New Paradigm, but westill 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 Mihaly Hoppal: A sámánizmus vallási kultúrái (www.terebess.hu )74It 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 Abszolútum

odisszeája 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 scopeof this introductory essay.



34

the same time, meta-theory is the topping of the paradigm shift and opens a door to meta- paradigm. 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 wedetach 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 itseparately, only in the context of immanent life. One cannot understand it even with hugeknowledge of any kind, but only by stepping out of immanent life’s plane at right angles,which can be carried out not only in thinking, but also in meta-reality, and at last in the toplevels of meta-consciousness, so in all the dimensions of the miracle called life-

consciousness. 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 andits self-forming transformation capability.

Meta-theory is not merely the self-recognition of an immanent world, quite on thecontrary, the self-image of a transcendent world in us, and the interpretation of all prior-current 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 aself-building requirement, in which, however, the current knowledge of humanity will not goto shreds. Nothing is by chance, of course, not even the fact that the top thinking of Euro-Atlantic science and the dawning of post-science have risen to such intellectual mentalheights, while for instance the traditionalists have tried hard to ban the likewise self-developing science from time to time. This meta-theory (despite it not being a meta-

philosophy) leads far out of the plain-like world, but this is not only the first step of meta-reality itself, but it can be the potential original and final essence of life. Meta-theory isactual 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 wemobilize our mind in another plane and with another intent, meanwhile we do our best to re-create the totality of life (and its first level at the same time) indirectly before, after, andduring meta-theory, unity-philosophy. The circle and/or the sphere are equally closed andopen.

We do not really believe we can apprehend the final answer, but that opportunity isnot 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 systemof Meta-Principles. For the time being, instead of the ultimate, final answer, only ahypothesis of new knowledge and cognition, of a new state of mind is possible, and throughthat, discovered and not yet discovered new laws become available. Or, have we been givenonly 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 onlythose are realistic, which nevertheless are stronger at once than any earlier limited andunmatched “truths”.

At the same time, we do not believe for the time being, that the world/consciousnesswould 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)



35

new viewpoint can induce the butterfly-effect according to chaos theory. It can definitely helpto 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 discoveringand reaching higher states of mind. However, these changes do not cause immediately suchtangible 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 meta- philosophy? Or has the ultimate / infinite aim of strategy become more than that alreadynow? Whatever our answer might be, however, the Meta-principle (meta-consciousness/meta-reality) continues on its path of self-development, both universal and

beyond universality.

SOME LITERATURE, ITS BULK BEING RECENT78:

• Ad-Darqáwí, Al-’Arabí: Az emlékezés rózsakertje (Kairosz, 2005)• Agy és tudat, szerkesztette: Vizi E., Szilveszter, - Altrichter, Ferenc, - Nyíri, Kristóf, -

Pléh, Csaba (BIP, 2002)• The Consciousness Revolution, Grof, Stanislaw, Laszlo, Ervin end Russel, Peter

beszélgetése (Új Paradigma, 1999)• Az észleléstől a nyelvig, szerkesztette Pléh, Csaba, - Kampis, György, - Csányi,

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, László: A teremtés 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, Béla: Világválság (Hamvas Intézet, Budapest, 2004)• Hawking, Stephen W: The Theory of Everything (New Millennium Press, 2003);

magyarul: S. W. Hawking: A mindenség elmélete (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 János Művei I-II. (Győri Karmelita Rendház, 1995)

77 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 meaningfulstatements about even immensely complex behavior” (Stephen Wolfram Op. cit. p. 6.)78 The classic bibliography, being well-known, is not listed here



• László András: A mindenség fénye az emberben (Sophia Perennis Kiadó, 2004)• Lewis, L. E.: Our superstring Universe (iUniverse.com, 2004)• Liptay, Lothar: Az Abszolútum odisszeája 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 és azemberi elme (Akkord, 2003)

• Penrose, Roger: The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe• Pleh, Csaba: Bevezetés a megismeréstudományba (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: Miből lesz a tudomány? (Harmat,Budapest, 2002)

• Ricoeur, Paul – LaCocque, Andre: Penser la Bible (Éditions de Seuil, 1998);magyarul: P. Ricouer . A. LaCocque: Bibliai gondolkodás (Európa, 2003)

• Sadar, Ziauddin: Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars (Icon Books, Ltd.); magyarul:Ziauddin Sardar: Thomas Kuhn és a tudomány-háborúk (Alexandra, Pécs, 2003)

Documents

Postulating a Met a Theory - 2009 - Csaba Varga