We inherently desire that experience would unfold in the way that we expect it to. This is ultimately a desire for space to be coextensive with our consciousness. We form certain habits and routines so that experience unfolds in the way that we expect it to. These are inherently social activities, social rituals, because they involve the sacrifice of present actions for future benefits. The end to which these patterns are oriented is ultimately a social end, a social purpose, because we only sacrifice present opportunities for future benefits in order to benefit others in some way, even if we are only doing so to benefit ourselves. As long as things unfold in the way that we expect, we experience an aspect of the whole. The equilibrium between present and future benefits is not simply oriented toward our own narrow enrichment, it is directed toward the mutual enrichment of the social body. The individual cannot achieve his own ends without the mutual enrichment of his social relations. This process of mutual enrichment, this purpose or end, is embodied in the “pure future.” Each individual is oriented or directed into some possible future, and the various disparate futures of many individuals are taken as one homogeneous surface, upon which all present actions unfold. The pure future is an axiom- one homogeneous surface in relation to all specific actions. This concept makes all individual intentions, purposes, ends, compatible with one another. All ends are “not yet.” This “not yet” is simply an axiom, it is accepted or taken as true on faith. It is what can be called the whole, because it completes the partial, limited present. Every manifest phenomenon exists in metaphoric or analogical relation to this whole, this pure future. As such, the pure future is not a static axiom, but is hypothetical or provisional, it is continuously updated and approached according to revisions, but it is mutually shared in some way between all intentional actors. All individuals whose experience unfolds in the way that they expect it to, exist in relation to this homogeneous surface. Any unexpected event is some kind of disclosure of its properties, as the surface is continuously negotiated and updated by each individual’s micro decisions. The whole exists as a kind of mutually coordinated equilibrium distributed between all participants. It is not fully known to any of the individual participants. The final end or purpose is not designed by any individual, it is designed by all of them working in mutual conjunction. The unexpected event communicates some disequilibrium, some inefficiency in the configuration of the whole. The provisional goal is to uncover the process of negotiating the whole, which discloses its properties and qualities and makes them accessible to man. This process is known simply as “the Game,” or “the Divine Game.”


Experience does not seem to be of the whole, it seems to be partial. We are essentially limited and finite. Yet experience is paradoxically a summation or compression of the entire whole. We know this to be the case because we plan for the future, we sacrifice present opportunities for the sake of future benefits, experience unfolds more or less in the way that we expect it to. When experience unfolds the way that we expect it to, we can say that it accurately represents the social whole. The experience of habit, routine and pattern immerses us into the social whole, into the configuration of social activities. Habit involves the sacrifice of present actions for future benefits, which involves contributing to someone else’s project. Habit can be beneficial and sacrificial in this way, or it can be insidious and poison the social whole as addiction. The homogeneity of experience discloses some aspect or symbolization of the whole, especially in specific moments of dialectical transformation. Experience does not seem to be of the whole, it seems to be partial, limited, and fragmented, yet in specific dialectical moments or movements the whole is disclosed to us through our specialized work, in moments of layered meaning. At the deepest level, we desire to be coextensive with the environment, so that it unfolds in exactly the way that we expect it to, according to our wish. This desire is not good or evil, but is acted out for good or evil according to our attitude toward the whole. Since we are always subject to this desire, consciously or unconsciously, it is better to consciously realize that we are subject to this desire. Then we can realize that our experience of the whole is provisional, it is limited in fundamental ways. But at the same time, we can subtly respond to and indirectly affect the whole, as it is experienced by others, through our actions and words. Since everyone is consciously or unconsciously desiring and negotiating the same object- the whole- each of our actions affects its disclosure to every other person. There is a kind of decentralized negotiation of the content of the whole. The whole is about the subjective relationship to the environment- to what degree the physical environment is coextensive with the individual consciousness. This can manifest in layered, metaphorical phenomena, in meaningful coincidences, which can disclose the natural or supernatural aspects of the whole. The whole is ultimately the same object for each individual- the same coextensive relation between consciousness and spatial environment- but it manifests uniquely to each individual because of their unique position. This whole is negotiated in a decentralized, distributed social manner because all specialized talk implicitly references the whole, while simultaneously maintaining its specialized, partial nature. Once two speakers realize that they are implicitly discussing the whole, then dialectical movement of disclosure is possible within specialized talk. The proper relationship to the whole is reverence. It is certainly not comfortable to be confronted with the whole because it can reveal or emphasize regretful aspects of one’s own past actions. Nor does experience always seem to be of the whole. Most of the time, experience seems partial, even though there is always this underlying instinct or desire to be coextensive with the environment. Once we are conscious of this desire, then we realize that the whole is provisional. We will no longer try to control the whole or impose our will on the environment or other people but allow the ultimate purpose to unfold of its own accord.

Morality is hyperfactual, it deals with realities which are beyond the material universe. It deals with what we ought to do, which is concerned with the future. The future, the pure future, is not within time, it can only be postulated or imagined, it is not part of experience. This is evident from the fact that we cannot predict the future to any great extent. But it is also evident from the fact that there is some aspect of human life which is outside our ability to comprehend, human life is essentially incomplete and limited. Morality, the metaphysics of morality, deals with this hyperfactual realm, the realm of postulated futures. There is ultimately only one future which is whole, which is pure, purely outside of experience. This is the future that is never anticipated or expected, which cannot be known by any process. We believe that such a whole exists because its existence contrasts with our own limitation. To have faith in the whole additionally has conferred evolutionary benefits on the human race, it has allowed us to anticipate any potential occurrence, and thus we are prepared for threats and promises and we respond more appropriately to unexpected situations. Because this realm of the pure future is unique and singular, we negotiate its properties in a distributed social manner. All talk and interaction implicitly or explicitly concerns the whole. The whole is a fluid substructure which is continuously, dialectically transformed according to the configuration of social interactions. A symbol, particularly a holy symbol, is a representation of this process. This socially decoded whole is an ultimate purpose, an ultimate end, which is processual. It is a kind of social, divine Game. All profane purposes and ends are emanations of the true final purpose which is this divine Game. This means that morality is the Game of negotiating implicit ends, and ultimately resolving them into this kind of metaphorical Game. The ultimate purpose of the Game is not known by any of the limited participants, the ultimate purpose is distributed throughout their intentions. Thus there emerges a purpose that was not designed by any of the limited participants, but is manifest as an aggregate social activity. Everyone is implicitly seeking to be conjoined with the Light, they desire to be immersed into wholeness, to understand and accept the pure future. All of our problematic social habits can be considered as an obfuscation of this primordial desire. There is a correct moral attitude to approach the Light. The Light is one thing, but is postulated by many people as many different things. The various postulates interact and mutually effect one another, such that the whole manifests in a particular and unique way to each individual. By our minuscule participations and negotiations, we affect the transformation of the whole as it is experienced by every other person. We contribute aspects to its transformation by our every movement and response. What we experience as the whole is no less than the aggregate activity of all those with whom we relate and their relations and relations of relations, etc. This aggregate is an ultimate destiny of humanity, it is a purpose, an end, an ought. We must uncover this moral Game, this process by which individual limited ends are made compatible. The state of anticipating the whole allows for the mutual interaction of all limited, finite ends. The whole is dialectically disclosed in moments of pure coincidence, metaphor, meaningfulness, or multi-layered interpretation. At such moments we are conjoined to some aspect of the social whole, the whole has disclosed itself to us in a distributed manner. As more people explicitly negotiate the whole, it takes on new symbols, and old symbols are rediscovered in relation to the ultimate purpose.

The simple conservative view is that experience is of the whole. Experience efficiently represents the whole. By contrast, the liberal view is that experience is merely partial, it does not represent the whole. The conservative view has the advantage that it scales- it can be adopted by more and more people, but it has the disadvantage of rigidity. This is why we must take the flexible view of the whole. The whole is provisional, it is the object of faith. Coincidence, metaphor, and layered meaning initiate the experience of the whole. And discursive information again separates us from the whole. Coincidence, metaphor and layered meaning are distributed throughout social relationships in an interdependent manner. Once these phenomena reach a certain social threshold, there is a paroxysm of meaning in which people can coordinate around the intuitive, dynamic movements of meaningful knowledge. Advanced civilization is already characterized by coordination around prices and money currency, but the subsequent phase of civilization will be characterized by coordination around “pure meaning.” Pure meaning is a symbol of ultimate concern. This symbol is the provisional whole of experience. This symbol is continually negotiated with others in order to converge on this symbol. Pure meaning is never final, but oscillates dialectically between wholeness and partiality until the whole is socially decoded and decided. And when this happens, there is a paroxysm of meaning whereby humans advance to the next phase of social coordination. The whole must be socially decoded, the final representation of the whole (the process of the whole) is distributed throughout social relations, with each person having some specialized knowledge as to the nature of the whole. These partialities are compatible by the conservative view that experience is of the whole. This is of course not a rigid view, but a flexible one in which there is a dialectical oscillation between wholeness and specialization.

The whole is provisional or hypothetical. All experience is implicitly or indirectly experience of the whole. And so the aggregate movement or design of society is never the result of a conscious plan on the part of any one person or group. Rather the purpose of society is emergent, it emerges out of the interactions of many people without their conscious intention. The purpose is transcendent, it is above reason. The assignation of meaning to experience is a closely networked phenomenon. When we describe our experience we immediately affect the similar experience of every other. Since experience is implicitly about the whole, every action is tightly interwoven in a fabric of relations. The whole is paradoxical because it is always seems to be provisional and incomplete. The whole seems to exist because there are parts. Specialized knowledge is specialized because it is a part of some greater whole. There is a dialectical movement between partial specialized knowledge and talk of the whole. All specialized talk is implicitly and dialectically about the whole. On the other hand specialized talk is really partial, it reflects only some small aspect of the overall process. But there is a dialectical movement in which the partial process becomes a summation or a symbol of the overall process, emphasizing one particular aspect of the whole to such a degree that the whole is disclosed almost in its entirety.

We never experience the future, we only experience the unfolding of time, the future itself remains outside of our experience. And therefore this pure future is what allows for freedom of the will. We can choose which future we want because there is a pure future which we never experience. And this pure future is what all people unconsciously or habitually adapt to. They adapt to the possibility of the pure unknown, they adapt to potentially dealing with any possible situation. This pure future is outside of time and experience yet paradoxically it can be imagined. We thus always posit some image or fantasy as our potential future, as the goal which we aim at, we adapt to it. But all of these tangible goals that we imagine and work toward are derived from the pure future, or rather from our adaptation to the pure future. And since this is the bedrock foundation of desiring and meaning, it is also so the foundation of the hierarchy of importance. Every spatiotemporal event is ultimately resolved into the pure future and so all internal experience is, in a sense, directed toward the pure future. The pure future is subconsciously or unconsciously, the most important source of meaning because all goals are derived from it. And so all goals metaphorically relate to the pure future. It is a currency of ends, or a currency of importance. It makes all individual goals compatible. It is the meta goal, which all goals are derived from. Discovering the pure future is the same as discovering a hierarchy of importance, discovering which goals are most important in the unfolding of spatiotemporal perception. In the assignation of meanings and importances, every person is specialized into their own personal goals, yet these goals are compatible and commensurable through their relation to a pure future. The most important spatiotemporal phenomena are in a feedback effect- they are drawn closer to oneself, and are therefore more important, and are therefore drawn closer. This results in an interiorization of space. And through this interiorization, all phenomena of spatiotemporal experience are functions of the end goal, they directly imply the end goal. They are literal-metaphorical aspects of the end goal, which is a topological or topographical transformation from the present state. So the end state is posited and then all phenomena are categorized and framed according to that end goal, according to the hierarchy of importance. Once reality is carved up by multiple people in a certain way,  then objective reality, external space, begins to reflect interdependent perception. External space gets simpler and simpler until it converges in the simplest possible meaning of the most complex possible phenomena. This is the paroxysm of meaning in which spatial consciousness is internalized across social boundaries. And this paroxysm leads to a smooth spatiotemporal surface onto which the contours of spatiotemporal unfolding are inscribed intrasocially. In other words, there is a kind of internal coordination between individuals because the internal space becomes an efficient symbol of the whole. Under the materialist worldview, subject and object are perceived as separate, therefore internal space is not an efficient representation of the whole, it is a partial representation of the whole. It is only through the interiorization of space and the paroxysm of meaning that the internal map of external reality becomes an efficient symbol of the whole ontological consciousness. Once this is the case, then it is in one’s own self interest to pursue altruistic improvements because the social and political problems are extensions of ones own body. And furthermore such problems can be addressed at their root in the internal spatiotemporal, intrasocial consciousness rather than in external space. The internal map contains the hierarchy of importance of ontological structure. And it therefore contains all social priorities as implications. And so by direct edition of one’s own consciousness, one addresses the root of social problems by purifying the intrasocial root of the whole. In this way, economic and phenomenological concerns start to converge. The narratives that are produced by the interiorization of space begin to blend the literal and the metaphorical. This has inherent popular value because it speaks to the moral consciousness of people who appreciate folk wisdom and the moral of the story. Internal narrative is propagated by social contagion through metaphor and parable. Every person’s transformation of their own internal space immediately ripples through the whole network of interdependent actors. The internal space takes on the quality of a singular, unified surface, a singular metaphor. This surface is the direct spatiotemporal awareness, which has access to the hierarchy of importance which is distributed throughout the interconnected fabric of information. So by editing the direct spatiotemporal internal surface, one propagates information throughout all local hierarchies of importance. This happens by the pure future, by the fact that everyone is unconsciously adapted to deal with any potential situation, therefore they are receptive to anomalous information that propagates through the subtle networks of implications toward that end.